Search Tip
Control "F"
Type in Key Word(s)
Hit Enter

Spotlight.....Tim Harrigan

May, 1999


BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ROUND BALE STORAGE AND FEEDING

Round bales are the most common hay harvest method on beef farms and are frequently used on dairy farms. Direct storage costs are low when bales are stored outside, but waste can be excessive unless the bales are protected from the weather and care is taken to reduce feeding loss.

Storage method has a great impact on dry matter loss during storage. The lowest dry matter loss of round bale hay has been in bales stored inside, protected from the weather. The greatest dry matter loss of large round bales during storage has been with bales stored outside, uncovered, and in direct contact with the ground. In measuring storage dry matter loss in Michigan, we have seen typical losses of 4% for bales stored in a shed and 16% for bales stored outside on the ground.

Hay loss can also be excessive in feeding. Feeding loss is greater when weathered bales are fed since cattle readily sort the weathered from the unweathered hay. Use of bale feeders can also reduce loss. Round bale feeders limit access

to the hay and thus limit waste from trampling and soiling. Dr. Dan Buskirk is leading a team of researchers in evaluating round bale feeding loss with beef cows. Preliminary results show waste when feeding shed-stored 5X4 bales of about 3% with a cone-type feeder, 6% with a ring-type, 11% with a trailer and 14% with a cradle-type feeder. Feeding loss would have been much higher had the hay been unprotected in storage or fed without benefit of a feeder.

Table 1 lists estimated storage and feeding costs for five storage and two feeding methods. Costs include storage, additional machinery costs beyond the basic machinery needed to handle bales stored outside, additional feed needed to replace the storage and feeding losses associated with each system. Each storage method offering some protection from the weather is more profitable than storing the bales uncovered on the ground. In all cases, using a cone-type feeder is more profitable than giving cattle unrestricted access to bales placed on the ground.

Table 1. Predicted annual costs ($/ton) for five hay storage and two feeding systems for 300 tons (650 5X4 bales) fed to beef cows with hay valued at $100/ton.

 

Shed

Covered Stack

Baler
Wrap

Exposed,
Elevated

Exposed,
Soil Contact

Storage

$8.00

$3.30

$7.70

$2.30

-0-

Additional Machinery & Labor

$2.00

$2.80

$0.70

-0-

-0-

Additional Feed

Cone Feeder

-0-

$2.00

$4.00

$10.00

$16.00

Ground Feeding

$12.00

$18.00

$20.00

$26.00

$32.00

Total Storage and Feeding Cost

Cone Feeder

$10.00

$8.10

$12.40

$12.30

$16.00

Ground Feeding

$22.00

$24.10

$28.40

$28.30

$32.00

 

DETERMINING BARRIERS TO ADOPTION
AND RESEARCH NEEDS OF PRECISION AGRICULTURE


The Precision Agriculture Center at the University of Missouri conducted four focus groups across a geographically diverse area within the North Central Region (Higginsville, MO; Sioux City, NE; Bloomington, IL; Fort Wayne, IN) during the summer of 1998 to learn about precision agriculture (PA) needs from soybean growers.

Two sets of soybean producers were invited to be part of the focus groups; one set with little or no experience in precision agriculture (non-adopters), the second set having at least two years of experience with some aspect of precision agriculture (adopters).

Cost of Technology Adoption – Nearly all participants focused on the cost of PA because costs were tangible and relatively easy to document. Until one or two "systems" become dominant, with the bugs worked out, producers will be reluctant to accept high investment costs, particularly in the face of low commodity prices. Both groups (adopters and non-adopters) mentioned that the time and expertise needed to learn how to use the equipment and software represented a significant obstacle and are frustrated that precision agriculture equipment and software are not more "user-friendly".

Training and Consultation – Both groups indicated they did not have access to sufficient training to make them fully competent in the use of PA tools. They also stated that commercial representatives for various input dealers need training in PA techniques and analytical methods.

Data Quality Control – Participants indicated that they experienced several areas of difficulty in maintaining good quality data collection.

Consumer Guide – Both groups desired more information about the comparative advantages / disadvantages of different PA equipment and
techniques, hardware, software and input combinations. The information should also address the conditions of farming for which PA will likely have the greatest benefit.

Environmental Aspects – Participants indicated they wanted to see research that documented environmental improvements without affecting yields. They felt their ability to "prove" they were using the best possible practices would protect them from blame in contributing to non-point source pollution, as well as provide a way to improve their own conservation practices.

New Technology

  • spot-treatment of weeds

  • soil moisture and variable irrigation

  • interaction between PA and varieties

  • standardization of equipment design

  • field management for variable yield goals

  • soil sampling techniques and practices

  • direct measurement of fertility

  • soil moisture and soil quality

  • disease and insect management

Research and Education Priorities

  • Use PA tools to identify soybean yield-limiting factors and relationship to yield variation.

  • Increase understanding of soil quality and relationship to site-specific soybean yield.

  • Develop "on-the-go" sensors for assessing soil properties.

  • Develop standards for hardware and/or software compatibility and uniform product evaluation procedures.

  • Study interactions of livestock manure, soybean growth and yield and PA tools.

  • Develop education / training programs for producers including written documents and face-to-face training.

  • Develop education / training programs for dealers, including training exercises in electronic format.

