Progress Report Series No. 97
Agricultural Experiment Station
AUBURN UNIVERSITY
November 1971
I=. V. Smith, Director
Auburn, Alab2aa
Comparison of Baled and Stacked Sy k 'nemA
for Handling and Feeding Hay 
C: a .
E. S. RE=NOLL, W. B. ANTHONY, L. A. SMITH, and J. L. STALLINGS'
A HE(ENT i)EL;i(PNiEN'I inl iiax machinerx is a
large wagon type xvchicle called a Ilcsston Stahiaid.
This machine is of interest to liv estock farmers be-
cause of possiihie labor sav ing dur-ing hiay harv esting~
and feedling.
A comparison of this stack sx stem1 withl a conx en-ll
tional bale sy steim was undertakcen duiring the suim-
iner of 1970) and winter of 1971 at the Black Belt
Suibstation. A second~ groxwth field of johinsongrass
was used for this experiment. The field produtced
an av erage of 1,9 pounds of ai-r a e acre.
In the stacked hay sxystem the hiaN was hiandled
from the windrow to storage with the H-esston Stak-
hand ;30. This niacline retlItires one operator anil
is propelledl by a tractor. Hay is picked tip from
the xwindroxw andl blown into the machine. The top)
of the machine scerves as a hay compressor, and flax
is compressed sexveral times (Iir-ill loading. \Vlien
loaded, the machine transp)orts hay to the storage
area andl unloads comp~ressedl stacks of haxy. lachi
stack is 
approimatelx 
8 feet xxide, 
14 feet 
itnig.
and 9 feet hiigh. The top of the stack is rotnd~edl to
hielp shed xx ater. Stacks are not cox ered.
lin the baled sx stem the hiax xxas baled xxithi a
N cxx Holland 277i baler. The' bales xx crc loaded,
transportedl and unloaded bx a Newv Holland 1047
Stackeruiser. This is a sell -propelled automatic bale
xxagon operated by one man anid can handle 119
bales p)er load. The uise of commercial niames is to
help identify the machines and1 does not imnply en-
A.oci atc Piof.o, De)partment of .\ ,icl tui al Enincc111 iI'
(horseument of these iiachines oxver those of other
n1an u factu rers.
The studlx xas a cooperative project ix olx ilug th-
departinimts of Agrici ltuiral Economics and Ruval
Sociologx , Agricultutral Engineering, Animial and
Dairy Sciences, and Black Belt Substation, Nexw
Hlolland Machine Divisioni of Sperry Rand Corpora-
tion, aid 1(1cIsston Corporation.
The stuidx ixvolxved fouir separate pliases. The
first xxas a time stn dx of the machines to obtain labor
needs and machine capacitx . The second mx nox ed
a feedig. trial utsing 26 steers each for sta~ks anwl
bales. The third xxas a chemical composition and
nutritixve x altie comnparisoml il the falo w1h xas a
co1st aiialx sis.
Size and type of stack made by machine and fed to cattle at the
Black Belt Substation is illustrated.
of lbaled1 Lax and 9.15 tons of stacked hax . Ilax from
1)0th handling sy stems was transported approxi-
inateix one mile to the storage anul feeding area.
The bale sy stem required 2.(0 minutes per ton for
transport wxhile the stack sxystem used :3.8 minuites.
Machine capacit\ and mani hours reqjuiredl for
the two handling sx stems are presented in Table 2.
These dlata includle total handling time fromindroxx'-m
to sturaire.
'VTiBLE 2. CAPCI COPAI'O orl 'xi.i iiN \ ALE Ai ND S'iAC(KiI)
11A x'.NDiA'\i S)STEI F
Baled hay that was loaded, transported, and stacked by machine
was used far comparison with the stack system.
MACHINERY CAPACITY COMPARISONS
The agricul~tural en gin~eerin)g phase of the researchi
imolx ed obtaining time study data and capacitx
x alies for comparisonl of the txxo sx stems of han)-
(lung Lax . The machine stmidx included the tine
ix olx cc to handle hax for each sxystem from the
raked windirow to the hay storage area. For the
bale sx stein this involxved balinig the Lax xxhich wxas
theni loaded, transported, anid stacked 'with) a New
Hlolland Stackcruiser. For the stack sy stem a Ilies-
ston Stakhand xvas used to load, transport, and uin-
load the Lax.
The machine capacitv stucix for b)0th sx stenis was
conducted in tlhe same fieldl with Laxy for each sx s-
tent coming from alternate windlroxws. Windroxws
for the lbale system were cut with) a Newx Holland
conditioner an~d those for tile stacked Lax were cut
wvith a Hesston conditioner. The same rake was
used to produce wxindrows for 1b0th sxystems.
Machine sp~eeds used during the study are pre-
senitec in) Table 1.
Timle records were ob~tained for handling 12.2 tonls
ITABLEF 1. HA MACH\I NE SEEDS
M ach ines Speed
Coinditioiiers
Hike
Bale
Sia k LandI
Loading
II I itnport
Stckci uIder
Loadfi)ug
III tiili'4)iii
6. ()
5.1
4.2
4.5
9-12
14- 16.5
,Speed iiiluitieet by fithd conditionsx, bale iinmbers andh wiiid-
ro\ 1 iogib. Toio variable to obtaini uneallngiil I'aige I' average1.
B3ale SN stem
Bile, S\ stein ('apaei tx
Tol , 1 1i'i i hii our
Stack St til
S iek Syt .eii Capaicity
Tls Pei houi
I oi per ui.m hou
itt qu ic Lm o man eaeh for bilet and Staiekcri uer.
ANIMAL FEEDING TRIAL COMPARISONS
The johljjSol glass x as mtowed and conditioned
and after partially dlrying in the swath was xvind-
rowed. Bo0th tile baled an~d tlhe stacked Lax were
storedl in the opcmi ini a 14.5-acre field of fescuie-
grass. The haled Lax', whlen stored, had a dlrx
miatter comnten~t o)1 79.25 per cent; it xxas stored in
stacks, coxvered with a tarpaulin, and fenced to pro-
tect it from lixvestock. There xxerc 10 stacks of Lax
hiarxvested with the Hesston mach~ine. Each stack
mneasuredl approximiately 8' wide bx 14' long bxy 9'
high. The stacked Lax con~tained 76.11 per cent dlry
matter at storage. Each of the 10 stacks of' hax xxas
separatel\, fenced and the enclosure was fitted xwith
a wire gap so each stack could be indixviduallxy of-
fereci for feeding to cattle.
The 14.5 acre field of fescue was fenced into txxo
eqjual areas. Each area xvas supplied xxater. A group
of 52 Angus anid Angus-Hereford steers Lax ing anl
ax erage xx eit of 476 pounds xxas (lixided into txxo
comparable group~s of 26 animals each. The test
period wats Noxvenmber 10, 1970, through MIarch 10,
1971. One group of animlals xxvas offered h~aled hax
free ch~oice dlailx' ini hax racks. The oth~er group of
steers was 01) stacked Ihax and h~ad access to a stack
of hay 24 h~ours each (laxy. When a stack was coin-
sumned, tlie txxo groups of steers xwere rotated lbe-
twxcem fescue fields so as to mlinlimliz/e pasture dif-
ferences. At this time, a new stack of Lax wats madle
axvailable. Time for conisumingi a stack of iax lbv a
group of 26 test animals xvaried from 8 to 19 (lax5.
The fesciue grazinig redluced hax' intake earlx in the
tes5t; fescue grain g xxas extremel' limlited in mid-
Nleasurcd unit
winter. In addition to hay, each treatment group of
steers received daily per head 2 pounds of ground
corn and 1.5 pounds of cottonseed meal (41%).
Weather damage to hay in stacks did not appear
to be excessive. By visual observation, it was esti-
mated that weather damage to the stacks was less
than 5 per cent. Stacked hay loss was large during
feeding. The cattle pulled hay from the stack and
trampled it in the mud. The loss was measured for
3 of the 10 stacks. After animals consumed a stack,
the trampled hay was picked up, weighed, and dry
matter determined. Based on dry matter at storage,
the waste amounted to 35.2 per cent from stack 8,
43.5 per cent from stack 7, and 46.5 per cent from
stack 8. Both rainfall and eating time appeared to
influence stacked hay loss. It required 10, 19, and
18 days to consume stacks 3, 7, and 8, respectively.
Rainfall amounts (inches) during the feeding pe-
riods for stacks 3, 7, 
and 8 were .93, 1.52, 
and 1.63,
respectively.
Since baled hay was fed in racks, there was a
minimal amount of loss resulting from trampling by
cattle during the feeding process. Weigh backs of
damaged hay indicated 5.65 per cent of baled hay
was wasted during feeding. In addition to the feed-
ing loss, there was an estimated loss from rot in
baled hay of 3.88 per cent. This rotted baled hay
was from hay lying on the ground during storage.
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND DIGESTIBILITY
By use of a coring tool (Pennsylvania State hay
sampler) samples of hay for chemical and nutritive
value study were obtained from the baled and the
stacked hay. Approximately 20 baled samples were
cored and these samples were composited for ana-
TABLE 3. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND IN VITRO DIGESTIBILITY
OF JOHNSONGRASS HAY THAT WAS EITHER BALED OR STACKED
Item
Van Soest Values:
Cell wall, pet.
Non-cell wall, pet............
Crude protein, pet. ......
Dry matter
digestibility:
In vitro, p et......................
Minerals:
Ash, pet.
P, pet.
Ca, pet.
Mg, pct.
Cu, p.p.m.
Fe, pp.m.
Mn, p.p.m.
Zn, p.p.m.
Stacked
outside
baled
hay
core
sample
82.85
17.15
10.18
Top
sample
(moldy
71.40
28.60
12.58
Stacked hay
Core Refused
sample hay
81.00
19.00
10.37
77.83
22.17
10.29
53.87 42.37 46.27 43.17
7.64 9.94
.50 .50
.83 1.31
.24 .24
1.08 1.08
7.69 10.94
115.42 186.02 1
S17.95 27.36
25.65 32.83
8.21
.37
1.40
.21
1.30
10.79
74.09
22.51
30.27
9.01
.37
1.10
.19
1.04
7.46
180.84
29.91
24.75
lysis. The 10 hay stacks were cored 20 times each.
Core samples from each stack were composited and
chemical and nutritive value studies were carried
out on each of the composited samples. In addition
to the core samples, selected samples of hay were
taken from the top of several stacks during the
feeding operation. These samples were analyzed
to determine the degree of deterioration in the hay
by weather. Also, at the end of the feeding of
several stacks of hay, the refused hay was collected
and analyzed. The digestibility of the samples of
hay was determined through use of the nylon bag
technique.
A summary of the chemical composition and dry
matter digestibility data is presented in Table 3.
Analyses for cell wall, non-cell wall, crude protein,
and minerals showed no important differences be-
tween core samples taken from baled and stacked
hay. In contrast, the dry matter digestibility was
appreciably higher for the baled hay. In addition
to the core samples, hay samples were taken from the
tops of the hay stacks. These samples were analyzed to
determine if the noticeable deterioration in the top
hay would be reflected in the chemical analyses.
Chemical analyses of these top samples did reveal
apparent increases in contents of non-cell wall, crude
protein, and minerals as compared with core sam-
ples from within the stacks. The increases in non-
cell wall and crude protein probably resulted from
action of the microflora in solubilizing the structural
carbohydrates. These apparent increases in nutrients
do not indicate an improved nutritive value for the
hay because the palatability was adversely affected
by the deterioration.
The data for refused hay, Table 3, represent hay
that was gleaned from the feeding area of stacks
after the cattle had finished eating the stack. Of
importance in these data is the fact that the ash
content was not appreciably elevatedover the ash
content of the core samples. This is interpreted to
mean that the material collected did not represent
a contamination by soil, but rather reflected a rea-
sonably accurate harvest of hay lost by trampling.
The yearling steers were on test consuming the
hay for a total of 113 days. The performance data
on these cattle during this time are summarized in
Table 4. The animals fed the baled hay made an
average daily gain of 1.42 pounds whereas those
fed the stacked hay gained only 1.19 pounds per
Based on weights of hay stored, the cattle fed
baled hay were fed during the test an average of
1,540 pounds and during this same period the ani-
mals on the stacked hay had available 2,089 pounds
per head. The daily hay dry matter available per
[8]
____~- __
'
Item
Animals, no. - -
Days on test, no.
Final live weight, lb.
Initial live weight, lb......
Gain, lb. -
Average daily gain, lb..
Feed fed per animal:
Hay, lb.
Corn, lb. - - - - -
CSM, lb
Daily feed offered per animal:
Hay, lb.
Corn, lb.
CSM, lb.
Feed per cwt. gain:
Hay, lb.
