Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Translational Animal Science logoLink to Translational Animal Science
. 2019 Nov 9;4(1):376–384. doi: 10.1093/tas/txz171

Cow–calf performance, forage utilization, and economics of warm-season annual baleage in beef cattle winter feeding systems1

Mekenzie H Panhans 1, Katie M Mason 2, Mary K Mullenix 2,✉, Chris G Prevatt 3, Sonia J Moisá 2, Russell B Muntifering 2
PMCID: PMC6994097  PMID: 32704997

Abstract

A 52-d winter feeding trial was conducted to determine animal performance, utilization, and economics of pearl millet (PM) baleage, sorghum × sudangrass (SS) baleage, and “Tifton 85” bermudagrass (B) hay for lactating beef cow–calf pairs. Cone (C) and open-shaped (O) rings were evaluated for potential to minimize forage wastage. The experiment was a completely randomized design with a 3 × 2 factorial arrangement of treatments for each forage type × hay ring (3 cow–calf pairs per treatment; 2 replications per treatment). Animal response measures included cow body weight (BW) change and body condition score (BCS) over the 52-d trial, initial and final calf BW, and cow milk production at the midpoint and end of the study. Forage nutritive value parameters evaluated for each forage type included ash, crude protein (CP), in vitro true digestibility (IVTD), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber, and acid detergent lignin (ADL). Forage wastage was estimated for each forage × ring treatment as the percentage of the bale weight remaining in feeding rings at the time of bale replacement. An economic evaluation of the relative costs associated with production and utilization of each forage type was calculated. There were no differences (P ≥ 0.10) in cow BW change or BCS change among forage types, between ring shapes, or an interaction observed for these response variables. Proportion of waste from PM and SS baleage was greater (P < 0.10) than for B hay, although there was no forage type × hay ring interaction or differences between O and C hay ring treatments for forage waste (P ≥ 0.10, respectively). Cow milk production and calf BW gain did not differ among forage type (P ≥ 0.10, respectively); however, beef calves in pens containing the O ring feeder weighed 6 kg more (P ≤ 0.05) than calves whose dams were fed using C rings. The economic analysis implies that it is more costly to feed warm-season annual forage baleage to cow–calf pairs than dry hay, largely due to greater costs of production, lack of difference in animal performance responses, and less utilization of baleage compared with feeding bermudagrass hay in this trial.

Keywords: baleage, beef cattle, bermudagrass, summer annuals, winter feeding systems

INTRODUCTION

Cattle producers in the Southeast United States feed conserved forages, such as hay or baleage, throughout the winter months when grazed forages are limited. “Tifton 85” is a high-yielding and highly digestible cultivar of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) grown for hay throughout the region (Mandebvu, 1999). Frequent rainfall events in the spring or summer pose challenges to conventional hay production systems, resulting in mature forages with decreased nutritive value due to lack of adequate hay harvesting and curing conditions (Sears et al., 2013; Hancock et al., 2017). Baleage is a forage crop that is harvested and wilted to 40% to 60% moisture and wrapped in plastic to exclude oxygen and ensile (Ball et al., 2015). It allows for shorter field-drying time and may result in a greater-quality forage product than dry hay under moisture-related environmental limitations (Hersom et al., 2007) such as rainfall and respiration during the drying period (Ball et al., 2015). Because pasture, feed, and forage costs constitute two-thirds of the operating expenses in a beef cow–calf operation, there has been considerable interest among beef cattle producers in using baleage to potentially reduce winter feed supplementation expenses (Pruitt and Lacy, 2013). Several studies in the Southeast United States have focused on harvest management and animal performance from cool-season annual forages harvested as baleage as a high-quality stored forage option (McCormick, 2013; Martin et al., 2015; Forte et al., 2018). Whereas the majority of stored forage needs for the year in beef cow–calf operations may be met by baling and wrapping cool-season forage, producers may also choose to use warm-season forages for baleage in the southern region of the United States. Although warm-season perennial grasses such as bermudagrass and bahiagrass are high-yielding forage crops, high moisture and low water-soluble carbohydrate concentrations limit the success of using these crops in a baleage system in the region (Vendramini, 2010). Warm-season perennial grass baleage trials in the region have primarily evaluated preservation, quality, and storage characteristics, with relatively few animal performance evaluations (Bates et al., 1989; González and Rodriguez, 2003; Hersom et al., 2007; Burns and Fisher, 2012). Warm-season annual forages such as pearl millet (PM; Pennisetum glaucum), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), sudangrass (Sorghum bicolor subsp. drummondii), and sorghum–sudangrass hybrids have superior herbage accumulation and nutritive value (Hancock et al., 2018) and have potential to be conserved as baleage for winter feeding. Although warm-season perennial or annual baleage has been more widely used in dairies in the region (McCormick, 2014), a few studies have evaluated the application of using warm-season annual baleage as a potential winter feed for beef cow–calf pairs. Greater forage-use efficiency can be accomplished by feeding in hay rings, which help prevent forage loss (Moore and Sexten, 2015). Two common types of hay rings are open-ring and cone-type feeders, but literature on the effect of feeder design is limited, especially in baleage-based feeding systems. The objectives of this study were to evaluate cow–calf performance, forage utilization, and economics of conserved warm-season annual forages fed in open- or cone-type hay rings for wintering fall-calving beef cows.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All procedures for the study were approved by the Auburn University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee for the use of live vertebrate animals in experiments (PRN 2014–2438).

