a-: ; cb~ ~ --=G-~" ~ - -^

g

BULLETIN 455 JUNE 1974

Stack and Bale Systeims for Hav Handling and Feeding
AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AUBURN UNIVERSITY R. Dennis Rouse, Director Auburn, Alobcmo

CONTENTS
Page
PROCEDURE

4 4 5 7 7
1970-71

Hay Production Description of Machinery Feeding Trials Economic Analysis

CONDITIONS AND RESULTS,

7

Machinery Capacity Comparisons Animal Feeding Trial Comparisons Chemical Composition and Digestibility Economic Comparisons
CONDITIONS AND RESULTS,

10 14 15

1971-72

16

Machine Use and Time Requirements Animal Feeding Trial Comparisons Economic Comparisons ..............................
SUMMARY
AND

16 17 24
27
. . . . . . .

CONCLUSIONS .......................... . . . .

APPENDIX--------.

29

FIRST PRINTING

5M,

JUNE 1974

Auburn University is an equal opportunity employer.

Stack and Bale Systems for Hay Handling and Feeding
E. S. RENOLL, W. B. ANTHONY, L. A. SMITH, and J. L. STALLINGS*

IS STILL THE MAJOR form of stored roughage used for certain classes of cattle, horses, and sheep. Over many generations of use, hay has been handled in many ways and with various amounts of machinery and labor. High labor requirement has been a major problem through the years, and this has become , more critical in recent years."23 Scarcity of labor coupled with problems associated with hot weather conditions at hay harvest have led to the design of machines to reduce labor needs. The research reported in this publication was conducted to evaluate and compare baled hay systems and stacked hay systems for handling and feeding johnsongrass hay. The project was conducted at the Black Belt Substation as a cooperative effort of the Substation and the departments of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Agricultural Engineering, and Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology. Equipment furnished by the New Holland Machine Division of Sperry Rand Corporation and the Hesston Corporation represented partial support of the Auburn University Agricultural Experiment Station project that was carried out on heavy clay soil. A preliminary report giving first year's results was published in November 1971. 4

HAY

'

*Professor, Department of Agricultural Engineering; Professor, Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences; Superintendent, Black Belt Substation; and Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, respectively. The authors express appreciation to New Holland Machine Division of Sperry Rand Corporation and to Hesston Corporation for their interest and assistance during the hay experiments reported. 'CocxmEL, CLEM. 1971. Can Hay Make A Comeback in Tennessee? Tennessee Farmer. Feb. 2 FLOYD, CHARLES S. 1971. Making Hay in the U.S.A. Implement and Tractor.

Vol. 86, No. 18. 'YosT, LYLE. E. Producer. May.

1969.

Mechanize

Your Haying Jobs.
L. A. SMITH,

National Live Stock
1971.

RENOLL, E. S., W.

B. ANTHONY,

AND J. L. STALLINGS.

Comparison of Baled and Stacked Systems for Handling and Feeding Hay. burn Univ. (Ala.) Agr. Exp. Sta. Prog. Rept. No. 97.

Au-

4

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT

STATION

PROCEDURE

The e\1perimen(1 t cox ered at 2-y ear period.

Procedur-e for the

seacon ea as based partiaillx on results from the first x ear. Ecyear the experimental plan included four phases: (1) a time stu dy of machines to ob tain lab~or needs and mnachin e capacitx, (2) aun animal feedin g trial, (:3) a chemical compo)sitioni and in tritixe x alu e com pari son of the hax , and (4) a cost anjaxsis. Hay Production he johnsonlgrass JmN fields vvere located on1 Sumter and( I lonston) soils, b)oth of wxhich are neutral to alkaline wxithout add(ition of limestone. MIineral fertilizer ,v'as appliedl in late fall on the b~asis of soil tests. Amounts of fertilizer ulsed (luring test x'ears rangedI from 400 to .500 pounds of 0-16-8 per acre aummmalix . Sixty pounds~l of in itrogen in the form of ammniu Im nitrate w~as b~roadcast for each cutting of hay . The bax fieldls wxere ox erseeded xxith xxi]ld xxinter peas (calex peas) for wxinter and spring grazing 1)x cattle prior to the harv est of johnson grass la,. Mloisture conditions wxere not faxvorable for hax production during the 1970)test. The hay usedl for the experiment wxas second cut. It was harv ested in the earl, b~loomi stage and x ielded 1,(694 pouind(s p~er acre. Conmdition s wxere dlifferen t dimring the 1971 test x ear. xxith mnoistire abunmdant throughout the x ear. The result wxas rapid forage groxwth that made it difficult to cut hay at proper matumritx . Test

FIG. 1.
tion.

Johnsongrass for the hay studies was cut and conditioned in one operaRaking was a separate operation.

STACK

AND BALE SYSTEMS

FOR

HAY

hay fXIor the lbrood cow%tcd~il) trial was barx estecl at two (iii t 0 rcu times. Part of, it wxas scond~ cuittin g and part third cu ttinig. The forame wxas harxv ested be)tweecn the bloom and pre-head stage and

iejlded( 3,10.5 poundi(s (of hax per acre. Test Ihax for the steer feed1inog trial was third growxth aiid was harp estedl in the bloom sta(re. It yielded 2 ,689 poids~~ per acre.
Description of Machinery' uix ih)al mi oxwer-co1nditioner and a rake were usced to A (.01 ollandl 277 prepare Lax for 1otl) stack anid bale sy stems. A Ne Hx m b)aler and the I ol lowiiig bale 1iandli1) ~achiines were ii scd ili the ariotis parts of tlhe 1bale Studiyl

New~ Holland Stackcruiser 1047. Tbis is a self-propelled bale loader and tran sport uiniit that can haul 119 bales. Operated bx\ one ihai, it is selfI iitloadlig b)\ the operator and~ can uiiload all its b~ales at one time ili a staek on the oronnd.

FIG. 2. One of the machines from field to storage area.

used to mechanically

handle conventional

bales

New H olland Stackliner 1010. The bale loading and al iinig in it is pu1lled 1b\ at tractor aid ean haul .55 1bales. It is operatedl

m0(11 Station.

6

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

b)x one man aial can unload all the b~ales at once in a stack. Thie machine also is used to retriev e bales from the storage stack, transport them to the feeding area, andl un~loadl one bale at a time for feeding. The nmachines used in the different parts of the stack studx included the followxing: Hesston StakHand :30. T1his machine prfodumces a stack that is approximatcl\ 8 feet wxide, 14 feet long, and 9 feet high. It is propelled hx a tractor and requiires one operator. lHax is picked upf) rom the windcrowx and b~lowxn inito the machine. The top) of the machine serxves as a lhav compressor, wxhich compresses hax sexeral times duiring loading. NNhen the machine is loaded, it transports hav to a storage area aid unloads compfressed stacks. The to1 ) of the stack is sontewxhat roumnded to help shed xvater.

FIG. 3. On the right is a machine used to produce stacks of hay. stack being discharged from machine at the storage area.

Left shows

Hecsston St ikMover :30. This nmachie is uisedc to mnoxve stacks from one location to another. It is poxwered f rom the PTO of a tractor and requlires one operator. It can pick u'p a stack, transpo~rt it to the dlesired area, and unload the entire stack intact. Hesstoni StakFeeder (30. This machine is similar to the StakM~over 30 in that it p~icks up ancd transp)orts stacks. It has a slicerfeeder attach~ment xwich can slice off and feed a fractional part of the stack and leaxve the remainder on the machine for subseqjuenit feedings. It is operated from the tractor PTO and requires
one op)erator.

STACK AND BALE SYSTEMS FOR HAY

7

Feeding Trials

Hay from the bale and stack systems was fed to animals to determine hay consumption and utilization, feed efficiency, and animal gain. The feeding studies were conducted during late fall and early winter. The first year, 1970-71, hay was fed to 52 steers with 26 getting baled hay and 26 stacked hay. The 1971-72 experiment was expanded to include both steer feeding trials and cow-calf studies. In the cow-calf study 38 cows and their calves were used, 19 on baled hay and 19 on stacked hay. A diagram showing the various feeding systems used and the machinery required for each is shown in Figure 4.
Economic Analysis

Data from the first three phases of the study (time study, feeding trials, and chemical and nutritive value analysis) were used along with information from various secondary sources to make an economic analysis of the different systems studied. Since conditions and costs on commercial farms might be different from those at the Black Belt Substation, various assumptions and syntheses were used to make economic recommendations applicable to a wider variety of farm situations. For example, costs were computed for different assumed amounts of hay cut and fed per year for the systems used and for one system not actually used in the trials. CONDITIONS AND RESULTS, 1970-71
Machinery Capacity Comparisons

The agricultural engineering phase of the research involved obtaining time study data and capacity values. These measures served as the basis for comparing the two systems of handling hay. The machine study measured the time necessary for each hay handling operation, beginning with the hay in a raked windrow and ending with it in its respective storage area. For the bale system this involved baling the hay with a conventional baler and then loading, transporting, and stacking with the Stackcruiser 1047. For the stack system the StakHand 30 was used to load, transport, and unload hay.

