Bale feeders

[BeefmasterB]

Actually studies have proven that feeding on the ground, whether rolling them out, or with a grinder you can lose up to 40% of your feed. The cattle sh@t in it and lay in it,,,wasted feed.

We've fed hay on the ground for many, many years and had very little waste. I tend to suspect that the studies you're referring to are either skewed in some way, are incomplete, or they were done incorrectly.

But Msscamp, what was the composition of the land you were feeding on? Wouldn't this greatly impact the efficiency of this method? Or the number of cattle being fed on the ground? Feeding 50+ cattle who are in competition for food in muddy or snow/mud conditions would equal a sizable hay loss. As opposed to feeding on gravel/rock/or hard pack ground.

 

[KNERSIE]

Actually studies have proven that feeding on the ground, whether rolling them out, or with a grinder you can lose up to 40% of your feed. The cattle sh@t in it and lay in it,,,wasted feed.[/quote]
They must have studied my cattle....... :roll:

I thought the same thing and I live in a hot dry climate.

I have fed hay on the ground on occasion, but feel the rings save me a lot of hay. As soon as mine start eating some will start crapping, too.

 

[hillsdown]

Misty, what you should do is get rid of your bale feeders, and buy a good used bale buster (tub grinder) ,I think you could probably get one for about 5 grand, maybe less. Or you can buy a bale roller and attach it to a pick up or tractor, not sure how much they are. But think, in about 20 years they will have paid for themselves , because the studies were definitely incomplete, if not were definitely done by bale and bunk feeder suppliers. I mean really, why should one trust a two year study done by the AB government and two well known ag. colleges.. :cowboy:

I put a call in to the prof. that taught the course, she is away right now, but when she gets back she said she will send me the study, we'll see if that happens.

The main factor is weather, ie snow and wind..also amount fed.

 

[msscamp]

Actually studies have proven that feeding on the ground, whether rolling them out, or with a grinder you can lose up to 40% of your feed. The cattle sh@t in it and lay in it,,,wasted feed.

We've fed hay on the ground for many, many years and had very little waste. I tend to suspect that the studies you're referring to are either skewed in some way, are incomplete, or they were done incorrectly.

But Msscamp, what was the composition of the land you were feeding on? Wouldn't this greatly impact the efficiency of this method? Or the number of cattle being fed on the ground? Feeding 50+ cattle who are in competition for food in muddy or snow/mud conditions would equal a sizable hay loss. As opposed to feeding on gravel/rock/or hard pack ground.

The land was pretty typical pasture (neither sandy, exceptionally rocky, or clay), and the number of cattle was generally 50+ head per pasture. The bales were small squares that were dumped out of the back of a pickup at the rate of about 1/4 to 1/2 bale at a time with a couple of yards between them. If the feeding was being done by one person, whole bales were thrown out with the spacing between them being increased. This was done in rain, snow, and sleet. Regardless of how we did it, there was a neglible loss of hay. But, this was with small squares.

 

[BeefmasterB]

But Msscamp, what was the composition of the land you were feeding on? Wouldn't this greatly impact the efficiency of this method? Or the number of cattle being fed on the ground? Feeding 50+ cattle who are in competition for food in muddy or snow/mud conditions would equal a sizable hay loss. As opposed to feeding on gravel/rock/or hard pack ground.

The land was pretty typical pasture (neither sandy, exceptionally rocky, or clay), and the number of cattle was generally 50+ head per pasture. The bales were small squares that were dumped out of the back of a pickup at the rate of about 1/4 to 1/2 bale at a time with a couple of yards between them. If the feeding was being done by one person, whole bales were thrown out with the spacing between them being increased. This was done in rain, snow, and sleet. Regardless of how we did it, there was a neglible loss of hay. But, this was with small squares.

This is good information Msscamp! I could see where your method might make the difference in efficiency. You are putting out small squares whereas I attempt 4x5 round bales and your spacing the amounts vs having it altogether in one area. Down this way it rarely freezes long enough to harden the ground and the soil is almost all clay - driving a truck through clay mud, loaded with hay sqaures, is a major endeavor!!! And, of course, rolling out the round bale in mud, then creating spacing, is labor intensive - so the reason for the bale rings. But now I can see how the squares could work out very well! Thank you!

 

[hillsdown]

Actually studies have proven that feeding on the ground, whether rolling them out, or with a grinder you can lose up to 40% of your feed. The cattle sh@t in it and lay in it,,,wasted feed.