Research Site

On 6 June 2016, 2.4 ha each of “Tifleaf 3” PM and “AS6402” SS were planted for the experiment at the E.V. Smith Research Center (EVSRC) in Shorter, AL (32.3668 °N, 86.3 °W). These fields were previously in a soybean-corn annual rotation prior to the initiation of the study. The soil type is primarily a Marvyn sandy loam with a 0% to 2% slope. Temperature and precipitation data were collected during the growing season and feeding trial from the Alabama Mesonet weather station at EVSRC. During the growing season, monthly mean air temperatures (Fig. 1, calculated as average of daily highs and lows) were similar to the 10-yr averages for Shorter, AL, with September and October slightly above average. Monthly precipitation (Fig. 2) totals were comparable to 10-yr average values in August; however, monthly totals in June, July, September, and October were less than average. Inadequate rainfall during the summer months stressed forage production and required the use of irrigation for production of summer annual forages. A total of 15.3 cm of irrigation was applied to summer annuals during growing season.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Monthly and 10-yr average mean air temperature for Shorter, AL from June to January.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Monthly and 10-yr average mean precipitation for Shorter, AL from June to January.

Forage Management and Analysis

“Tifleaf 3” PM and “AS6402” SS were planted at a seeding rate of 17 and 22 kg/ha, respectively. Both pastures received 15 cm of irrigation following planting, and 392 kg/ha of 17-17-17 N-P2O5-K2O was applied. On 15 June, 6 August, and 1 September 2016, warm-season annuals were fertilized with 67 kg N/ha with liquid fertilizer (28-0-0-5). Carbaryl sevin XLR (Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc., Phoenix, AZ) was applied at a rate of 1.40 kg/ha on 6 July 2016 for fall armyworm control and sugarcane aphid pressure in PM and SS, respectively. To further control the spread of armyworms, methoxyfenozide Intrepid 2F (Dow AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN) was applied to both pastures on 22 July 2016 at a rate of 0.42 kg/ha. Pastures were sprayed for the third time to control remaining armyworms on 19 August 2016 with lambda-cyhalothrin (Karate with Zeon Technology; Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Greensboro, NC) at a rate of 0.14 kg/ha.

Forages were harvested for the first time on 2 August 2016 and allowed to wilt until the morning of 5 August to a target moisture of 60% based on a forage microwave test, at which time it was baled and wrapped as baleage. A second harvest of both crops was made on 30 August 2016 and allowed to dry until 31 August 2016, at which time it was baled and wrapped. Forages were harvested for a third time on 2 October 2016 and baled/wrapped on 4 October 2016. Bales were 1.2 m × 1.5 m, and the average weight of PM and SS bales were 738 and 799 kg, respectively. Forages were harvested using a John Deere 635 mower conditioner with rollers (Deere & Company, Moline, IL), baled using a Vermeer 6650 high-density hay baler (Vermeer Corporation, Pella, IA), transported to a designated area for storage, and wrapped with an Anderson Inline Bale Wrapper NWS660 (Ag-Pro Companies, Boston, GA) inline baleage wrapper using 6 layers of prestretched (55%) polypropylene baleage wrap (Sunfilm Stretch Wrap, TAMA Group, Dubuque, IA). Baleage was stored outdoors until the beginning of the feeding trial on 8 December 2016. “Tifton 85” bermudagrass (B) hay was harvested in the fall of 2015 at 4 wk of regrowth, wrapped in John Deere Edge to Edge Net Wrap (Ambraco Inc., Dubuque, IA) and stored in a hay barn until utilized. The field had been fertilized with 168 kg N/acre in late spring 2015. Hay bales were 1.2 m × 1.5 m and had an average weight of 482 kg.