Corn, lb.
CSM, lb.
Feed cost per cwt. gain ...
Baled hay
26
113
636
476
160
1.42
1,540 (1,207)2
226
169.5
13.63 (10.68)
2.00
1.50
963 (754)
141
106
20.53
Stacked hay
26
113
612
477
135
1.19
2,089 (1,590)
169.5
18.49 (14.07)
2.00
1.50
1,547 (1,178)
167
126
26.01
1 Baled hay was fed daily in a rack; Hesston stacks (average
5,432 lb.) self-fed one at a time. Feed fed at per animal was based
on weight at harvest.
2 Values in ( ) are 
hay expressed as 
dry matter.
SFeed ingredient prices were: Corn $3.30 cwt.; CSM $4.20
cwt. Hay cost was calculated on the bases of an annual hay
harvest and feeding of 500 tons (Table 4); for the baled system
the harvesting and feeding cost was estimated at $15.21 per ton;
by the same procedure the estimated stacking cost per ton was
$11.13; in addition, for both systems the hay production cost per
ton was estimated to be $8.53.
animal was 10.68 pounds for baled hay and 14.07
pounds for stacked. 'The hay dry matter used per
hundredweight of gain was 756 pounds for baled
hay and 1,178 pounds for stacked hay. It should be
clearly noted that these feed efficiency data are
calculated on the basis of hay dry matter at time of
storage. Therefore, the hay intake data, Table 4,
clearly reveal that baled hay was more efficiently
utilized for animal gain than was the stacked hay.
Based on normal hay production cost and market
prices of corn and cottonseed meal, the feed cost
per hundredweight of animal gain for baled hay in
this test was $20.53; for the stacked hay, it was
$26.01.
These data reveal considerable advantage for
baled hay over stacked hay. It is important to con-
sider, however, that there were savings in labor for
the stacked hay (3.47 tons per man hour vs. 2.95
tons per man hour for harvesting and storing baled
hay). In addition, the stacked hay was self-fed to
the cattle whereas the baled hay had to be fed by
man. The baled hay feed input was partially offset
by the fact that the stack required special fencing.
There are other ways of feeding the stacked hay
and these might be proven to be more efficient than
the system used in this test. It is expected that re-
search on stacked hay will be continued and effort
will be put forth to find the most efficient way to
take advantage of the convenience of stacked hay
without suffering the rather serious feeding losses
revealed in the current test.
TABLE 4. BALED VS. STACKED JOHNSONGRASS HAY
FOR WINTERING YEARLING CATTLE
Machine or item of cost
New Holland 1469
Haybine ..
Massey Ferguson rake
New Holland 277 baler --
New Holland 1047
Stackcruiser - -
Tarpaulins and tiedowns2_
Hay racks 
for feeding
Fencing-
Feeding labor
Pickup truck
6
Total cost/ton harvested
Total cost/ton actually
utilized
Total cost/cwt. gain
Hesston 310 Windrower
Massey Ferguson rake ......
Hesston Stakhand 30 ....
Fencing-
Total cost/ton harvested ...
Total cost/ton actually----
utilized
1
o-
Total cost/cwt. gain
1
.........
Total cost per ton, when average tons
harvested per year are:
250 500
Baled Hay
$ 4.12
1.94
3.86
7.15
.73
.53
.04
2.34
.73
$21.44
$ 2.56
1.45
2.68
4.15
.73
.53
.04
2.84
.73
$15.21
23.70 16.81
10.32 7.32
Stacked Hay
$ 4.04 $ 2.56
S1.94 1.45
7.92 4.97
2.15 2.15
--$16.05 $11.13
1,000 2,000 3,000
$ 1.79 $ 1.40 $ 1.27
1.21 1.09 1.05
2.08 1.79 1.69
2.64 1.89
.73 .73
.53 .53
.04 .04
2.34 2.34
.73 .73
$12.09 $10.54
1.64
.73
.53
.04
2.34
.73
$10.02
13.36 11.65 11.08
5.82 5.08 4.82
$ 1.83
1.21
3.49
2.15
$ 8.6.8
$ 1.46
1.09
2.75
2.15
$ 7.45
$ 1.34
2.50
2.15
$ 7.04
27.54 19.10 14.90 12.79 12.08
12.41 8.61 6.71 5.76 5.46
1 Based on study conducted at the Black Belt Substation, Marion
Junction, Alabama, August, 1970 and winter 1970-71. Costs
total costs (fixed and variable).