We've fed hay on the ground for many, many years and had very little waste. I tend to suspect that the studies you're referring to are either skewed in some way, are incomplete, or they were done incorrectly.

BTW you neglected to say it was small squares which are completely ,totally DIFFERENT than large round !!!!!!!!!!!
Also ,the only ones that use small squares around here are dairies and people who have horses..

 

[cowperson]

I just got one of those hay cone feeders and I am really impressed with how much hay is saved. The cows pull very little of the hay out of the ring onto the ground so there is less of a mess and more hay for the cows to eat. They weigh about 500 lbs.

 

[gotfire]

We have tried ring feeders, cone feeders, and made an over head feeder. The first over head feeder wade made out the scrap pile and it left very little waste. We made a second for the next year that held 2 bails side by side and they mostly stayed out of the cone feeder until that was gone.

We ended up finding a steal on 1 and 2” box tubing and made a bunch of them. We got most of them sold but have a few left. I did find that putting skids (4” I beam) on the bottom off them so moving them every few days just backing it with the front end loader and pull it or toss a chain on it and drive.

A coat of paint every year and it’s good to go. With the cost of steal right now it would cost to much to build one with this cattle market.

 

[Willow Springs]

For everyones reference on hay waste with bale shredders, rolling out and bale feeders follow the links below:

http://www1.foragebeef.ca/$foragebeef/f ... ground.pdf
http://www1.foragebeef.ca/$foragebeef/f ... essing.pdf
http://www.ag.ndsu.nodak.edu/dickinso/r ... eef05b.htm

Basically you will find that rolling or busting a bale out costs you money in lost performance, wasted hay, labour and equipment costs. The illusion of less waste is becasue it is spread over a larger area versus having a hay in a feeder. I've seen the demonstration with my own eyes.

In regards to types of feeders "Recent research completed at Michigan State University compared feeding round bales in ring, cone, cradle, and trailer type feeders. Cone and ring feeders had the least waste while cradle and trailer type feeders had the most."

In my experience the round single bale feeders are the best; I can get 20-25 cows around a feeder and feed every second day to make sure that all the cows have enough bunk space to eat at a time. They are limit fed and waste is never an issue even though they do move the feeders; they eat as much of the hay as they can becasue after that there isn't any more until the next feeding. Cows will waste more hay when they are being fed without restriction because they can! They can afford to be picky. They will also eat 30% or more hay than they need to meet nutritional requirements.

On bale shredders: One of the biggest wastes of money if you use it as a feeding method. Again I have experimented with waste. I didn't measure waste specifically, but went on cow behaviour. Like I said I limit feed and when putting out whole bales the cows would have enough to eat for about 1.5 days; I fed every 2. The next time I fed I used a shredder. I fed them at 9 am and by 6 pm they were in the yard bellowing at me. That particular winter was a nasty one and when using the bale shredder I noticed my cows were losing weight on an amount of feed that should have been enough. After seeing the research above I changed tactics and started just seeting bales whole; solved the problem. The cows were much more content and began gaining weight again. The research says Busting = 20% waste Rolling=12% waste single bale feeder 5% waste. No brainer on why my cows were having trouble. Not only that but the higher quality portions of the feed are wasted when rolling or busting versus setting out. Also don't forget tractor wear and tear at high RPM's, extra fuel and the cost of a shredder. You do it all for the privilege of wasting more feed.

 

[1982vett]

For everyones reference on hay waste with bale shredders, rolling out and bale feeders follow the links below:

http://www1.foragebeef.ca/$foragebeef/f ... ground.pdf

Conclusions:
Both feed quantity and quality are lost when feeding on snow.
A loss of fine materials results in cows consuming a lower quality
ration than what is placed onto the snow.

:dunce: Well Duh!

Wonder if the cows had cold wet feet? :roll:

 

[msscamp]

But Msscamp, what was the composition of the land you were feeding on? Wouldn't this greatly impact the efficiency of this method? Or the number of cattle being fed on the ground? Feeding 50+ cattle who are in competition for food in muddy or snow/mud conditions would equal a sizable hay loss. As opposed to feeding on gravel/rock/or hard pack ground.

The land was pretty typical pasture (neither sandy, exceptionally rocky, or clay), and the number of cattle was generally 50+ head per pasture. The bales were small squares that were dumped out of the back of a pickup at the rate of about 1/4 to 1/2 bale at a time with a couple of yards between them. If the feeding was being done by one person, whole bales were thrown out with the spacing between them being increased. This was done in rain, snow, and sleet. Regardless of how we did it, there was a neglible loss of hay. But, this was with small squares.

