Effects of bale feeder design on hay waste, intake, and apparent diet digestibility in gestating beef cows

Two experiments were conducted to determine the effects of feeder design on hay intake, apparent diet digestibility, and hay waste in gestating beef cows. Native tallgrass prairie hay and a protein supplement was fed throughout both experiments. In Exp. 1, 56 crossbred cows were used in a Latin square arrangement. Feeder design treatments included a conventional open bottom steel ring (OBSR), an open bottom polyethylene pipe ring (POLY); a sheeted bottom steel ring (RING), and a sheeted bottom steel ring with a basket (BASK). Cows were weighed and allotted based on BW to one of four previously grazed 2.0 ha paddocks equipped with a concrete feeding pad. Fourteen cows were assigned to each paddock and three round bales were fed consecutively within each treatment period. The cows acclimated to the feeders while the first bale was being consumed. Subsequently, hay waste data was collected while the 2 nd and 3 rd bale within each period were being consumed. Waste was measured for each bale at 24, 48, 72, and 96 h after each bale was introduced into the pen. Hay waste was significantly affected by hay feeder design with 19.7, 21.1, 12.4, and 5.5% of original bale weight wasted for OBSR, POLY, RING and BASK, respectively (P < 0.01). There was a feeder design x day interaction (P < 0.01) with greater waste when the bale was first introduced into the pen in OBSR, POLY, and RING feeders and gradually declining thereafter, while waste from the BASK feeder was consistently low. There was a tendency (P = 0.06) for cows eating from OBSR feeders to consume less hay than cows eating from RING feeders. Feeder design did not influence apparent diet digestibility (P = 0.46). In Exp. 2, sixty-four crossbred cows (BW = 590 ± 59 kg) were used to determine waste, forage intake and apparent diet digestibility when hay was fed from a sheeted bottom steel ring (RING) or a RING feeder with a cone insert (CONE). More hay was wasted when cows were fed from RING feeders compared to CONE feeders (11.9% vs. 4.8%, P < 0.01). Feeder design had no effect on DMI or apparent digestibility (P > 0.45). Hay savings from adopting a more conservative feeder design can have a dramatic influence on hay utilization by beef cows and thus on cost of production.

Effect of ammoniation and harvest method on waste and consumption of corn residue bales fed to cows in a round bale feeder

To determine the effects of harvest method and ammoniation (3.7% of dry matter) on consumption and waste of baled corn residue, a 6 × 6 Latin square with a 3 × 2 factorial treatment structure was conducted. Six treatments consisted of either nonammoniated or ammoniated residue, harvested one of three ways: conventional rake and bale (CONV), New Holland Cornrower with two rows of stem chopped into the windrow with tailings (2ROW), or EZBale system (EZB) with a disengaged combine spreader and tailings dropped in a windrow. Open cows were grouped by body weight to produce a light block of two pens (448 kg ± 49.6) and a heavy block of four pens (649 kg ± 65.9). One bale was fed to each pen during each of six 7-d periods using round bale ring feeders with closed bottom panels. Residue falling around (waste) and remaining in (refusals) the feeder was collected. The daily nutrient intake was estimated as the difference between what was offered and what remained (waste plus refusals). Crude protein (CP) of residue offered did not differ (P = 0.58) among harvest methods. The digestible organic matter (DOM) content of residue offered in 2ROW and EZB bales did not differ (P = 0.86) and was greater (P < 0.01) than CONV. Ammoniation increased (P < 0.01) CP and DOM content of the residue offered. Total wasted and refused residue did not differ (P = 0.12) between 2ROW (29%) and EZB (37%), while CONV (42%) was greater (P = 0.02) than 2ROW but did not differ (P = 0.34) from EZB. Ammoniation reduced (P = 0.03) total waste and refusals from 41% to 32%. The nutrient content of both waste and refusals did not differ (P ≥ 0.34) among harvest methods and, with the exception of CP, was not affected (P ≥ 0.15) by ammoniation. The CP content of the waste was greater (P = 0.02) and refusals tended to be greater (P = 0.08) from ammoniated bales. The CP intake of 2ROW was greater (P ≤ 0.02) than both EZB and CONV, while EZB tended (P = 0.06) to be greater than CONV. The CP intake of all ammoniated residues was greater (P < 0.01) than the nonammoniated residue. The DOM intake of nonammoniated 2ROW and EZB did not differ (P = 0.61) but was greater than nonammoniated CONV (P < 0.01). Ammoniation increased (P < 0.01) DOM intake. Overall, ammoniation had much larger effects than harvest method, resulting in reduced waste and refusals and greater intake of DOM and CP. However, the combination of both ammoniation and selective harvest (2ROW or EZB) was needed to result in energy and protein intakes that would meet the needs of a mature cow in mid-gestation.

PSII-15 Effect of ammoniation and harvest method on waste and consumption of corn residue bales fed to cows in a round bale feeder

To determine the effects of harvest method and ammoniation (3.7% of DM) on the consumption and waste of baled corn residue, a 6 x 6 Latin square with a 3 x 2 factorial treatment structure was conducted. Six treatments consisted of either untreated or ammoniated residue, harvested one of three ways: conventional rake-and-bale (CONV), New Holland Cornrower with two rows of stem chopped into the windrow with tailings (2ROW), or EZ-Bale system (EZB) with a disengaged combine spreader and tailings dropped in a windrow. Open beef females (12 heifers and 30 cows) were stratified and blocked by age into 6 pens (7 hd/pen) such that each pen had similar total BW. One bale was fed to each pen over six, 7 d periods using round-bale ring feeders with closed bottom panels. Residue falling around (waste) and remaining in (orts) the feeder were weighed. There was a significant (P < 0.01) harvest method by ammoniation interaction for DMI (% BW) and a tendency (P = 0.07) for waste. Intake of non-ammoniated EZB (1.6%) was greater (P = 0.03) than CONV (1.3%) and 2ROW (1.4%) which did not differ (P = 0.80). Intake of ammoniated CONV (1.2%) and EZB (1.5%) did not differ (P = 0.45) from their non-ammoniated counterpart, but ammoniation increased intake of 2ROW (1.9%). Within the unammoniated residue, waste did not differ (P > 0.13) among harvest methods and was 17.8%, 23.4%, and 22.7% for EZB, CONV and 2ROW. Ammoniated EZB (16.3%) and CONV (21.8%) did not differ from each other or their unammoniated counterpart. However, waste (10.6%) of ammoniated 2ROW was less (P < 0.01) than non-ammoniated 2ROW. Ammoniation and, to a lesser extent, harvest method, can be used to increase intake and reduce waste of corn residue bales fed to cows.