AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT R. Dennis Rouse, Director UNIVERSITY STATION / AUBURN Auburn, Alabama Hay in Round and Conventional Bale Systems ~- ; - i~B i~ ; 6-s' I.-~t Circular 216 June, 1975 CONTENTS Page CONDITIONS OF THE TEST-------------- -3 MACHINERY COMPARISON-------------- -4 CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND DIGESTIBILITY-6 ANIMAL FEEDING TRIALS ------ -- - 8 ECONOMIC COMPARISONS -------- - -10 C ON CL U SION S -----------------------------------------13 FIRST PRINTING 5M, JUNE SECOND PRINTING 4M, APRIL 1975 1976 Auburn University is an equal opportunity employer HAY in ROUND and CONVENTIONAL BALE SYSTEMS 1 L. A. SMITH, W. B. ANTHONY, E. S. RENOLL, and J. L. STALLINGS i AY CONTINUES to be of major importance in most cattle operations in Alabama and many other southeastern states. Increasing labor costs and difficulty in obtaining labor have kindled interest in the mechanization of baling, handling, storing, and feeding of hay. The Black Belt Substation has compared several systems of handling and feeding hay. One of these was a comparison of stack and bale systems. Results from this study are available in Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 455 published in 1974. In a later study tests were carried out with large round and conventional bale handling and feeding systems. Results from this study are presented in this publication. CONDITIONS OF THE TEST This was a cooperative experiment among units of the Agricultural Experiment Station System of Auburn University including Departments of Agricultural Engineering, Animal and Dairy Sciences, Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, and the Black Belt Substation. Hay machines used in the study were manufactured by New Holland Division of Sperry Rand Corporation and Vermeer Manufacturing Company. The study involved four separate phases; namely, a time study of the machines, a feeding trial, a chemical composition and nutritive value comparison, and a cost analysis. Johnsongrass was cut with a self-propelled hay conditioner and raked into windrows after field curing. Hay yields in the test field Black Belt Substation; Professor, Department of Animal and 1Superintendent, Dairy Sciences; Professor, Department of Agricultural Engineering; and Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, respectively. d\ ('1ge rii X5'('( 1vcr ldt ~~')h:3iI i I tIds 1)1 ajird, it per acr e. \lternalt' i\ lamrot \ itl a ony Ii ix('ut ioni a ~ler and ithei XX ititi 1)11( I aler. loiii 11(1leis xx ('re trat l't l fro1nt the(filt1 to thet stora"(c area timie risin~g ia riot-c'tid tiractor load('r aialdia pickup truck. I onei(at ia Iiouit leis wX'tre storedi )ltil(' andl wer the(stora~(' ictioultal bleis wer h'('lauled too -,, n' cO\(eti. ot The' ('1)1 wii ithl ( ar1('a anit c'oXee at tarp~aulinl. thre rou ps of steers. ()iie 'll A feeding trial wxas coIdloted groups were fed round s Igroul \) -X fcdt cotox etotiojoal balt's and( txxo0 Thie stulti lax\ wXas cutolittetn hc0 thixv soil ini tihe "lPrairii' soil MACHINERY COMPARISON I 1l1 24 in till c It x ientionl i'~ 'titl dRolland i \e XX it, ledi XX it a i'x Rllandi~ Ie~ TherdlI5 baler~ MLidl hlled iith Odkcrtise., MI Stacken uiser is aii au tomiatic' sellf-proielledI bale xx ai II that loads, 'I'( haX, was 36")'. hauls, andt uiloadis 119 hales (14" -IS"' c-ox stacked outside ou ia tallisgrarss sod1 atndt tredl with a tarpaulin. fi('id toi storag' aria. IIaotliug distanice XXas 1.1 sIi llts IfrolI FIG. 1. The automatic bale wagon is one efficient system for handling conventional bales by reducing hand labor and increasing capacity. [4] TABLE 1. BALE DIMENSION, WEIGHT, AND DENSITY Item Dimensions, in. Average weight, lb......... . . Conventional 14 X 18 X 36.5 46.5 Round 72.5 X 60 930.7 Density, lb./cu. ft......................