Notes From Nelson

Ken M. Nelson, County Extension Agent

Winter Series

Don't forget Extension Winter Series scheduled for Monday, January 16th from 4:00 to 7:30 PM at the Fairgrounds in Circle. Topics to be included are: Tree and Shelterbelt Recovery Following Drought; Nutrition for the Cow Herd; and Re-thinking our Approach to Forage Nitrate Toxicity. A free-will supper will be served during the event. All are welcome!

Hay Wastage

A lot of expense and many long hours go into harvesting, storing, and feeding the winter hay supply. It is obviously a foolish thing to waste any of it. However, depending on method of feeding and how much is fed at one time, livestock can trample, over consume, foul on, and use for bedding up to nearly half of the hay fed.

Excessive hay consumption can be a major problem when hay packages are fed without restriction. A dry, pregnant cow will eat 20 to 30 percent more hay than she needs when allowed free access to hay. This can amount to over 700 pounds per cow over a four month feeding period for spring-calving cows. With a 100-cow herd, this could mean up to 35 tons of hay being over consumed if the cows have free access to hay. This is in addition to the amount of hay that is wasted when it is fed free access.

Feeding hay daily according to animal requirements can reduce hay loss. Compared to feeding a several-day supply each time hay is provided, daily feeding will force livestock to eat hay they might otherwise refuse.

No matter how hay is fed, efforts that limit the amount of hay accessible to trampling will save feed. Feeding hay on a well-drained site will help reduce waste. Using hayracks with a solid barrier at the bottom helps prevent livestock from pulling hay loose with feet and dragging it out to be stepped on.

The effect of hay feeding methods on cow performance and economics was evaluated using mature cows at the Dickinson Research and Extension Center. Methods evaluated included 1) rolling bales out on the ground, 2) A PTO driven round bale processor that shreds round bales into windrows, and 3) a tapered-cone round bale feeder engineered with a center tapered cone creating a manger around the inner circumference of the feeder. Pregnant cows were fed for a period of 58 days to document feed waste, and cow performance (weight gain, ultrasound fat depth change, body condition score change and hay intake). Labor inputs and feeding time were also subsequently used to develop an economic analysis.

The cows eating at the tapered cone feeder had increased ending weight, rib and rump fat depth change, increased ending body condition score, and reduced hay usage. In the economic analysis model, which was developed for 100 head cow herd sizes, feeding with a tapered-cone round bale feeder offered substantial cost savings per cow arising from lower hay usage and reduced equipment operating time. Using a PTO driven bale processor to shred bales into windrows before feeding was the most expensive due to higher ownership cost and higher hay disappearance per cow compared to the taper-cone baled feeder. Rolling bales out on the ground or shredding into windrows with a bale processor increased hay usage and winter-feeding cost without enhancing cow performance.