• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

BULK

Slow Progress Whose Fault?

A Complex Mixture of Problems Involving Both Farmer and Merchant Appear to be Behind the Disappointingly Slow Development of Bulk Movement in British Agriculture by KENNETH BOWDEN

ACCORDING to a recent survey carried out by the National Association of Corn and Agricultural Merchants, bulk movement of grain, introduced in Britain on a noticeable scale around 10 years ago, "has developed at a disappointingly slow rate in the past two years." Delivery of feed in bulk is developing even more slowly.

The survey was based on information from over 70 leading agricultural merchants in England and Scotland. It indicates that only in the grain-growing areas of East Anglia and Essex has there of late been a notable increase in bullcing of grain, both in collection from she farm and delivery to mills. Here the increase was in the region of 50 per cent. In the other areas—Wilts, Hants, Dorset, Berks, Beds and Oxon—the increase was a meagre 10 per cent. and in Lincs and Yorkshire even less.

The N.A.C.A.M. states that nearly all grain bulk is wheat or barley. In East Anglia merchants collect some 15 per cent. of total wheat purchased in bulk; in other areas about 5 per cent. Only about 5 per cent. of barley grown is moved from farms in bulk, and this is probably due mainly to the reluctance of many maltsters to accept bulk grain. Deliveries to mills of barley for feed are about 10 per cent, in bulk; of wheat for milling about 5 per cent.; overall, 15 per cent. in East Anglia.

The N.A.C.A.M, survey was based on merchants' experience in the main grain-growing areas where conditions could normally be expected to lend themselves to bulking. In other areas local geographical, topographical and other o2 moved in factors have affected and will continue to affect its growth to a very large degree.

In Sornerset, Cornwall and Devon, for example, the small size of farms and high rainfall are not conducive to bulk methods and there has been little development. In Gloucester and Worcester a certain amount of wheat and barley for feed is being delivered to mills in bulk, but no malting barley is handled in this way. The same applies in Lancashire and Cheshire, although interest among larger growers is increasing. In Scotland development is generally slow.

As stated, the rate of overall expansionis reported as being less rapid than was firmly anticipated two years ago.

Why is this?

In attempting to unearth reasons that would be of specific interest to the bulk vehicle manufacturer and operator, it is difficult to avoid bogging down in the complexities of the agricultural industry and its ancillaries. Such complexities cannot entirely be avoided, because the slow development of bulking would appear to be deeply rooted in them.

Certainly lack of suitable specialized vehicles, or of hauliers in a position to operate such vehicles, is not a factor of any significance. The expansion of bodybuilders into highly specialized bulk-grain carriers has amply kept pace with the expansion to date in demand for them.

It would seem rather that, on the broad plane, the very nature of British agriculture, as it has developed piecemeal down the years, is against any really rapid switch to the extensive use of bulk transport. Mixed farming and the comparatively small size of the majority of farms themselves and their intake and output of any one commodity are not normally conducive to heavy capital expenditure on• highly specialized handling equipment.

Commodity Specialization

The real potentialities of bulking and other modern handling methods only become apparent and really attractive in terms of the large enterprise, particularly where there is specialization in one particular commodity. Even in these instances a certain amount of " education " and conditioning is generally necessary.

Another major factor is that, even when conditions lend themselves to bulking in terms of crop movement and transport efficiency and economy, the overall mechanical establishment of the farm is not always such as to be able to make the best possible use of a high-pressure in-out flow. Installation of equipment for bulk alone represents really the step-up of only one aspect of farm mechanization. As such it can represent a big improvement for the farmer and sometimes a bigger one for the merchant. But for the farmer the move must ideally be in step with development by which the benefits of bulking are reflected in the remainder of his operations.

In other words, bulking for some types of farm may need to be not an end in itself but essentially part of a flow through the whole establishment. If this is the case, obviously expenditure does not stop at bulk-handling equipment; in fact, such equipment might be a relatively minor item on a mechanization bill.

Two Methods This was borne out by Mr. N. W. Dilke. of Seale Hayne College, who spoke on materials handling at a conference organized by the N.A.A.S. in conjunction with the Fertiliser Manufacturers Association :

"When the tendency is for specialization with fewer enterprises and larger farms, coupled with more costly and dwindling labour forces, it becomes economically justifiable to put more capital into any items of equipment, and essential to study labour and machine usage. This opens up the ' possibilities for using techniques of materials handling to arrive at the best answer to the problem."

