Big Round Bale Silage
Beat the weather and capture forage quality by preserving big round bales as silage.
 |
Individual bale bags offer one option for preserving hay as baleage. |
Ensiling big round bales, also known as baleage, may be an alternative for preserving hay in areas where summer rains are prevalent. This practice virtually takes weather out of the haying picture. Producers are able to continue haying during the monsoonal rainy season common during July and August in Colorado. Hay can be harvested at ideal maturity thereby preserving forage quality. Avoiding rain delays also leads to earlier starts which equals extra cuttings or more regrowth for fall grazing.
Advantages
Baling when the moisture content of the forage is higher lowers harvest losses, especially leaves, which means
that more of the forage quality is captured in the bale. The dust cloud
that follows the baler when baling dry hay equates to lost forage quality.
A common misconception is that the fermentation process improves quality of
the forage. There is actually a tradeoff among forage quality parameters.
Crude protein content of the hay generally increases 1 to 2 percentage points
because nitrogenous compounds are not lost as easily as soluble carbohydrates.
Conversely, concentration of total digestible nutrients (TDN) generally decreases
1 to 4 percentage points due to both fermentation and leaching (depending on
moisture content at time of baling) of some of the soluble carbohydrates.
Another reason to consider preserving forage as baleage is that it can improve palatability, especially of mixed species hay. The fermentation process softens plants that are stemmy and fibrous and also equalizes the taste as the acids produced during fermentation spread throughout the bale. Plant species that would normally be sifted from a dry bale are readily consumed following ensiling. Essentially, the palatability of almost any plant can be increased by ensiling, even plants such as Canada thistle and foxtail barley. The bottom line is that there is less wasted hay.
Other advantages associated with baleage include the ability to use the same equipment to bale both wet and dry hay, greater portability compared to chopped silage, and lower storage losses compared to dry hay stored outside.
Disadvantages
Before adopting baleage, one
must be aware of the disadvantages associated with this management practice.
Bales can freeze, especially at higher elevations where temperatures can remain
below freezing for long periods. This makes the bales hard to handle (i.e.
spear) and feed. To insure adequate animal intake, the frozen bales must
be shredded with some type of bale processor. Silage bales are also about
twice as heavy as dry bales because of the moisture content. This fact
requires that care be exercised when handling bales to avoid damage to equipment.
The biggest disadvantage is probably related to the need to cover the bales
with some type of plastic to exclude oxygen thereby allowing fermentation to
occur. However, holes in the plastic can lead to spoilage during storage.
The process of covering the bales may require the purchase of additional equipment
such as wrappers, baggers, or loader attachments. The plastic itself is
an added expense, and disposal of the used plastic is problematic since there
are few options for recycling plastic in Colorado.
Making baleage
Preserving hay as big round
bale silage requires some different steps compared to putting up dry hay, so
consider the following guidelines to insure success. Bale at moisture
levels between 40 and 65%. The best fermentation is reported to occur
between 50 and 60% moisture. However, acceptable fermentation can be achieved
at moisture levels between 40 and 50%. Advantages of baling at lower moisture
contents include less wear and tear on equipment, less problems with rollers
gumming, easier handling of bales, and fewer problems with freezing. To
achieve these moisture levels under Colorado’s dry conditions requires wilting
the hay 2 to 24 hours before baling, depending on time of cutting and drying
conditions (i.e. humidity, cloud cover, dew, etc.).
The general recommendation is that net wrap or plastic twine be used to tie bales. It is reported that the chemical preservatives in sisal twine can degrade the plastic used to cover bales which allows oxygen to enter thus increasing spoilage. A large number of bales were wrapped in the Gunnison area in 1999 using treated sisal twine, but degradation of the plastic has not been a major problem. The cooler temperatures at higher elevations may negate this problem, but producers should be aware of its potential.
