Appendix: Select pictures of bag, treatments, process, splits, and bunker tests.
Figure 1. Bag of traditional WDGS at 65% moisture with different added forages. The
numbers depict amount of forage added on a DM basis. As is observed, the bag did split
when too low of levels were tested.
Figure 2. Bagging process whereby WDGS and forages were mixed in feed trucks with
mixing capability, and then fed into the bagger.
Figure 3. Depiction of bag with different levels of forages and DDGS at 50 and 60% of
the mixture. The bag was quite different in height and width depending on ability of
forage or dry feed to pack easily with WDGS.
Figure 4. This picture illustrates the problem with bagging traditional WDGS alone with
pressure. The bag has split due to too much pressure. Success is easily measured by
maintaining bag integrity. However, when split, spoilage is inevitable and needs to be
rebagged.
Figure 5. Picture illustrates the different height and width of silo bags depending on
forage or dry feed added. We evaluated the lower limits required and did break the bag
with too little forage was added.
Figure 6. Modified wet distillers grains at 45% DM (55% moisture) will bag with normal
pressure as the picture illustrates.
Figure 7. After testing different levels of grass hay, alfalfa hay, and wheat straw, one bag
was packed with 15% grass hay to ensure that bagging would work when just one forage
was used at the recommended level. The bag did hold with 15% grass hay in this picture.
Figure 8. Bunker storage was evaluated using grass hay. More hay is required to be able
to pack and store this mixture in a bunker. In this picture, 40% grass hay (DM basis) was
tested and worked well.
Figure 9. Grass hay at 30% of DM and WDGS at 70% of DM. This mixture packed fairly
well, but was more challenging to drive on.
Figure 10. A side-by-side comparison of 40% grass hay and WDGS (left) and 30% grass hay and WDGS (right).
Bunker sizes are not identical, but more bulk is produced with the 40% grass hay mixture as expected.
