Search Tip
Control "F"
Type in Key Word(s)
Hit Enter

Spotlight.....By Roger Brook

August, 1999

TEMPORARY GRAIN STORAGE IDEAS

Ability to keep grain dry. Grain needs to be protected from precipitation, surface water, and from soil moisture. You need a good roof or cover, good drainage away from the storage site, and a vapor barrier that prevents soil moisture from rewetting the bottom layers of grain. Concrete floors that do not have a vapor barrier under them will, over time, allow soil moisture to move up into grain. So if you intend to store grain on concrete for several months, it would be best to put down a vapor barrier under the grain.

Ability to withstand the pressure exerted by dry grain. Most buildings and older silos will not withstand grain pressure without reinforcement. Alternatives to reinforcing building walls include setting portable bulkheads inside the walls, or assembling metal bin rings inside buildings.

Ease of aerating the grain. In any situation where dry grain will be stored more than a month or so, it is important to install some kind of system for moving air through the grain to control its temperature. Aeration systems in tower silos can be quite simple, it can be tricky to design an aeration system for a flat storage building that contains an odd-shaped pile. Some air movement through the pile is essential. Facilities that have been adapted for temporary grain storage should not be used to dry grain or to hold wet grain in temporary storage facilities.

Ease of moving grain in and out.For each potential storage site, consider how much labor, what kind ofequipment, and how much grain damage might be involved in filling and emptyingthe structure. Tower silos are relatively easy to empty (make sure, though, thatgrain is withdrawn from the center of the silo to prevent uneven pressures anddamage to the walls), but can be a challenge to fill. Flat storage buildings canbe hard to both fill and empty. Pneumatic grain conveyors offer a lot offlexibility in loading and unloading a variety of temporary storage structures.

Economics. Make sure that whatever facility you selectdoes not lead to spoiled grain or have excessive cost per bushel (consider costsfor remodeling, aeration, labor, and equipment rental). The amount of grain thatyou can get into a structure is an important part of the cost equation. Flatstorage buildings often have a disappointingly low storage capacity. Because drygrain forms relatively flat piles (angle between the surface of the pile and alevel surface is often 25 degrees or less), buildings that have low ceilingsdon't hold very much grain - especially if you can't pile grain against thesidewalls.

Cylindrical metal bins are hard to beat for convenience andpreservation of grain quality, so before putting too much effort or money intoadapting facilities for temporary grain storage, check with neighbors to see ifthey have any bin space available for rent. If you do rent space at anotherlocation, develop a written agreement that spells out who is responsible forchecking the grain, for electricity costs, and for any repairs.

Roger Brook – Adapted from information originally prepared by BillWilcke, 
Extension Engineer, University of Minnesota, August, 1998

WISCONSIN TEAM FORAGE
Factors Affecting Silage Density in Bunker Silos

Attaining a high density in a silo is important for twoprimary reasons. First and most important, density and dry matter contentdetermine the porosity of the silage. Porosity, in turn, sets the rate at whichair moves into the silo and subsequently the amount of spoilage which occursduring storage and feedout. Second, the higher the density, the greater thecapacity of the silo.

Wisconsin Team Forage reported on a study of a wide range ofbunker silos where the density was measured and correlated with fillingpractices.

Silage densities were measured in over 160 bunker siloscontaining either corn or haycrop (largely alfalfa) silage. A survey wascompleted for each silo sampled, including: number of packing tractors, tractorweight, number of tires per tractor, tire pressure, tire condition, number ofdrive wheels, silage delivery rate, packing time per day, harvest time per day,filling time, filling technique, initial layer thickness, silo dimensions,maximum silage height, crop, crop maturity, and theoretical length of cut. Asummary of the results is presented in the table below.

Based on the results of this survey, Wisconsin Team Foragereported that the use of rear duals or all duals on packing tractors had littleeffect on density. Other factors such as tire pressure, crop, and averageparticle size were not significantly correlated with density.

One practical issue raised in the study was packing time relative to cropdelivery rate to the silo. Packing time per ton was highest (1 to 4 min/T As Fed)under low delivery rates (<30 T As Fed/h) and generally declined withincreasing delivery rate. These results suggest that farmers using contractorsto harvest their silage crops probably will need to pay particular attention tospreading the crop in a thin layer and would benefit from using several packingtractors simultaneously.

The following options for improving compaction and thusincreasing silage density were suggested:

• Decrease packing layer thickness from 12 inches to 6 inches.

• Consider adding weight to the tractors by adding fluid to the tires, adding front end weights, adding steel wheel weights, or adding dual wheels with fluid and/or wheel weights.

• Reduce delivery rate of silage to the bunker to increase the packing time per ton.

• Increase dry matter content by allowing longer crop field drying time.

• Increase depth of silage in the bunker silo.

• Add more packing tractors. Use heavier rather than lighter tractors so the average weight is not reduced when adding a tractor.

• Reduce packing layer thickness further.

• Pack for additional time.

The Electromagnetic Spectrum (adapted from The
Precision-Farming Guide for Agriculturists by John Deere Publ., 1997).