Roger Brook
Summarized from report to the North Central Soybean Research Program by the Precision Agriculture Center, University of Missouri. Full copies of the report are available to MSU Extension staff on request from: brook@msue.msu.edu

 

 

ON THE ROAD TO PRECISION AGRICULTURE
Non-Grid Soil Sampling and Fertilizing Ideas

Grid soil sampling has been used for several years to guide variable-rate fertilization. Recent studies show that soil fertility patterns may be the result of topography or other predictable reasons. Thus, a high level of information might be obtained with minimal sampling and analytical expense.

Reasons for grid sampling
Grid sampling is a systematic sampling that uses a high density of soil cores to reveal soil fertility patterns. Grid sampling is especially useful when man-made variations in soil fertility levels occur that are not revealed in plant growth differences. Agronomically, there is nothing wrong with sampling by grids if it is conducted relatively densely, such as one sample per acre. However, few growers are willing to sample densely enough to give adequate information to direct variable-rate application consistently because of the time and expense.

Topography and soil fertility levels
Soil fertility levels may be related to landscape, especially in areas where high levels of fertilizers or manure applications have not been made. Mobile nutrients move in the soil from upland positions to depressions where water may collect and move into the soil. Water that infiltrates upland positions moves downward until it reaches a discontinuity in texture (coarser over finer or fine over coarser) which causes the water to flow laterally.

Nitrate may or may not be high in depressions due to the activity of denitrification bacteria. In saturated soils, denitrification bacteria transform nitrate into gaseous forms of N which are not taken up by plants. The nitrogen is therefore lost to plant uptake. In semi-arid areas, the depressions are often high in nitrate.

However, in more humid regions, the activity of denitrification bacteria is relatively high, and low levels of nitrate may be present in depressions, along with high levels of chloride and sulfate.

Non-mobile nutrient levels may also be related to topography. Due to increased plant growth and lower mineralization, depression areas tend to have higher levels of organic matter and clay-sized particles than upland areas. Organic matter accumulates micro-nutrients and P, while clay size particles may contain more K than silt or sand-sized particles. On the other hand, higher crop yields in depressions compared to upland positions may lead to higher P levels on upland positions.

Levels of nutrients are also affected by past erosion. Upland positions are particularly subject to wind erosion in semi-arid environments. In many fields in the central North Dakota glacial till region, hilltops are bare of the original high organic matter surface layer due to the action of wind during the last one hundred years of cropping. The hilltops often contain lower levels of all nutrients because of the loss of organic matter. Depression areas may contain additional clay and organic matter from water erosion and deposition. Or, some intermediate areas within slopes may have shallower organic layers due to accelerated erosion since the onset of cropping. Sulfur availability appears to be particularly sensitive to low organic matter levels. Sulfur deficiency in canola is often seen on eroded slopes but not in areas on the same slopes with higher organic matter.

Roger Brook
At the Precision Agriculture session during ANR week this year, Dr. Dave Franzen North Dakota State University, discussed this topic with those in attendance. This is the first of a two part summary of the handout. Copies of the handout are available to MSU Extension staff on request from: brook@msue.msu.edu



SURFING THE WEB

PorkNet - http://www.ansci.uiuc.edu/porknet/
PorkNet is an integrated, information access, technology transfer system for the purpose of addressing the needs of the swine sector within Illinois. There are two principle elements, focusing on information collection and dissemination, and the development of novel approaches to information delivery.

Entomology Index of Internet Resources - http://www.ent.iastate.edu/List/
This is an attempt to organize information resources available to entomologists. Without a site such as this, entomologists could waste a lot of time looking for good entomological information on the Internet without much success. The intent of this site is to maintain a collaborative database of useful sites and organize them in a usable manner. In this way, this site serves as a "jumping-off point" for many entomology sites.

Plant Pathology Internet Guide Book - http://www.ifgb.uni-hannover.de/extern/ppigb/ppigb.htm
An Internet resource guide for all aspects of plant pathology, applied entomology and related fields. It is intended as starting-point for scientists, students and all who are interested in phytopathology to explore the Internet. The compilation of websites is divided into thematic categories in which every link is followed by a brief description of the content of the website. Every link is also accompanied by an additional keyword set, which is not visible in PPIGB but which is searchable.

That Y2K Bug! - http://www.cagle.com/Y2K/
The latest cartoons about the Year 2000 Crisis, updated as new ones come in.

Roger Brook

Abstracted from the Agri-Surfer newsletter
http://www.agrisurfer.com
Neither I nor Michigan State University
endorse the information contained in these web sites.

 

Agricultural Engineering Extension Faculty

William G. Bickert
. Livestock Facilities and Environment.
Roger C. Brook. Handling, Storage and Drying of Agricultural Products; Computer Applications in Agriculture.
Howard J. Doss. Safety Leader for Michigan Cooperative Extension Service; Agricultural Safety Specialist.
Daniel E. Guyer. Post-Harvest Storage and Handling and Value-Added Processes for Fruit and Vegetables; Machine Vision and Pattern Recognition.
Timothy M. Harrigan. Forage and Field Crop Power and Machinery. Ag Expo Chairman.
Richard L. Ledebuhr. Fruit and Vegetable Mechanization. Chemical application equipment.
Theodore L. Loudon. On-Site Wastewater Treatment; Agricultural Water Quality Impacts; Irrigation; Drainage; Livestock Waste.
Howard L. Person. Livestock Facilities; Environmental Control; Management Of Manure and Organic Residues.
Robert D. von Bernuth. Irrigation and Water Management; Coordinator, Animal Waste Management Programs. 

Nancy Aitcheson - Plan Service Secretary, Co-Editor
William Bickert - Extension Agricultural Engineer, Co-Editor