05/07/1998

Hay Losses Cost Big Bucks for Alabama Cattle Producers

HEADLAND, Ala. - How much money does hay loss cost Alabama cattle producers? Those who attended the recent Alabama Better Beef Tour saw evidence that dry matter losses during storage, reduced forage quality, and increased feeding losses due to weathering are totaled, over 50 percent of hay value at baling time may be lost due to poor storage techniques.

It is estimated nationwide that producers lose over $3 billion annually and in Alabama in excess of $million each year. Producers saw clear evidence of this type loss during the Alabama Better Beef Tour, which was co-sponsored by the Alabama Cattlemen's Association, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station and Alabama Cooperative Extension System.

At the Better Beef Tour, producers saw peanut hay at the Wiregrass Substation in Headland, bahiagrass hay at the Gulf Coast Substation in Fairhope, switchgrass hay at the Black Belt Substation in Marion Junction, bermudagrass hay at the Upper Coastal Plain Substation in Winfield and the Sand Mountain Substation in Crossville and fescue hay at the Tennessee Valley Substation in Belle Mina.

At each location hay was left totally unprotected for five months, compared to bales from the same cutting that were covered with a Hayguard cover but placed on bare ground, covered with the cover but with bales on wooden pallets, and hay stored in a barn. After five months all the treatments were put into a barn so that weathering stopped at the same time.

Auburn University extension specialist Don Ball, explained the hay-weathering situation succinctly at each of the tour stops: "Moisture bad; dry hay good," he said. Ball explained that anything that slows the drying process of hay contributes to its loss of nutrients and subsequently to its loss of value. "If we could reduce hay losses by only 10 percent, Alabama cattle producers could save as much as $3 million per year. And just by storing hay off the ground and covering it with some type cover, savings closer to 50 percent than 10 percent would be routine," Ball said.

Results from the series of tests that we designed to show at the Better Beef Tour were surprising for several reasons, but one of the biggest was the huge difference in weathering among different grass species used for hay," Ball noted.

In the Wiregrass, peanut hay is commonly used to feed cattle. Relative to bermudagrass, bahia and fescue, it is not a high quality hay to begin with, plus it is porous and easily penetrated by water. When left uncovered for five months, and in practical use most peanut hay is stored for eight to 10 months, this hay was virtually worthless as cattle feed.

At the Black Belt Substation in Marion Junction, switchgrass hay was used, which would be comparable to johnsongrass or pearl millet in terms of its ability to shed water. Regardless of the hay species used, any type of protection provided improvement of the forage quality of the hay. The higher the quality of hay, the bigger the improvement gained from any type protection.

As a way to show how moisture causes hay spoilage deep into the bale, the Auburn researchers cut into the hay with a chainsaw. Despite the test having been terminated for six weeks or more and hay stored in a barn prior to the meetings, it was still wet to the touch deep into the bale at each of the meeting sites.

Bahiagrass hay at the Gulf Coast Substation, regardless of the treatment looked better than the peanut hay--and it should. Bahiagrass is fine stemmed and tends to shed water much better than the coarser hays, like peanut hay and switchgrass hay. Despite it's ability to shed water, the bahiagrass hay left uncovered was significantly lower quality than any of the covered treatments.

"Actually, the bahiagrass hay lost more in terms of nutrients and value than the peanut hay, because it was so much more valuable to start with. That's another thing this series of tests demonstrates--the higher the value of the hay, the more you have to lose by not covering it," Ball explained.

Regardless of the species of hay, leaving it unprotected from moisture is a costly practice. It is especially important to eliminate hay/soil contact because studies have shown that with many types of hay there is more spoilage on the bottoms of bales as result of being in contact with wet soils, than from damage caused by rain on top of the bale. "We don't have all the nutrient losses from these tests analyzed, but I feel confident we will see dry matter losses in the 30 percent range for hay left uncovered. These losses from dry matter disappearance and overall forage quality are only part of the story, because cattle will refuse to eat a higher percentage of the spoiled hay, plus they will perform more poorly on lower quality forage. With the additional loss related to poor cattle performance on spoiled hay, it is easy to see how 50 percent or more of the value of hay left unprotected can be lost," Ball explained.

Look at it another way: if your cattle eat 1,000 pounds of hay per day during the winter feeding season, and if you lose 50 percent of it due to it being unprotected during storage, you will have to grow the equivalent of 2,000 pounds per day to feed them, the Auburn scientist explained.

It is almost safe to say that anything you can do to protect hay is better than doing nothing and is probably economically justifiable. One exception would be if hay is baled at too high a percentage moisture and covered with plastic, or water gets under bales covered with plastic, resulting in moisture being held in the bales. However, if hay is cut at around 18 percent moisture or less, then almost anything done to protect it will save producers money. "It doesn't matter whether you pay $350 for a Hayguard cover, build a 4-inch deep rock pad, or even build a barn, protecting hay from weathering will pay big time, Ball told producers at each Better Beef Tour stop.

Initially the weathering process on hay is slow. Hay left uncovered for a few weeks probably won't be greatly affected, if it is protected after that time. However, the weathering process accelerates rapidly as moisture begins to degrade the fibers and hay bales begin to hold water rather than shed it.

Whether the inputs used to grow hay are high or low has little impact on losses associated with weathering. On Sand Mountain, for example, high quality bermudagrass hay is common. Many producers use inexpensive, readily available poultry litter for fertilizer, and they produce high quality hay. Because it's high quality doesn't prevent it from spoiling, if it is not protected.

"Another thing we learned on this series of tests, is that you can't trust your eyes when it comes to evaluating hay. At the Tennessee Valley Substation, we compared storage techniques on fescue hay. When we took the covering off, there appeared to be little difference visually among the four treatments. But when we checked the ADF (acid detergent fiber), there was a big difference in favor of those bales that were protected from moisture," Ball pointed out.

At each of the stops on the Better Beef Tour, regardless of hay species, the best treatment was always hay stored in a barn. The second best treatment was hay stored off the ground and covered, third was hay stored on bare ground and covered, and worst was hay not protected in any way.

Even if hay is not protected, losses can be reduced by stacking it in well-drained areas with good air movement. Some producers stack hay under trees, thinking this provides protection, but this is the worst place for storage. In the open, once rain stops, drying begins. Trees continue to drip water long after the rain has stopped, plus shading slows drying. Tighter baling can also reduce spoilage losses.

"I think most cattle producers know they are losing money by not protecting their hay, but I don't think they know how much money they are losing. The tests that we did for this series of Better Beef meetings convinced me that it is time to declare war on hay storage and feeding losses-it's just costing our state's cattle industry too much money not to take aggressive action to reduce them," Ball concluded.

-30-

News from:

Office of Ag Communications & Marketing

Auburn University College of Agriculture
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
3 Comer Hall, Auburn University
Auburn, AL 36849
334-844-4877 (PHONE) 334-844-5892 (FAX)

Contact Jamie Creamer, 334-844-2783 or jcreamer@auburn.edu
by Roy Roberson

05/07/98