DOCSLIB.ORG

Heritage Barns Statewide Survey and Physical Needs Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Heritage Barns Statewide Survey and Physical Needs Assessment Heritage Barns Statewide Survey and Physical Needs Assessment Washington state Heritage Barn Preservation Advisory Committee WASHINGTON STATE HERITAGE BARN SURVEY AND PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT 1 This report commissioned by the Washington state Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation for the Washington state Heritage Barn Preservation Advisory Committee. Published June 30, 2008 Cover image of a calvary horse barn Fort Spokane. Source Artifacts Consulting, Inc., graphic design by Rusty George Creative. 2 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION Contributors The authors of this report wish to extend our deepest thanks to the following persons, departments, govern- ment and nonprofit entities that worked so hard to provide information and facilitate research and study. With- out their help this project would not have been possible. Our thanks to the: Washington State Heritage Barn Preservation Advisory Committee members Dr. Allyson Brooks, Ph.D. (ex-officio), Jerri Honeyford, Chair, Brian Rich, Jack Williams, Janet Lucas, Jeanne Youngquist, Larry Cooke, Paula Holloway, Teddie Mae Charlton, and Tom Bassett; Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Allyson Brooks, Ph.D., State Historic Preservation Officer for keeping us all focused and on track amidst so many exciting tangents and her review of the draft, Greg Griffith, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, Michael Houser, Architectural Historian for the tremendous effort in transferring Heritage Barn register data to an excel work- book that formed the core of our working data, reviewing the draft and helping sort out all the barn types, Megan Duvall, Certified Local Government & Survey Coordinator, Morgan Lee, GIS Cultural Resource Analyst for the listed Heritage Barn layer, Loren Doolittle, Financial Manager, and Zee Hill, Administrative Assistant; Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bert Loomis Lands Agent, Paul Dahmer, Wildlife Area Sec- tion Manager, Richard Kessler, South Puget Sound Wildlife Area Manager for their support and enthusiasm for testing the barn deconstruction process; Washington State Archives, Lupita Lopez, Mary Hammer for images and maps; and the Washington State Historical Society. We are especially grateful to all the participating barn owners for their excitement and hospitality of allowing surveyors through their barns and the wealth of practical information and examples contributed. They are the trustees of our collective agricultural heritage; we are appreciative of the dedication and hard work of the fol- lowing barn owners: Alice Schibig, Lakeview Dairy; Amrita & Jay Ibold, Sweetwater Farm; Anthony & Marilyn Sarsfield, Sarsfield Farm; Bill Townsend, Townsend Family Farm; Bob & Cheryl Engle, Sherhill Vista Farms, LLC; Bob & Genie Goldsworthy, George Comegys Farm; Bob & Patti Schneider, Schneider Black Angus Cattle Co.; Brad & Meg Gregory, Gregory Farms; Brady & Gaylene Filipiak, Fourflips Farm; C G Family LLC, Straub Farm; Casey Cox, Cox Farm; Charlie “Bud” & Susan Doolittle, Libby Farm; Claire Foster & David Andrews, Stuart Landing ; Claire Hanson, Hanson Farm; Clarence, Paulette & Dennis Leslie, Ephraim Shassay Barn; Craig & Annette Saville, U Lazy U Farms; Daniel Shaw & Leeanna Whisperinghorse, Hand Print Farms; Deb- bie Borin & Ralph Bullock, Borin-Bullock Barn; Doug & Charlene Byde, Whispering Winds Farm; Dr. & Mrs. Duane Hopp, Castlegate Farm; Earl & Linda Lasley, Lasley Ranch; Ellen Gay Schroff, Long Barn Farm; Frank & Jeanne Stottlemyer, Stottlemyer Farm; Gary & Sharon McCool, Rosecrest Farm; Gary Galbreath, Galbreath Land & Livestock; George & Julie Lloyd, Kineth Farm; George Grimm, Grimm-Jensen Farm; George Smith & Jan Bollwinkel-Smith, Barnswallow Farm; Georgie, Bill, Renee, Charles & Tracy Smith & Charles Arndt, Willo- wood Farm; Gerald & Karen Macpherson; Macpherson Barn; Greg & Julie Hart, Hart Farm; Guard Sundstrom, Valley View Ranch; H. Ann Olli, Alderbrook Farm; Jack Burkhaliter, Sleepy Meadows Farm; Jacquey Ostervold, Ostervold Farm; Jay & Helen Bachrach, Old McNeil Ranch; Jim & Beth LaPorte, LaPorte Barn; Joanne Bolick, Bolick Farm; JoAnne Jensen, Jensen Barn; Joel & Kathy McCloud, McCloud Barn; John & Renell Nelson, Nel- son Barn; John Basye, Andrew Johnson Farm; Karen Nelson & Loren Van Buskirk, Weary Farm; Ken Jaquith & Susan Schedel-Jaquith, Jaquith Family Farm; Kermit & Lisa Allen, Allen Farm; Lance & Paula Spina, Colonel Walter Crockett Farm; Larry & Diane Clifton, Narnia Farm; Larry & Janetta Pickering, The Farm at Novelty (Novelty Hill Farm); Larry & Sue Stewart, Helgeson Barn; Lee Nutter, Nutter Barn; Leslie Jones & Ann Car- son, Run Amok Farm; Linda & Terry West, Glenwood Farm; Linda & William Swartz, Han Shan Farm; Lonnie & Jackie Follansbee, Lightning J. Ranch; Lyle & Marlene Eiseman, Eiseman Barn; Lynette King Guard, Lazy G Ranch; Marcia Berger, Hillside Organic Farm; Margaret Ganguet & Mary Phillips, Shiloh Farm; Margaret Kibler, Kibler Family Farm; Mark & Valerie Sivertson, Ohop Valley Equestrian Center; Mary Celigoy & Janet Norton, Red Barn (Colasurdo Barn); Matthew & Susan Hobbs, To Honor Community Farm; Michael & Heidi Peroni, Boistfort Valley Farm; Michael Steigelman & Dawn Doutrich, Old Schwartz Farm; Michele Bloomquist, WASHINGTON STATE HERITAGE BARN SURVEY AND PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT 3 Institute, Yarr Fish & Wildlife Refuge; Oscar Lagerlund, Lagerwood Farms; Pat & Colleen Crook, Old Bush Place; Patrick Gies, Red Goose, Inc. Farm; Patrick Smyth, Michael J. Sullivan Barn; Paul McDonald, Herke Hop Kiln; Paul Schaffner, Schaffner Farm; Pierce County Parks & Recreation, Marsh Property; Rachel Zeigler, Clo- verdale Farm; Randy Williams & Sandra Singleton, Panache Hackney Horse Farm; Raymond & Margaret Han- sen, Mountain View Farm; Remley Orchards, Inc., Remley Orchards, Inc.; Richard & Linda Hummel, Hummel Barn; Richard & Marsha Klumpar, Klumpar Ohop Valley Ranch; Richard & Suzanne Roth, Roth Family Farm; Rob & Louise Acheson, Acheson Ranch, LLC; Robert & Ann Sextro, Cedarfield Shires & Gypsy Horses; Rob- ert & Lisa Sudar, Sudar Farm; Robert & Virginia Obert, Barbee Orchards; Rocky & Ruth-Ann Morrow, Rocky Mountain Dairy; Roy & Joan Lee, Weaver Barn; Russell Rumble, Rumble Ranch; Ruth Ellen Prater, Prater Barn; Stan Chichinski, Eagle Acres; Stanley & Noreen Crocker, Crocker Ranch; Stanton Homes, Ledford Ranch; Star Hovander, Angelo Hovander Farm; Steve & Carmen VanTuyl, VT Farm; Steve & Joan Ellsworth, Old Samish Farm; Thomas & Catherine Hyslop, Hyslop Farm; Ty & Kay Meyer, Red Barn Farms; Vernon & Yvonne John, Homestead Farm; Vonda Olson Long, Olson Long Ranch; Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, Ohop Milk Farm and the Oakville Barn; Wilbur & Karen Bishop, Ebey Road Farm, Inc.; Will & Diane Erickson, Old Gust Olson Farm; William George Harder, Jo-So Ranch; and William Van Vogt, Van Vogt Family Farm. 4 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION Project Team The project team included a broad and unflaggingly enthusiastic group. Mary Thompson’s extensive experi- ence in preservation policy and state government informed the core policy chapter of this report providing the tools and ideas for continued Heritage Barn stewardship. Mary Humstone, director of the national BarnAgain! Program brought invaluable contextual setting for our state’s efforts relative to barn preservation programs in other states, the best practices gleaned from these models, and prevailing agricultural trends and their im- pacts on barn preservation. Our team is deeply grateful for the survey manager Brooke Boback who contacted barn owners, plotted out the thousands of survey miles across the state and traveled to each of the 112 barns surveyed. Ms. Boback authored the archetype and function material as well as contributing through discus- sions and concepting to the overall report. Dave Brogan, project manager, of Bellingham Bay Builders under- took the complex task of developing the cost data that informed the large and small models. The Bellingham Bay Builders crew, Dylan Hicks, Ross Grier, Dave Ghan, Dave Sears, Dave Bennink, and Steve Mann carefully deconstructed the Oakville Barn for use as a model project in old growth timber reclamation for Heritage Barn repairs. Christy Johnson of Artifacts Consulting, Inc. assisted in the edits and completed all of the database entry for each barn surveyed. Eugenia Woo with Artifacts Consulting, Inc. assisted immensely during the field work. Erica Sage of Sage Editing edited the volumes of draft text for the report. Renee Petterson and Matthew Stoffel of Rusty George Creative provided the report graphics and design. Holly Taylor assisted in concepting. Jennifer Meisner, Executive Director, Chris Moore, Field Director, and Cathy Wickwire, Program Associate/ Mansion Manager of the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation graciously shared data on the Heritage Barn grant program, authored an overview of the grant and register programs, and provided invaluable public outreach support. Michael Sullivan of Artifacts Consulting, Inc. served as the principal-in-charge providing vision and direction for this diverse team. Spencer Howard, partner with Artifacts Consulting, Inc. served as project manager and field surveyor. WASHINGTON STATE HERITAGE BARN SURVEY AND PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT 5 Photograph courtesy of the Pacific County barn owner. barn County the Pacific of courtesy Photograph 6 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION nce, more than 35,000
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Forumjournal Winter 2010 | Vol
    ForumJournal winter 2010 | Vol. 24 no. 2 Heritage–Based rural Development Funding for this issue of Forum Journal was provided by the w.K. Kellogg Foundation, the major funder of the national trust’s rural Heritage Development initiative from 2005 through 2009. the w.K. Kellogg Foundation supports children, families, and communities as they strengthen and create conditions that propel vulnerable children to achieve success as individuals and as contributors to the larger community and society. The national trust For Historic PreserVation (www.Preservationnation.org) is a non-profit membership organization bringing people together to protect, enhance and enjoy the places that matter to them. By saving the places where great moments from history—and the important moments of everyday life—took place, the national trust for Historic Preservation helps revitalize neighborhoods and communities, spark economic development and promote environmental sustainability. with headquarters in washington, Dc, eight regional and field offices, 29 historic sites, and partner organizations in 50 states, territories, and the District of columbia, the national trust for Historic Preservation provides leadership, education, advocacy and resources to a national network of people, organizations and local communities committed to saving places, connecting us to our history and collectively shaping the future of america’s stories. ForumJournal NatioNal trust Forum VALECIA CRISAFULLI Acting Vice President, Programs ElizAbEth byRd Wood Editor Kerri RUbmAn Assistant
    [Show full text]
  • Everal Barn & Homestead Walking Tour at Heritage Park Welcome
    MAP OF EVERAL BARN & Thank you for joining us on this HOMESTEAD SELF-GUIDED WALKING Welcome... historical journey of Heritage Park and TOUR at Heritage PARK the Everal Barn & Homestead. Did you know... The Everal Barn and Homestead is available for rentals for anything from business meetings to school functions to weddings. Everal Barn Rentals are available in the following locations - Everal Homestead & Homestead Everal Barn Lower Room Only Everal Barn Upper and Lower Levels Entire Facility Walking Tour at Please call (614) 901-6500 for more information or check our website at www. Heritage Park westerville.org. Signs are located at The Everal Barn Milkhouse Carriage House The Homestead Smokehouse Outhouse Hen House Everal Barn & Homestead Information used in this brochure is from The Local History Center at the Westerville Public Library. 60 N. Cleveland Ave Office Hours Welcome to the Heritage Park, Self-Guided Walking Tour Tuesday - 11 a.m. - 1 p.m. Wednesdays 9 a.m. - 7 p.m. Heritage Park today is approximately 52 acres and offers two of the focal points of Westerville, the Everal Barn and the Homestead. The unique barn with its integral windmill and adjacent Saturdays 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. brick farmhouse are an excellent example of nineteenth century farm architecture. The Everal Barn, Homestead and outbuildings are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. In 1996 the Westerville Parks and Recreation Westerville Parks & Recreation Department began the Parks and Recreation Open Department Space (P.R.O.S. 2000) strategic plan. The citizen- driven plan (which included surveys, public meetings 350 N.
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Strategies to Prevent and Respond to Barn Fires Affecting the Horse Industry
    IN-DEPTH: EMERGENCY CARE AT EQUINE EVENTS A Review of Strategies to Prevent and Respond to Barn Fires Affecting the Horse Industry Rebecca M. Gimenez, PhD; Jennifer A. Woods, BSc; Roberta M. Dwyer, DVM, MS, Diplomate ACVPM; and Tomas Gimenez, MVZ, Dr.Med.Vet Barn fires detrimentally affect equine recreational enthusiasts, horse owners, and practitioners regardless of geographic location or economic conditions. As the number one local emergency expected to affect agricultural facilities, fires kill more horses than any other type of disaster. Strat- egies and equipment to mitigate their effects are available but underutilized; the effectiveness of detection, alert, suppression, and immediate response systems is further emphasized by appropriate design, management, planning, and emergency drills. Authors’ addresses: Technical Large Animal Emergency Rescue, Inc., 2472 Six and Twenty Road, Pendleton, SC 29670 (Gimenez R); Reflected J Livestock Consulting, RR #1, Blackie, Alberta T0L 0J0, Canada (Woods); Maxwell H. Gluck Equine Research Center, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40546 (Dwyer); and Department of Animal Veterinary Science, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634 (Gimenez T); e-mail: [email protected]. © 2008 AAEP. 1. Introduction reduce the long-term risk to life, property, and pur- Fire can affect horse owners and their animals in pose from a particular hazard (e.g., fires). Together several ways. Barn fires are unfortunately too with preventative actions to decrease the severity of common, and each year, hundreds of valuable horses an event and immediate suppression techniques, a die or are severely injured in these incidents (Fig. 1). well-planned facility and/or property strategy can sig- nificantly reduce potential losses in both equine life Wildfires consume thousands of acres annually in and property.
    [Show full text]
  • The Post-Medieval Rural Landscape, C AD 1500–2000 by Anne Dodd and Trevor Rowley
    THE THAMES THROUGH TIME The Archaeology of the Gravel Terraces of the Upper and Middle Thames: The Thames Valley in the Medieval and Post-Medieval Periods AD 1000–2000 The Post-Medieval Rural Landscape AD 1500–2000 THE THAMES THROUGH TIME The Archaeology of the Gravel Terraces of the Upper and Middle Thames: The Thames Valley in the Medieval and Post-Medieval Periods AD 1000-2000 The post-medieval rural landscape, c AD 1500–2000 By Anne Dodd and Trevor Rowley INTRODUCTION Compared with previous periods, the study of the post-medieval rural landscape of the Thames Valley has received relatively little attention from archaeologists. Despite the increasing level of fieldwork and excavation across the region, there has been comparatively little synthesis, and the discourse remains tied to historical sources dominated by the Victoria County History series, the Agrarian History of England and Wales volumes, and more recently by the Historic County Atlases (see below). Nonetheless, the Thames Valley has a rich and distinctive regional character that developed tremendously from 1500 onwards. This chapter delves into these past 500 years to review the evidence for settlement and farming. It focusses on how the dominant medieval pattern of villages and open-field agriculture continued initially from the medieval period, through the dramatic changes brought about by Parliamentary enclosure and the Agricultural Revolution, and into the 20th century which witnessed new pressures from expanding urban centres, infrastructure and technology. THE PERIOD 1500–1650 by Anne Dodd Farmers As we have seen above, the late medieval period was one of adjustment to a new reality.
    [Show full text]
  • MF1066 Large Round Hay Bale Storage
    1 MF-1066 Farm Machinery and Equipment Large Round L arge round balers are Bale Hay Storage also may be lower. Feed one of the most economical value loss in weathered hay hay production systems is usually a greater source of because of low labor require- loss than that from total dry Randy Taylor ments. One person can Extension Specialist matter loss. When both are potentially handle the entire Farm Power and Machinery calculated, total feed loss haying operation with the during storage can easily large round bale hay produc- Dale Blasi surpass 50 percent. tion system. A Kansas Extension Specialist Weathering losses are Cooperative Extension sur- Livestock Production, South Central generally limited to the outer vey of south central Kansas 4 to 8 inches for hay stored farmers found that 72 percent Kevin Dhuyvetter outside. However, in a 5- NE Area Extension Agricultural Economist used large round bales as foot-diameter bale, approxi- their primary hay package mately one-third of the while another 18 percent Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering bale’s volume is in the outer used round bales and small 4 inches, and more than half square bales. Reduced palatability and digestibility of the volume is in the outer 8 inches. Large round bales do have draw- are usually caused by weather exposure, For a 6-foot-diameter bale, one-third backs. Because of their shape, they are but can be caused by high moisture of the hay is in the outer 6 inches and not well suited for barn storage. A hay content at baling.
    [Show full text]
  • The Wells Barn
    THE WELLS BARN MILES-McCLELLAN CONSTRUCTION Project Information Scope of Work: • Relocation of an existing heavy timber barn frame recladed with a new envelope. Type of Construction: • Class A-2, two-story including basement,12,326 SF banquet hall • Post and beam construction with reclaimed barn timbers with reclaimed barn siding interiors • Exterior Hemlock barn siding • Adjacent parking lot Building Features: • 5,649 SF event/gathering space • Capacity: Theater = 300; Dinner = 250; Cocktail = 500; Meeting space = 84 • Catering and demonstration kitchen • A fireplace • High quality A/V system • Three multi-purpose rooms (used as classrooms, conference/meeting space) Size of Project: • Basement = 5,003 SF • Ground Floor • • Deck = 721 SF • • Ground Floor = 5,649 SF • • Porch = 953 SF Contract Value: • Original contract value = $3,874,268 • Final contract value = $3,851,427 Length of Construction: • 7 ½ months (February – October 2015) MILES-McCLELLAN CONSTRUCTION History of the Barn The timber frame that serves as the skeleton and inspiration for the Wells Barn originates from a historic barn built and owned by the Garber family on their property near Butler in Richland County, Ohio. With the footprint of 96”x 40”, the original “bank barn” was built into the topography to allow for an entrance from a lane, while creating an area underneath the structure that sheltered cattle and other animals. The barn was likely converted to hay storage after the hay track was invented in the late 1800s. Its original brick end walls were damaged in the 1960s during a sonic boom from a passing jet. Harvested in the first decade of the 1800s from the hardwood forest of the Ohio frontier, the barn’s timers were hand-hewn from oak, chestnut, beech, walnut, cherry and red elm trees that surrounded the property.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Bill Report Shb 2115
    FINAL BILL REPORT SHB 2115 C 333 L 07 Synopsis as Enacted Brief Description: Creating the heritage barn preservation program. Sponsors: By House Committee on Capital Budget (originally sponsored by Representatives Newhouse, Lantz, B. Sullivan, Hailey, Grant, VanDeWege, Warnick, Kelley, Pedersen, Appleton, Quall, Seaquist, Hunt, Simpson, McDermott and Ormsby). House Committee on State Government & Tribal Affairs House Committee on Capital Budget Senate Committee on Agriculture & Rural Economic Development Senate Committee on Ways & Means Background: Numerous states have public or private barn preservation programs, including Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Barn preservation programs seek both to preserve the historical character of historic barns and to preserve such barns' usefulness by assisting in adapting them to new farming uses. Many barn preservation techniques have proven to be a cost-effective alternative to demolishing an old barn to construct a new one. Summary: The Washington State Heritage Barn Preservation Program (Program) is created in the Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation (Department) to determine the types, qualities, conditions, and needs of Washington's heritage barns and to provide those barns with recognition and opportunities for support. The Director of the Department (Director) will establish a Washington State Heritage Barn Preservation Advisory Board
    [Show full text]
  • Granary Barn Main Road | Elm | Cambridgeshire | PE14 0AB GRANARY BARN
    Granary Barn Main Road | Elm | Cambridgeshire | PE14 0AB GRANARY BARN An immaculate home once a grain-store barn Dates back centuries, full of rustic charm. The recent conversion was a work of great care, No expense spared – it’s quality is rare. Spacious rooms are topped with original old beams With walls of glass through which the light streams. Fun extras like cinema, sauna and swimming pool Make it family living, with just a walk to school. Granary Barn • Superbly presented Family Residence in pretty Village Setting • Public Transportation with Bus Stops and access to Downham Market, March and Kings Lynn Train Stations • Local Amenities with 2 Public Houses and a Primary School. • North Norfolk Coast within 35 Miles (Old Hunstanton within 32 Miles) • 4 Bedrooms, 4 Reception Rooms, Family Bathroom & 3 En Suites • Indoor Pool, Cinema Room, Snooker Room, Gardens & Courtyard • The Accommodation Extends to 6,691 sq. ft. In a conservation area in the attractive and an enchanting, sheltered courtyard complete sought-after village of Elm, North Cambridgeshire, with three-tiered fountain, in an ornamental pond stands a very handsome historic barn, a home to many fish, who will be staying. Here, two hundred year old grainstore which was apart from the end section housing the swimming converted into a dwelling in 2007. Set well pool, all the accommodation is converted from back from the road, and not far from the the old, featuring terracotta pantiled roofs, beautiful early Georgian ‘Elm House’, to which heavily-timbered vaulted ceilings, and, on the it originally belonged, it is still in a working farm inside, entirely glass walls with dark-stained timber estate environment which has been trading for frames, opening into the courtyard.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-0018 (Rev. Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM 1. Name of Property historic name: Gebo Barn other name/site number: 24CB1868 2. Location street & number: 2.5 miles south of Fromberg on River Road not for publication: n/a city/town: Fromberg vicinity: X state: Montana code: MT county: Carbon code: 009 zip code: 59029 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby certify that this X nomination _ request for detei nir ation of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the u al and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property X meets _ does not meet the National Register I recQ this nroperty be considered significant _ nationally _ statewide X locally. Signa ure of certifying official/Title/ Date Montana State Historic Preservation Office State or Federal agency or bureau________ ( _ See continuation sheet for additional comments.) In my opinion, the property _ meets _ does not meet the National Register criteria. Signature of commenting or other official Date State or Federal agency and bureau 4. Nationalati Park Service Certification I, hereby certify that this property is: ^./entered in the National Register _ see continuation sheet _ determined eligible for the National Register _ see continuation sheet _ determined not eligible for the National Register _ see continuation sheet _ removed from the National Register _see continuation sheet _ other (explain): __________________ Gebo Barn Carbon County, Montana Name of Property: County and State 5.
    [Show full text]
  • (Heck-Stamm-Unger Farm) East Side Gruber Road .5 Mile South of State
    Stamm Farm (Heck-Stamm-Unger Farm) HABS No. PA-266 East side Gruber Road .5 mile south of State Route 183 Mount Pleasant vicinity # Penn Township Berks County Pennsylvania PHOTOGRAPHS HISTORICAL AND DESCRIPTIVE DATA Historic American Buildings Survey Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service Department of the Interior Washington, D.C. 20243 m HISTORIC AMERICAN BUILDINGS SURVEY HABS No. PA-266 STAMM FARM (Heck-Stamm-Unger Farm) Location: On east side of Gruber Road (LR06038) .5 miles south of its intersection with State Route 183, about 400' east of Fox Lake bridge over Tulpehocken Creek, about .6 mile southeast of Mount Pleasant, Perm Township, Berks County, Pennsylvania. USGS Bernville Quadrangle, Universal Transverse Mercator Coordinates: House 18.410510.4472190 Barn 18.410550.4472150 Present Owner: United States Government Present Use: Demolished in 1977 for the Blue Marsh Lake project, sponsored by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Signigicance: This is a good example of a once-prosperous Pennsylvania German family farm that failed to adjust completely to the modernization process that occurred in American agriculture in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Consequently, this • farmstead offers a glimpse of what a late eighteenth or early nineteenth-century Pennsylvania German farm might have looked like. The house is constructed of load-bearing logs, and the outbuildings are arranged functionally yet sensitively on the landscape. The farm is located in Pleasant Valley, a linear hamlet running between the Gruber Wagon "Works and the Pleasant Valley Roller Mill, beside the Union Canal. PART I. HISTORICAL DEFORMATION A. Physical History 1. Date of erection: Unknown.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimizing Losses in Hay Storage and Feeding
    MINIMIZING LOSSES IN HAY STORAGE AND FEEDING MINIMIZING LOSSES IN HAY TYPES OF STORAGE LOSSES which climatic conditions have on hay) STORAGE AND FEEDING Hay storage losses vary greatly depend- is partially a physical process. Some of Each year more than 60 million acres ing upon several factors, but storage the dry matter loss which occurs of forage crops are harvested for hay in technique is of utmost importance. during outside storage is caused by the United States. Annual production Losses of dry hay stored inside a barn leaching, which refers to the dissolving from this acreage is over 150 million are usually of little concern. However, and removal of nutrients by the passage tons of hay valued at more than 12 even for barn stored hay, losses rise of rain water over the surface of, and billion dollars. Hay is the most widely sharply as moisture levels increase through, the bale. The more digestible grown mechanically-harvested agro- above 20%, and losses from round nutrients are, the more soluble they nomic crop in the United States. bales stored outside under adverse are, and thus the more likely they are As a source of nutrition for live- conditions can be much larger. to be removed by leaching. stock, hay offers numerous advantages. During storage, hay can be subject to The switch from small rectangular It can be made from many different dry matter losses as well as losses of bales to large round bales on most U.S. crops; when protected from the forage quality. farms has resulted in higher storage weather it can be stored indefinitely losses (in many cases, several times with little nutrient loss; package sizes Dry Matter Losses higher).
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Farmsteads: Preliminary Character Statement
    7.0 Key Building Types: Animals and Animal Products 7.1 CATTLE HOUSING • Interior stalling and feeding arrangements. Cows were usually tethered in pairs with low partitions of wood, 7.1.1 NATIONAL OVERVIEW (Figure 26) stone, slate and, later, cast iron between them. As the There are great regional differences in the management breeding of stock improved and cows became larger, of cattle and the buildings that house them.This extends the space for the animals in the older buildings to how they are described in different parts of the became limited and an indication of the date of a cow country: for example,‘shippon’ in much of the South house can be the length of the stalls or the width of West;‘byre’ in northern England;‘hovel’ in central the building. Feeding arrangements can survive in the England. Stalls, drains and muck passages have also been form of hayracks, water bowls and mangers for feed. given their own local vocabulary. • Variations in internal planning, cattle being stalled along or across the main axis of the building and facing a Evidence for cattle housing is very rare before the wall or partition.They were fed either from behind or 18th century, and in many areas uncommon before the from a feeding passage, these often being connected 19th century.The agricultural improvements of the 18th to fodder rooms from the late 18th century. century emphasised the importance of farmyard manure in maintaining the fertility of the soil. It was also In the following descriptions of buildings for cattle the recognised that cattle fattened better and were more wide variety in the means of providing accommodation productive in milk if housed in strawed-down yards and for cattle, both over time and regionally, can be seen .
    [Show full text]