Large Round Bale Feeders Compared

Livestock Update, February 2003

Mark L. Wahlberg, Extension Animal Scientist, 4-H Livestock, VA Tech

In a just published article in Journal of Animal Science, Dr. Dan Buskirk and associates at Michigan State University evaluated 4 round bale feeder designs for the amount of hay that was wasted and differences in cow behavior.

Specifics of their experimental methods were:

• Second-cutting hay was baled in 4 foot by 5 foot twine-wrapped bales which were stored in barns within 24 hours of baling and removed at feeding time.
• Pregnant beef cows averaging 1350 pounds were assigned to groups of 20 cows each that were housed in outside pens. Feeders were placed on concrete pads to facilitate collecting wasted hay.
• Feeder space allowed was 15 inches of linear distance per head.
• Hay was put into feeders when cows would likely run out the next day. Thus, free choice hay was available.
• Measurements of hay fed and hay wasted were taken during two 7-day periods. Hay intake was calculated from hay disappearance minus hay waste.
• Behavior observations included entrance to the feeder and movements that resulted in cows being displaced from the feeder.

Feeders evaluated in the trial were:

• Round bale ring feeder, which was 7.5 feet in diameter with 18 feeder spaces separated with bars at a 70 degree angle 14 inches apart. The top rail was at 4 feet of height. Solid material made up the first 2 feet of height.
• Cone Feeder was same diameter and feeder space bars as ring feeder. Bottom and top sections were solid, with open feed access in the middle 2 feet of height. Overall height was 6 feet. An interior cone of bars kept the bale in the center of the feeder.
• Cradle Feeder was 12 feet long by 6 feet wide. Vertical bars were spaced about 8 inches on all sides of the cradle, thus cows could not put their heads inside the feeder.
• Trailer Feeder was 20 feet long by 7 feet wide, but hay was placed in only 12 feet of length. It had bars set at 50 degrees every 16 inches. Within the space used, it contained 19 feeding spaces.

Results of hay waste and intake are in table 1.

Table 1.	Type of Hay Feeder Used
Item	Cone	Ring	Trailer	Cradle
Daily Hay Disappearance, Lb	26.4	26.6	30.6	28.4
Daily Hay Waste, Pounds/Cow	0.9	1.5	3.5	4.2
Hay Waste, % of Disappearance	3.5	6.1	11.4	14.6
Daily Hay Intake, Lb/Cow	25.3	25.1	27.1	24.2
Intake per Cow, % of Body Wt	1.8	1.8	2.0	1.8

All values for hay waste were relatively low, and the authors identified some reasons. First, the hay was second cutting, and it was stored in a barn. Consequently, cows were less able to sort through the hay to select preferred parts, and all hay was kept in excellent condition. If it had been first cutting hay stored outside there would doubtless have been much more sorting and refusal, leading to much higher waste.

They observed that cows with slant bar feeding spaces were encouraged to keep their heads inside the feeder, thus less tendency to pull hay from the feeder. With feeders which had a top rail, such as the cone and ring feeders used here, cows are forced to eat in a head-down, natural grazing position. There is also less tendency for cows to throw their head and toss hay in the process with this feeder design.

Behavioral data showed that cows using the cradle feeder had more than twice as many displacements from the feeder and came to the feeder more than 3 times as often as with any other feeder. Feeder design did not provide individual feeding stations, and it was much easier for cows to come and go. This may have contributed to the higher waste of hay that occurred. The other 3 feeders used produced behavioral observations that were not different from each other.

Conclusions: Round bale feeders of all designs prevent cattle from walking on and lying in hay, thus reducing wastage when compared to allowing cattle free access to round bales. But among the various feeder designs, there are differences in wastage allowed. In the trial cited here, the difference in hay waste between the high and low feeder design was 3.3 pounds. Again, comparing the low and high values, this would have been enough hay saved from every 8 cows to have been able to feed 1 more cow. The only hay that does any good is the hay that gets inside the cow. All management practices which reduce wasted hay and encourage consumption will be beneficial to the cattle.

Reference: Buskirk, D.D., A.J. Zanella, T.M.Harrigan, J.L. Van Lente, L.M. Gnagey, and M.J. Kaercher. 2003. Large round bale feeder design affects hay utilization and beef cow behavior. J. Anim. Sci. 81:109-115.

Visit Virginia Cooperative Extension