Part 3

Another item of economy in the circular barn is less framing lumber. This form has the strongest possible construction with the least lumber in the frame, and the least bracing, not a single timber larger than a 2 x 6 being required above the sill. The arched circular roof requires no supports, and no scaffolding is needed inside during its construction.

The accompanying tables show the comparative amount and value of lumber and cubical content in round barns 60 and 90 feet in diameter, and rectangular barns of equal area and height of posts.

TABLE 1A.--A COMPARISON OF THE COST OF MATERIAL IN ROUND AND RECTANGULAR BARNS OF THE SAME AREA, Not Including Foundation And Silos.

A: Framing lumber, B: Sheathing, siding, and flooring, C: Shingles, D: Bolts, E: Total cost of lumber, F: Content, cubic feet,

==+=====================+=========================================== | | Rectangular barn, 36 x 78-1/2 ft. | Round barn, +---------------------+--------------------- | 60 feet in diameter | Plank frame | Mortise frame --+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------- A | 13,976 ft. @ $25 | 19,833 ft. @ $25 | 29,074 ft. @ $25 | = $349.40 | = $495.83 | = $726.85 B | 12,971 ft. @ $22 | 15,355 ft. @ $22 | 15,355 ft. @ $22 | = 285.36 | = 337.81 | = 337.81 C | 44,000 @ $3.75 | 45,000 @ $3.75 | 45,000 @ $3.75 | = 165.00 | = 168.75 | = 168.75 D | | 20.88 | --+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------- E | =$799.76=| =$1023.27=| =$1233.41= ==+=====================+=====================+===================== F | =117,669= | =117,138= | =117,138= ==+=====================+=====================+=====================

TABLE 1B.

A: Framing lumber, B: Sheathing, siding, and flooring, C: Shingles, D: Bolts, E: Total cost of lumber, F: Content, cubic feet,

==+=====================+=========================================== | | Rectangular barn, 36 x 176-3/4 ft. | Round barn, +---------------------+--------------------- | 90 feet in diameter | Plank frame | Mortise frame --+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------- A | 30,899 ft. @ $25 | 38,815 ft. @ $25 | 59,481 ft. @$25 | = $772.48 | = $970.38 | = $1487.03 B | 22,375 ft. @ $22 | 28,547 ft. @ $22 | 28,547 ft. @ $22 | = 492.25 | = 628.03 | = 628.03 C | 97,000 @ $3.75 | 102,000 @ $3.75 | 102,000 @ $3.75 | = 363.75 | = 382.50 | = 382.50 D | | 26.76 | --+---------------------+---------------------+--------------------- E | =$1628.48= | =$2007.67= | =$2497.56= ==+=====================+=====================+===================== F | =322,952= | =270,570= | =270,570= ==+=====================+=====================+=====================

ROUND AND RECTANGULAR BARNS COMPARED

In comparing the 60-foot round barn with a rectangular barn of the same area, the two barns should afford the cows the same amount of space on the platform. Allowing each cow in the 60-foot round barn 3 feet 6 inches in width at the rear of the platform, it will accommodate 40 cows and leave space for two passage ways. But in a rectangular barn, only 3 feet 4 inches of platform space need be allowed for each cow, and the 78-1/2 foot barn, with two 3-foot passage ways across it for convenience in feeding, will accommodate 42 cows. While the rectangular barn has stall room for two more cows, the round barn contains space in the center for a silo 18 feet in diameter.

The floor space and cubical content of the round barn 60 feet in diameter, and the rectangular barn compared with it in these tables, are practically the same, and the barns are therefore directly comparable. This being true, the percentages which were figured from the complete bills of material for these barns show the exact saving in lumber on the 60-foot round barn over the plank and mortise frame rectangular barns 36 x 78-1/2 feet. The lumber bills of the rectangular barns show an increase in cost of 28 percent for the plank frame and 54 percent for the mortise frame. The round barn, 60 feet in diameter, contains 188-1/2, and the rectangular barn 225 lineal feet of wall. The rectangular barn has, therefore, 22 percent more lineal feet of outside barn wall, requiring a proportional increase in both paint and foundation.

The 176-3/4-foot rectangular barn would hold 100 cows, allowing each cow 3 feet 4 inches in width and providing for 3 passage ways of 3 feet each across the barn.

The 90-foot round barn would hold 100 cows in two rows headed together, 65 of which would be in the outer circle, and have 3 feet 6 inches each in width at the gutter. This leaves sufficient room for feed alleys and walks, and two passage ways, one three feet and the other seven feet wide for the manure and feed carriers. All of this is outside of a central space for a silo 20 feet in diameter and 71 feet high, with a capacity for 620 tons of silage, and in the mow there would still be an excess, above the capacity of the rectangular barn, of 33,000 cubic feet, which would hold 66 tons of hay, or as much as the entire mow of a barn 32 x 36 feet with 20-foot posts.

TABLE 2A.--A COMPARISON OF THE COST OF MATERIAL IN ROUND AND RECTANGULAR BARNS, Including FOUNDATION AND SILOS.

