I found this article. I hope it helps.
http://www.extension.org/pages/Cone_Fee ... ing_Losses
Articles from our resource area experts.
Have a question?
Try asking one of our Experts
Print
Cone Feeders and Hay Feeding Losses
Last Updated: February 18, 2008 Related resource areas: Beef Cattle
View as web page
Beef cows in their study were allotted to one of eight pens with four feeder designs: cone, ring, trailer or cradle. All feeder types provided about 14.5 in. of linear feeder space/animal. Alfalfa and orchardgrass round bales were weighed and sampled before feeding. Hay that fell onto the concrete surrounding the feeder was considered waste and was collected and sampled daily. At the end of a seven-day period, each feeder type was assigned to a different pen for a second, seven-day period.
Dry matter hay waste was 3.5%, 6.1%, 11.4% and 14.6% for the cone, ring, trailer and cradle feeders, respectively.
Calculated dry matter intake of hay ranged from 1.8% to 2% of body weight and did not differ by feeder type.
Percentage of organic matter, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber and crude protein were all lower, and acid detergent lignin was higher, in the recovered waste compared to the hay fed.
Cows feeding from the cradle feeder had nearly three times the agonistic interactions (behavior resulting in displacement of another cow from the feeder) and four times the frequency of entrances compared to cows feeding from the other feeder types.
Feed losses were positively correlated with agonistic interactions, frequency of regular and irregular entrances and feeder occupancy rate.
Use of the ring feeder resulted in nearly twice the amount of waste compared to the cone feeder, whereas the trailer and cradle feeders resulted in four times the waste per animal compared to the cone design.
Hay waste, as a percentage of hay disappearance, was less for the cone and ring feeders compared to the trailer and cradle feeders.
Cattle eating from the cone and ring feeders were able to more closely mimic a grazing position than those eating from the trailer and cradle feeder.
Feed losses were similar for bales stored inside (12.4%) or covered with plastic outside (13.4 to 14.5%), but higher for bales stored uncovered outside (24.7%).
Slanted bar designs encourage animals to keep their heads in the feeder opening by providing some constraint.