8

ALABAMA

AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT STATION

HAY HANDLING SYSTEMS -

FIG. 4

For Steer Feeding, 1970 -71 BALE SYSTEM Windrow -- Blstorage Pickup truck for hauling to hay racks Stackcruiser 1047 hauls bales to area Fed free choice in racks STACK SYSTEM Windrow Stacks fenced
-StakHand

30

.StakHand 30 hauls stocks to W a a nfeeding area Fed free choice one stack at a time

For Steer

Feeding, 1971-72

BALE SYSTEM Windrow --Baler ----Stackliner hauls bales to storage area

_Stackliner for feeding ' Bales fed on ground (System I) Pickup truck for feeding ------- Bales fed on ground (System 2) STACK SYSTEM Windrow-StakHand 30 StakHand 30 hauls stacks to storage area ---- Sliced and fed on ground (System 3) StakHand 30 hauls stacks to area

StakFeeder 60 for feeding Windrow----,

StakHand 3storage

K StakFeeder

30 for feeding-*Sliced and fed on ground (System 4)

For Cow-Calf

Feeding,

1971-72

BALE SYSTEM Windrow Balerle Windrow - Ber Stackcruiser 1047 hauls bales to storage area (System 5)

K0Pickup

truck for feeding-'Bales fed on ground STACK SYSTEM

Windrow-*StkHand

30

3StakHand

30 hauls stacks to storage area

7

StakMover 30 hauls stock to _without panels (System 6) with panels (System 7)

free access to stck

STACK AND BALE SYSTEMS

FOR

HAY

9

Average machine speeds obtained for the 2 y'ears w.sere as follows:
Machine
Conditioner6.

Sped mC(.p)J/. ------ -------------

Rake Baler-Stak I ll :30 Loading --lIn transpxlort Stackcruiser 1047 Loading --In) transport Stackliner 1010 In transport

5.1 4.2 4.5 9-12 vaniab~le' 14-16.5

----------

-

--

-

-

I 82 )-

rSpeed wa~s influenced by field1 conditions, bale numbers, and windrlow length. and was too variale to ob~tajin meaningful range or ax erage.

The machine capacity study for 1b0th systems was conducted in the same field usin" hav from alternate wvindrows. The ma-

FIG. 5. them.

Bales are stacked for storage by same machine used to load and transport

10

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

TABCLL 1. CPA('11 CCX

i

X,C sii

(d

X I,i u,
SICI~C CL

X

Si

11XC

~X l SxTii
ANID

1

IiHANDCLING

CCCXIi

\\ CNiCCXX

Il

1970-71

1971-72
Cait (yte

[ 1a

haInCIdling4

X41C

PIc
BaCIC XXsun usiCC 1)alC r and11C IX SlacIon IICXC 1017 BaCIC-XIcC wi tIC baIII CInd StaCkICCC 1010 Stac~k XXII Ill XitIC Stak Ian ;oI RiresCI one mCaC 1 a.ch forI [CCI baCC r

hu(11

I'X

man~ho11lr

.3.45
2.41 3l, 47

2.95' 2.10' :3.1I7

.iloIadCer. d

terial xxas cu t xxitl a mowxxer-conditioner and raked into xwindrows. Xx crage capacities of machines shoxx i in la'abe I are for the 1970-71 and 1971-72 studies. HIax from b)oth Ihalldlintg systems xxas tran sported approximatelx 1 mile to the storage and1( feeding
tU1'cI.

Animal Feeding Trial Comparisons Both haled and stacked hax xxere stored in the open ini a 14.5acre field of lescu egrrass. The baled Lax xxas stored at a drx matter content o)1 79.25 percent. It xxas stored ouitsidle, cox ered wxith a tarpaulin, and fenced to protect it from lix (stock. The 10 stacks of1 Lax harx estedl with the I lesston machine contailnedl 76.11 per cent dlix matter at storagre. Each stack xxas sep)aratelx fenced

FIG. 6. Bales for the study were stared outside and protected from the weather with a cover.

STACK AND BALE SYSTEMS

FOR HAY

I1

FIG. 7. a time.

Stacks were placed in a central storage area anid then fed one stack at Stacks were not covered.

an d th e enlohsu~re fitted xxith a xxire gap for iiidix ideal stack feeding to cattle. Stacks were not cox cred. TIhe 1-1.5-acre field of fesce iexxas fenced into two equnal areas. Each area wxas stuppliedl xxater. A group of .52 AXnguis and Angusllereford steers ax eraging 476 pounds each wxas div ided into twot comparable grou ps of 26 aimals each. The test period xwas Nox rin hr 10, 1970, throu gh M arch 10, 1971. Oli Troup of steers xxas off eredl laled I ax free choice daixy in ILax acks xxhue the other grotup had access to a stack of has 24 hou rs each (lax. Thle steer groups xxerc periodicalix rotated betxxeei pastures to minimize p)astulre differenlces. This was done xx bet a stack of has, wxas finished and a newx stack made ax ailable.

FIG. 8. Animals self feeding from a stack. Ground conditions around stack became muddy during wet weather.

12

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

TIimne for conisuining a stack of haxv by i group of 26 test antimals x aried from 8 to 19 dax s. Fescue grazing reduIcedl hax intake earlx in the studyl l)It the grazing wxas extremelx, limited ini midwvinter. In addition to hay, all steers receiv ed dail- 2 pounds of ground corn and 1.5 pounds of cottonseed meal (41 percent) per

head. Weather damage to hay in stacks dlidl not appear to he excessixve. Bx v isual ohserx ation, wxeather damage to the stacks -was estimated at less than 5 percent. Feeding stacked haxy, howev er, resulted in large losses. The cattle pulled hax from the stack and trampled it in the imid. Tfhe loss wxas measured f or :3 of the 10 stacks hy picking tip the tramnpledl hax\ after the stack was consunned, we igiling it, and determining dirv matter. Basedl on dry matter at storage, wxaste amounjted to :3.5.2 percm it fromt stack : 43.5 percent from stack 7, at 1( 46 .5 perceiit fromt stack 8. Both rainfall and eating time appearedl to affect stacked hax loss. It requtiredl 10, 19, and 18 dax s to consume stacks :3, 7, and 8, respectix clx . Rainfall during the feeding periods for stacks :3, 7 and 8 xwere 0.9:3, 1.52, and 1.63 inches, respectix clx. Feeding haled hav in racks kept trampiflin g loss to a miimtum, with wXcigh-hacks of damaged hay show)x lug only .5.6.5 percent

FIG.

9.

Partially consumed stack of hay.

Note

hay on the ground.

STACK

AND

BALE

SYSTEMS

FOR

HAY

13

FEEDING AND PERFORMANCE DATA FOR BALED VS. STACKED TABLE 2. JOHNSONGRASS HAY FOR WINTERING YEARLING CATTLE, 1970-71

Item

Baled hay 26 113 636 476 160 1.42

Stacked hay 26 118 612 477 135 1.19

Animals, no.__ ..Days on test, no._ Final live weight, lb. Initial live weight, lb..... Gain, lb._..----Average daily gain, lb.. Feed fed per animal 1,540 (1,207)2 ---- --- --Hay, lb._-. 226 -------------Corn, lb.. -.. -169.5 Cottonseed meal, lb......... Daily feed available per animal S 13.63 (10.68) -.... .. ... .. Hay, lb. ..... 2.00 Corn, lb..................... .. 1.50 Cottonseed meal, lb.. ---... Feed per cwt. gain ------ 963 (754) Hay, lb.................... ------ 141 C orn, lb.................... 106 -------. Cottonseed meal, lb._....... 20.53 Feed cost per cwt. gain, dol.' ------- ------ -----

2,089 (1,590)
226 169.5 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 pounds) selffed one at a time. Feed fed per animal was based on weight at harvest. 2 Values in parenthesis are hay expressed as dry matter at time of storage. ' Feed ingredient prices used at time of the trials were, corn $3.30 per hundredweight and cottonseed meal $4.20 per hundredweight. Hay cost was calculated on the basis of an annual hay harvest and feeding of 500 tons (Table 4). Harvesting and feeding cost was estimated at $15.21 per ton for the baled system and $11.13 per ton for the stack system. In addition, hay production cost per ton was estimated to be $8.53, the same for both systems.