The energy in the electromagnetic spectrum is scientificallydefined by the wavelength which is measured in microns (one millionth of a meter). The figureillustrates that visible light has wavelengths of something less than 0.4microns (violet light) to something more than 0.7 microns (red light). Justbeyond the red light is infrared radiation with wavelengths that stretch toabout 100 microns (0.1 mm). Although undetectable by the human eye,near-infrared radiation can be detected by man-made sensors.

Remote sensing technologies currently associated withprecision agriculture generally use only a small portion or bandof this spectrum. These technologies depend on the energy radiated by the sun,which lies in the band including the ultraviolet through the infrared radiation.The most important bands for current remote sensing technologies are the visiblelight band and the near-infrared band.

PRECISION AGRICULTURE RESEARCH
Yield Monitor Accuracy: Successful Farming Magazine Case Study
R.D. Grisso, P.J. Jasa, M.A. Schreoder, J.C. Wilcox. ASAEPaper 99-1047.

A joint project between the University of Nebraska andSuccessful Farming magazine was presented at the recent Agricultural Engineeringmeeting. For each of the tests in the case studies, the weight measured by theyield monitor was compared to a weigh wagon after each combine pass.

In the case study, two farmers on level slope, high yieldingcorn, were asked to operate their combines under-capacity (20-30% reduction inspeed), over-capacity (20-30% increase in speed) and at their typical speed.

Farmer A had a Case-IH 2366 with an 8-row head and an AFSyield monitor. It was calibrated at the beginning of the season using 22% cornrun at four flow rates (½, ¾, full and 1-ccapacity); additional loads were added to the calibration as the seasonprogressed (lower moisture contents). Under-capacity was 3.0 mph; full-capacity4 to 4-1/2 mph; over-capacity 5 to 5-1/2 mph.

Farmer A had no significant differences between the weighwagon and yield monitor at normal capacity; significant differences were foundat both the under- and over-capacity runs. Although Farmer A followed therecommended method of calibrating at varying capacities, these errors exceed theadvertised claims and additional review appears to be merited.

Farmer B had a John Deere 9500 series with a 6-row head andan Ag Leader 3000 yield monitor. It was calibrated using several loads of 17%moisture corn. Under-capacity was 2-1/2 mph; full-capacity 3-1/2 mph;over-capacity 4-1/2 mph.

Farmer B consistently overestimated the weights compared to the weigh wagon.The error decreased as the operating speed increased, reflecting the calibrationhaving been done at higher combine capacities. Since the header was oversizedfor the combine capacity, the combine could not be overloaded. The observederrors indicated that the monitor was not adequately calibrated for the fullrange of combine operations. The errors exceeded the advertised claims andadditional review appears to be merited.

In the third case study, Farmer C had a John Deere 9500series with a 6-row head and an Ag Leader 2000 yield monitor. It was calibratedat the beginning of the season at 6-speeds (1-1/2 to 4 mph). The combine was runover a 5-10% slope at 4 mph downhill, and 2 to 4 mph uphill (a total of 5passes).

Conclusions

• Calibration at various grain flow rates are important for accurate measurement; observed errors exceeded 10% when compared to weigh wagon results.

• Slope effects need additional review to determine if more accurate area measurement is required; a 6% difference was measured between up and down slope travel.

• For best accuracy, a constant flow rate of grain moving through the combine is more important than a constant combine speed.

 

Roger Brook
Paper copy of the paper is available on request to:brook@msue.msu.edu pleaseinclude your US Postal address.

Conventional wastewater treatment systems for individual homes typicallyconsist of a septic tank followed by a soil absorption system. The latter isusually either a series of trenches containing gravel and 4" pipes fordistribution or a bed that is a wide excavation containing a 4" pipenetwork for distribution. The flow of wastewater through the septic tank and tothe soil absorption system is by gravity so there is no pump or powerrequirement.

Since the flow is by gravity, the flow rate from the septic tank is very low(usually less than 1 gal/min). With 4" pipe in the distribution network andlarge holes approximately 30E off the bottom centerof the pipe, the distribution of effluent within the soil absorption system isnon-uniform. Most of the flow comes out of a few holes, either near where theflow enters the system or near an end-cap if distribution lines have slope. Thisproduces local over-loading of the soil absorption system which results in thedevelopment of a clogging mat where the wastewater enters the soil. Septic tankeffluent varies in strength. The strength of the wastewater and the flowquantity affect the development of this clogging mat.

Septic effluent is very low in dissolved oxygen content because the septictank is an anaerobic environment. Therefore, the clogging mat that develops isthe result of anaerobic processes including filtering out of suspended solidsand growth of anaerobic bacteria which produce slimes that clog soil pores. Aslong as this clogging mat is influenced by septic effluent it will continue togrow and spread throughout the soil absorption system. This process caneventually completely clog a soil absorption system. This is commonly known assystem failure.