Broadly speaking, Mr. Dilke saw two ways of doing this: "(1) by mechanizing existing jobs without rcgard to the whole enterprise, and (2) by developing a flow pattern' of materials through the whole farm and even extending this off the farm to ancillary trades" (i.e., transport).

Mr. Dilke said that it is the second way which must be the present and future aim in agriculture. He is right, of course. But it could be a long, slow process, dependent on many complex agricultural factors.

Nevertheless, a leading exponent of bulk movement of grain, Mr. C. E. P. Chataway, of Christopher Hill, Ltd., Poole, Dorset, predicts that in 10 years' time it will be the exception rather than the rule to see a load of grain in sacks. If he is right, the complete changeover from sack to bulk-handling in this country will have taken about 20 years—which is not bad going, one would think, for an industry as diversified and "slow moving as agriculture.

Mr. Chataway also put his views in a paper to the conference organized by the N.A.A.S.-F.M.A. Commenting that bulk grain movement is now the accepted practice on many large farms, he suggested that the tendency of the smaller farmer to use sacks is due primarily to one of two reasons: (1) the ultimate buyer's inability to handle bulk, or (2) the farmer's unawareness of the saving which can be effected by bulk movement.

Regarding the former, Mr. Chataway said that most millers and compounders are now able to handle feeding grain in bulk, and from a general assessment of the situation in the main grain-growing areas of Britain this would, theoretically at least, seem to be the case. On the other hand, it was not yet possible to handle all the malting barleys in this way. However, the number of maltsters and brewers able and willing to take their purchases in bulk was increasing.

In this respect, the progressive maltster's attitude to bulk is perhaps illustrated by Associated British MaItsters, Ltd., of Newark-on-Trent. This concern has spent considerable time and capital on vehicles suitable for moving grain in both bulk and in sacks. Five Fodens with specially devised Durarnin tipping bodies and elaborate power-discharge units are now coming into full service. The body design is such that no modification is necessary before each vehicle can move direct from bulk to sack work. Although the capital cost of such multi-purpose vehicles is always high, there is a strong feeling in this concern that they are the logical and in the long run the economic answer to grain movement.

Cereal Seed in Bulk

Another development mentioned by Mr. Chatavvay was the bulk movement of cereal seed, in experimental quantities as yet Provided contamination of seed on the farm can be overcome, he thought that this would be welcomed by the seed trade.

With regard to his second main point, the fat-races unawareness of the savings bulking brings to movement, although hesitant as a merchant to dive too deeply into the matter, Mr. Chatavvay gave a pertinent example. A farmer friend of his estimated that saving on sack or bag costs were between 6s. and 17s. 6d. per ton, representing for a grower of 3501400 tons annually a saving of between £105 and £305 a year. This was excluding any economies made in labour.

Against this, of course, the farmer has to set the capital cost of equipment by which his grain can be accommodated for bulk handling. Herein, it would seem, is the heart of the problem. Whatever equipment is installed the capital outlay

will be relatively high. Many small farmers will not—or cannot —seriously entertain such expenditure.

Coming down to actual cases with regard to Mr. Chataway's two points it may be of interest to quote some correspondence which arose last year in our associate journal Farm Mechanization, as a result of a story about an Essex farmer who was fully equipped for bulk movement, but who found that his merchant at the time was not.

Farm Manager's View

Writing in reply to a correspondent who said that this dilemma was a warning to the farming community as a whole, and who put a case for sack storage, the manager of the farm concerned, Mr. R. Percy, made these points: " The cost of hiring and storing sacks for 2,000-3,000 tons of corn until May-June the following year—to get the benefit of increased prices and orderly marketing—would be prohibitive, let alone the need for substantial increase in buildings to store the sacked grain, elevators, loaders and extra labour to move it about. There would also be the expense of vermin control and a not insignificant clerical cost to keep check on sacks and sack hire.

"Sack storage in our case would mean hiring 24,000 sacks for nine months: 24,000 sacks initial hire at 2d, . £200 24,000 sacks at Id. per week for 36 weeks £3,600 £3,800

2,400 tons at 13 • • • £7,200

Bins can be bought for £3 per ton: "The total of £7,200 represents less than two seasons' payments in sack hire (ignoring the other expenses I have mentioned).