To estimate forage nutritive value, core samples from each bale of each forage type and within each harvest date were taken using a Penn State hay probe and were placed in a plastic, zip-closure bag. Samples were placed in a cooler and transported to the Ruminant Nutrition Laboratory at Auburn University, where they remained in the freezer until analysis. Samples were composited based on forage type and harvest date. Baleage samples were freeze-dried utilizing a virTis Genesis 35L freezer dryer (SP Scientific, Gardiner, NY). Dried, air-equilibrated samples of all forage types were weighed and ground to pass a 1-mm screen. Forage concentrations of crude protein (CP) and dry matter (DM) were determined according to procedures of AOAC (1990), and concentrations of neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) were determined sequentially according to procedures of Van Soest et al. (1991). Concentrations of ash were determined via combustion in a muffle furnace at 500°C (AOAC, 2000). Forage concentration of NDF and ADF were determined using an ANKOM 2000 fiber analyzing system (Ankom Technology Corporation, Fairport, NY). Forage in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) was determined according to the Van Soest (1994) modification of the Tilley and Terry (1963) procedure using the Daisy II incubator system (Ankom Technology Corporation). Ruminal fluid was collected at 0800 h at the Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine from a cannulated Holstein cow that had free access to bermudagrass hay and was limit-fed a 15%-CP supplement consisting of soybean hull pellets, corn gluten feed, and whole cottonseed, plus 8 oz of Megalac (Volac Wilamar Feed Ingredients, Ltd., Hertfordshire, UK). Fluid was stored in prewarmed thermos containers and transported to the Ruminant Nutrition Laboratory, where it was then processed for the batch-culture IVTD procedure.

Experimental Design and Treatments

Thirty-six crossbred, commercial Angus × Hereford cows from the E.V. Smith Beef Unit herd were utilized for this experiment [initial body weight (BW), 613 ± 21 kg]. Cows ranged in age from 4 to 8 yr old. Prior to the feeding trial, cows were fed corn silage and had free-choice access to a warm-season perennial pasture. Cows were initially selected based on their calving date to ensure that all calves were born within a 1-mo period between 16 November and 2 December 2016. Cows were then stratified to treatment groups based on their initial BW on 8 December 2016 and categorized as heavy, medium, or light. Treatments included a factorial combination of forage type and hay ring. Cow–calf pairs were randomly assigned to one of the following forage type × hay ring treatments (2 replications per treatment): 1) forage type (PM, SS, or B) and 2) hay ring (open shaped or modified cone shaped). Each 0.8-ha pasture had one heavy, one medium, and one light weight cow and either 1 heifer calf and 2 bull calves or 1 bull calf and 2 heifer calves (3 cow–calf pairs per pasture) to distribute sex of calf uniformly across treatments. Pastures used for this experiment consisted of a common bermudagrass/tall fescue mixture as the base forage, and forages were clipped to a 5-cm height to reduce selection from the pasture area and ensure cow–calf pairs were consuming experimental forages provided.

Cow and Calf Performance

A 52-d feeding trial was initiated on 8 December 2016 and was terminated on 28 January 2017. The duration of the feeding trial was less than the initial target of a 60-d trial due to spoilage of baleage during the study. Cow and calf weights were recorded on days 1, 30, and 52. Cow body condition score (BCS) was recorded at the beginning and end the feeding trial. Body condition scores were assigned by visual observation using a scoring system from 1 to 9, with 1 being extremely thin and 9 being extremely fat (Ball et al., 2008). Milk production was measured using the weigh-suckle-weigh (WSW) technique on days 30 and 52 of the trial, which corresponded with 55 and 74 d post-partum. The WSW method is a practical way to measure milk production in beef cattle, and is obtained by taking the difference in calf weight before and after suckling following an interval of separation of the calf from the cow (Knapp and Black, 1941; Drewry et al., 1959; Dawson et al., 1960; Kress and Anderson, 1974). Calves were separated from their dams for 18 h. Calves were then weighed, allowed to suckle for 30 min, and reweighed. Milk yield was calculated as the difference between the pre- and post-suckling weights, and milk yield was multiplied by 1.33 to estimate 24-h milk production (Kress and Anderson, 1974).