wasted during feeding. In addition to the feeding loss, there was an estimated 4 percent loss caused by rotting of hay lying on the ground during storage. The yearling steers were on test for a total of 113 days. Those fed the baled hay made an average daily gain of 1.42 pounds, whereas on stacked hay the gain was only 1.19 pounds per head, Table 2. Based on weights when stored, the cattle on baled hay had available an average of 1,540 pounds of hay per head during the test. Those on stacks had 2,089 pounds per head. The daily hay dry matter available per animal was 10.68 pounds for baled hay and 14.07 pounds for stacked. Hay dry matter required per hundredweight of gain amounted to 754 pounds for baled hay and 1,178 pounds for stacked hay. These feed efficiency data, calculated on the basis of hay dry matter at time of storage, indicate that baled hay was more efficiently utilized for animal gain than was the stacked hay, Table 2. Based on normal hay production cost and market prices of corn and cottonseed meal, feed cost

14

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT

STATION

per hundredweight of animal gain was $20.53 for baled hay and $26.01 for stacked hay. These feed efficiency data reveal considerable advantage for baled hay over stacked hay. It is important to consider, 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). Another saving with the stacked hay resulted because it was self-fed to the cattle whereas the baled hay had to be fed daily by man. A labor charge for feeding was included in the cost calculations. Cost of the fence used around the Hesston stack was also included. Chemical Composition and Digestibility Samples of hay for chemical and nutritive value study were taken with a coring tool (Pennsylvania State hay sampler) from the baled and stacked hay. Approximately 20 baled samples were cored and these samples were composited for analysis. The 10 hay stacks were cored 20 times each, with samples from each stack composited for separate chemical and nutritive value studies. In addition to the core samples, selected samples of hay taken from the top of several stacks during the feeding operation were analyzed to determine the degree of weather deterioration. Also, digestibility was determined on refused hay collected after
OF BALED OR

TABLE

3.

CHEMICAL

COMPOSITION

AND

DIGESTIBILITY

STACKED

JOHNSONGRASS

HAY, 1970-71

Stacked hay Item Van Soest values Cell wall, pct................. Non-cell wall, pct.-----------Crude protein, pct.-------------Dry matter digestibility, pet.'..... Baled hay core sample Top sample (moldy) 71.40 28.60 12.58 42.37 Core sample 81.00 19.00 10.37 46.27 8.21 .37 1.40 .21 1.30 10.79 174.09 22.51 30.27 Refused hay 77.83 22.17 10.29 43.17 9.01 .37 1.10 .19 1.04 7.46 180.84 29.91 24.75

82.85 17.15 10.18 53.87

Minerals
Ash, pct..................... Phosphorus, pct. Calcium, pct............ . . Magnesium, pct. Potassium, pct................ Copper, p.p.m.-------------Iron, p.p.m ................... Manganese, p.p.m. Zinc, p.p.m .................. SBy nylon bag technique.

9.94 7.64 .50 .50 1.31 .83 .24 24 . ............ 1.08 1.08 10.94 7.69 186.02 115.42 27.36 17.95 32.88 25.65

STACK

AND

BALE

SYSTEMS

FOR

HAY

15

feeding several of the hay stacks. This was done by use of the nylon bag technique. Chemical analyses for cell wall, non-cell wall, crude protein, and mineral constituents showed no important differences between core samples taken from baled and stacked hay, Table 3. In contrast, dry matter digestibility was appreciably higher for the baled hay. Hay samples from the tops of hay stacks were analyzed to determine if the noticeable deterioration would be reflected in chemical analyses. These top samples showed apparent increases in contents of cell wall, non-cell wall, crude protein, and minerals as compared with core samples 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 improved nutritive value because palatability of the hay was adversely affected by the deterioration. The data for refused hay, Table 3, represents hay that was gleaned from the feeding area of stacks after the cattle had finished eating the stack. The important fact in these data is that ash content was not appreciably elevated over that of the core samples. This is interpreted to mean that the material collected did not contain large amounts of soil as contamination but rather reflected a reasonably accurate measure of hay lost by trampling.
Economic Comparisons

Data were assembled from the time and motion studies, hay analyses, and from equipment manufacturers. For each experiment, economic budgets were prepared for each item of equipment and for other items of cost. These data were then used in analyses of the various haying systems studied during 1970-71 and 1971-72. The 1970-71 experiments involved one bale and one stack system for feeding steers. Equipment used and associated costs are
TABLE 4. ESTIMATED TOTAL HARVESTING AND FEEDING COST PER TON HARVESTED, FOR BALED AND STACKED HAY SYSTEMS, STEER FEEDING, BLACK BELT SUBSTATION, 1970-71

Cost per ton, when average tons
Haying system harvested per year are

250 Baled hay system Stacked hay system $21.44 $16.05

500 $15.21 $11.13

1,000 $12.09 $ 8.68

2,000 $10.54 $ 7.45

16

ALABAMA

AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

TABLE 5. ESTIMATED TOTAL FEED COST PER HUNDREDWEIGHT GAIN, FOR BALED AND STACKED HAY SYSTEMS, STEER FEEDING, BLACK BELT SUBSTATION, 1970-71

Cost per unit, when average tons
Item of cost harvested per year are

250 Baled hay system Total hay cost per cwt. gain Other feed cost per cwt. gain. Total feed cost per cwt. gain $14.43 9.10 $23.53 $19.02 10.80 $29.82

500 $11.42 9.10 $20.52 $15.21 10.80 $26.01

1,000 $ 9.92 9.10 $19.02 $13.31 10.80 $24.11

2,000 $ 9.18 9.10 $18.28 $12.37 10.80 $23.17

------

Stacked hay system Total hay cost per cwt. gain Other feed cost per cwt. gain........ Total feed cost per cwt. gain-...........

1 Includes $8.53 per ton cost of hay production (estimated at Black Belt Substation), as well as harvesting and feeding costs as observed and budgeted.

listed in Appendix Table 1. Economic analysis indicated that harvesting and feeding costs per ton per year were less for the stack system than for the bale system, Table 4. When total feed costs per hundredweight gain were computed, however, the results were reversed and the bale system was least costly per ton per year, Table 5. This shift was mainly a reflection of feed efficiency differences. The stack system required an average of 1,547 pounds of hay per hundredweight gain as compared with 963 pounds for the bale system. The stack system also required more supplemental corn and cottonseed meal per hundredweight gain. The apparent reason for the higher hay requirement of the stack system was the high losses from trampling and spoilage when steers were allowed access to open stacks. Measures of such losses indicated an average loss of 41.7 percent for the stack system and 9.5 percent for the bale system. From the standpoint of tons per hour, the two systems were approximately equal. CONDITIONS AND RESULTS, 1971-72
Machine Use and Time Requirements

Machinery use conditions for 1971-72 were somewhat different from the previous year, mainly because different machines were used for handling hay during the feeding trials. Field practices used to cut, condition, and windrow hay were the same as for 1970-71. The stack system again included the StakHand 30 to handle hay from the windrow to the storage area. The bale system was the same as for 1970-71 except that the Stackcruiser 1047 was used to pick up and transport only part of

STACK

AND

BALE

SYSTEMS

FOR

HAY

17

the hay and the Stackliner 1010 was used for the remainder. For machine capacities see Table 1. Some changes were made in 1971-72 in handling hay for the feeding trials and in type of cattle fed. Both yearling steers and cow-calf units were used in tests with both bales and stacks. Line diagrams showing the machinery and feeding systems used are shown in Figure 4. One bale method used for feeding steers utilized the Stackliner 1010 to retrieve bales from the storage site, transport to the feeding area, and deposit on the ground. Some difficulty was experienced in operating the machine while unloading bales into the storage stack pile. Bottom bales in the stack tended to pull out while unloading, so the bales in the stack were not well aligned vertically. This poor alignment interfered with normal machine operation when bales were retrieved for feeding. The Stackliner 1010 handles 55 bales per load, and for the test conditions 21 minutes were needed to retrieve and feed a ton of dry matter. Another steer feeding trial used stacks and the StakFeeder 60 for comparisons with the bale method described. The machine was used to pick up a stack in the storage area, transport it to the feeding area daily, slice off part of the load, and deposit it on the ground for the steers. This method required 20 minutes to handle a ton of dry matter from storage stack through feeding. The remaining two feeding trials compared conventional and mechanized feeding of cow-calf herds. One of these was a bale haying method using a pickup truck and two men. Hay was loaded at the storage area, transported to the feeding area, and placed intact on the ground for animal consumption. Hauling distance was 0.9 mile. Approximately 550 pounds of dry matter were used at each feeding, thus requiring four feeding trips per ton. This bale method required 35 minutes to transport and feed 1 ton of dry matter. The other method involved stack feeding using a StakMover 30 for a cow-calf herd. The StakMover 30 was used to pick up a stack at the storage area, transport to the feeding area, and unload the stack intact. Animals had free access to the stack after it was unloaded. Transport distance was 0.9 mile. Time to handle a ton of dry matter was 10 minutes.
Animal Feeding Trial Comparisons

Both baled and stacked hay were used in steer and cow-calf feeding trials.

