Round Barn Most Convenient
Considering that the barn on a dairy farm is used twice every day in the year, and that for six months each year the cows occupy it almost continuously, and that during this time a large amount of the labor of the farm is done inside the barn, it is evident that the question of its convenience is a vital one. The amount of time and strength wasted in useless labor in poorly arranged buildings is appalling. People do not stop to consider the saving in a year or a lifetime by having the barn so conveniently arranged that there is a saving of only a few seconds on each task that has to be done two or three times every day.
Fig. 3. Interior of barn, second floor, showing silo and location of ensilage cutter. (team unhitched to show cutter.)
The round barn has a special advantage in the work of distributing silage to the cows. The feeding commences at the chute where it is thrown down, and is continued around the circle, ending with the silage cart at the chute again, ready for the next feeding. The same thing is true in feeding hay and grain.
Still another great advantage is the large unobstructed hay mow. With the self-supporting roof, there are no timbers whatever obstructing the mow, which means no dragging of hay around posts or over girders. The hay carrier runs on a circular track around the mow, midway between the silo and the outside wall, and drops the hay at any desired point, thus in no case does the hay have to be moved but a few feet, which means a saving of much labor in the mowing.
To successfully embody all of the above discussed advantages in a dairy barn is one of the large problems in milk production. In a careful study of the barn question it soon became apparent that it was impossible to embody all of the requirements advantageously in anything but a circular form of building, and the 60-foot round barn, which is here described, was built.
Fig. 4. South view, showing well lighted stable.
Circular Construction the Strongest
The circular construction is the strongest, because it takes advantage of the lineal, instead of the breaking strength of the lumber. Each row of boards running around the barn forms a hoop that holds the barn together. A barrel, properly hooped and headed, is almost indestructible, and much stronger than a box, altho the hoops are small. This strength is because the stress comes on the hoops in a lineal direction. Any piece of timber is many times stronger on a lineal pull than on a breaking stress. Take for example a No. 1 yellow pine 2 × 6, 16 feet long, with an actual cross section of 15⁄8 × 55⁄8 inches. If placed on edge and supported at the ends, as a joist, the limit of safety for a load evenly distributed is 642 pounds, while the limit of safety for a load in the lineal direction of the same piece of timber is 12,800 pounds, or twenty times as great.
Fig. 5. In cow stable, showing silo and feed alley in center of barn; Stanchions on right, milk scales and record sheet on left.
All exposed surfaces of a round barn are circular, as both the sides and roof are arched, which is the strongest form of construction to resist wind pressure; besides, the wind, in striking it, glances off and can get no direct hold on the walls or roof, as it can on the flat sides or gable ends of a rectangular structure. If the lumber is properly placed in a round barn, much of it will perform two or more functions. Every row of siding boards running around the building serves also as a brace, and the same is true of the roof boards and the arched rafters. If the siding is put on vertically and the roof built dome-shaped, no scaffolding is required inside or out. These are points of economy in the round construction.
Rectangular Barns Require 34 to 58 Percent More Material
In order to compare the amount and cost of material in round and rectangular barns, the following figures have been carefully worked out by an expert barn builder. Two comparisons, based on wood construction thruout, are made, in which round barns 60 feet and 90 feet in diameter are compared with both plank and mortise frame rectangular barns containing the same number of square feet of floor space, respectively. Since the most practical width of a rectangular dairy barn is 36 feet, its length will depend upon the number of square feet required in the barn.
Fig. 6. Showing construction of mortise frame barn, end view.
Fig. 7. Showing construction of plank frame barn, side view.
[Figures 6] to [9] are side and end views, showing the detail construction and size of the timbers of the plank frame and mortise frame barns here figured. The detailed figures of the lumber bills for each of these barns were carefully worked out, but are too voluminous for publication here. The total number of feet of each kind of lumber required is given in [Tables 1A] and [1B]. Since the proportion of the different kinds of lumber and shingles varied for the different barns, to draw an exact comparison it was necessary to base it upon the money value, and for this purpose the total cost of lumber has been figured in each case. The lumber values used thruout are the best average prices that could be obtained. As the same prices are used for the material of all the barns, the comparisons of cost are correct, altho these exact prices will not hold for all localities and all times.
Fig. 8. Showing construction of plank frame barn, end view.
Since a silo cannot be economically built inside of a rectangular barn, the first comparison is made with the barns simply enclosed, altho one of the chief advantages of a round barn is the deep silo which it is possible to build so economically in the center.
Fig. 9. Showing construction of mortise frame barn, side view.
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 × 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
| Rectangular barn, 36 × 781⁄2 ft. | |||
| Round Barn 60 feet in diameter | Plank frame | Mortise frame | |
| Framing lumber | 13,976 ft. @ $25 = $349.40 | 19,833 ft. @ $25 = $495.83 | 29,074 ft. @ $25 = $726.85 |
| Sheathing, siding, and flooring | 12,971 ft. @ $22 = 285.36 | 15,355 ft. @ $22 = 337.81 | 15,355 ft. @ $22 = 337.81 |
| Shingles | 44,000 @ $3.75 = 165.00 | 45,000 @ $3.75 = 168.75 | 45,000 @ $3.75 = 168.75 |
| Bolts | 20.88 | ||
| Total cost of lumber | $799.76 | $1023.27 | $1233.41 |
| Content, cubic feet | 117,669 | 117,138 | 117,138 |
| Rectangular barn, 36 × 1763⁄4 ft. | |||
| Round barn, 90 feet in diameter | Plank frame | Mortise frame | |
| Framing lumber | 30,899 ft. @ $25 = $772.48 | 38,815 ft. @ $25 = $970.38 | 59,481 ft. @ $25 = $1487.03 |
| Sheathing, siding, and flooring | 22,375 ft. @ $22 = 492.25 | 28,547 ft. @ $22 = 628.03 | 28,547 ft. @ $22 = 628.03 |
| Shingles | 97,000 @ $3.75 = 363.75 | 102,000 @ $3.75 = 382.50 | 102,000 @ $3.75 = 382.50 |
| Bolts | 26.76 | ||
| Total cost of lumber | $1628.48 | $2007.67 | $2497.56 |
| Content, cubic feet | 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 781⁄2 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 × 781⁄2 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 1881⁄2, 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 1763⁄4-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 × 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, 60 feet in diameter | Rectangular barn, 36 × 781⁄2 ft. | ||
| 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% |
| Round barn, 90 feet in diameter | Rectangular barn, 36 × 1763⁄4 ft. | ||
| 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 × 1763⁄4 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.[B] These are the sizes on which the figures for cost of silos of the Gurler type, given in [Tables 2A] and [2B], were used.
Fig. 10. Interior of cow stable, showing water trough with float valve, salt box, and door into dairy.
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?
Fig. 11. Cow comfort in a round barn.
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.
[B] 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.