Finally, bales should be covered with plastic as soon as possible to start the fermentation process. Bales can be allowed to set up to 24 hours before covering, but the longer the time frame, the more heating that takes place, and the greater the potential for degradation of forage quality.
Special silage balers
Although conventional round
balers can be used to make baleage, most equipment companies make special silage
balers. These balers have heavier belts, scrappers to reduce gummy buildup
on belts, heavier roller bearings, bigger tires for flotation, and smaller chambers
to account for the heavier bales (up to 2,400 lbs). Most chambers on silage
balers are only 4 ft. wide and allow making a bale up to 5 ft. in diameter.
As with conventional round balers, silage balers can also be used to put up
dry hay, only in smaller packages.
As mentioned earlier, conventional balers can be used to put up big round bale silage. To make them more durable for putting up baleage, some companies offer upgrade kits such as scrappers and heavier belts. The number one thing to remember when using a conventional baler is to make the bales smaller compared to putting up dry hay. The general recommendation is to make the bales no bigger than 4 ft. in diameter. If your dry bales normally weigh 1,200 lbs, a bale with 50% moisture would weigh close to 2,400 lbs.
Covering systems
There are numerous types of
plastic covering that can be used to exclude oxygen including individual bale
bags, long tubes for multiple bales, individual stretch-wrapped bales, long
lines of stretch-wrapped bales, and plastic sheeting. Individual bale
bags are basically like heavy duty garbage bags. No extra equipment is
required to apply the bags, but they are labor intensive and more expensive
compared to stretch-wrap ($8.00 versus $3.00/bale).
Long tubes that hold up to 20 bales make more efficient use of plastic. This system is less expensive than individual bags ($4.60 versus $8.00/bale) and requires little more than a frame to hold the tube while bales are being loaded. The big disadvantage is that holes in the tube expose large amounts of silage to spoilage. They are also not portable.
Stretch-wrap for individual bales provides the best method of excluding oxygen. This system requires some type of wrapping machine that stretches the plastic up to 50% for an air-tight seal. The bales are portable and stackable following wrapping, but a special grapple fork is required to move the bales without puncturing the plastic. Large amounts of plastic are also used and disposal is a problem. There are many styles of wrappers available ranging in price from $3,000 to $22,000. Some can also wrap large square bales. Stretch-wrapping individual bales costs about $6.60/bale or $22.00/ton which includes machinery, labor, and plastic if 300 bales/year are made. Individually bagging 300 bales/year costs $9.90/bale or $33.00/ton because of higher labor and plastic costs.
A similar but cheaper alternative to individual stretch-wrapped bales is long lines of stretch-wrapped bales. This system uses a wrapping machine to butt bales tight against one another and place the plastic just on the outer surface, much like stuffing a sausage. About 40% less plastic ($1.80/bale) is used compared to individual stretch-wrapped bales. The big drawback to this system is that bales are not portable or stackable, so it is best to wrap close to the feeding site. Compared to the long tubes, the long lines of stretch-wrapped bales are much better because small holes in the plastic do not lead to large amounts of spoilage. The plastic clings so tightly that only a small amount of feed directly around the hole spoils.
The final approach is what I call the Poor Man’s silage system which consists of using plastic sheeting or the black agricultural film. Plastic costs can be reduced to $1.00/bale, but labor is required to seal the bottom edge with dirt or manure. Bales are stackable before covering, but holes expose large amounts of silage to spoilage.
Regardless of covering method, rodents are a potential risk for damaging plastic covers. To avoid rodent damage, baleage should be stored on sites free of vegetation. Pea gravel pads are a good investment on sites that will be used repeatedly.
Feeding considerations
As with dry bales, it is best
to feed baleage in some type of feeder such as individual bale rings or multiple
bale stanchion-type feeders to reduce waste. Some bale unrollers or processors
will work to shred bales, but be sure to check capabilities and capacities before
trying. Shelf life is about 1 week once bales are exposed to oxygen, longer
when temperatures are extremely cold and the bales remain frozen.