ALABAMA

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT

STATION

Steer Feeding Trial. Two groups of vearling steers, one with 27 aninmis anl the other with 28, were allotteI to test in late fall. The feeding area and rotation of cattle on the area xxas the same as for the 1970-71 test. One group was fed stacked hax and the other got baled ha;. Hesston stacked hav; was moved front a central storage area to the feeding area using a Hesston Stak\Ioxver. The Stakloxver wxas eqiipedl with a slicer which sliced the ha; and dropped it to the ground as the equ1ip)mnent was puilled through tile paddock area. In addition to the ba, which xas offered to appetite, the steers received 1.5 ponlldls of cottonseed meal (41 percent) andl 2 pounds of ground shelled corn daily per head. The other group of steers wxas fed haled ha; that had heel stored in the open and coxvered wxxith a tarpaulin. Bales with unlrokell twiIe were placed in the sod area wxhere the animals were confined. The hay was transported to tle cattle tusing" a New Holland 1010 hale xxwagon. In addition to hax fed to appetite, the steers were fed 1.5 poiincls of cottonseed meal (41 percent) and 2 pounds of ground shelled corn (laily per head. Differences in nutritixve v alue Ietwen tile txo kinds of ha; were evalbated according to wxeight changes of the steers, ha; iiitake, ha; required per potitd of gain, and chemical composition of the hax.

:

'5,

4'

FIG. 10. Feeding bales with a bale wagon. Bales are discharged from the machine one at a time. Bale twine was not removed for feeding.

STACK

AND

BALE

SYSTEMS

FOR

HAY

19

STACK AND BALE SYSTEMS FOR HAY
TABLE 6. FEEDING AND PERFORMANCE JOHNSONGRASS HAY FOR WINTERING DATA FOR BALED VS. STACKED YEARLING CATTLE, 1971-72

1

Item

Baled hay

Stacked hay 120
566

A nim als, no.-------------------------------2827 D ays on test, no ------------------------------. 120 Final live weight, lb.---------------------------- 567 ------Initial live w eight, lb.-----------------------------461 Gain, lb. ---------- -----------------------106 Average daily gain, lb.-------_------------------ 0.88 Feed per animal' Hay, lb.-------------1,094 (939)2 Corn, lb.---------------------------------. 240 Cottonseed m eal, lb.-----------------------------------180 Daily feed offered per animal Corn, lb --------------------------. Cottonseed meal, lb.-------------------------Feed per cwt. gain Hay, lb.------------------Corn, lb.-------------------- ----Cottonseed meal, lb.--------------------------cost per cwt. gain, dol.---------------Hay, lb.---------.

460 106
0.88

1,560 (1,339) 240 180
13.00 2.00

9.11 (7.82) 2.00

(11.15)

-

1.50
1,032 (886)
226.4

1.50
1,471

*Feed

-

226.4

(1,263)

169.8
25.42

169.8
30.12

1 Unbroken bales fed ad lib. on sod daily with New Holland 1010 bale wagon; Hesston stacks moved daily to the feeding area with StakFeeder 60 and sliced and distributed on the sod. 2 Values in parenthesis are hay expressed as dry matter. 3 Feed ingredient prices were, corn, $2.64 per hundredweight and cottonseed meal, $4.10 per hundredweight. Hay cost was calculated on the basis of an annual hay harvest and feeding of 500 tons (Appendix Table 4). Harvesting and feeding cost was $15.67 per ton for the hale system and $14.80 per ton for the stack system. In addition, hay production cost per ton was $8.53, the same for both systems.

Average daily gain per steer during the 120-day test was exactly

the same for the two groups, 0.88 pound, Table 6. Animals fed baled hay consumed an average of 1,094 pounds, while those fed stacked hay consumed 1,560 pounds per animal. It required 1,032 pounds of baled hay and 1,471 pounds of stacked hay to produce 100 pounds of gain. Therefore, feed cost was higher for animals fed stacked hay than for those fed baled hay, Table 6. Storage losses were estimated to be 15.03 percent for baled and 13.64 percent for stacked hay, Table 7. No important kinds of stored hay, although dry matter digestibility was lowest for the Hesston stacks, Table 8. Second-year test data showed no differences in steer gain for animals fed baled and stacked hay. This was in contrast to results from the previous year when animals fed baled hay gained 1.42 pounds per head daily while those fed stacked hay gained 1.19

ferences

in chemical composition were found between the two

dif-

20
TABLE 7.

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
STORAGE LOSSES OF HAY FOR STEER FEEDING TRIAL,

1971-72

Item

Baled hay

Stacked hay
52,935 42,902 18.95

Stored Hay, air dry, lb. -------------------39,507 Hay, dry matter, lb.---------------------32,356 M oisture, pct.------------------------ 18.10 Removed from storage
Fed, air dry, lb. ------------------32,023 Fed, dry matter, lb. -------------------27,495 M oisture, pct.------------------ -14.14 Rotted hay dry matter, lb. _ -------- ------2,733 Total hay dry matter out of storage, 30,228

43,150 37,049

14.14
1 37,049
5,853 13.64
13.64

lb. Unaccountable hay dry matter, lb.

2,128 6.58
15.03

Losses Unaccountable hay dry matter, pct. Rotted, pct.--8.45 Total loss, pct.----- -------__ -------

-

1Included with unaccountable dry matter loss.

pounds. This change between years is partly explained by differences in bale feeding methods. In the first year animals were fed baled hay in a rack, whereas in the second year the bales were fed on sod without the twine being broken. Daily feed consumption of baled hay was 13.6 pounds per steer the year but only 9.11 pounds per head the second year. Results from both years showed much higher hay requirement on stacked hay than for steers fed baled hay. Since storage losses were reasonably similar for the two kinds of hay, Table 7, the

first

TABLE

8. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND DIGESTIBILITY OF STEER HAYS AT INITIAL HARVEST AND AT TIME OF FEEDING, 1971-72

Item Crude protein, pct.--------------Van Soest values
Cell wall constituents,

Baled hay At At harvest feeding 11.11
85.81

Stacked hay At At harvest feeding 12.14
83.47

11.76
86.06

11.13
79.91

Non-cell wall constituents, pct.-

pct.-------

14.19
7.13 0.55 0.29 0.81 0.13 85.70

13.94
8.57 1.14 0.25 0.72 0.15 131.18

16.53
7.12 0.49 0.33 0.87 0.15 90.53

20.09
7.74 0.99 0.25

Ash, pct--------------------Calcium, Phosphorus, Potassium, pct.--------_--Magnesium, Iron, p.p.m.---------------------

pct.------------------pct.-----------------

pct.-----------------

-----

0.76
0.17 94.14

Manganese, ppm.

----

_-------_

23.54

27.53
21.97 15.35

29.22
29.45 6.59

30.33
40.53 17.00

Zinc, p.p.m.--------------------35.11 Copper, p.p.m.------------------19.55 Drv matter digestibility,' pct.----- 54.92 __

56.33

56.55

50.70

'Byyln

bagtcnqe

STACK

AND

BALE

SYSTEMS

FOR

HAY

21

major reason that more stacked hay was needed apparently was that more hay was trampled by the cattle than when baled hay was fed. Brood Cow and Calf Wintering Test. Thirty-eight beef cows nursing fall and winter born calves were used in this study. These animals were allotted to two groups of 19 each, selected to minimize differences in age and date of calving. Average age of the calves was 26 days at the start of the test and 100 days when the experiment ended. The experimental design was a switchback whereby one group started on baled hay and the other group started on stacked hay. After 32 days the groups were switched. The feeding areas were dallisgrass sod pastures and the stocking rate was 1 cow and calf per 2 acres. The warm season sod pasture provided little, if any, food during the late fall and winter test season. Data were collected on weight change in the animals, hay fed, storage losses for each of the two kinds of hay, wintering feed cost per cow, creep feed consumption by the calves, and chemical composition and digestibility of the hays. Cows fed stacked hay lost less body weight than the cows fed baled hay, Table 9. Also, calves nursing cows on stacked hay gained slightly more than calves of the baled hay group. HowTABLE 9. COW AND CALF WEIGHT CHANGE ON BALED OR STACKED HAY, 1971-72'

Item Cows, no.-----------------D ays, no................ Initial weight, lb................ Final weight, lb................. Gain or loss, lb. .......--... Av. daily gain or loss, lb. Average 2 trials ------------Gain or loss, lb. Av. daily gain or loss, lb. --.