- 8.6 6.5 The large round bales were baled with a Model 605 Vermeer baler. This machine was operated from the PTO of a John Deere 4020 tractor (approximately 90 hp). This baler produces a cylindrical shaped bale approximately 6 feet in diameter and 5 feet wide. Twine is wrapped around the bale in a spiral pattern before the bale is discharged from the rear of the machine. Average weight of the johnsongrass hay bales was 930.7 pounds with the heaviest bale weighing 1,150 pounds, Table 1. The round bales were loaded on a pickup truck with a tractormounted front end loader and hauled 1.4 miles to a central storage area. The round bales were stored about 1 foot apart on dallisgrass sod. They were not covered. Machine capacity and man hours required for the two baling and handling systems are shown in Table 2. These data include total handling time from harvest to storage. For the conventional bale system the baling rate was 5.2 tons per hour. Loading and hauling capacity was 4.9 tons per hour. Overall capacity for the conventional baling system was 4.5 tons per hour. A word of explanation about how the values were determined might be helpful. Since loading and hauling cannot be completed until some time after baling is finished, the total accumulated clock time for baling, loading, and hauling is equal to the baling time plus subTABLE 2. CAPACITY COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL ROUND BALE HANDLING SYSTEMS AND LARGE Item Round Conventional Tons/hr. Tons/man hr. Tons/hr. Tons/man hr. .. 5.9 2.4 2.2 --------------- 5.2 Baling capacity --4.9Loading, hauling NH 10471-----1 Loading, hauling, pickup truck .... 2 4.5 -Baling, loading, hauling 1 Hauling distance is 1.4 miles. 2 2.5 1.7 Required two men part of the time. [5] sequent loading and hauling time. For this reason the capacity of the total system is less than for either baling or loading and hauling. In this conventional-bale haying system, one man operated the baler and one the loader. During part of the operation only one man worked and during the remainder the two men worked simultaneously. This system had a capacity of 2.5 tons per man hour. The round baler baling rate was 5.9 tons per hour and the loading and hauling rate was 2.4 tons per hour. Production by the total round bale system was 2.2 tons per hour and 1.7 tons per man hour. The overall system baling rate was less than for baling or for loading and baling for the same reason as in the conventional-bale system. Two men were also used part of the time in this system. Hay production for the total round bale system of 2.2 tons per hour in this study was rather low. The limiting factor being the pickup truck. This was not a very efficient way to transport round bales to storage, but was one fairly common method in use at the time. Capacity of the round bale system can be materially increased by using a larger truck or trailer where multiple bales could be hauled in one trip. In some instances it would be possible to store hay adjacent to the area being harvested, and bales could be hauled directly to the storage area with the tractor and front end loader. For both of the haying systems under study, actual baling of hay and the loading and hauling were conducted simultaneously as much as possible. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND DIGESTIBILITY Hay samples were taken at time of baling and at time of feeding for chemical and nutritive value determination. Samples at feeding were obtained from conventional and round bales with a Pennsylvania State Hay Sampler. Each Vermeer bale was sampled at feeding and random samples were taken from the conventional bales. The hay was baled in early August, 1972, and was fed from November 8, 1972, to January 24, 1973. The digestibility of the samples was determined through the use of the nylon bag technique. There were no major differences between conventional bales and round bales in crude protein, ash, or dry matter digestibility at time of baling, Table 3. By feeding time the percentages of [61 FIG. 2. Large round bales con be loadd i a a truck or trailr tor transport using a tractor equipped with a front-end loader or a rear-mounted loader. Capacity for the round baler system is greatly influenced by the bale transport system. Bouniid 1lKds I' ull 113 XsII I) rs tnni I I 11(97 I 9.5:3 , XIthalm; Pct . At fIeiig Pctl. (;73 inatt be X (TX little weathe~r (lnIagre to) the hiaX . \1l()st (hanlage apearedI too(recur wXherle 1011111 hleser te rertinlg Oil the gi~nld tir storagre. 