Summary
The practice of ensiling big
round bales can be used as part of an overall haying system. It allows
producers with large quantities of hay to keep moving during those long rainy
periods. Smaller producers or those with limited hay can stretch their
supplies by capturing forage quality. As with any practice, the higher
inputs, extra or different equipment needed, and other disadvantages must be
weighed against potential advantages.
Locally calibrated crop coefficients are essential for predicting water use at high altitudes.
Throughout
Colorado, the demand for water is increasing, and many of the strategies
for dividing up Colorado's water resources are currently being debated.
Water planning has become more complicated as we try to balance the needs
of traditional agricultural uses, urban and rural population growth, recreation,
and natural instream flows for wildlife. To achieve this delicate balance,
it is more important than ever to be able to measure and to predict consumptive
use of crops in a precise and simple manner.
Accurate estimates of consumptive use are routinely made on Colorado's eastern plains. A network of weather stations provides temperature and rainfall data, and standard crop growth stage coefficients are used to predict crop water use. In high-altitude mountain meadows, however, predictions are more difficult. Environmental conditions are more variable, yet weather stations are more widely scattered. The standard crop growth stage coefficients that work so well for prediction in lower altitudes underestimate consumptive use at higher altitudes. There is a clear need for prediction tools designed for high altitude areas, where much of the change in water management is occurring.
Improving prediction
accuracy
A study conducted
in the upper Gunnison River Basin demonstrates a technique for improving
estimates of consumptive use in high altitude meadows. From May through
September 1999, we measured water use in lysimeters at eight irrigated
meadow sites in the upper Gunnison River Basin. Basin-specific crop
coefficients calculated from these data provided greatly improved water
use estimates. This technique is applicable to meadows in other high
altitude basins where water use estimates are needed.
Upper Basin features
The upper Gunnison
River Basin is experiencing water use pressures common to many areas of
Colorado due to population increase, reservoir re-operation, and instream
flow concerns. The Basin covers an area of about 3,000 square miles
(1,920,000 acres) of which 65,000 acres were in irrigated meadow and pasture
in 1998. The majority of the irrigated meadows exist in five valleys:
Gunnison River, Ohio Creek, Slate/East River, Quartz Creek, and Tomichi
Creek. Environmental conditions vary greatly in these valleys, as
valley width (3 to 17 miles) influences rainfall and other elements
of the microclimate. Growing season length and dates of irrigation,
grazing, and harvest vary with elevation, which ranges from 7,900 to 8,700
ft. The diversity of the upper Gunnison River Basin environment suggests
that a wide range of consumptive water use values might be expected, so
sites were selected in each of the five major hay-producing valleys to
evaluate effects of the different microclimates and soils.
Water available for crops depends on soil type and location relative to the river. Soils in meadows are for the most part highly permeable, and range from cobbly sands to gravelly loams to clays. Water tables vary from a few inches to tens of feet depending on season and meadow elevation above river level; all meadows require irrigation for summer maintenance. Pasture vegetation consists of native and introduced grasses, rushes, and sedges. Typical yearly rainfall is 10 inches/year.
Measuring consumptive
use
The growing season
begins in April. We began measurements of irrigation requirement, rainfall,
and temperature at the start of the irrigation season (early- to mid-May).
Most hay producers terminate irrigation in mid-July to allow for harvest
during late-July to mid-August, but heavy rains prevented many from harvesting
until mid- to late-August in 1999. In some years, irrigation is re-applied
after harvest, but that was not the case in 1999. We stopped recording
at the end of the growing season in September.