Baled hay Trial 1 Trial 2 19 32 945 896 -49 -1.53 19 32 941 930 - 11 -0.34

Stacked hay Trial 1 Trial 2 19 32 979 958 -21 -0.66 - 11 -0.35 19 32 908 907 - 1 -0.03

. .

--

- 30
------0.94

Calves, no.

----------------

19
32 120 157 37 1.15

19
32 162 211 49 1.53

19
32 115 149 34 1.06

19
32 172 235 63 1.96

Days, no. -------------...... . Initial weight, lb... Final weight, lb................. Gain or loss, lb................. Av. daily gain or loss, lb. Average 2 trials

Gain or loss, lb...----------Av. daily gain or loss, lb.-..

43 1.34

48 1.51

SDifferences were significant and favored cows and calves fed stacked hay (for
calves P<0.05, for cows P<0.005).

22

ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

BxiEU ANiD SiAKE Kil

iwx
i'

1971-72
Setcond( tiali' Staicked 7.80

Dliki

feed/aimali~l

I'll At ti

Baledt 23.17T 2.00)

Stickcii

Bale

Iia do' mitteri l1. Cottoniseed mtial, Iii. 1lix' ritiim doi m itter
(If

35.28 2.00.
3.84

19.26~

2.00 2.06i

2.)0) 3.06

ai pt-ri-ut

lixc Nc Xiht

2 .52 taicks xxer
tial hi. niiilxX\ RT

ti)w.'

Ini the first tia ii in thP) nimill

fcd Ni! uit proitetio n fuom tramplinig. b% the it! plaicid aroun iiith till ckts.

ex er, thc mnajor dliffcrenec in calf

(rain wxas durilig the scondc trial

-when the caix es fed baled hax wainied 1.5:3 potuuds per head per (lax andl those on stacked Jim wainted 1.96 potuids. In the first '32-da~v phase of the feediung trial thc HeIsston stacks werc fed xxitlhout protection front tramplit ig. while ini the secouid :32-day trial panels xxerc placed af-oo ci the stacks. Cowss fed b~aledl hax usedl lcss hax than those offcred stacked lhax, Tale 10, mlainlx bccautse thc stacked ha, sutffc red greater trampin g loss. The use of panels appearedl to redc(It hax xxaste lby tram plinig. I utt experitmental data xxere inuffihic ii to measu re x inc of thet p~anels. Coxxs ctostimed less Lax durn tg the second 32-(lax trial titan inl the first :32 day s, but this xxas truic for both b~alecd and stacked haxY. Consu01mption oIf hax ratio n clrx matter ilt proportion to antimal lix c xxeigfht ax cragecl 2.29 percen t for balecd hax an d :3.35 percilnt for stacekedl ax.

FIG. 11. Feeding panels were used in some feeding trials to help reduce waste. Panels are pushed in toward the stack by the animals as they eat.

hay

STACK

AND

BALE

SYSTEMS

FOR

HAY

23

Losses during storage were somewhat greater for stacked hay than for baled hay, Table 11. The difference was not very large, however, and results indicate that hay is reasonably well preserved either in conventional bales or in loose stacks. Hay needs per animal and winter feed cost per cow were greater for stacked hay than for baled hay, Tables 10 and 12. Creep feed consumption was higher by calves nursing cows fed stacked hay than by those whose dams were on baled hay, Table 13. Since the cows and the calves remained in close vicinity of the stacks, the calves were always near the grain creep. In
STORAGE LOSSES OF HAY FOR COW

TABLE 11.

FEEDING

TRIAL, 1971-72

Item Stored Hay, air dry, lb.------Hay, dry matter, lb. Moisture, pet.

Baled hay 73,530 58,818 20.01 61,604 52,815 14.27 5,436 58,251 567 0.96 9.24 10.20

Stacked hay 84,680 68,612 18.97 72,710 58,540 19.49 58,540 10,072 14.68 14.68

......................

.

Removed from storage Fed, air dry, lb.-. Fed, dry matter, lb. Moisture as fed, pct.--------------------Rotted hay dry matter, lb. Total hay dry matter out of storage, lb. Unaccountable hay dry matter, lb... Losses Unaccountable hay dry matter, pct. Rotted, pct. ----------------- ------------------ --------. _------------------Total losses, pct.---'Included

.

with unaccountable hay dry matter losses.
WINTERING FEED COST PER

TABLE 12.

Cow

AND CALF, 1971-72

Item Hay cost as C reep feed Cottonseed TOTAL -fed------------------------cost1 ....................... meal cost for cows' ------------- ---- ---- -------------

Baled hay $21.83 1.57 5.50 $28.90

Stacked hay $25.68 3.13 5.50 $34.31

Cottonseed meal pellets @ $86 per ton; calf creep feed @ $78 per ton.
TABLE 13. CALF CREEP FEED CONSUMPTION WHEN DAMS WERE FED BALED OR STACKED HAY, 1971-72'

Item First trial, feed per calf, lb... Second trial, feed per calf, lb.------------Total per calf, lb.

Baled hay 6.00 34.26 40.26

Stacked hay 2.68 77.70 80.38

SCreep feed formula: cottonseed meal 21 percent, ground coin 39 percent, dehydrated alfalfa 40 percent.

24

24 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
TABLE 14. CHEMICAL COMPOSITION AND DIGESTIBILITY OF Cow HAYS AT INITIAL HARVEST AND AT TIME OF FEEDING, 1971-721

Item Crude protein, pot.---------------------------Van Soest values Cell wall constituents, pct.----------Non-cell wall constituents, pct.---_
Ash, pct.-------------------

Baled hay At At harvest feeding 8.87 83.97 16.03 7.29 0.49 0.25 0.91 0.14
94

Stacked hay At At harvest feeding 8.19 86.40 13.59 6.49 0.63
0.26

9.35 85.80 14.20 7.94 0.81
0.23

8.89 85.19 14.81 7.96 0.86
0.26

Calcium , pct.----------------------------------Phosphorus, pot.--------.-----------------------Potassium , pot.---------------------------------M agnesium, pot.-------------------------------Iron, p.p.m .----------------------

-

-

-

-----------

M anganese, p.p.m._-----------------29
Zinc, p.p. m ------------------------- --------37 Copper, p.p.m.----------------------29 Dry matter digestibility,' pot.... 52.74
------

------

0.85 0.15 92
34

0.85 0.18 81
23

0.90 0.16 74
30

41
16

13
7

18
8

.....

49.80

54.15

47.97

'Analyses made on composites of two sampling periods. nylon bag technique.

'By

contrast, cows fed baled hay moved away from the feeding area so their calves did not continually stay near the grain creep. Consequently, calves nursing cows fed stacked hay were encouraged to consume more creep feed than were those in the baled hay feeding group. Chemical composition data showed only small and unimportant differences between baled hay and stacked hay, Table 14. Dry matter digestibility was slightly lower in stacked hay. As
shown by results of the cow feeding trial, the major difference

between baled and stacked hay was that feeding losses were greater for the stacked hay.
Economic Comparisons

Based on the 1970-71 findings, seven systems were tested or synthesized for the 1971-72 season. Some of the seven were new systems, while others were variations of the two systems tested in 1970-71. One modification involved adding cow and calf winitering operations to accompany steer feeding. Another involved use of collapsible panels around stacks to reduce trampling. Others involved different items of equipment for moving and feeding bales and stacks. System 4 was synthesized. It assumed use of the StakFeeder 30 instead of the StakFeeder 60, but with the same time requirements. Items of equipment and costs for the different systems are listed in Appendix Table 3.

STACK

AND

BALE

SYSTEMS

FOR

HAY

25

TABLE 15. ESTIMATED TOTAL HARVESTING AND FEEDING COST PER TON HARVESTED, FOR DIFFERENT FORAGE HARVESTING SYSTEMS, BLACK BELT SUBSTATION, ALABAMA, 1971-72

Haying system System 1-steer feeding with New Holland

Cost per ton, when average tons harvested per year are

250 277 baler and 1010 Stackliner ------------------through feeding System 2-steer feeding with New Holland

500

1,000

2,000

$16.10 17.86 19.68 17.77 20.91 15.31 15.96

$11.09 13.13

$ 8.59 10.77 8.69 8.07 11.56 7.02 7.67

$ 7.35 9.59

277 baler, 1010 Stackliner, and

. pickup truck_---------------. System 3-steer feeding with Hesston StakFeeder -----------------System 4-steer feeding with Hesston

.