111 ths thre itemt s h~ad IIVe nIII. IIaIr [7] FIG. 3. Hay quality can be maintained in round boles stored outside without cover. They should be stored at least a foot apart so each bale can shed water. ANIMAL FEEDING TRIALS J(lciti2f trials uiilwi. thi( liaxy Iro1)1 thl( txx ' 5t('iis ) (it'c condtcfr it IOa9-tiax p)(riod(1 liring tht xxiitt'r of 192-3. A g~roiip of 51 :fiiis-I Jercli d steers Liax ini an axverage wxeigrht of 5'37 p)ioi10(s xx dlix as (let inlto three lits of IT aimials each. V'ach lot \x p~laced in at -acre pastnre of fescue -lallis 4rass. Thcrc wxas ias of ;.,xil from ths patu ui the( lots xxer(' t t miiiiiiii rotatedl liiio)1i the hijee pastures' in ordler to iii ' e autx pastie( difl'rciuces.: Alee (iII pani(l ori wood( framin' xxias uisedt mc jin of the fe('diuig trials to hetlp conitrol hiux xwaste xwhen fcediui free (F: choice(. lTe three fcciet(ii trial treati neot tmron ps xx I. ( .i ltiollal 1hies lecd dajix ont the 50od wxithiou t panels wxithi luale ties initact. 2. I LiF(r c01111(1 hales fcd oil tli sodi xitlh no pane'ls. *). arge round1( hales fcd on the sodl xxithi panels. L Iniall eases Lax xxas fed free echoice and xxoci('d jest prior to fci i ee( aI round1( hales xx crc fcdl 01Wc halo ait tilii{. Timiet Iii ir('lint -111 athale xariecl from 2 to 5 (laxs wxithi the ax eragec of, coisiiiitir timei (of conisuipftilii lwiiig 2.5 dlix s per hale. lIn "I'(atnlielt :3, Wxo hiali's xx(rc plaiced ini panels cept for at as Lxx inistanlc(s xvd11(1 olilx onei xx a1(l1('d to facilitat' st('er ro~taitionI. ax as II xx fed fo~r about 2 Mx('(ks on the sank11 ilirea hefore panecls vtxri'( to xxt'ri Iliox ('( a 1i('x locationi. "Tiliie of colisi nin g it bl itli fronut :3to 8 daxs \vx the ax eraige timei( of counsoiniiItion l)i('ii 4.() [81 TABLE 4. DAILY FEED AVAILABLE FOR THREE HAY FEEDING SYSTEMS Daily feed per animal Conventional Round bales Round bales with panels on sod bales on sod Lb. Lb. Lb. 13.80 21.47 Hay (as fed) -- _--------------- 10.87 12.29 19.13 9.11 Hay (di basis)* ---------------------2.00 2.00 - 2.00 Corn ----------------------1.50 1.50 1.50 CSM, 41 %-----------------0 Dry matter basis. Item days per bale. The tests were conducted on heavy clay soil, and, in times of high rainfall, muddy conditions existed where steers congregated. In addition to hay, each treatment group of steers received 2 pounds of ground shelled corn and 1.5 pounds of cottonseed meal (41 percent) per head daily. Daily feed intake is presented in Table 4. Steers receiving round baled hay in panels made better gains than the other two groups, Table 5. Those receiving round bales on the sod without protection were intennediate in gain and those on conventional bales gained least. TABLE 5. STEER PERFORMANCE FOR THREE HAY FEEDING SYSTMS Conventional bales on sod ---- 17 Anim als, No.---------------------79 Days on test, No.-535 Initial average wt., lb.-------------615 Final average wt., lb.-----------G ain, Round bales on sod 17 Round bales with panels 17 Av. _------ _ lb. daily gain, lb.-------- ----------------------80 79 538 635 97 1.23 79 538 646 108 1.37 -1.01 Data in Table 6 clearly indicate that the use of panels with round bales under conditions of this test improved efficiency of hay utilization. Hay needed per 100 pounds gain was reduced 42 percent by using panels. Utilization of conventional bales on sod and round bales in panels was essentially the same. TABLE 6. FEED EFFICIENCY FOR THIREE HAY FEEDING SYSTEMS Item Feed required for pound of gain Conventional Round bales Round bales with panels on sod bales on sod Lb. Lb. Lb. 10.74 17.48 10.09 Hay (as --------Hay (din basis) ---Corn ------------------- ---- fed)----------------------- CSM, 41% ---------------- 9.00 1.97 1.48 15.58 1.63 1.22 8.99 1.46 1.10 [9] ECONOMIC COMPARISONS Results from time and motion studies made by the Agricultural Engineering Department determined physical performance. Cost information on equipment was obtained from manufacturers and machinery