Alternative systems are designed to reduce the development of the cloggingmat by providing more uniform distribution of an effluent with less suspendedsolids and some dissolved oxygen. By requiring the soil to filter less suspendedsolids at each location the solids can be more completely biodegrated. By havingdissolved oxygen in the effluent that is applied to the soil, there is moreactivity of aerobic organisms which digest organic solids faster and do notexcrete slimes to form a clogging layer.

Small diameter pipe with small holes and pressure distribution utilizing apump or a syphon that discharges over 30 gallons of effluent at one time canresult in quite uniform distribution of effluent throughout the entire soilabsorption system. By doing this, the individual point loading of septic tankeffluent can be kept to a level such that the solids filtered by the soil aredecomposed by aerobic organisms in the soil. By keeping the soil environmentaerobic the development of an anaerobic slime is greatly reduced and the systemcan function for many more years before a clogging mat is formed. If the loadingrate is low enough, because few people live in the home and/or the effluent isof very low organic strength, a clogging mat may never form. Pressuredistribution is the simplest form of alternative system to protect and extendthe life of a soil absorption system.

A number of other alternatives exist and have been discussed in previousnewsletters. Alternatives currently being used in Michigan are mounds,constructed wetlands, aerobic treatment units, and sand filters.

Ted Loudon

• Temporary Grain Storage Considerations. Purdue University Grain Quality Fact Sheet #38, September, 1998.- http://www.agcom.purdue.edu/AgCom/Pubs/GQ/GQTF38/GQTF-38.html
• Temporary Grain Storage. North Dakota State University publication AE-84 (Revised), August 1998. Web version in 2 parts: http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/ageng/grainsto/ae84-1.htm  and http://www.ext.nodak.edu/extpubs/ageng/grainsto/ae84-2.htm
• Emergency Storage of Grain: Outdoor Piling. Kansas State University publication MF-2363, September, 1998. - http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/ageng2/mf2363.pdf
• Using Existing Buildings for Temporary Grain Storage. University of Nebraska, August 1997. 
  http://www.ianr.unl.edu/ianr/lanco/ag/crops/inservice/temporary-i98.html
• Adapting Silage Silos for Dry Grain Storage. Purdue University publication AE-93, November, 1978.
  http://www.agcom.purdue.edu/AgCom/Pubs/AE/AE-93.html
• Approximate Storage Capacity of Grain Storage Structures. AEIS 559, September, 1986.
  Grain Storage Problems are Increasing the Dangers to Farm Operators. AEIS 647, February, 1997.
  http://www.msu.edu/~brook/Publications/AEIS/aeis647.htm
• Stored Grain Management. MSU Extension bulletin E-1431 (revised), April, 1988.
  

I will make copies available to any county staff wishing a set. Please emailyour request to: brook@msue.msu.edu and be sure to include your US postal address.

Roger Brook

INJURED: Employee’s Arm Almost Completely Torn-Off After Reaching into aMachine
According to a news clip provided by Ottawa County MSUE, on July 23, 1999 a45-year-old employee was operating a blueberry sorting-machine and it becameclogged with leaves. The employee reached into the powered jammed machine and itsucked in his arm. The emergency crews worked for more than an hour to free thearm from the machine. The rescue tools used to pry metal apart failed; a cuttingtorch had to be used to separate the machine’s circular blades from the victim’sarm. He was then flown to a hospital were doctors worked to reattach the almostsevered arm.

SAFETY TIP: Long-time employees and many others are tempted to reactwithout thinking about the consequences. Think twice about the options to removedebris from a clogged machine and choose the safer method. Shutting Off thePower is usually the safest, most successful first step towards uncloggingmachines.

Howard Doss

Extension offices can use information from the NationalSafety Council (NSC)—posted usually by August 15^th. Their web siteaddress is:
www.nsc.org/farmsafe.htm Depending on funding, hard copies of the 1999 NationalFarm Safety & Health Week may also be provided. I will forward theinformation to you if/when it is received.

Howard Doss

Agricultural Engineering Extension Faculty

William G. Bickert. Livestock Facilities andEnvironment.
Roger C. Brook. Handling, Storage and Drying of Agricultural Products;Computer Applications in Agriculture.
Howard J. Doss. Safety Leader for Michigan Cooperative Extension Service;Agricultural Safety Specialist.
Daniel E. Guyer. Post-Harvest Storage and Handling and Value-AddedProcesses for Fruit and Vegetables; Machine Vision and Pattern Recognition.
Timothy M. Harrigan. Forage and Field Crop Power and Machinery. Ag ExpoChairman.
Richard L. Ledebuhr. Fruit and Vegetable Mechanization. Chemicalapplication equipment.
Theodore L. Loudon. On-Site Wastewater Treatment; Agricultural WaterQuality Impacts; Irrigation; Drainage; Livestock Waste.
Howard L. Person. Livestock Facilities; Environmental Control; ManagementOf Manure and Organic Residues.
Robert D. von Bernuth. Irrigation and Water Management; Coordinator,Animal Waste Management Programs. 

Nancy Aitcheson - Plan ServiceSecretary, Co-Editor
William Bickert - Extension Agricultural Engineer, Co-Editor