Model 30 StakHand and Model 60

12.35 11.29 14.68 9.77 10.42

6.85 6.45 10.01 5.63 6.28

------------------ ---StakFeeder System 5--brood cows with calves with New Holland 277 baler, 1047 Stackcruiser, -----------...----------and pickup truck - .
System 6-brood cows with calves with Hesston Model 30 StakHand and Model
30 StakMover--open stacks System 7-brood cows with calves with Hesston Model 30 StakHand and Model 30 StakMover-panels around stacks

Model 30 StakHand and Model 30

----......

Harvesting and feeding costs per ton were generally lower for the stack systems than for the bale systems in 1971-72, except at low volumes of hay harvested per year for steer feeding using systems 1 and 2, Figure 4 and Table 15. When total costs per hundredweight gain and per cow and calf wintered were considered, however, results again favored the bale systems as in 1970-71. Reasons were the same-trampling and wastage resulted in more hay being required per hundredweight gain and per cow and calf wintered with the stack systems, Table 16 and Appendix Table 4. It appears from the experiments over the 2 years that, if trampling and wastage of stacked hay could be reduced sufficiently, the stack systems tested would be the least costly methods of haymaking and feeding. Otherwise, losses from hay trampling and spoilage on heavy Black Belt soils can easily outweigh the cost economies of the stack systems. The collapsible panels used in one cow and calf wintering operation (System 7) reduced wastage considerably over the stack system without panels (System 6) and might provide a solution to the trampling and wastage prob-

26

ALABAMA

AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

lem. Trampling and wastage on lighter or sandy soil conditions would probably not be as serious as found in this experiment. Relation of volume of hay handled to economics is an important consideration regardless of the system under consideration. For both steer feeding and wintering cows and calves, a certain minimum average amount of hay must be harvested per year to justify
TABLE 16. ESTIMATED TOTAL HAY AND OTHER FEED COST PER HUNDREDWEIGHT GAIN AND PER COW AND CALF WINTERED, FOR DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF HAY

HARVESTING AND FEEDING, BLACK BELT SUBSTATION, 1971-72 Cost per unit, when average tons harvested per year are

Item of cost

250

500

1,000

2,000

System 1-steer feeding with New Holland 277 baler and 1010 Stackliner through feeding - $15.67 $12.48 $10.89 $10.11 1 $10.89 $12.48 $15.67 Total hay cost per cwt. gain 12.94 12.94 12.94 12.94 Other feed cost per cwt. gain $23.05 $25.42 $23.83 $28.61 Total feed cost per cwt. gain System 2-steer feeding with New Holland 277 baler, 1010 Stackliner, and pickup truck - $16.79 $13.78 $12.28 $11.53 1 $12.2 $13.78 $16.79 Total hay cost per cwt. gain 12.94 12.94 12.94 12.94 cost per cwt. gain Other feed $24.47 $26.72 $25.22 $29.73 Total feed cost per cwt. gain System 3-steer feeding with Hesston Model 30 StakHand and Model 60 StakFeeder - $23.21 $17.18 $14.17 $12.65 $14.17 $17.18 $23.21 Total hay cost per cwt. gain 12.94 12.94 12.94 12.94 Other feed cost per cwt. gain $25.59 $30.12 $27.11 $36.15 Total feed cost per cwt. gain System 4-steer feeding with Hesston Model 30 StakHand and Model 30 StakFeeder $12.32 $13.66 $21.64 $16.30 Total hay cost per cwt. gain _____________________ 12.94 12.94 12.94 12.94 Other feed cost per cwt. gain $26.60 $25.26 $34.58 $29.24 Total feed cost per cwt. gain System 5-wintering brood cows with calves with New Holland 277 baler, 1047 Stackcruiser, and pickup truck $18.90 $17.44 $27.69 $21.83 Total hay cost per cow wintered1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 Creep cost per cow wintered 5.50 5.50 5.50 5 50 Cottonseed meal cost per cow wintered . $25.97 $24.51 Total feed cost per cow wintered.......... $34.76 $28.90 System 6-wintering brood cows with calves with Hesston Model 30 StakHand and Model 30 StakMover-open stacks $25.23 $22.97 $38.67 $29.69 Total hay cost per cow wintered' 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 Creep cost per cow wintered 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 Cottonseed meal cost per cow wintered..... $33.86 $31.60 Total feed cost per cow wintered........... $47.30 $38.32 System 7-wintering brood cows with calves with Hesston Model 30 StakHand and Model 30 StakMover-panels around stacks $21.02 $19.22 $31.78 $24.58 Total hay cost per cow wintered' 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 Creep cost per cow wintered 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 Cottonseed meal cost per cow wintered.---$29.65 $27.85 $33.21 $40.41 Total feed cost per cow wintered ___-.... SIncludes $8.53 per ton cost of producing hay as estimated at Black Belt Substation, as well as harvesting and feeding costs as observed and budgeted.

STACK

AND

BALE

SYSTEMS

FOR

HAY

27

the investment required, Appendix Table 5. Unless a farmer can count on harvesting a high enough tonnage to make the mechanized systems economical, the investment probably could not be justified for any of the systems tested. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This project involved a 2-year comparison of a bale and stack system for handling and feeding hay. The study at the Black Belt Substation, using johnsongrass hay, involved four separate phases: (1) a time study to determine labor needs and machine capacity, (2) a chemical composition and nutritive value comparison of the hay, (3) feeding trials with steers and a cow-calf herd, and (4) a cost analysis. The following general conclusions can be drawn: 1. Stacks stored outside and not covered had little weather damage (estimated at less than 5 percent). 2. Under the hauling and field conditions of this study, the two haying systems had about equal tons-per-hour capacity. Bale system capacity is greatly influenced by method of hauling bales to the storage area. 3. Handling hay from windrow to storage with the stack system has lower labor needs than the bale system. 4. No significant differences were found in the mineral content, crude protein, and cell wall and non-cell wall percentage of the hay after having been stored in bales or stacks. 5. Dry matter digestibility for the baled hay was higher than for stacked hay at time of feeding. 6. Hay wasted by animals was greater for stacked hay than for baled. 7. Hay waste from stacks fed free choice was reduced by using feeding panels around the stack. 8. Feed efficiency and cost per pound of gain favored the bale system in both steer feeding trials, even though cost per ton of hay harvested and fed was generally less for the stack systems. 9. In the tests with brood cows and calves, more hay was required and cow wintering cost was greater on the stacked hay. However, cow and calf performance was better on stacked hay than on baled hay.

STACK

STACK AND BALE SYSTEMS FOR HAY

AND

BALE

SYSTEMS

FOR

HAY

29

29

APPENDIX
APPENDIX TABLE 1. ESTIMATED HARVESTING AND FEEDING COST PER TON HARVESTED, FOR BALED AND STACKED HAY SYSTEMS, STEER FEEDING, BLACK BELT SUBSTATION,

1970-71

Machine or item of cost Baled hay system ---New Holland 1469 Haybine Massey Ferguson rake-----------------New Holland 277 baler------------------New Holland 1047 Stackcruiser Tarpaulins and tiedowns-----------------Hay racks for feeding-----------Fencing----------------------Feeding

Cost per ton, when average tons harvested per year are 2,000 1,000 500 250 $ 4.12 1.94 3.86 7.15 .73 .53 .04
2.34

--------.73
$21.44
$ 4.04
1.94 7.92 2.15

$ 2.56 1.45 2.68
4.15

$ 1.79 1.21 2.08
2.64

$ 1.40

1.09 1.79
1.89

Pickup truck------------------Total harvesting and feeding cost-Stacked hay system
Hesston 310 Windrower---------Massey Ferguson Hesston StakHand 30---------Fencing (including labor)--------

labor --------

.73 .53 .04
2.34

.73 .53 .04
2.34

.73 .53 .04
2.34

_-------

---

.73

.73

.73

$15.21
$ 2.56
1.45 4.97 2.15

$12.09
$ 1.83
1.21 3.49 2.15

$10.54
$ 1.46
1.09

rake------------

2.75
2.15

Total harvesting and feeding cost--

$16.05

$11.13

$ 8.68

$ 7.45

APPENDIX TABLE 2. ESTIMATED TOTAL HAY COST PER TON HARVESTED AND TOTAL FEED COST PER HUNDREDWEIGHT GAIN, FOR BALED AND STACKED HAY SYSTEMS, STEER FEEDING, BLACK BELT SUBSTATION, 1970-71 Cost per unit, when average tons

Item of cost

250 Baled hay system
Total hay cost per ton harvested'----------$29.97

harvested per year are 2,000 1,000 500
$23.74 $20.62 $19.07

Total hay cost per ton dry matter harvested-Total hay cost per cwt.

