a year or so. Thus, under some circumstances rearrangements in grain re- 

 ceiving, storing, and handling may prove quite profitable. However, such 

 rearrangements may frequently be delayed because of other time-saving 

 projects. But the farmer should weigh relative costs and sayings of various 

 changes. He may find that rather simple and inexpensive changes on grain 

 facilities often yield a higher rate of return than more elaborate and costly 

 moves. 



Moreover, chore time on a dairy farm is a period when the require- 

 ments on workers' time are especially critical. Hence, any reduction in grain 

 feeding time may be enhanced since it occurs during the critical time periods. 



Improving Efficiency Through Location and Rearrangement. 



The locational aspects of the rearrangement of facilities for receiving, 

 storing, and feeding grain on dairy farms must be made in consideration of 

 future rearrangements of facilities for feeding hay and silage, cleaning, 

 milking, handling milk, and the storage of bedding. Hence, a detailed pre- 

 sentation on the relative merits of alternative locations of grain facilities 

 would immediately involve us with all the other phases in the larger issue 

 of maximizing efficiency in the dairy barn. There are a number of recent 

 appraisals directed toward this goal under New Hampshire conditions.* 



An earlier study illustrates that the optimum barn arrangement from 

 standpoints of grain room location and travel distance may coincide with 

 total minimum travel distance for a number of chores. f For example, in a 

 40-cow barn where there was no center alley, and cows faced out, travel 

 distance in grain feeding was 450 feet where the grain room was located 

 in the end, side end, or side middle. When cows faced in, and the grain 

 room was located in the end, travel distance was 324 feet. However, aggre- 

 gate travel distance for grain feeding plus travel to and from milkhouse, 

 silo, superphosphate storage, bedding storage, and manure disposal was 

 5,879 feet in the former situation and 6.598 in the latter. In the same example, 

 the net increase in travel distance resulted from an increase in milkhouse 

 travel, while there were decreases for all other components. 



No data are available to indicate accurately the time savings which may 

 exist in grain-feeding in a milking parlor vs. stanchion stable. The former 

 is much less common to New Hampshire than to some other areas, though 

 there is much to recommend the pen-stable-milking parlor combination. In 

 terms of new construction, building costs are slightly less with pen stables 

 that incorporale the best present ideas than with stanchion stables.t In 

 small herds with pen stables more total-chore labor may be required per 

 cow.§ However, studies in other areas suggest there is a small net labor 



* Woodworth, H. C. and K. S. Morrow, Efficiency in the Dairy Barn, op. cit. 

 Abell, M. F., Labor-Saving Barns, N. H. Coop. Ext. Service, Ext. Bui. 121 April, 

 1954. 



Abell, M. F., Stabling and Milking Arrangements (unpublished). 



t Holmes, J. C, Efficiency Dairy Chore Practices, Part 1, Chore Travel in Dairy 

 Barns, N. H. Agr. Exp. Sta. Circ. 72, June, 1946, p. 9. 



t Abell, M. F., op. cit., p. 9. 



§ Ibid, p. 7. 



35 



