were supplying markets where the in- 

 spection provisions compel the opera- 

 tor to remove the manure from the 

 barn vicinity every day. The usual 

 barn cleaner installation provides no 

 alternative. 



This is discussed in some detail be- 

 cause, while the practice of hauling 

 and spreading manure each day is 

 good management, the practice with 

 no alternative provision makes the 

 task very inflexible as to labor re- 

 quirements. The operator has to 

 start his tractor, connect on to the 

 manure spreader and distribute two 

 loads of manure every morning no 

 matter what situation is at hand. If 

 the operator could divert about 10 

 per cent of the winter's total manure 

 supply to a pile to be hauled out in 

 the spring, he would have a more ad- 

 vantageous control over the daily la- 

 bor requirements. The greater flex- 

 ibility aft'orded by the alternative of 

 dumping on a pile would enable him 

 to plan more easily for days off for 

 labor and avoid complications in the 

 event of emergencies. The spreading 

 of manure throughout the winter en- 

 ables the operator to begin spring 

 work unhampered and is a good man- 

 agement practice. Provision for di- 

 version of not over 10 per cent of the 

 total might enable him to distribute 

 his available labor to better advant- 

 age.* 



The removal of a ton or more of 

 manure daily from the dairy stable 

 is a major task. On the farms studied 

 it was transported from the barn by 

 wheelbarrow, by combination truck 

 carrier, and by mechanical barn 

 cleaner. Observations on use of 

 wheelbarrow on large farms indicated 

 both greater time spent and harder 

 work. There were time losses in each 

 trip in getting out of and back into 

 the barn. If a wheelbarrow is used, 



* This problem might well receive the at- 

 tention of agricultural engineers. A simple 

 solution that will work in sub-zero weather 

 would be a real help to large dairy farmers. 

 (See Appendix 2.) 



a special two-wheeled outfit will ake 

 less physical effort but will require 

 better facilities outside the barn. 



The combination hand truck and 

 carrier worked very well and pro- 

 vided alternative procedure each day. 

 The operator could unload directly in- 

 to the spreader or push the carrier 

 to the end of the track and dump on a 

 pile. Considerable physical exertion 

 was needed to push the load to the 

 end of the barn and to elevate the 

 bucket to the carrier. On one farm 

 the operator had installed a motor 

 and special elevating equipment at 

 the end of the barn. By throwing 

 the hoisting chain over a special pul- 

 ley and pressing the motor switch, the 

 carrier could be elevated from the 

 hand truck to the carrier track. Spe- 

 cial equipment for elevating carriers 

 is now available. It can be attached 

 to the carrier, enabling the operator 

 to do that part of the task quickly 

 and easily. On one farm a young 

 man disposed of the manure from 40 

 cows by truck and carrier in 40 man 

 minutes. On another farm a total of 

 45.2 man minutes were required to 

 remove manure from 40 cows. In 

 this case five carrier loads were taken 

 in the morning and two loads in the 

 afternoon. It is estimated that the 

 average man, following a normal 

 working speed, should be able to re- 

 move the manure from 40 cows in an 

 hour or less daily. However, this 

 represents hard physical and some- 

 what disagreeable work. Many older 

 operators are not equal to the task. 



One operator used 59 man minutes 

 daily in 1949, adjusted to a 40-cow 

 herd basis. In 1950 this had been 

 reduced to 17.5 man minutes by the 

 use of the mechanical cleaner. This 

 included the removal of openings and 

 ramps in preparation, the closing of 

 openings and return of ramps at the 

 end, as well as attention to leveling 

 the load at the spreader. 



The use of gutter cleaners is com- 



41 



