HOME
LEARNING MODULES
BEEF PRODUCTION CALENDAR
CURRENT AG PRICES
PROFIT TIPS
INTERNATIONAL MARKETING
WEB RESOURCES
BEEF REPORTS
BYPRODUCT MANUALS
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
BEEF FORUM
TIMELY TOPICS
FAQs
ASK A SPECIALIST
CONTACTS
RELATED SITES

              beef.unl.edu

WEATHER REPORT

Enter a city or zip  

www.weather.com

Timely Topic


Cone Feeders Make For Less Hay Waste

Beef cows in their study were allotted to one of eight pens with four feeder designs: cone, ring, trailer or cradle. All feeder types provided about 14.5 in. of linear feeder space/animal. Alfalfa and orchardgrass round bales were weighed and sampled before feeding.

Hay that fell onto the concrete surrounding the feeder was considered waste and was collected and sampled daily. At the end of a seven-day period, each feeder type was assigned to a different pen for a second, seven-day period.

  • Dry matter hay waste was 3.5%, 6.1%, 11.4% and 14.6% for the cone, ring, trailer and cradle feeders, respectively.
  • Calculated dry matter intake of hay ranged from 1.8% to 2% of body weight and did not differ by feeder type.
  • Percentage of organic matter, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber and crude protein were all lower, and acid detergent lignin was higher, in the recovered waste compared to the hay fed.
  • Cows feeding from the cradle feeder had nearly three times the agonistic interactions (behavior resulting in displacement of another cow from the feeder) and four times the frequency of entrances compared to cows feeding from the other feeder types.
  • Feed losses were positively correlated with agonistic interactions, frequency of regular and irregular entrances and feeder occupancy rate.
  • Use of the ring feeder resulted in nearly twice the amount of waste compared to the cone feeder, whereas the trailer and cradle feeders resulted in four times the waste per animal compared to the cone design.
  • Hay waste, as a percentage of hay disappearance, was less for the cone and ring feeders compared to the trailer and cradle feeders.
  • Cattle eating from the cone and ring feeders were able to more closely mimic a grazing position than those eating from the trailer and cradle feeder.
  • Feed losses were similar for bales stored inside (12.4%) or covered with plastic outside (13.4 to 14.5%), but higher for bales stored uncovered outside (24.7%).
  • Slanted bar designs encourage animals to keep their heads in the feeder opening by providing some constraint.
Daniel Buskirk, MSU Department of Animal Science, buskirk@msu.edu

[February 2nd, 2004]


Dr. Rick Rasby, Professor of Animal Science
Animal Science, University of Nebraska - Lincoln, Lincoln, NE

Print this article Post your comment Home     Back    


RSS Feed University of Nebraska - Lincoln Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources Maintenance University of Nebraska - Lincoln Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources