Farm Building Energy Analysis for the
James Frantzen Farm
Final Report
Submitted to the Farm Energy Working Group
March 28, 2012
James Frantzen, James Frantzen Farm
Rich Schuler, Energy Consultant
Lead Person
James Frantzen
20199 Key Avenue
Elma, IA 50628
(641) 257-8122
Email: james.frantzen@hughes.net
Page 1 of 13
Farm Building Energy Analysis for the James Frantzen Farm
Table of Contents
Section
Title
Page
1.0
Background
3
2.0
Phase 1: Quantify the Energy Flowing through the Frantzen Farm
4
2.1
2.2
2.3
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
4
5
5
- Method
- Results
- Conclusion
Phase 2: Analyze the energy efficiency and energy requirements for
the farm buildings, and develop a cost and energy efficiency solution
for climate control in those buildings.
- Method
- Results
- Conclusion
6
6
6
6
4.0
Sharing Results
7
5.0
Project Evaluation
7
A
Appendix A: Overall Monthly and Annual Energy Use Graphs
8
B
Appendix B: Monthly Energy Use Graphs:
Comparison between the Farmhouse and Farrowing House
11
Page 2 of 13
Farm Building Energy Analysis for the James Frantzen Farm
1.0 Background
On 5 May 2009, James Frantzen purchased a four acre farm with the intent of starting a custom
farrow-to-feeder swine operation. The farm included five buildings, which James will use as: a
farrowing house, a small cattle/sow shed, a machine shed, a livestock/bedding/equipment shed
and a small workshop. None of the existing buildings have climate control, so James is
interested in evaluating the energy requirements to heat, ventilate and/or cool these buildings.
James added fiberglass insulation above the ceiling of the farrowing house, and had roughly two
inches of foam insulation blown into two of the walls prior to installing the interior wall surface.
The remaining two walls were deemed acceptable with respect to insulation and would provide
some ventilation for the hogs/pigs (i.e., spray foam is air-tight). He next installed farrowing
pens, and connected water and electricity lines into the building. An LP heater and lines existed,
and required no refurbishment. James achieved his goal to have livestock on the farm by
summer 2010, and began earning income off the farm by the end of 2010.
James also partially renovated the shop by adding insulation in the attic, as well as repairing/
sealing the overhead door, and floor. Time did not allow him to install additional insulation in
the walls. This was considered acceptable for the first year since he spent minimal time in the
shop during the winter; consequently, the LP heat load was considered insignificant compared to
the farmhouse and farrowing building.
This project has two components:
Phase One: Begin tracking the energy flow through the James Frantzen Farm
James Frantzen and Rich Schuler will gather the energy inputs since 1 May 2010, and begin
monitoring the farm energy inputs (i.e., fertilizer, feed, fossil fuel, electricity, etc.) and the
energy outputs (i.e., products that leave the farm such as livestock). The result will be a chart
that captures the cost, energy and CO2 emissions for all of the farm inputs and outputs. The
cost, energy, and CO2 data will be used to implement an on-farm energy strategy that
matches the long term goal and philosophy of the farm (i.e., save money, save energy, save
carbon, or any combination thereof).
Phase Two: Analyze the energy efficiency and energy requirements for the farm buildings, and
develop a cost and energy efficiency solution for climate control in those buildings.
James Frantzen is currently renovating the buildings on his recently purchased farm;
however, the farrowing house and the shop were the only building completed during the
course of the study. Since the buildings are either under renovation, or will be renovated in
the future, this was an ideal time to evaluate the energy needed to heat/ventilate/cool the
buildings. After buildings are constructed it is often more difficult to implement energy
conservation measures (i.e., add insulation). The goal of this phase is to analyze the climate
control energy requirements and determine the most cost and environmentally effective
solution to heat/ventilate/cool the farm buildings.