Forage Waste

The PM and SS baleage and B hay were weighed prior to feeding and then placed in their designated pastures/hay rings. The PM and SS baleage were replaced every 5 d, and B hay was replaced every 10 d throughout the feeding trial based on an expected intake of 2.5% of animal BW per day. Baleage and hay refusal was weighed prior to replacing with a new bale. Grab samples of the forage refusal were collected to correct for moisture and ash content. Samples were placed in plastic, zip-closure bags and stored in a cooler for transportation to the Ruminant Nutrition Laboratory at Auburn University. Samples were refrigerated, weighed, and then oven-dried at 50°C for 48 h. Dried, air-equilibrated samples were weighed and ground to pass a 1-mm screen in a Wiley Mill (Thomas Scientific, Philadelphia, PA). Forage concentrations of DM were determined according to procedures of AOAC (1990), and concentrations of ash were determined via combustion in a muffle furnace at 500°C (AOAC, 2000). Forage waste was estimated as the proportion of the initial bale weight remaining in the ring at the time of bale replacement.

Economic Evaluation

An economic evaluation was conducted comparing the forage type × hay ring feeding systems. Response variables were cost per Mg of DM for each forage type, feeding costs per cow–calf pair per day, as well as the cost of waste per cow–calf pair per day. Costs included in this analysis were seed, fertilizer, lime, weed control, custom spread applications, machinery and equipment, labor, operating interest, soil testing, and land rent. Establishment costs, annual production costs, and yield expectations for each forage were evaluated and prorated over the useful life for bermudagrass to calculate $/Mg DM for each forage treatment. Initial and final cow weights, as well as estimated daily consumption of cow–calf pairs, were used to calculate $/cow–calf pair per day and cost of feeding for the trial. Proportion of waste from each hay ring treatment and estimated consumption was used to calculate cost of waste as $/cow–calf pair per day.

Statistical Analysis

Forage utilization and performance responses in cows and calves were analyzed as a completely randomized design with 2 replicates per treatment. Data were treated as repeated measures using PROC MIXED in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, 2013). The statistical model included hay ring, forage type, and forage type × hay ring interaction as independent variables for animal performance data, which included cow weight, cow BCS, calf weight, milk production, and percent forage waste on a DM basis. Pen was the experimental unit. Means were separated using least-squares means with the PDIFF option of SAS. The significance level was set at P < 0.10 for all analyses.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Cow Performance

Table 1 provides information on cow BW change and BCS for the trial. Body weight change was not different among forage types (P = 0.7830) or hay rings (P = 0.9891). These findings are in agreement with those by McCormick et al. (2011) where cow BW change and BCS change did not differ among hay and baleage treatments fed to Holstein cows in a 42-d trial.

Table 1.

Cow body weight change and body condition score from warm-season annual baleage or bermudagrass hay feeding systems

Forage type1 Ring type2
Item3 PM SS B SEM MC O SEM
BW change, kg −69.2 −69.5 −76.2 7.8 −71.7 −71.6 6.3
Initial BCS 5.9 6.1 6.2 0.2 6.1 6.2 0.2
Final BCS 5.5 5.5 5.5 0.1 5.6 5.4 0.1
Open in a new tab

1PM = pearl millet baleage; SS = sorghum × sudangrass baleage; B = bermudagrass hay.

2MC = modified cone-shaped ring; O = open-shaped ring.

3BW = body weight; BCS = body condition score.

Cow initial BCS was not different among forage types (P = 0.4359) or hay rings (P = 0.9154), and final BCS was not different among forage types (P = 0.9808) or hay rings (P = 0.1855; Table 1). McCormick et al. (2011) reported lower BCS values at the conclusion of their study, in agreement with the findings of the present study. Chemical composition and IVTD of warm-season annual baleages and bermudagrass used in this study are provided in Table 3. Forage nutritive value reported illustrates that these were mid- to high-quality conserved forage resources and reflect the quality range expected for these forage crops under appropriate harvest frequency and intensity practices (Ball et al., 2015). During a fall-winter grazed forage gap in the Southeast United States, feed supplementation of stored forages is often needed to support animal nutritional needs. However, it is uncommon for lactating beef cows to gain weight during these forage gaps, but rather maintain or lose half a BCS until grazed forage is available and the animals are able to return to their maintenance weight and BCS (Herd and Sprott, 2013). Body weight change and BCS loss of mature beef cows consuming summer annual baleage or bermudagrass hay in this study were within the normal range for lactating mature beef cows in this type of winter-feeding system.

Table 3.

Chemical composition and in vitro true digestibility (IVTD) of warm-season annual baleages and bermudagrass fed to beef cow–calf pairs

Item1, %, DM basis
Forage type2 Ash CP IVTD NDF ADF ADL
PM 10.3 14.0 74.0 58.8 33.9 4.5
SS 9.9 13.9 78.0 55.2 32.5 3.8
B 5.7 15.2 58.9 74.4 39.2 7.1
Open in a new tab

1CP = crude protein; IVTD = in vitro true digestibility; NDF = neutral detergent fiber; ADF = acid detergent fiber; ADL = acid detergent lignin.