2 Based on cost of tarpaulins of $91.14 and tiedowns of $9.00,
actual cost at Black Belt Substation, assuming 3 years useful
life + 10%/year extra for patching and maintenance for 50
tons of hay/year.
oBased on cost of $11.50, labor and materials, assuming 2 years
of useful life, for 14 steers, @ 1,540 lb. hay/steer/year.
' Based on cost of wire, posts, and labor of $26.35, 15-year
life for wire and posts, and 45 tons of hay.
Based on 2 man hours/day for feeding @ $1.60/hour, 113 day
feeding period/year for 200 steers @ 1,540 lb. hay/steer/year.
STruck to go to and from feeding area, 5 miles/day @ $.20/
mile, 113 days for 200 steers @ 1,540 lb. hay/steer/year.
SBased on an average loss of 9.53% which included a feeding
loss of 5.65% observed and loss from rotting of 3.88% observed.
SBased on daily gain of steers of 1.42 lb./day observed, 9.63
lb. hay offered/lb. gain or .4815 tons offered/cwt. gain observed.
'Estimated by Superintendent, Black Belt Substation based
on costs of wire, posts, and labor.
?Based on -average feeding loss of 41.73 % estimated from
3 stacks.
1Based ondaily gain of steers 
of 1.19 lb./day observed, 15.47
lb. hay offered/lb. gain or .7735 ton offered/cwt. gain observed.
[41
ECONOMIC COMPARISONS
In order to make an economic comparison of the
bale versus the stack system, data were assembled
from the results of the time and motion study by
the Agricultural Engineering Department conducted
in August, 1970 at the Black Belt Substation. Ma-
chinery and facilities used in each system are indi-
cated in Table 5. Also, data from experiments by
the Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences and
personnel of the Black Belt Substation during the
winter of 1970-1971, and from manufacturers and
other secondary sources were used in the economic
analysis.
TABLE 5. ESTIMATED COSTS PER TON BY AMOUNTS HARVESTED
AND FED PER YEAR FOR Two SYSTEMS OF HAY
HARVESTING, AUGUST 19701
_
Budgets were prepared for each 
of the major har-
vesting systems. Costs were 
computed for condi-
tions and assumptions applying 
at the Black Belt
Substation. In Table 5, total costs 
per ton harvested
and fed are computed for various assumed 
average
amounts of hay harvested per year, 
based on the
budgets for the Black Belt Substation, 
and modified
for various assumed average tons harvested 
per year.
The first totals labeled "Total Cost/Ton Harvested"
do not consider whether any hay was lost in feeding
or by spoilage. From these basic figures, the total
cost per ton actually utilized by the cattle, when
amount lost by trampling and spoilage is subtracted
from the amount actually harvested was computed.
Finally, results of the feeding trials during 
the win-
ter of 1970-71 are used to compute the total cost
TABLE 6. ESTIMATED OWNERSHIP (FIXED) AND OPERATING
(VARIABLE) COSTS PER TON HARVESTED AND FED BY
VARYING AMOUNTS HARVESTED AND FED PER YEAR
Total cost per ton, when average tons
Machine or item of cost harvested 
per year are:
250 500 1,000 2,000 3,000
Baled Hay
Ownership (fixed) costs $12.46 $ 6.23 $ 3.11 $ 1.56 $ 1.04
Operating (variable) costs ... 8.98 8.98 8.98 8.98 8.98
Total costs 21.44 15.21 12.09 10.54 10.02
Stacked Hay
Ownership (fixed) costs---- $ 9.83 $ 4.91 $ 2.46 $ 1.23 $ .82
Operating (variable) costs-- 6.22 6.22 6.22 6.22 6.22
Total costs 16.05 11.13 8.68 7.45 7.04
of hay offered per hundredweight of gain put on
the animals during the feeding period.
In order to determine the relative amount of total
cost which is fixed per year (associated with owner-
27.00 -
26.00 -
25.00 -
24.00-
23.00 - \ \
22.00 \ \
21.00- \
20.00 \
19.00 
-
1 8.00-
-0 17.00 -
16.00
.S 1500- 
Stacked Hoy (per ton actually utilized)
._ 14.00 -. Baled 
Hay (per ton actually utilized)
0 13.00
v 12.00 -
0 11.00 .