Page 3 of 13
Farm Building Energy Analysis for the James Frantzen Farm
2.0 Phase 1: Quantify the Energy Flow through the Frantzen Farm
2.1 Method
James kept excellent records, so his electricity and LP data was obtained from his historical
invoices. Electricity was billed monthly, so this information was directly input into a
spreadsheet. LP was delivered intermittently; therefore, energy purchases were distributed
linearly on a monthly basis during the interval between deliveries. Since the farm is a farrow-tofeeder operation, James does not own any diesel equipment, and the gasoline use is minimal.
Consequently, the farrowing house analysis only included electricity and LP.
The monthly energy input to the farm was converted from kWh or gallons of LP, to mega-joules
(i.e., MJ), and pounds of CO2 released during the burning of fossil fuels (Table 1). The resulting
data was then plotted in graphical form on both a monthly and an annual basis (Appendix A).
A single electrical meter monitors the electricity use for the entire farm. The cost to install a
second meter, and thereby separate the electricity use for the farm and the house, was
investigated during the Frantzen Family Farm study (i.e., Farm Energy Working Group (FEWG)
Grant awarded to Tom & Irene Frantzen). The preliminary estimate was prohibitively expensive
(i.e., in excess of $1,000). Similarly, a single LP tank services the farm. Consequently, the total
electrical and LP use is reported for the farm (i.e., farmhouse, shop and farrowing house).
James’ farm situation is unique with respect to energy. He moved into his farmhouse on 20 June
’09; however, the first sows were brought into the farrowing on 1 Oct ’10. The resulting fifteen
month window provides a baseline for the electricity and LP use for the farmhouse and shop. As
a result, a good approximation of the farrowing house energy use was determined by subtracting
the total energy used during each farrowing cycle from the farmhouse baseline obtained during
the first fifteen months. Table 2 summarizes the farm timeline for the study, and plots for the
comparison between the farmhouse and farrowing house are included in Appendix B.
The final step for Phase 1 was to compute the energy flow ratio for the farm. This was to be
accomplished by comparing the farm inputs (i.e., electricity, LP, feed, etc.) to the outputs (i.e.,
energy in the form of dietary calories of the weaned pigs. A similar analysis was attempted with
the Tom & Irene Frantzen Family Farm FEWG grant, but after a significant effort, it became
apparent that computing the energy (i.e., in the form of dietary calories) of all farm inputs and
outputs was far less straightforward than the process for fossil fuels. The effort needed to
research the computation of dietary calories was beyond the scope of the time designated for this
project. As a result, an energy flow ratio (i.e., [Energy Out] / [Energy In)]) was not calculated.
Table 1. Energy Conversion Factors
Energy Source
Energy
CO2 Emission
Electricity
3.6 MJ/kWh
2.10 lbs/kWh
LP
97 MJ/gal
12.8 lbs/gal
Page 4 of 13
Farm Building Energy Analysis for the James Frantzen Farm
Table 2. Farm Timeline During the Study
Date
Description
Comments
5 May ‘09
Purchased Farm
---
20 June ‘09
Moved into Farmhouse
Started refurbishing farrowing
house & shop
15 month residential
baseline for farmhouse
1 Oct ‘10
First sows in farrowing house
(First Farrowing Cycle)
---
7 Feb ‘11
Start of Second Farrowing Cycle
---
2.2 Results
The monthly energy use graphs for the James Frantzen Farm are included in Appendix A. Table
3 is a summary of the first two farrowing cycles, and is based on the difference in energy use
between the first fifteen months of James’ residence (i.e., baseline), and the farrowing cycles
(Appendix B).
2.3 Conclusions
As expected, a higher level of energy use and CO2 emissions at the farm for the fairing house is
discernable in the monthly plots (see Appendices A and B). By mid spring (i.e., April ’11), the
LP use is dropping significantly, and is expected to reach the baseline level since no heat is
needed in the farrowing house in the late spring, summer and early fall.
The peak electricity use in the farrowing house is roughly the same as that used in the farmhouse
(See Appendix B). This results primarily from the heat lamps used in the pig bedding area.
James takes measures to minimize his heat lamp electricity use by replacing the high power
bulbs needed shortly after farrowing (i.e., 250 watts) with lower wattage lamps (i.e., 100 watts)
as the pigs gain body weight. However, the electricity use in the farrowing house is significant
(compared to the farm house).
Table 3. Energy Results for the Farrowing House
Farrowing
Cycle
No. of pigs
Energy Use
(MJ)
Energy Cost
($)
CO2 Emission
(lbs)
First
87
18,800
$405
4,020
Second
85
17,300
397
4,040
TOTAL
172
36,100
$801
8,060
Page 5 of 13
Farm Building Energy Analysis for the James Frantzen Farm
3.0 Phase 2: Analyze the energy efficiency and energy requirements for the farm buildings,
and develop a cost and energy efficiency solution for climate control in those buildings.
3.1 Method
As a result of time constraints for this project, only the farrowing house was analyzed for energy
use efficiency, and no formal trade study or benefit/cost analysis was accomplished.
Consequently, Activity 2 listed in Phase II could not be accomplished. Feb ’10 was selected for
the analysis since the energy use for electricity and LP was nearly equal.
3.2 Results
The parameters for the energy efficiency analysis are summarized in Table 4. The energy cost
per MJ, as well as the CO2 emission per MJ is three times greater for electricity than for LP.
Since the vast majority of electricity in the farrowing house is used to provide heat via lamps,
both cost and CO2 emission could be reduced by a factor of roughly three if the heat source for
the young pigs was shifted to LP. This could be accomplished by using an LP boiler with water
lines run to the pig bedding areas. Waste heat from the boiler could be captured and use to
augment heating the farrowing house space and result in additional LP savings during winter.
James was very pleased with the performance of the spray foam in the farrowing house. The
foam provided an air-tight insulation barrier which retained a significant amount of body heat
from the hogs. James’ intuition that by spraying only two walls, there would be sufficient
oxygen exchange through the “leaks” in the batted insulation proved correct since no CO2
toxicity effects were observed in the hogs or pigs, and the LP bills were less than he expected.
3.3 Conclusion
Comparison of the energy derived from electricity and LP to cost and CO2 emissions clearly
indicate that electricity is roughly three times more expensive and more environmentally
detrimental (in terms of CO2 emission) than LP in James’ custom farrowing operation. It is
therefore recommended that James consider an LP based boiler for heating the pig bedding areas.
Table 4. Summary of heat loads for Feb ‘10
Energy
Source
Energy
Use
(MJ)
Energy
Cost ($)
CO2
Emission
(lbs)
Energy Cost
per MJ
($/MJ)
CO2 Emission
per MJ
(lbs/MJ)
Electricity
2,597
$120.54
1,511
$0.046
0.58
LP
2,424
$36.10
321
$0.015
0.13
Page 6 of 13
Farm Building Energy Analysis for the James Frantzen Farm
The spray foam worked very well as an “air-tight” insulation material. Data from James’ farm
suggests that spraying two walls of the farrowing house is a good solution as it minimizes cost,
and eliminates the need for forced ventilation. This was confirmed during James’ field day when
an attendee stated that he applied spray foam to all the walls of his farrowing house, and it
became too warm in the winter due to trapped body heat. Winter ventilation was required in his
case.
4.0 Sharing Results
In the proposal it was stated that the results from this project will be shared at:
- Farm Energy Working Group meeting
- PFI Annual Conference
- PFI Cooperators’ Meeting
- On the PFI website and in the PFI newsletter
This study was presented in full at a PFI/FEWG Field Day at James Frantzen’s farm on 10 Sept
2011. The study was also discussed as part of the Energy Program at the 2012 PFI Annual
Conference. In addition, a preliminary presentation was given to the Farm Energy Working
Group (FEWG) at the January 2011 meeting.
In the 2012, a full presentation of the project will be given to the FEWG, and results will be
included in a PFI newsletter as “farm energy articles” have become a regular feature of this
quarterly publication.