dealers. Feeding trials and analysis were done by the Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences and the Black Belt Substation. Budgets were then prepared by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology for the following three harvest and feeding systems. System I - New Holland 277 baler producing conventional bales; New Holland 1047 Stackcruiser for hauling conventional bales to storage; pickup truck used for feeding once a day; no panels. System II - Vermeer 605 baler producing large-round bales; front-end loader and pickup truck for hauling round bales to storage; front-end loader and pickup truck for feeding free choice; no panels. System III - Same as System II but using panels around bales to help control hay waste. In Table 7, total costs per ton harvested and fed are computed for assumed average amounts of hay harvested per year ranging from 250 tons to 2,000 tons. These costs are based on budgets for the Black Belt Substation which harvests approximately 500 tons of hay per year and modified for various assumed tons per year. The total hay cost includes all costs of machinery, labor, and other costs in producing, harvesting, storing, and feeding the hay. It does not consider losses from feeding or by spoilage. These data show that total hay costs per ton harvested and fed were cheaper for System II, the large-round bale system without panels, than for the other two systems. The conventional bale system had the highest costs per ton in this test. However, cost data from Table 7 do not include hay utilization - only the costs involved in getting hay to the animal. The total feed costs per hundredweight gain are presented in Table 8. These data include hay costs and other feed costs such as corn and cottonseed meal and do consider losses from feeding and by spoilage. The data in Table 8 indicate a distinct advantage in total costs per hundredweight gain for System III, the large-round bale system with panels. System I, the conventional bale system, was second in cost and System II, the round bale system without [10] panels, had the highest cost. The relative costs per hundredweight of gain occur in the same order as efficiency of feeding. Excessive hay wastage in System II resulted in poorer utilization and the highest cost per hundredweight gain in spite of the fact that it was the lowest cost system in terms of only costs of harvesting and feeding. TABLE 7. ESTIMATED HARVESTING AND FEEDING COSTS PEE TON HARVESTED FOR THREE SYSTEMS OF HANDLING HAY Item Cost per unit when average tons harvested/yr. are 250 Dol. 500 Dol. 1,000 Dol. 2,000 Dol. System I. NH 277 baler; NH 1047 Stackcruiser to Storage; Pickup for Feeding on Sod em $ 4.12 NH 1469 Haybine____ $ 1.79 $ 2.56 $ 1.40 Massey Ferguson rake_ 1.09 1.94 1.21 1.45 NH 277 Baler________ 2.68 3.86 2.08 1.79 NH 1047 Stackeruiser_ 4.15 2.64 1.89 7.15 Fencing --.04 -----------.04 .04 .04 Tarps and .73 .73 .73 .73 Pickup truck-------------- ----.73 .73 .73 .73 Hauling and feeding 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 Total harvesting and feeding costs-$11.56 $10.01 $20.91 $14.68 Growing costs--9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 Total hay costs $20.56 $19.01 $29.91 $23.68 tie-downs------------- labor-------_ System II. 605 Vermeer Baler; Front-end Loader; Pickup for Feeding; No Panels MH 1469 Haybine_____________________ $ 4.12 $ 2.56 $ 1.79 $ 1.40 Massey Ferguson rake______________________ 1.94 1.45 1.21 1.09 Vermr 605 Baler___________________________ 2.84 .18 2.16 1.83 Tractor w/front-end loader_______1.77 1.77 1.77 1.77 Pickup truck_______________________ __ Hauling and feeding labor_______________ Crowing costs__________________ Total hay costs la or -_ .58 $14.56 .58 $11.17 .58 .58 Total harvesting and feeding costs__ 9.00 T v. 9.00 T -' 1.97 $ 9.48 9.00 $18.48 1.97 $ 8.64 9.00 $17.64 Panels -----------------$20.17 $23.56 __ __ -------__-ng System III. 605 Vermeer Baler; Front-end Loader; Pickup MH 1469 Haybine------------- $ 4.12 $ 2.56 Massey Ferguson rake-----------1.94 1.45 Vermeer 605 Baler---------------4.18 2.84 Tractor w/front-end Pickup for Feeding; $ 1.79 1.21 2.16 $ 1.50 1.09 1.83 loader ------- 2.40 .70 2.40 .70 truck ------------------- Panels------------------------Hauling and feeding labor-------- .42 2.77 .42 2.77 Total harvesting and feeding costs_ $16.53 Crowing costs-----------------9.00 Total hay costs ----------------- $13.14 9.00 $22.14 $25.53 A 1~1 2.40 .70 .42 2.77 $11.45 9.00 $20.45 2.40 .70 .42 2.77 $10.61 9.00 $19.61 C11 ] %a L~- "k~ ~ /t1, t !:!z ;8a e flueid r, Pt8. 