.10.00 
\%%
9.00 -
Baled Hay (per ton harvested)
8.00- --
Stacked Hay (per ton harvested)
7.00
a. 6.00- --
5.00 o - - - - --. .. ....
o 4.00
3.00 
Stacked Hay (per cwt. 
gain )
2.00 
Baled Hay ( per cwt. 
gain)
1.00
I I i I I I I i I I I I I I I
200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000 2,200 2,400 2,600 2,800 3,000
Average Tons Harvested Per Year
FIG. 1. Estimated total harvesting and feed costs-per ton harvested, per ton actually utilized, and per hundredweight gain-by aver-
age amounts harvested and fed per year, for two systems of hay handling.
ship of the equipment, and which will occur regard-
less of whether hay is produced and how much),
and the amount which is variable per year (must be
paid for as production occurs), Table 6 was pre-
pared. These figures were computed from costs per
ton harvested, and did not take into account feeding
losses and gain of animals when fed.
In Figure 1, total costs per ton harvested for the
two systems (solid lines) are compared with total
costs per ton actually utilized by the animals during
the feeding trials (dashed lines), and with total
costs per' hundredweight of gain (dotted lines), for
varying assumed average amounts harvested per
year up, to 3,000 tons annually.
Finally, Table 7 shows 
investment required 
for
the basic hay harvesting equipment for the two
systems. Tractors are not included, since it was
assumed the farmer would already have adequate
power on hand and it would not be an additional
investment for adoption for either of these systems.
In this table, both initial investment and average
investment are shown. Average investment is initial
investment + estimated salvage value at end of
useful life divided by 2.
TABLE 7. ESTIMATED INVESTMENT REQUIRED FORBASIC HAY
HARVESTING EQUIPMENT, Two SYSTEMS OF HAY
HARVESTING, EXCLUDING TRACTOR POWER,
PICKUP TRUCK, FENCING, AND
OTHER SUPPLIES
Investment
Item Initial Average
Bale System
New Holland 1469 Haybine ................ $ 5,572.30 $ 3,064.76
M assey Ferguson rake -------------------------- 604.00 332.20
New Holland 277 baler 3,293.10 1,811.20
New Holland 1047 StackCruiser ...........- 12,078.00 6,642.90
Total $21,547.40 $11,851.06
Stack System
Hesston 310, self-propelled
Windrower $ 5,572.30 $ 3,064.76
Massey Ferguson rake 604.00 332.20
Hesston Model 30 Stackhand .............. 7,750.00 4,262.50
Total $13,639.00 $ 7,501.45
The economic analysis indicated the 
following:
1. Costs per ton harvested 
were lower for the
stacked hay system than for the bale 
system for
any volume of use. This was mainly the 
result of
the higher fixed cost per ton for the bale system,
from a higher machinery investment 
to spread over
the average tons of hay ha-vested per year.
2. Costs per ton actually utilized (or actually con-
sumed and not lost by trampling or spoilage), how-
ever, was lower for the baled hay system, 
because
of a high loss of hay from trampling for the 
stack
system.
3. Costs per cwt. gain also were lower for the bale
system, as with per ton actually utilized, for the
same reasons. This was because the bale system
required only 963 pounds of hay offered per cwt.
gain compared with 1,547 pounds of hay offered
per cwt. gain for the stack system.
The stack system was cheaper per ton harvested,
but the bale system was cheaper per ton actually
utilized and per cwt. of gain when fed, because 
of
the high loss from trampling for the stack system.
If losses under the stack system could be reduced
from an average of 42 per cent to approximately 31
per cent compared with 
the estimated 10 per cent
average loss for trampling and rotting for the bale
system, the two systems would be approximately
equal from an economic standpoint. Also, from the
standpoint of costs/hundredweight gain, the stack
system required 15.47 pounds hay offered/pound
gain compared with 9.63 for the bale system. This
would have to be reduced from 15.47 pounds to ap-
proximately 12.54 pounds for the stack system to be
equal in cost per pound to the bale system.
From the standpoint of timeliness, the two systems
are practically equal. In the bale system, 3.45 tons
were handled per clock hour while in the stack
system 3.47 tons/clock hour were handled. There-
fore, timeliness is not a significant factor in differ-
entiating the two systems from an economic stand-
point.
[ 6 ]