Effect of Hay Feeding Methods on Cow Performance, Hay Waste, and Wintering Cost

• Published in: Professional Animal Scientist Vol. 23; no. 3; pp. 246 - 252
• Main Authors: Landblom, D.G., Lardy, G.P., Fast, R., Wachenheim, C.J., Petry, T.A.
• Format: Journal Article Trade Publication Article
• Language: English
• Published: Champaign Elsevier Inc 01.06.2007; American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists
• Subjects: beef cow; beef cows; Cattle; Cost control; costs and returns; Economic models; Environmental conditions; feeding method; Feeds; hay; Production costs; Winter; wintering cost; beef cow; hay; feeding method; wintering cost
• ISSN: 1080-7446; 1525-318X
• DOI: 10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30969-4

A 3-yr investigation was conducted to determine the effect of hay feeding methods on cow wintering cost. A conventional method of rolling round bales out on the ground was compared with shredding round hay bales on the ground with a bale processor and with feeding hay in a tapered-cone round bale feeder. The cows used in the study were in the third trimester of pregnancy and were fed for an average of 59 d during the test period. Data recorded from the multipleyear study was then used to prepare an economic analysis model with operating budgets for 100- and 300-head reference herds. Feeding bales in a tapered-cone round bale feeder increased cow weight gain (P < 0.01), tended to increase rib fat depth (P = 0.06), reduced estimated hay consumption by an average of 10.2% compared with rolling bales out on the ground or using a bale processor to shred hay on the ground (P < 0.01), and reduced hay waste in the first 2yr of the study when alfalfa-grass hay was fed, but not in the last year when oat hay was fed. The tapered-cone round bale feeder reduced waste, decreased the amount of hay required per cow, and decreased wintering cost per cow while maintaining body condition. Overall, for the 3yr evaluation period, using the tapered-cone round bale feeder reduced wintering cost by 21.0% for a 100-cow reference herd and 17.6% for a 300-cow reference herd compared with feeding with a bale processor.