"Since installing our plant in 1955, this is the first year that we have had to sack so much corn; previously we have been able to dispose of at least 95 per cent. in bulk. However, the position was aggravated this year by the port millers buying large quantities of foreign wheat at lower prices than homeproduced wheat was making to the country merchants and millers.

" Even in previous years, with bulk delivery we have found that the port mills are only able to take bulk loads in at the same speed (eight tons per hour) as it takes two men to

empty sacks from a lorry, as the reception pits are usually too small and only makeshifts, whereas on the farm we can receive 10 tons of wheat as fast as a lorry can tip it out, and move it from the pit at 30 tons per hour even when working straight from the combine."

Mr. Percy went on to say that a previous correspondent " ought to try sacking corn from eight combines and organizing a huge labour force to lift from the field and then store: he would soon realize the economics of bulk handling against sack handling. Bulk handling of all commodities is upon us and here to stay if farming and other industries are to survive in these times of high costs and need for greater efficiency."

Sack Contractors' Investigation

Of more general interest, perhaps, was an investigation made on behalf of sack contractors by work study specialists on 20 farms in methods of harvesting, handling and storing grain.

Points emerging included the fact that, up to the storage point. harvesting by bulk can be cheaper than by a method involving sacks by something like 3s. 6d. an acre (on a farm growing 200 acres of grain). But in terms of storage, sacks arc often economically favourable. Despite this many farmers are prepared to. consider capital investment in bulk equipment to minimize manual labour and its cost.

Other points having a big bearing on the subject emerging during this investigation were: (I) Considerable capital outlay may be necessary to install bulk equipment.

(2) Grain stores in sacks at 2 per cent, more moisture content than in bulk, representing, in terms of saleable weight, a loss for bulked grain of approximately cwt. per tom (3) If grain is not clean, dry and undamaged, the risk of it being spoilt is greater if it is stored in bulk.

(4) Storage in sacks is more flexible in terms of segregation of types and grades.

(5) Bulk storage takes up less floor space than sack storage, hut bins can preclude the use of space for other purposes,

(6) Less work is likely to be involved in mixing and milling when feed grain is stored in bulk, and losses due to vermin arc less likely.

lSacks do not commit capital to any fixed long-term crop policy. This is, of course, the argument, or part of it. from the farmers' angle—essentially an agricultural angle.

From the merchants' (and transport contractors') angle the report in the N.A.C.A.M. survey makes it clear that the main

snag at the farm end is the rate of loading. This is really a matter of farm equipment. One concern states that in 20 per cent, of its collections a bulk carrier could be loaded in 15 minutes. In the remaining cases between one and two hours were required. Instances of from three to four hours to load a 10-tonner are also cited. The reason, of course, is the farmer's unwillingness or inability to gear up to the operation.

Another big problem already referred to is that of access to the farm and to bins on the farm. Despite publicity about the correct siting and height of bins, says the N.A.C.A.M. survey, merchants continue to report difficulties in loading due not to inadequate but to inaccessible bins.

In terms of equipment, Mr. Chataway quoted two successful methods of bulk grain collection. One is the overhead bin, of a minimum single load-size, i.e., 10 tons, filled either at leisure from existing silo accommodation or, if the grain is stored on the floor, by auger. The second is the auger-type elevator straight into the vehicle.

Merchant's Preierence

Of the two the merchant will obviously favour the overhead bin and gravity discharge, taking a few minutes of loading time, as against an auger loading at a normal maximum rate of around 10 tons an hour. In fact, from the haulier's viewpoint, the use of such a relatively slow system as an auger might well defeat the whole objective of expenditure on a bulk-carrying vehicle in that a very costly vehicle would be standing for around the same length of time as required for bag loading. It might appear to be stating the obvious, but it is not always fully understood outside transport that the sheer capital cost of the modern highly specialized vehicle makes maximum working time and minimum standing time the key to its profitable employment.

Thinking, however, in terms of his own costs, the farmer is very likely to favour the cheapest system, and, unless existing elevated storage bins can be modified for gravity discharge, this is in many instances likely to be the employment of an auger, or of a similar system whereby, on the face of it, loading was automatic but, in comparison with the use of an overhead hopper, a very slow process.

Mr. Chataway went on in his paper to discuss the movement of compound feeding stuffs, and in this sphere it would seem that a step-up in the use of bulk methods is more assured, if only because the major capital outlay falls on the supplier, not on the farmer, who can benefit from such a system rather more cheaply.