4 FIG. 4. Feeding round bales free choice requires some type of feeding frame or panel to prevent excess hay waste. These metal panels (top) are hinged in the middle and encircle the bale. Wooden frames (bottom) are pinned at the corners and one side is removed and the bale rolled in. L 12] TABLE 8. TOTAL FEED COST PER HUNDREDWEIGHT THREE SYSTEMS OF HANDLING HAY GAIN FOR Cost per unit when average tons Item 250 Dol. harvested/yr. are 500 1,000 Dol. Dol. 2,000 Dol. System I. NH 277 Baler; NH 1047 Stackcruiser; Pickup for Feeding on Sod Hay cost per cwt. gain_ $16.14 $12.78 $11.09 $10.26 Other feed cost per cwt. gain-------Total cost per cwt. gain_____ 14.09 $30.23 14.09 $26.87 14.09 $25.18 14.09 $24.35 System II. 605 Vermeer Baler; Front-end Loader; Pickup for Feeding; No Panels Hay cost per cwt. gain--$20.70 $17.72 $16.24 $15.50 Other feed cost per cwt. gain----------Total cost per cwt. gain__ 11.56 $32.26 11.56 $29.28 11.56 $27.80 11.56 $27.06 System III. Vermeer 605 Baler; Front-end Loader; Pickup for Feeding; Panels Hay cost per cwt. gain_____ $12.93 $11.21 $10.36 $ 9.93 Other feed cost per cwt. gain -........ 10.37 10.37 10.37 10.37 $23.30 $21.58 $20.73 $20.30 Total cost per cwt. gain CONCLUSIONS Results from this test suggest the following conclusions: 1. Baling capacity with the large round baler was slightly higher than the capacity of the conventional rectangular baler, 5.9 tons per hour compared to 5.2 tons. 2. Conventional bales had higher density than large round bales, 8.6 pounds per cubic foot compared to 6.5 pounds per cubic foot. 3. There were no important differences in crude protein and dry matter digestibility of conventional and round bales at storage nor at time of feeding. 4. Hay dry matter per pound of gain was about the same with conventional bales on sod and round bales fed in panels, 9.00 pounds compared to 8.99 pounds. However, large round bales fed on sod without panels required 15.58 pounds dry matter per pound of gain. The amount of hay dry matter required per pound of gain was reduced by 42 percent by using panels with round bales. 5. The total cost of producing, harvesting, storing, and feeding hay favored the large round bale system. 6. The cost per pound of gain favored the large round bale system with panels. [ 13 Alabama's Agricultural Experiment Station System AUBURN UNIVERSITY With an agricultural research unit in every major soil area, Auburn University serves the 0 needs of field crop, livestock, forestry, and horticultural producers in each region in Alabama. Every citizen of the State has a stake in this research program, _ 6 z 3 o 4 since any advantage from vew and more economical ways of prodlcing and handling farm products directly benefits the consuming public. 15 17 C Research Unit Identification E _iion, Auburn. Main Av 2. 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 1. Tennessee Valley Substation, Belle Mina. Sand Mountain Substation, Crcssville. North Alabama Horticulture Substation, Cullmarn Upper Coastal Plain Substation, Winfield. Forestry Unit, Fayette County. Thorsby Foundation Seed Stocks Farm, Thorsby Chilton Area Horticulture Substation, Clanton. Forestry Unit, Coosa County. Piedmont Substation, Camp Hill. Plant Breeding Unit, Tallassee. Forestry Unit, Autauga County. Prattville Experiment Field, Prattville. Black Belt Substation, Marion Junction. Tuskegee Experiment Field, Tuskegee. Lower Coastal Plain Substation, Camden. Forestry Unit, Barbour County. Monroeville Experiment Field, Monroeville. Wiregrass Substation, Headland. Brewton Experiment Field, Brewton. Ornamental Horticulture Field Station, Spring Hill. Gulf Coast Substation, Fairhope.