Monthly use averages
To estimate total consumptive use, we summed the measured monthly irrigation
requirement and effective rainfall. Table 4 shows
monthly average irrigation requirement, effective rainfall, and total
consumptive use for the Basin during the growing season. Consumptive use
was heaviest in June (6.3 in.), a sunny month with rapid growth, and less
in July (5.2 in.) which was overcast with considerable rain. Use continued
to decrease in August and September due to harvest, termination of irrigation,
and cooler temperatures. June and July values were higher than the estimated
average monthly consumptive use for pasture grasses in Gunnison (June,
3.46 in.; July, 4.44 in.) reported in the 1988 Colorado Irrigation Guide.
Intrabasin variations
Table 5 shows that monthly consumptive use varies
within the Basin. Sites are arranged in the table from northwest to southeast.
Elevations are highest at the Slate/East River and Upper Tomichi Creek
(high) sites, and decrease toward the Lower Tomichi Creek site.
Among the eight sites, the amount of variation in use in any one month was interesting to observe. June 1999 consumptive use averaged 6.3 in., but ranged from 5.2 to 7.5 in. Other months had wider variations among sites. In general, consumptive use increased with decreasing elevation and higher average temperatures. However, this was modified by plant density in each lysimeter. This range of more than 20% illustrates the variability within the Basin, and the importance of measuring consumptive use at a number of representative sites.
Irrigation requirement
Table 6 shows the monthly irrigation requirement
measured at each site. Irrigation requirements were highest in June, and
decreased with increasing rainfall in July and harvest in August. Lysimeter
water tables were lowered in August from 4 or 8 in. to 22 in. to simulate
the falling water table after irrigation was terminated. Irrigation requirements
varied ±20% among sites in a given month, reflecting the variability
of rainfall across the Basin.
Estimating consumptive use
Daily mean temperature is the average of the daily maximum and minimum
temperature at each site. Mean monthly temperature is the average of daily
mean temperatures. Mean monthly temperature was 51.5 degrees F for June,
59.6 degrees F for July, 56.9 degrees F for August, and 47.4 degrees F
in September. These data can be used to estimate consumptive use by the
Blaney-Criddle method, which requires mean monthly temperature, percentage
of daylight hours during the period of interest, and a crop growth stage
coefficient that is a function of mean monthly temperature. At elevations
below 6000 ft., standard crop coefficients can be used. However, in semi-arid
high-altitude environments such as the upper Gunnison River Basin, low
nighttime temperatures result in low mean monthly temperatures during
the growing season. As a consequence, consumptive use is underestimated;
plant growth responds to high daytime temperatures. Accurate estimates
of consumptive water use can only be obtained by using locally calibrated
crop coefficients.
We calculated monthly crop growth stage coefficients for the upper Gunnison Basin using our measured consumptive use and temperatures for each site and for the average of all sites (Table 7). Table 7 also compares our calculated coefficients to the standard coefficients for pasture grasses. The standard coefficients are considerably smaller than those in this study for June, July, and September and are approximately equal in August. Use of the standard coefficients would have consistently underestimated total consumptive use by 30 to 130% in June, July, and September in the Gunnison Basin.
These preliminary data indicate that locally calibrated crop coefficients will predict consumptive use more accurately. To take yearly environmental variation into account, we plan to continue this project for two to five years.
Water-use management plans are changing in many of the nations high altitude basins. The use of locally calibrated crop coefficients in these basins should improve estimates of consumptive use and allow water managers to more accurately plan for need.
Table 4. Average monthly consumptive use for 8 sites in the upper Gunnison River Basin over 4 months during 1999.
| Month |
|
|
|
|
-----------------------------inches-----------------------------------
|
|||
| June |
5.8
|
0.5
|
6.3
|
| July |
3.0
|
2.2
|
5.2
|
| August |
1.3
|
1.8
|
3.1
|
| September |
1.7
|
0.8
|
2.5
|
| Total |
11.8
|
5.3
|
17.1
|
Table 5. Total consumptive use (irrigation requirement plus effective rainfall, inches) for 8 sites within the upper Gunnison River Basin over 4 months during 1999.