By taking feed in bulk, says Mr. Chataway, a farmer can save up to 34s. per ton on cost price, avoid rodent damage to bags, increase the security on his feeding stuffs by locking the storage bins, and save considerable labour by removing the need for manual unloading.

Bulk Feed Costs

And the cost? In this instance existing farm buildings can often be adapted for storage at small outlay. If bins are installed incorporating direct-feed into hoppers over milking parlours, pig or poultry units, the cost normally varies between f120-£140 for bins holding from 3-6 tons, excluding erection charges.

In the case of grain in bulk the big problems seem undoubtedly to rest with the farmer—his willingness and ability to provide adequate facilities for storage and vehicle loading. In the case of feed in bulk, Mr. Chataway's views indicate that the position is to some degree reversed, the problems and the major expenditure resting chiefly with the trader.

Among these problems are the fact that manufacturing processes must be altered to produce feed suitable for bulk movement, and storage facilities for efficient vehicle loading must be provided. Vehicles costing up to three times as much as a 10-ton at must be provided, and do not have the versatility of a loi-ry on which various individual or easily divisible loads may be carried. And by no means least of the traders' worries is that even if the vehicles are kept reasonably fully occupied on delivery, there can rarely be any back-loading.

Despite these problems, however, Mr. Chataway notes that )36 some compounders and merchants are at the moment delivering over a quarter of their production in bulk.

The use of bulk for feed deliveries has, in fact, been pioneered by the national compounders and merchants, particularly in the realm of poultry farming. As much as 25 per cent, of their deliveries are being handled in bulk by a few of these merchants but the general average where a bulk feed service is available is 5 per cent, for pig and cattle feeds and 10 per cent. for poultry.

Those using bulk methods are reported as employing about half and half of specialized bulk carriers and standard vehicles adapted for bulk which can also be used for bagged feed. But the tendency here seems generally to be away from the specialized bulker, due undoubtedly to its high initial and operating costs.

It is pertinent that, while merchants newly handling feed in bulk are equally divided on the question of whether it is an economic proposition, those who have been bulking for some time find it a profitable system: The savings are generally to be found on the farm, and, as in bulk movement of all farm produce, are always dependent on access to and correct siting of bins and installations. One merchant reporting a few snags said that the siting of facilities had been a matter of considerable consultation between himself and the farmers, Without such co-operation, inaccessible bins, unnecessarily small orders and technical difficulties with regard to. coupling of equipment are likely to remain recurring problems.

These, however, in terms of bulk movement of both grain and feeding stuffs, are practical problems which root back to the fundamental fact that many small farmers are not willing (or able) to provide adequate facilities for bulking, for what they see as a very long-term and possibly a minimal saving. On the other side of the fence there is the basic fact that merchants are either disinclined to turn wholeheartedly to hulking until they can handle a profitable amount of their traffic by these means, or are limited in their desire to bulk by the equipment and the outlook of the average farmer.

Is This The Reason?

This, of course, represents an impasse, and the reaching of it may well be responsible for the slow up in the national development of bulk movement in agriculture. Could it not he that within the past few 'rears most of those farmers and merchants with a liking for or a business suitable to bulk methods have gone over to it? The remainder, if this is so, could well be slowing up the anticipated development by circumstances which they believe to be beyond their control.

If this is the case the simple answer is obviously one of some sort of co-operative. The merchant can help the farmer in order to help himself, by assisting in the installation of the necessary equipment where desirable and justifiable, either directly or on some mutally agreeable financial basis. The complication here, of course, is that the farmer-merchant tie then becomes tighter than either might desire; and also that the merchant at the same time as he is helping the farmer with equipment might also have to finance his own fleet reorganization.

In the long run, however, it could conceivably work, and that the long-term results would be profitable to all concerned there can be little doubt.

Within any system of co-ordination or co-operation within the agricultural field, there is. of course, a place for the transport contractor. Sometimes it might be a direct association with the merchant, with the farmer or with both. On the other hand he can simply come in to provide under reasonable contract terms the specialized vehicles and service necessary to meet the growth of the system through co-ordination in any particular area.

Whatever the eventual outcome, it should be made clear that the problem at the moment is essentially of an agricultural rather than a transport nature. The transport man, as always, must wait upon his customers, and in this instance their difficulties are many (far more complex than the scope of this article can indicate). All that one can be sure of is that the transport industry itself is more than ready to meet any demand in the bulk field.