Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Cattle Boards
Beginners Board
Payback period of a hay shelter?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="canoetrpr" data-source="post: 805874" data-attributes="member: 4892"><p>I found the following study of round bale storage techniques done by the Government of Alberta dept of Agriculture and Rural Development. An interesting read.</p><p></p><p>This is making me think that the bonnet is the best way to go for me and more important than anything is keeping them off the ground on pallets (I'm on my way to find about 20 more pallets).</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/eng3131" target="_blank">http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department ... ll/eng3131</a></p><p></p><p>The compared:</p><p>1. Single row unprotected</p><p>2. Two bale vertical unprotected (Mushroom - one bale on its end and second on its side)</p><p>3. Bales stored inside a protected building</p><p></p><p>with bales wrapped with plastic using the Vermeer Bale Wrapper and Unverferth Bale Wrapper.</p><p></p><p>The conclusions were as follows:</p><p></p><p> * The hay used for the research was 60% alfalfa and 40% Brome/Timothy grass, 75 to 100% in bloom at 10 to 15% moisture content. The bales used in the study were stored for 16 months in Manitoba receiving 17 in (425 mm) of rain. The long-term average for the test site is 24 in (600 mm) of rain. </p><p></p><p> * The Inside bales had 0% Total Feed Loss (0% spoilage and 0% dry matter loss). </p><p></p><p> * The Rowed bales had 6.4% Total Feed Loss (5.6% spoilage and 0.8% dry matter loss). Some of the spoiled hay, in areas other than the bottom of the bale, could still be consumed by cattle. </p><p></p><p> * The plastic wrapped bales had a 7.5% Total Feed Loss (3.8% spoilage and 3.7% dry matter loss). Spoilage primarily occurred at the bottom of these bales. This spoiled hay was determined to be unfit for cattle consumption. </p><p></p><p> * The Mushroom method had the bottom bale on its end and the top bale on its side. Total Feed Loss for this method was 10.6% (9.1% spoilage and 1.5% dry matter loss). Most of the spoilage (80%) occurred in the bottom placed bale. </p><p></p><p> * Plastic wrapped bales retained considerable moisture in the bottom of the bale which led to high dry matter and spoilage losses. Also, prior to feeding, this high moisture may make it difficult to remove the plastic due to freezing. Deterioration of the plastic wrap had occurred after one year of storage. </p><p></p><p> * Under the conditions during the test, no economic advantage was realized in wrapping round bales with plastic.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="canoetrpr, post: 805874, member: 4892"] I found the following study of round bale storage techniques done by the Government of Alberta dept of Agriculture and Rural Development. An interesting read. This is making me think that the bonnet is the best way to go for me and more important than anything is keeping them off the ground on pallets (I'm on my way to find about 20 more pallets). [url=http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/eng3131]http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department ... ll/eng3131[/url] The compared: 1. Single row unprotected 2. Two bale vertical unprotected (Mushroom - one bale on its end and second on its side) 3. Bales stored inside a protected building with bales wrapped with plastic using the Vermeer Bale Wrapper and Unverferth Bale Wrapper. The conclusions were as follows: * The hay used for the research was 60% alfalfa and 40% Brome/Timothy grass, 75 to 100% in bloom at 10 to 15% moisture content. The bales used in the study were stored for 16 months in Manitoba receiving 17 in (425 mm) of rain. The long-term average for the test site is 24 in (600 mm) of rain. * The Inside bales had 0% Total Feed Loss (0% spoilage and 0% dry matter loss). * The Rowed bales had 6.4% Total Feed Loss (5.6% spoilage and 0.8% dry matter loss). Some of the spoiled hay, in areas other than the bottom of the bale, could still be consumed by cattle. * The plastic wrapped bales had a 7.5% Total Feed Loss (3.8% spoilage and 3.7% dry matter loss). Spoilage primarily occurred at the bottom of these bales. This spoiled hay was determined to be unfit for cattle consumption. * The Mushroom method had the bottom bale on its end and the top bale on its side. Total Feed Loss for this method was 10.6% (9.1% spoilage and 1.5% dry matter loss). Most of the spoilage (80%) occurred in the bottom placed bale. * Plastic wrapped bales retained considerable moisture in the bottom of the bale which led to high dry matter and spoilage losses. Also, prior to feeding, this high moisture may make it difficult to remove the plastic due to freezing. Deterioration of the plastic wrap had occurred after one year of storage. * Under the conditions during the test, no economic advantage was realized in wrapping round bales with plastic. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cattle Boards
Beginners Board
Payback period of a hay shelter?
Top