This is good information Msscamp! I could see where your method might make the difference in efficiency. You are putting out small squares whereas I attempt 4x5 round bales and your spacing the amounts vs having it altogether in one area. Down this way it rarely freezes long enough to harden the ground and the soil is almost all clay - driving a truck through clay mud, loaded with hay sqaures, is a major endeavor!!! And, of course, rolling out the round bale in mud, then creating spacing, is labor intensive - so the reason for the bale rings. But now I can see how the squares could work out very well! Thank you!

You're welcome.

 

[msscamp]

Actually studies have proven that feeding on the ground, whether rolling them out, or with a grinder you can lose up to 40% of your feed. The cattle sh@t in it and lay in it,,,wasted feed.

We've fed hay on the ground for many, many years and had very little waste. I tend to suspect that the studies you're referring to are either skewed in some way, are incomplete, or they were done incorrectly.

BTW you neglected to say it was small squares which are completely ,totally DIFFERENT than large round !!!!!!!!!!!
Also ,the only ones that use small squares around here are dairies and people who have horses..

So sue me! :P :lol: As far as who uses what, what is true in your area is not necessarily true in mine. I stand by my original conclusion that the study you are citing is either skewed, incomplete, or done incorrectly. Make of that what you will.

 

[hillsdown]

msscamp wrote:

So sue me! :P :lol: As far as who uses what, what is true in your area is not necessarily true in mine. I stand by my original conclusion that the study you are citing is either skewed, incomplete, or done incorrectly. Make of that what you will.

You Ms Scamp are incorrigible.... :lol2:

Happy Thanksgiving.. :tiphat:

 

[SRBeef]

There was a study from Ohio State I believe that compared bale feeders. Interesting but the cradle feeders they compared were different in key ways from some others.

I have had very good luck with a 2-bale feeder made in SD. It hold 2 5x6 round bales up of of the ground and can be easily moved with the tractor and a chain. I use a standard round bale ring on the ground for the weaned calves.

As far as I am concerned this 2 bale cradle feeder is my and the cattle's favorite. After calving the calves can duck under it to get some hay that hasn't been trampled.

Here are some pictures of the cradle feeder.

View attachment 2

View attachment 1

 

[msscamp]

msscamp wrote:

So sue me! :P :lol: As far as who uses what, what is true in your area is not necessarily true in mine. I stand by my original conclusion that the study you are citing is either skewed, incomplete, or done incorrectly. Make of that what you will.

You Ms Scamp are incorrigible.... :lol2:

Happy Thanksgiving.. :tiphat:

Happy Thanksgiving to you, too! :)

 

[jedstivers]

There was a study from Ohio State I believe that compared bale feeders. Interesting but the cradle feeders they compared were different in key ways from some others.

I have had very good luck with a 2-bale feeder made in SD. It hold 2 5x6 round bales up of of the ground and can be easily moved with the tractor and a chain. I use a standard round bale ring on the ground for the weaned calves.

As far as I am concerned this 2 bale cradle feeder is my and the cattle's favorite. After calving the calves can duck under it to get some hay that hasn't been trampled.

Here are some pictures of the cradle feeder.

View attachment 2

View attachment 1

They don't look as if they have missed many meals :lol:

 

[mnmtranching]

As the bale goes down my cows will push the feeders around to.
I think it is best to roll out the hay when, The ground is dry, frozen or snow packed. The cows will clean up the hay real well. Mud and snow, the feeders are best. A fence line bunk will have the least waste of all, the cows lick it clean or go hungry. The only trouble with the fence line is you need to haul manure. Chaining the bale feeder to a post works OK, but then you have the manure pile up again.

 

[backhoeboogie]

I have had very good luck with a 2-bale feeder made in SD. It hold 2 5x6 round bales up of of the ground and can be easily moved with the tractor and a chain. I use a standard round bale ring on the ground for the weaned calves.

I have been building mine out of old trampoline frames every since Caustic posted that pic of the one he was using. Hay waste is cut drastically. I now have two more frames to build 4 more cradles with when I get the time. The store bought versions are expensive.

I will never use rings again and I certainly don't want to unroll hay in the dark after work every day.

Cradles work great for me and the cows don't push them around or get them stuck around their necks.

My bales sit a bit higher off of the ground than yours SRBeef, but they work the same way.