========================+=============+============================= | Round barn, | Rectangular barn, | 60 feet in | 36 x 78-1/2 ft. | diameter +-------------+--------------- | | Plank frame | Mortise frame ------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------- Lumber in barn, | $799.76 | $1023.27 | $1233.41 Material in foundation, | 86.89 | 105.90 | 105.90 Material in silo, | 159.01 | 295.26 | 295.26 ------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------- Total cost of material | | | in barn, | =$1045.66= | =$1424.43= | =$1634.57= ========================+=============+=============+=============== Actual money saved, | | =$378.77= | =$588.91= ------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------- Proportional cost, | =100%= | =136%= | =156%= ========================+=============+=============+===============

TABLE 2B.

========================+=============+============================= | Round barn, | Rectangular barn, | 90 feet in | 36 x 176-3/4 ft. | diameter +-------------+--------------- | | Plank frame | Mortise frame ------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------- Lumber in barn, | $1628.48 | $2007.67 | $2497.56 Material in foundation, | 130.35 | 196.80 | 196.80 Material in silo, | 265.00 | 513.52 | 513.52 ------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------- Total cost of material | | | in barn, | =$2023.83= | =$2717.99= | =$3207.88= ========================+=============+=============+=============== Actual money saved, | | =$694.16= | =$1184.05= ------------------------+-------------+-------------+--------------- Proportional cost, | =100%= | =134%= | =158%= ========================+=============+=============+===============

The square feet of floor space in the round barn 90 feet in diameter and rectangular barn 36 x 176-3/4 feet are the same, but the cubical content of the former is more than that of the latter. The increase in the lumber bill is 23 percent in the plank frame and 53 percent in the mortise frame barn. The round barn 90 feet in diameter contains 283 and the rectangular barn 426 lineal feet of wall. The rectangular barn has, therefore, 50 percent more lineal feet of outside barn wall, requiring a proportional increase in both paint and foundation.

The smaller surface on the outside wall of the round barn requires less paint and makes a proportional saving in keeping the round barn painted in after years.

ROUND AND RECTANGULAR BARNS, Including Silos, COMPARED

Owing to the fact that a silo is a necessity for the most economical production of milk, a barn is not complete for a dairyman's purpose unless it includes a silo with capacity to store sufficient silage for the herd. In the case of the round barn, the silo is most economically built inside, but in the rectangular form would cause a waste of space, and for that reason is best erected outside. Therefore, in comparing a round dairy barn with a rectangular dairy barn, silos should be included.

In figuring the cost of materials in the silos for the round and rectangular barns, the capacity needed in each case was determined in the following manner: Allowing 40 pounds of silage per cow per day for 7 winter months and 25 pounds per cow per day for 3 months during the summer, would require for 40 cows 220 tons; then allowing one-eighth for waste would make the silage requirement 248 tons. As the silo in the round barn 60 feet in diameter is 53 feet deep, it would need to be only 16 feet in diameter to hold 250 tons. This diameter is sufficiently small to allow summer feeding without waste. To erect a silo outside of a barn, with sufficient stability to stand well, the height above ground should not be much more than twice the diameter, and in order to avoid waste for summer feeding, the diameter should not be greater than 16 feet for a herd of 40 cows. In order that a deep enough layer of silage can be fed off each day during the summer to avoid waste, it is evident that to store 250 tons of silage outside the barn, two silos would be required. One of these should be 16 feet in diameter and 36 feet deep, holding 154 tons, and the other 13 feet in diameter and 36 feet deep, holding 102 tons, making a total silo capacity of 256 tons.

As the large barns hold 100 cows, the same allowance of silage per cow for the season would require silo capacity for 620 tons. As the silo in the round barn 90 feet in diameter would be 71 feet deep, it would need to be only 20 feet in diameter to hold 620 tons. To store 620 tons of silage in silos built outside the rectangular barn would require two silos, each 20 feet in diameter and 44 feet deep. These are the sizes on which the figures for cost of silos of the Gurler type, given in Tables 2A and 2B, were used.

Since the deeper the silo the more firmly the silage packs, one silo 71 feet deep will hold as much as two silos of the same diameter and 44 feet deep.

The table (page 12) is the final summing up of the cost of all the material for the completed dairy barns, with silos, and shows a saving of from 34 to 58 percent in favor of the round barn and silo, or an actual money saving in this case of from $379 to $1184, depending upon the size and construction of the barns.

Thoughtlessly, men go on building rectangular barns, but what would this reckless disregard of a possible saving of 34 to 58 percent mean in a year's business on the farm? Some illustrations may help us to understand what this money saved in building a round barn really amounts to, and its convenience is also a great saving. If the dairyman discarded the idea of a rectangular barn and built a round barn instead, he could take the money thus saved and buy one of the best pure-bred sires for his herd, and also three to ten pure-bred heifers or fine grade cows. Either of these purchases might double the profit of the herd. Or, this saving, properly applied, would purchase many labor-saving devices which would make life less of a drudgery on many dairy farms. Is not such a saving worth while?

When the comparative cost and merit of two constructions are known, it is a poor financier who will pay extra for the one which is inferior. If a man received bids from contractors for a building, he would be a foolish man who would accept one which is from 34 to 58 percent higher than the lowest bidder, especially when he knew the lowest bidder would put up the most convenient and substantial building.

DISADVANTAGES OF THE ROUND DAIRY BARN