$14.43 gain Other feed cost per cwt. gain________________ 9.10 $23.53 Total feed cost per cwt. gain

38.26

30.30
11.42

26.32
9.92

24.34
9.18

9.10
20.52

9.10
19.02

9.10
18.28

Stacked hay system
Total hay cost per ton

Total hay cost per ton dry matter harvested--Total hay cost per cwt. Other feed cost per cwt. Total feed cost per cwt.
_---

harvested ----------

_

$24.58

$19.66

$17.21

$15.98

gain -------------------gain ----

32.30
$19.02 10.80 $29.82

25.83
15.21 10.80 26.01

22.61
13.31 10.80 24.11

21.00
12.37 10.80 23.17

gain__------------

' Includes $8.53 per ton cost of producing hay as estimated at Black Belt Substation, as well as harvesting and feeding cost from Appendix Table 1.

30

ALABAMA

AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

30

ALABAMA AGRICULTUA

XEIMN

TTO

APPENDIX TABLE 3. ESTIMATED HARVESTING AND FEEDING COST PER TON HARVESTED, FOR DIFFERENT FORAGE HARVESTING SYSTEMS, BLACK

BELT SUBSTATION,

ALABAMA, 1971-72

Machine or item of cost

Cost per ton, when average tons harvested per year are 2,000 500 1,000 250

System 1-steer feeding with New Holland 277 baler and 1010 Stackliner through feeding $ 1.40 $ 4.12 $ 2.56 New Holland 1469 Haybine---------------------------- $1.79 1.09 1.45 1.21 Massey Ferguson rake-------------------- 1.94 1.79 2.08 3.86 New Holland 277 baler ------------------2.68 New Holland 1010 Stackliner 2.74 2.30 5.41 3.63 (to storage and feeding) .------------.73 .73 .73 Tarpaulins and tiedowns------------------ .73 .04 .04 .04 Fencing--------------------.-$11.09 $ 8.59 $ 7.35 $16.10 Total harvesting and feeding cost

-

.04

System 2-steer feeding with New Holland 277 truck New Holland 1469 Haybine---------------------------- $ Massey Ferguson rake--------------------New Holland 277 baler----------------New Holland 1010 Stackliner (to storage) Pickup truck with 2 men (feeding)-Tarpaulins and tiedowns ------------------. Fencing -------------------------

baler, 1010 Stackliner, and pickup

4.12
1.94 3.86 4.10

$ 2.56
1.45 2.68 2.60

$ 1.79
1.21 2.08 1.85

$

1.40 1.09 1.79 1.47

.73 .73 2.34

Feeding labor----------------------------------Total harvesting and feeding cost-------------------.

.04

.73 .73
.04

.73 .73
.04

.73 .73
.04

2.34
$13.13

2.34
$10.77

$17.86

2.34 $ 9.59

System 3-steer feeding with Hesston Model 30 Stakiand and Model 60 StakFeeder $ 4.12 $ 2.56 $ New Holland 1469 Haybine------------------------------ 1.79 $ 1.40 1.21 1.09 1.45 1.94 Massey Ferguson rake--------------------

Hesston Model 30 StakHand (to storage)

-

7.92

4.97

3.49

2.75

5.64 Hesston Model 60 StakFeeder (feeding)---------. .06 Fencing------------------------Total harvesting and feeding cost---------- $19.68

3.31 .06 $12.35

$

2.14 .06 8.69

$

1.55 .06 6.85

System 4-steer feeding with Hesston Model 30 Stakiland and Model 30 StakFeeder $ 1.79 $ 1.40 $ 2.56 New Holland 1469 Haybine--------------- $ 4.12
Massey Ferguson

Hesston Model 30 StakHand (to storage) ---Hesston Model 30 StakFeeder (feeding) .Fencing ---------------------------- --Total harvesting and feeding cost----------

rake -------------------

_--

1.94

1.45

1.21

1.09

7.92

3.73

4.97 2.25
.06 $11.29

3.49

2.75

.06 $17.77

$ 8.07

1.52 .06

$

1.15 .06 6.45

System 5-brood cows with calves with New Holland 277 Baler, 1047 Stackcruiser, and pickup truck

New Holland 1469 Haybine--------------Massey Ferguson rake-------------------New Holland 277

$ 4.12
1.94
3.86

$ 2.56

New Holland 1047 Stackcruiser (to storage)-Pickup truck .-------------------------Fencing-------------------------------

baler ------------------

1.45

$ 1.79
1.21
2.08

$ 1.40
1.09
1.79

2.68

7.15 .73

Tarpaulins and tiedowns---------------------Feeding labor (2 men) .-------------Total harvesting and feeding cost----------

..734 0

4.15 .73 .04

2.64 .73 .04

1.89 .73 .04

.73
2.34

.73
2.34 $11.56

.73
2.34 $10.01

2.34 $20.91

$14.68

(Continued)

STACK

AND

BALE

SYSTEMS

FOR

HAY

31

STACK AND BALE SYSTEMS FOR HAY

3

APPENDIX TABLE 3 (cot.). ESTIMATED HARVESTING AND FEEDING COST PER TON HARVESTED, FOR DIFFERENT FORAGE HARVESTING SYSTEMS, BLACK

BELT SUBSTATION,

ALABAMA,

1971-72

Machine or item of cost

Cost per ton, when average tons harvested per year are 2,000 1,000 250 500

System 6-brood cows with calves with Hesston Model 30 Stakiand and Model 30 StakMover-open stacks New Holland 1469 Haybine---------------------------- $ 4.12 $ 2.56 $ 1.79 $ 1.40 1.09 1.21 1.45 1.94 Massey Ferguson rake -------------------------------------7.92 Hesston Model 30 StakHand (to storage)-------Hesston. Model 30 StakMover 1.27 (placed in area)-----------Fencingfeeding cost---------- $15.31 Total harvesting 4.97 .73 .06 9.77 3.49 .47 .06 7.02 2.75 .33 .06 5.63

and

.06

$
$

$
$

$

System 7-brood cows with calves with Hesston Model 30 Stakiland and Model 30. StakMover-panels around stacks
New Holland 1469 Haybine--------------

$ 4.12

2.56

1.79

$ 1.40

Massey Ferguson rake------------------Hesston Model 30 StakHand--------_----Hesston Model 30 StakMover----------_-Collapsible panels for

1.94
7.92
1.27 .42

1.45
4.97
.73 .42

1.21
3.49
.47 .42

1.09
2.75
.33 .42

feeding -------------

Fencing------------Labor for handling panels---------------Total harvesting and feeding cost----------

.06 .23 $15.96

.06 .23 $10.42

$

.06 .23 7.67

$

.06 .23 6.28

32

32 ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
APPENDIX TABLE 4. ESTIMATED TOTAL HAY COST PER TON HARVESTED AND PER TON FED AND TOTAL FEED COST PER HUNDREDWEIGHT GAIN AND PER COW AND CALF WINTERED, FOR DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF HAY HARVESTING AND FEEDING, BLACK BELT SUBSTATION, 1971-72

Item of cost

Cost per unit, when average tons larvested per year are 1,000 2,000 250 500

System 1-steer feeding with New Holland 277 baler and 1010 Stackliner through feeding Total hay cost per ton harvested'____________________- $24.63 $19.62 $17.12 $15.88 Total hay cost per ton dry matter harvested'-- 30.07 23.96 20.90 19.39 Total hay cost per ton fed'--- 2 _---- 30.38 ------------------24.20 21.11 19.59 Total hay cost per ton dry matter fed ------ 35.39 28.19 24.60 22.82 Total hay cost per cwt. gain$15.57 $12.48 $10.89 $10.11 Other feed cost per cwt. gain___________________________ 12.94 12.94 12.94 12.94 Total feed cost per cwt. gain $28.61 $25.42 $23.83 $23.05

