Stored Hay - Loss Study

[MikeC]

6/13/2008 3:50:00 PM


Comparing Storage Methods Of Big Round Bales



Fuel and labor costs have made hay baling an increasingly expensive chore. Harvesting and storing quality hay will be as important in today's economic environment as it has ever been. Once the hay is harvested, keeping maximum energy and protein stored for winter feed will help make the best use of the haying expense.



University of Tennessee extension specialists conducted a trial to compare different methods of storing large round bales of grass hay. The hay was cut and baled in June in Moore County, Tennessee. The bales were weighed at the time of harvest and storage. Then the bales were weighed again the following January at the time of winter feeding. The following lists the type of storage and the resulting percentage hay loss. Bales that were stored on the ground with no cover lost 37%. Bales stored on used tires but with no cover lost 29%. Bales that were stored directly on the ground but were covered with a tarp also lost 29%. Hay bales that were stored on used tires, and also covered with a tarp lost only 8%. Bales that had a net wrap and were stored on the ground lost 19%. Bales that were moved inside a barn lost only 6%.



Obviously, it would be ideal to store the hay inside, but that will not often be practical. The next best option is when the hay is stored on something that gets the hay off of the ground under a rain shedding cover. Source: Dr. Clyde Lane, University of Tennessee Department of Animal Science. AS-BV 14



Source: Glenn Selk, OSU Extension Cattle Reproduction Specialist

 

[oscar p]

I store all my hay in the barn, as long as I get it up without rain on it. My cows will clean almost every bit of it up, in a hay ring of course.

 

[TSR]

6/13/2008 3:50:00 PM


Comparing Storage Methods Of Big Round Bales



Fuel and labor costs have made hay baling an increasingly expensive chore. Harvesting and storing quality hay will be as important in today's economic environment as it has ever been. Once the hay is harvested, keeping maximum energy and protein stored for winter feed will help make the best use of the haying expense.



University of Tennessee extension specialists conducted a trial to compare different methods of storing large round bales of grass hay. The hay was cut and baled in June in Moore County, Tennessee. The bales were weighed at the time of harvest and storage. Then the bales were weighed again the following January at the time of winter feeding. The following lists the type of storage and the resulting percentage hay loss. Bales that were stored on the ground with no cover lost 37%. Bales stored on used tires but with no cover lost 29%. Bales that were stored directly on the ground but were covered with a tarp also lost 29%. Hay bales that were stored on used tires, and also covered with a tarp lost only 8%. Bales that had a net wrap and were stored on the ground lost 19%. Bales that were moved inside a barn lost only 6%.



Obviously, it would be ideal to store the hay inside, but that will not often be practical. The next best option is when the hay is stored on something that gets the hay off of the ground under a rain shedding cover. Source: Dr. Clyde Lane, University of Tennessee Department of Animal Science. AS-BV 14



Source: Glenn Selk, OSU Extension Cattle Reproduction Specialist

I have read similar studies and have heard Dr. Lane speak on several occasions. But when I feed my hay its hard for me to believe I am losing a third of a bale of hay by storing it outside with no cover. I have measured the outermost part tht the cows won't eat and it never comes out to a third of a cylinder which is what a round bale is. :?

 

[MikeC]

I have often thought that more than a third was lost. Especially if it has to hauled down the highway.

 

[dun]

I can;t do the math but if you take the volume of a cylinder 4x4.5 and compare it to a cylinder 4x5, if memory serves there is a pretty sizable difference.

 

[ROB]

considering a 6' dia. bale as 100%, a 5.5' dia. bale would equal 84%, a 5' dia bale would equal 69%. so a loss of 3" depth on a 6' bale would be a 16% loss. a loss of 6" depth on a 6' bale would be a 31% loss.

ROB

 

[Steve Wilson]

I'm assuming that the loss they are talking about, is lost volume. MIke said they weighed the bales before and after storage. Are the loss figures based on weight alone? I was also under the impression that quality and nutritional value were reduced as well. If so, wouldn't that mean your total loss was a greater percentage?

 

[BTRANCH]

Is the lost nutritive or volume?

 

[novatech]

I have read studies were it was found that the better the hay the faster the decomposition. Kind of like adding fertilizer to a compost pile.
I would assume that there would be a loss of volume and nutrition since it is the nutrition that causes the microbes to grow and decompose the hay causing it to lose volume.

 

[Stocker Steve]

6/13/2008 3:50:00 PM


Comparing Storage Methods Of Big Round Bales

University of Tennessee extension specialists conducted a trial to compare different methods of storing large round bales of grass hay.


What about alfalfa hay???

 

[MikeC]

Is the lost nutritive or volume?

Both. From what I understand, in the study, the losses used were weights.

But when weight is lost, so are the carbohydrates which in turn equates to an amount about double the weight loss percentages in lost energy percentages. And in turn palatability falls even faster. ADF goes through the roof.

In fact, there can be a slight gain of CP% in what is left over pounds originally stored, but the energy loss most certainly is more important.

Hope I explained it correctly. I am trying to convey how it was told to me. :roll:

 

[1982vett]

Minimizing Hay Loss
http://foragesoftexas.tamu.edu/pdf/haystorag.pdf

 

[spoon]

I read that article and mentioned it to one of the guys at work that raises cattle. His reply was "He if full of shirt." Leave out the *r*.

 

[1982vett]

Everyone in this country is allowed to have an opinion. Some are worth as much as you paid to hear them, some are worth less.

 

[kb5iod]

I can;t do the math but if you take the volume of a cylinder 4x4.5 and compare it to a cylinder 4x5, if memory serves there is a pretty sizable difference.

Volume=pi x r^2 x length

VolumeA=3.1416 x (2.25 x 2.25) x 4
VolumeA=3.1416 x 5.0625 x 4
VolumeA=63.62

VolumeB=3.1416 x (2.5 x 2.5) x 4
VolumeB=3.1416 x 6.25 x 4
VolumeB=78.54

VolumeB-VolumeA=14.92

14.92 / 78.54=.189

If my math is correct, a 5 x 4 roll is 19% larger than a 4.5 x 4 roll. In other words, lose 6" of a 5 x 4 roll and 19% is wasted.

 

[Tod Dague]

Is the lost nutritive or volume?

Both. From what I understand, in the study, the losses used were weights.

But when weight is lost, so are the carbohydrates which in turn equates to an amount about double the weight loss percentages in lost energy percentages. And in turn palatability falls even faster. ADF goes through the roof.

In fact, there can be a slight gain of CP% in what is left over pounds originally stored, but the energy loss most certainly is more important.

Hope I explained it correctly. I am trying to convey how it was told to me. :roll:

Exactly!!