5.0 Project Evaluation:
The proposal stated that this grant will be successful if:
1. James Frantzen reports he has a better understanding of his total on-farm energy use and
makes changes as a result of that information;
2. Rich Schuler makes improvements to his methodology for the PFI On-Farm Energy
Calculator that will improve his work with other Iowa farmers;
3. 20 people learn from the results shared with the Farm Energy Work Group
4. 100 farmers learn from the results at the PFI annual conference and PFI Cooperators’
Meeting
As measured by the above criteria, this project is well on its way to being regarded as successful.
As a result of this project, James Frantzen has a much better understanding of the energy used on
the farm.
During this project, Rich Schuler made several improvements to the data collecting and analysis
aspect, including: standardizing and streamlining the computation process, and developing an
additional plotting scheme.
Members of the FEWG learned about the preliminary results of this project in Jan 2011, and will
have a chance to see the entire presentation later this year. Finally, PFI farmers were exposed to
the results of this project at the Sept ‘11 Field Day and the 2012 Annual Conference.
Page 7 of 13
Farm Building Energy Analysis for the James Frantzen Farm
APPENDIX A:
Overall Monthly Energy Use Graphs
Page 8 of 13
Farm Building Energy Analysis for the James Frantzen Farm
Monthly Energy Use
14,000
Electricity
LP
12,000
Total
Energy (MJ/Month)
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
De
c-1
0
Fe
b- 1
1
Ap
r- 1
1
De
c-1
0
Fe
b- 1
1
Ap
r- 1
1
10
Oc
t-
Au
g- 1
0
Ju
n-1
0
Ap
r- 1
0
Fe
b- 1
0
De
c-0
9
09
Oc
t-
Au
g- 0
9
Ju
n-0
9
0
Monthly Energy Cost
350
Electricity
LP
300
Total
200
150
100
50
Page 9 of 13
10
Oc
t-
Au
g- 1
0
Ju
n-1
0
Ap
r- 1
0
Fe
b- 1
0
De
c-0
9
09
Oc
t-
Au
g- 0
9
0
Ju
n-0
9
Cost ($/Month)
250
Farm Building Energy Analysis for the James Frantzen Farm
Monthly CO2 Emsssions
4,000
Electricity
LP
3,500
Total
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
Page 10 of 13
Ap
r- 1
1
Fe
b- 1
1
De
c-1
0
10
Oc
t-
Au
g- 1
0
Ju
n-1
0
Ap
r- 1
0
Fe
b- 1
0
De
c-0
9
09
Oc
t-
Au
g- 0
9
0
Ju
n-0
9
Emission (lbs/Month)
3,000
Farm Building Energy Analysis for the James Frantzen Farm
APPENDIX B:
Monthly Energy Use Graphs:
Comparison between the Farmhouse and Farrowing House
Page 11 of 13
Farm Building Energy Analysis for the James Frantzen Farm
Monthly Energy Use Comparison
Farmhouse-Elec
Farmhouse-LP
1st Farrow-Elec
1st Farrow-LP
2nd Farrow-Elec
2nd Farrow-LP
10,000
9,000
Energy (MJ/Month)
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
J
A
S
O
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
M
J
J
Month (starting in July)
Monthly Energy Cost Comparison
Farmhouse-Elec
Farmhouse-LP
1st Farrow-Elec
1st Farrow-LP
2nd Farrow-Elec
2nd Farrow-LP
200
180
160
Cost ($/Month)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
J
A
S
O
N
D
J
F
Month (Starting in July)
Page 12 of 13
M
A
Farm Building Energy Analysis for the James Frantzen Farm
Monthly CO2 Emission Comparison
Farmhouse-Elec
Farmhouse-LP
1st Farrow-Elec
2nd Farrow-Elec
1st Farrow-LP
2nd Farrow-LP
3,000
Emission (lbs/Month)
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
J
A
S
O
N
D
J
F
Month (Starting in July)
Page 13 of 13
M
A
M
J
J