----

-------------------------

System 2-steer feeding with New Holland 277 baler, 1010 Stackliner, and pickup truck Total hay cost per ton harvested______ _------- $26.39 $21.66 $19.30 $18.12 Total hay cost per ton dry matter harvested--- 32.22 26.45 23.57 22.12 Total hay cost per ton fed________________________________ 23.80 32.55 26.71 22.35 Total hay cost per ton dry matter fed -----37.92 31.12 27.73 26.03 Total hay cost per cwt. gain_____________________________ $16.79 $13.78 $12.28 $11.53

----

Other feed cost per cwt. gain_______________________

Total feed cost per cwt. gain

12.94 12.94 12.94 12.94 ------------------------$29.73 $26.72 $25.22 $24.47

System 3-steer feeding with Hesston Model 30 Stakland and Model 60 StakFeeder Total hay cost per ton harvested _-----------$28.21 $20.88 $17.22 $15.38 Total hay cost per ton dry matter harvested--- 34.71 25.69 21.19 18.92 Total hay cost per ton fed____________ 31.54 23.35 19.26 17.20 Total hay cost per ton dry matter fed 36.76 27.21 22.44 20.04 Total hay cost per cwt. gain____________________________ $23.21 $17.18 $14.17 $12.65 Other feed cost per cwt. gain___________________________ 12.94 12.94 12.94 12.94 Total feed cost per cwt. gain $36.15 $30.12 $27.11 $25.59

-------

---------

Feeder

System 4-steer feeding with llesston Model 30 StakHand and Model 30 Stak-

Total hay cost per ton
Total hay cost per ton

Total hay cost per ton dry matter harvested-fed__--------------

harvested -----------

$26.30

$19.82

$16.60

$14.98

32.36
29.41

24.38
22.16

20.42
18.56

18.43

fed ------34.27 25.82 Total hay cost per cwt. gain________________ $21.64
Total hay cost per ton dry matter

16.75
19.52

21.63

$16.30

$13.66

Other feed cost per cwt. gain______________
Total feed cost per cwt.

$12.32

gain---------------

12.94
$84.58

12.94
$29.24

12.94
$26.60

12.94
$25.26

System 5-wintering brood cows with calves with New Hollansd 277 baler, 1047 Stackcruiser, and pickup truck
Total hay cost per ton

Total hay cost per ton dry matter harvested--Total hay cost per ton fed--------Total hay cost per ton dry matter
Total hay cost per cow Creep cost per cow
_------

harvested -----------

$29.44

$23.21

$20.09

$18.54

Cottonseed meal cost per cow wintered----Total feed cost per cow wintered

--------- 35.14 27.70 fed ------40.85 32.21 wintered ---- $27.69 $21.83 wintered -------------1.57 1.57

36.69

28.92

25.03
23.98 27.88 $18.90
1.57

23.10
22.13 25.73 $17.44
1.57

---__---

5.50
$34.76

5.50
$28.90

5.50
$25.97

5.50
$24.51

(Continued)

STACK

AND

BALE

SYSTEMS

FOR

HAY

33

STACK AND BALE SYSTEMS FOR HAY
APPENDIX TABLE

3

4

AND PER TON FED AND TOTAL FEED COST PER HUNDREDWEIGHT GAIN AND PER COW AND CALF WINTERED, FOR DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF HAY HARVESTING AND FEEDING, BLACK BELT SUBSTATION, 1971-72 Item of cost Cost per unit, when average tons harvested per year are

(Cont.).

ESTIMATED TOTAL HAY COST PER TON HARVESTED

250

500

1,000

2,000

System 6-wintering brood cows with calves with Hesston Model 30 Stakiand and Model 30 StakMover-open stacks $15.55 $14.16 Total hay cost per ton harvested_____________________ $.23.84 $18.30 17.23 29.00 22.26 18.92 Total hay cost per ton dry matter harvested 17.41 15.85 26.69 Total hay cost per ton fed______________________________20.49 22.35 20.35 Total hay cost per ton dry matter fed 34.26 26.30
$25.23 $38.67 $26.69 Total hay cost per cow wintered --------------------3.13 3.13 Creep cost per cow wintered __________________________ 3.13 5.50 5.50 5.50 Cottonseed meal cost per cow wintered---------$38.32 $33.86 Total feed cost per cow wintered____________________ $47.30

-------------

$22.97

3.13 5.50 $31.60

System 7-wintering brood cows with calves with Hesston Model 30 Stakland and Model 30 StakMover-panels around stacks
Total hay cost per ton

Total hay cost per ton dry matter harvested-Total hay cost per ton fed________________
Total hay cost per ton dry matter fed-------_
Total hay cost per cow Creep cost per cow wintered______________

harvested -----------

$24.49

$18.95

$16.20

$14.81

30.79 30.03
35.72
$31.78 3.13

23.82 23.23
27.64
$24.58 3.13

20.37 19.86
23.63
$21.02 3.13

18.62 18.16
21.60
$19.22 3.13

-----wintered ----

5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 Cottonseed meal cost per cow wintered-----______ $40.41 $33.21 $29.65 $27.85 - Total feed cost per cow winterecL 1Includes $8.53 per ton cost of producing hay as estimated at Black Belt Substation, as well as harvesting and feeding costs as observed and budgeted.
2 There

was some loss of hay and dry matter between the time of storage

the time of feeding, which these figures reflect.

and

34

ALABAMA

AGRICULTURAL

EXPERIMENT

STATION

34

ALABAMA AGRICULTRLEPIMN

SAIO

APPENDIX TABLE 5. ESTIMATED INVESTMENT REQUIRED FOR MAJOR HAY HARVESTING EQUIPMENT, DIFFERENT SYSTEMS OF HAY HARVESTING AND FEEDING, BLACK BELT SUBSTATION, 1971-72 Equipmentinvestment System 1

Equipent'Initial

new

New Holland 1469 Haybine-----------------------Massey Ferguson rake New Holland 277 baler New Holland 1010 Stackliner--------------------------------------------------------TOTAL System 2 New Holland 1469 Haybine--------------------------Massey Ferguson rake -------------------------New Holland 277 baler-------- ---New Holland 1010 Stackliner-------------------TOTAL System 3

$ 5,572.30

--

604.00-----,293.10 8-----------------------------4,540.00

$14,009.40-----------

$

5,572.80 3,293.10
4,540.00

604.00

$14,009.40------------------------

New Holland 1469 Haybine-------------------Massey Ferguson rake-------Hesston Model 30 StakHand-------------Hesston Model 60 StakFeeder--------------------TOTAL$29-------.----------24
System 4

$
-

-8,162.94

5,572.30 604.00 7,750.00

New Holland 1469 Haybine---------------------Massey Ferguson rake -------------------------Hesston Model 30 StakHand Hesston Model 30 StakFeeder--------------------TOTAL System 5 New Holland 1469 Haybine Massey Ferguson rake ------------------------- --------New H olland 277 baler -------------------------------New Holland 1047 Stackcruiser--------------------------TOTAL .- --- - - - ----- -- - -- -- - - - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - ---System 6

$
-

5,572.30 04.00 7,750.00---------4,845.00 $1877.3----------------------------

$

5,572.30 604.00 3,293.10 12078.00 $2 1,54 7.4 0

New Holland 1469 Haybine----------------------------Massey Ferguson rake - ---------------------------- ---Hesston M odel 30 StakHand-----------------------------

$ 5,572.30
604.00
7,750.00

Hesston Model 30 StakM over---------------------------TO TAL .- ---- ------ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -- --- -- -- -- -- -- --

15 $ ,92 1.30
604.00 7,750.00, 1,995.00
1,900.00

1,995.00

System 7
New Holland 1469 Haybine----$-----5,572.30-----------------

M assey Ferguson rake -------------------------------Hesston M odel 30 StakHand----------------------------------Hesston Model 30 StakMover---------------------Collapsible panels (per 500

tons/year) ---------------------

TOTAL-------------------------------

$17,821.30

'Does not include equipment such as tractors or pickup trucks, which an average farm might already have. 2 Manufacturers suggested price plus transportation.

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SYSTEM OF ALABAMA'S LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITY

With an agricultural
research unit in every major soil area, Aubuns I ,

University serves the 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, since any advantage
from new and more economical ways of producing and handling l

6

0 0 ©
-6

® _

farm products directly
benefits the consuming

public.

©

Research Unit Identification (,Main
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn.

Tennessee Valley Substation, Belle Mina. Sand Mountain Substation, Crossville. North Alabama Horticulture Substation, Cullman. Upper Coastal Plain Substation, Winfield. Forestry Unit, Fayette County. Thorsby Foundation Seed Stocks Farm, Thorsby. Chilton Area Horticulture Substation, Clanton. Forestry Unit, Cooso County. Piedmont Substation, Camp Hill. Plant Breeding Unit, Tollassee. 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.