| Month |
Site
|
||||||||
|
Slate/ East River
|
Ohio Creek (high)
|
Ohio Creek (low)
|
Upper Gunnison River
|
Quartz Creek
|
Lower Tomichi Creek
|
Upper Tomichi Creek (low)
|
Upper Tomichi Creek (high)
|
Average
|
|
| --------------------------------------------------------inches-------------------------------------------------------------- | |||||||||
| June1 |
5.94
|
6.39
|
6.30
|
5.23
|
6.47
|
7.53
|
5.62
|
7.23
|
6.34
|
| July1 |
5.11
|
6.03
|
5.97
|
4.90
|
5.48
|
5.14
|
3.86
|
4.75
|
5.16
|
| August2 |
2.66
|
4.94
|
2.93
|
3.97
|
2.88
|
2.66
|
1.97
|
2.77
|
3.10
|
| September2 |
1.94
|
2.88
|
1.73
|
4.38
|
3.40
|
2.23
|
1.03
|
2.48
|
2.51
|
| Total |
15.65
|
20.24
|
16.93
|
18.48
|
18.23
|
17.56
|
12.48
|
17.23
|
17.10
|
2Lysimeter water table set at 22 in. below soil surface to simulate no irrigation.
Table 6. Irrigation requirement for 8 sites in the upper Gunnison River Basin over 4 months during 1999.
| Month |
Site
|
||||||||
|
Slate/ East River
|
Ohio Creek (high)
|
Ohio Creek (low)
|
Upper Gunnison River
|
Quartz Creek
|
Lower Tomichi Creek
|
Upper Tomichi Creek (low)
|
Upper Tomichi Creek (high)
|
Average
|
|
| June1 |
5.41
|
5.80
|
5.70
|
4.73
|
6.25
|
7.12
|
5.05
|
6.55
|
5.83
|
| July1 |
3.19
|
3.83
|
3.68
|
2.71
|
3.67
|
2.96
|
1.67
|
2.64
|
3.04
|
| August3 |
1.072
|
2.52
|
0.44
|
2.46
|
1.45
|
0.13
|
0.35
|
1.58
|
1.25
|
| September3 |
0.69
|
1.96
|
0.83
|
3.59
|
2.87
|
1.42
|
0.54
|
2.07
|
1.75
|
| Total |
10.36
|
14.11
|
10.65
|
13.49
|
14.24
|
11.63
|
7.61
|
12.84
|
11.87
|
2 Water table set at 22 in. on 13 Aug 1999
3Lysimeter water table set at 22 in. below soil surface to simulate no irrigation.
Table 7. Blaney-Criddle crop growth stage coefficient ( kc ) for 8 sites in the upper Gunnison River Basin over 4 months during 1999.
| Period |
Site
|
|||||||||
|
Slate/ East River
|
Ohio Creek (high)
|
Ohio Creek (low)
|
Upper Gunnison River
|
Quartz Creek
|
Lower Tomichi Creek
|
Upper Tomichi Creek (low)
|
Upper Tomichi Creek (high)
|
Average
of sites |
Standard1 pasture grass kc |
|
| --------------------------------------------------------monthly coefficient------------------------------------------------------- | ||||||||||
| June |
2.27
|
2.25
|
2.11
|
1.68
|
2.06
|
2.35
|
1.84
|
2.55
|
2.14
|
0.92 |
| July2 |
1.30
|
1.46
|
1.40
|
1.09
|
1.23
|
1.11
|
0.87
|
1.11
|
1.20
|
0.92 |
| August |
0.80
|
1.40
|
0.80
|
1.05
|
0.77
|
0.68
|
0.54
|
0.79
|
0.86
|
0.91 |
| September |
1.09
|
1.41
|
0.87
|
2.11
|
1.55
|
1.03
|
0.52
|
1.35
|
1.24
|
0.87 |
2Lysimeter water table lowered at most sites on July 30, 1999 to simulate no irrigation.
