U of A University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture

Pictures of chickens, flowers, wheat, a boy looking through a magnifying glass, irrigation pipe, soybean pods, and fruits and vegetables.

Cooperative Extension Service

Cooperative Extension Service

Agricultural Experiment Station


Search | Publications | Jobs | Personnel Directory | Links
County Offices | Departments

About Us

Find Us

For the Media

Agriculture

Aquaculture
       & Fisheries

Beef
Corn
Cotton
Dairy
Forage/Pasture
Forestry
Grain Sorghum
Horses
Horticulture
      Commercial

Poultry
Rice
Soybean
Specialty Agriculture
Swine
Wheat

Links
Newsletters

Business & Communities

Families & Consumers

Health & Nutrition

Home & Garden

Natural Resources

4-H Youth Development

Public Policy Center

For Faculty & Staff

Giving

Dale Bumpers College
of Agricultural, Food &
Life Sciences


Division Home


Agricultural Experiment
      Station Home


Cooperative Extension
      Service Home

 

Beef Cattle Nutrition and Feeding
Visual Learning Center
Hay Storage and Feeding Losses


Storage Losses
 

Weather damage to hay stored outside depends on:
  • Bale density/shape (ability to shed rain)

Photo of single round hay bale with rot

Weather damage to hay stored outside depends on:

  • Storing rows too tightly together

  • Storing hay on a flat, poorly drained versus sloping site

Photo of round hay bales with rot in field

The larger the bale, the lower the spoilage ring loss.
A 3 to 4” spoilage layer on a 5’ bale equals 18 to 22% hay loss.

Photo of round hay bales with rot in field.

Weather damage to hay stored outside depends on:
Bale storage method

  • stored on ground: 43% handling+storage waste

  • stored on wooden rack: 31% handling+storage waste

Photo of round hay bales stored on wooden racks

Moisture distribution of twine wrapped alfalfa/grass round bales stored on the ground or pallets

Image of moisture distribution in hay bales stored on the ground and on pallets.

Images courtesy of Dr. Kevin Shinners, U of Wisconsin

Weather damage to hay stored outside
depends on:
  • Bale wrap (mesh vs. sisal twine)
  • Fescue hay wrapped: 2” weathered layer
  • Fescue hay unwrapped: 4.4” weathered layer
  • Net Wrapping costs $1.50/bale

Photo of hay bales wrapped with net mesh

Moisture distribution of net wrapped vs. twine wrapped alfalfa/grass round bales stored on the ground

Image of moisture distribution in hay bales using net wrapping and twine wrapping.

Images courtesy of Dr. Kevin Shinners, University of Wisconsin

Hay should not be stored outside for more than a year.

Photo of hay bales damaged due to long term outside storage without protection

Storage and handling losses
  • Hay stored on wooden racks: 31%
  • Hay stored on wooden racks w/ tarp: 12%
  • Hay stored in a pole barn: 2%
  • Often difficult to keep hay covered plus disposal of worn out tarps

Photo of hay bales stacked and covered with a tarp

Sheltering hay reduces spoilage losses
Must consider the cost of losses vs. cost of building a pole barn
Hay baled wet + pole barns = hot firePhoto of hay bales stored in pole barn
It is more economical to shelter high quality hay
as opposed to low quality hay.

Photo of hay bales stored in pole barn


Feeding Losses
 

The most common method of feeding hay is delivering the hay from the hay lot or barn to the cattle.

Photo of unrolling hay bales from back of truck

Advantages of unrolling hay include:
  • Dispersing the bale allowing “boss” cows and timid cows to consume the same bale at the same time
  • Reducing hoof action damage by relocating where the hay is unrolled and dispersing the cows over a larger stretch of land
  • Control the amount of hay allotted by proportioning bales

Photo of cattle feeding in the snow on hay unrolled on ground.

Losses from unrolling exist and will vary with feeding situation. Excessive unrolled hay is exposed to defecation, urination, trampling and bedding.

Photo of cattle feeding on a hill side with hay unrolled on the ground

Feeding unprotected hay results in excessive losses.
Losses from protecting vs. not protecting.
1974 study comparing rack vs. no rack: 23 to 39%, University of Tennessee, 1978: 28%

Photo of hay fed as unprotected whole bale.

Cone Feeder Hay Waste – 4%
Not a common feeder in AR

Photo of cone feeder

Image source: D. Buskirk, Michigan State University, JAS

Ring Feeder - Hay Waste – 6%

Photo of ring feeder

Cradle Feeder - Hay Waste – 15%Photo of cradle feeder

Image source: D. Buskirk, Michigan State University, JAS

Wagon hay feeder - Hay waste 11%Photo of wagon hay feeder

Image source: D. Buskirk, Michigan State University, JAS

Conclusion

Reducing hay losses can be accomplished by

  • Evaluating how hay is harvested
  • Evaluating how hay is stored
  • Evaluating how hay is offered

Download this slide presentation

Microsoft Office LogoThis slide presentation is in PowerPoint.  If you do not have PowerPoint you can download the free PowerPoint Viewer 97 (2000 Release) for PowerPoint 2000 Users to view these slides. 

Back to Beef Cattle Nutrition Visual Learning Center


© 2006
University of Arkansas
Division of Agriculture
All rights reserved.
Last Date Modified 07/15/2008
Webmaster

University of Arkansas • Division of Agriculture
Cooperative Extension Service
2301 South University Avenue
Little Rock, Arkansas 72204 • USA
Phone (501) 671-2000 • Fax (501) 671-2209
 

MissionDisclaimerEEO
PrivacyFOI