Cattle trample one-quarter of their feed into the snow if it’s not fed in a bunk.
Barry Yaremcio, a beef and forage specialist with Alberta Agriculture who has measured the amount of feed waste in fields, says it doesn’t matter if the feed is unrolled on the snow, spread using a bale processor or fed as pit or round bale silage – the amount of feed wasted is huge and can cost producers $28 to $51 a head per year.
“It’s a huge amount of money,” Yaremcio said.
Read Also
Land crash warning rejected
A technical analyst believes that Saskatchewan land values could be due for a correction, but land owners and FCC say supply/demand fundamentals drive land prices – not mathematical models
While waste is zero when feed is fed in a bunk, it is 12 percent when unrolled on top of the snow, 19 percent when put through a bale processor, shredded and fed on the snow, 23.1 percent when fed as round bale silage and 26.8 percent when fed as pit silage and spread on the snow.
“We knew it was going to be higher than most people recognized,” he said.
During a survey of 300 farmers in 2005, 95 percent estimated their cattle waste at zero to five percent of their feed.
“No matter what kind of system they had, they said it was zero to five percent waste,” he said.
“When you spread it out over 800 to 900 feet per bale, you really don’t see that much because 80 percent of it is hidden in the snow,” he said.
“Guys don’t realize this is actually occurring.”
Yaremcio said the research was instigated after reading advertising by companies selling bale processors that claimed producers could lower feed used by 20 to 30 percent by using processors to feed cattle.
Yaremcio said he picked up every brochure from every feed company at a trade show and they all guaranteed to reduce the amount of feed required.
“We’re saying no, it’s not happening.”
When pressed, companies admitted they hadn’t done research but used farmer testimonials of lower feed use and feed costs in their advertising, Yaremcio said.
“Nobody had the proof to show is this true or not.”
With more producers feeding cattle in the field in an attempt to save money, he said, the time was right to research the cost of feeding on snow.
In the first part of the trial, Yaremcio evaluated four types of dry bale forage: alfalfa; alfalfa-grass mix; crested wheat grass and oat greenfeed. The bales were shredded and sieved to separate the fine and coarse material. Legume hay such as alfalfa had the greatest amount of fine material, which are the bits of hay that have the highest concentration of energy, protein and minerals.
The rate of fine material loss was greater when a bale processor was used to feed the animals.
“You’re losing 40 percent of the nutrients if you’re feeding 80 to 90 percent alfalfa hay. You’re losing only 20 to 25 percent of nutrients if going with grass hay,” he said.
“The higher the quality, the more you lose. With a bale processor you’re changing that high quality alfalfa into an average quality grass hay.”
In the second part of the trial, tarps were placed on the ground to collect and measure feed lost in the snow. In the first year of the trial, a pen of 55 bred heifers were fed 90 percent of the recommended 22.7 pounds of meadow brome hay per day. The heifers had a separate loafing area with bedding straw to eat and make up the feed shortfall.
By feeding 90 percent of the recommended dry matter required, researchers reduced the likelihood of excess feed being measured as waste.
“We wanted to make those heifers work. They had to try and consume as much hay as they could because they were restricting the feed,” he said.
During a 210 day winter feeding period, 4,767 lb. of dry baled hay are required per heifer. With a 12 percent loss from the feed trampled in the snow when the feed is unrolled, an additional 650 lb. of hay are needed, costing about $21.25 per head. When the bale processor is used, an additional 1,118 lb. of hay are needed to replace the waste, costing an additional $40.69 per head.
Yaremcio said an $850 portable bunk feeder eliminated feed waste. Farmers can recoup the cost of the bunk feeder in less than four months in feed savings.
He said farmers are on the right track by feeding their animals in the field to reduce corral-cleaning costs and increase the value of nitrogen from manure, but the savings are offset unless a portable feed bunk is used.
