110 SILOS oteBR THAN "WOOD. 



Analysis of comments in the farm press for the past two. years 

 reveals a number of advantages claimed for this type of silo. 

 Among these advantages may be mentioned the following: 



1. Little cash expenditure is required. Labor is the chief 

 item. Where labor is exchanged there remains only the cost of 

 cement and sand for plastering the walls and making the concrete 

 collar around top. 2. It Is, easily constructed, requiring very little 

 skilled or outside help. 3. The silage keeps perfectly if well 

 packed. The temperature' remains even winter and summer — ^no 

 freezing or thawing. 4. It will resist tornado and fire. It cannot 

 blow over or rot down. 5. Because inexpensive, two small deep 

 silos may be built, keeping one for summer feeding or for use 

 should crops fail entirely. 6. No expensive forms are required fC 

 building. 7. No trouble/ with ill-fitting doors, or with loose hoops, 

 or cracks. 8. Anyone can make it who can dig a cistern. 9. A 

 more inexpensive silage cutting equipment may be used, enabling 

 each farmer to own his own machine so that it can stay on the 

 job and refill as silage settles, thus securing utmost capacity at 

 minimum cost. 10. The top surface is handy, where it can be 

 tramped regularly the first few days. 11. When built in the 

 right soil it will last just in proportion to how well it is con- 

 structed and cared for, bearing in mind the necessity of guarding 

 against caving in, seepage, etc. 



The most common objection to the pit silo is the inconvenience 

 in getting the silage out of the hole, which would have to be deep 

 enough to secure pressure for proper packing and keeping quali- 

 ties, and should therefore be at least twice as deep as the diameter 

 of the silo. Some kind of hoisting apparatus would be necessary. 

 This would be too laborious and incpnvenient unless operated by 

 a gasoline engine or other power which would, of course, increase 

 the expense. 



The claim has been made that the extra cost of getting the 

 silage put of an underground silo would be more than offset by the 

 saving effected in filling, but this hardly holds true, as with 

 modern machinery it is little more expensive to fill a silo above 

 ground than one below the surface. 



The failure of the silage to thoroughly pack by its own weight 

 is one of the principle draw-backs to the pit silo. This is on ac- 

 count of the lack of depth so much in evidence in structures of 

 this kind. 



