| Summary of Elias Livestock Scale
Final laboratory tests with the Elias scale showed the displayed weight was from 2% lower to 1% higher than the actual load. Loading off center affected the displayed weight slightly. Field weighing was good. Installing an orifice in the hydraulic line made the display very readable. Cattle containment with the Elias chute was good. The squeeze and gates worked well. but the front head gate came unlatched occasionally.
The Elias dial gauge was good. The needle was quite stable after the orifice modification was installed. Chute operation was very good. Chute transporting was very good.
No safety hazards were present. The operator's manual was good. Two mechanical problems occurred.
Summary of Paul Livestock Scale
Final laboratory tests with the Paul scale showed the displayed weight was essentially the same as the actual load. Loading off center affected the displayed weight slightly. Field weighing was good. Normal cattle movement was effectively damped by the linkage system. Cattle containment with the Paul chute was fair. The squeeze and gates worked well, but animals often tried to climb out of the chute.
The Paul balance beam was good. Operating the poise and weight multipliers was easy and convenient. Chute operation was good, but the squeeze pull bar offered no mechanical advantage and was mounted quite high. Scale transporting was very good.
No safety hazards were apparent. The operator's manual was excellent. No mechanical problems were encountered.
Summary of Prairie Systems Livestock Scale
Final laboratory tests with the Prairie Systems showed the displayed weight was within 0.1% of the actual load. Loading off center did not affect the displayed weight. Field weighing was very good. All but the most active cattle motion was damped. Cattle containment with the Pearson chute was excellent. When completely squeezed, animals were nearly immobilized.
The Prairie Systems indicator was excellent. The display was easy to read, and the push-buttons were convenient. The Pearson chute operation was very good. Chute transporting was good, but was inconvenient to change from transport to field position.
No safety hazards were apparent. The operator's manual was very good. Two mechanical problems occurred.
Summary of Senstek Livestock Scale
Final laboratory tests with the Senstek scale showed the displayed weight was 0.5% lower than the actual load. Loading off center did not affect the displayed weight. Field weighing was good with the original indicator. Excessive cattle motion could be damped with the damping knob, but this increased the response time. Damping with the updated indicator was very effective. Cattle containment with the Pearson chute was excellent. When completely squeezed, animals were nearly immobilized.
The original Senstek indicator was good. However, the displayed weight was difficult to see. The updated Senstek indicator was very good.
The push-button controls were easy to operate. The Pearson chute operation was very good. Chute transporting was good, but was inconvenient to change from transport to field position.
No safety hazards were apparent. The operator's manual was very good. No mechanical problems were encountered. |