2PM = pearl millet baleage; SS = sorghum × sudangrass baleage; B = bermudagrass hay.

Calf Performance and Cow Milk Production

Calf performance measures during the trial are provided in Table 2. There were no forage type × hay ring interactions (P = 0.4885) or differences among forage type (P = 0.2592) or hay ring (P = 0.1733) treatments in calf final weight. Calves in pens containing an O hay ring had a greater average daily gain (ADG; P = 0.0139) than calves where forages were fed using a modified cone-shaped hay ring. This may be in part due to greater accessibility of forage when placed in O hay rings when compared with the modified cone-shaped feeder. Open-style hay rings generally have steel rings at the top, middle, and bottom and metal rods that run in a perpendicular direction for structural support that provide a series of openings for a cow/calf to put their head into the ring to eat. The modified cone-shaped ring has metal sheeting surrounding the bottom of the ring, which decreases the ability of animals to pull forage material out of the ring and may reduce accessibility by beef calves (Buskirk et al., 2003). Calves had an ADG of 1.1 kg during the 52-d feeding trial. Ball et al. (2012) reported that nursing beef calves should typically have an ADG of 0.7 to 0.8 kg, illustrating that all forages used in this system provided adequate nutritive quality to support milk production for calf growth above these target values.

Table 2.

Calf body weight measures and 24-h cow milk production from warm-season annual baleage or bermudagrass hay feeding systems

Forage type1 Ring type2
Item PM SS B SEM MC O SEM
Initial BW, kg 47.3y 49.9xy 53.5x 1.6 51.2 49.3 1.3
Final BW, kg 105.3 107.3 111.5 2.3 105.9 110.2 1.9
Average daily gain, kg 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.03 1.0b 1.2a 0.02
Cow milk production3 6.3 8.7 6.7 1.3 7.4 7.1 1.1
Cow milk production4 7.3 6.0 7.1 0.8 6.4 7.2 0.7
Open in a new tab

a,bFor ring type, within a row, means without a common superscript differ (P < 0.10).

x,y,zFor forage type, within a row, means without a common superscript differ (P < 0.10).

1PM = pearl millet baleage; SS = sorghum × sudangrass baleage; B = bermudagrass hay.

2MC = modified cone-shaped ring; O = open-shaped ring.

3Determined by weigh-suckle-weigh method at day 30.

4Determined by weigh-suckle-weigh method at day 52.

There were no forage type × hay ring interactions for cow milk production at day 30 or day 52 in this study (P = 0.2755 and P = 0.3603 for 30 and 52 d, respectively; Table 2). Cow milk production did not differ among forage type (P = 0.4334 and P = 0.5097 for 30 and 52 d, respectively) or hay ring (P = 0.8508 and P = 0.4649 for 30 and 52 d, respectively). Average milk produced by each cow during a 24-h period was 7.0 kg. McCormick et al. (1998, 2011) observed that actual milk yield did not differ among dairy cows consuming cool-season baleage, warm-season baleage, or cows consuming hay. Using the WSW method, Williams et al. (1979) reported mean 24-h milk production using 4-, 8-, and 16-h calf-separation intervals, respectively, to be 9.2, 7.6, and 5.9 kg. Values for 24-h milk production in the current study using an 18-h calf-separation interval were slightly greater than those from previous studies, but within estimated range of milk production for a mature beef cow (NRC, 2016). Mature 615-kg beef cows producing 7.0 kg of milk per day require a diet containing 59.1% TDN and 10.3% CP at 2 mo post-partum (NRC, 2000). The nutritive value of PM and SS baleages in the current studies met these requirements, while B had inadequate TDN (Table 3).

Forage Waste

During the 52-d feeding trial, there were no forage × ring-type interactions (P = 0.96) or differences between ring types (P = 0.35) for forage waste. Wastage from PM and SS baleage, 24% and 19%, respectively, were greater (P = 0.0167) than from B hay at 7%. Lane (2009) reported forage waste at the feeder to be as much as 25% for hay, whereas baleage resulted in 10% or less waste. Greater wastage in the current study may be related to bale replacement frequency and spoilage during feeding. Visible spoilage of baleage, presumably due to exposure to rainfall and relatively mild temperatures, occurred during the 5-d feeding window. Since this study, observational data suggest that increased feeding pressure on bales to use baleage in a 2-d time window may better optimize forage utilization (Dillard et al., 2018). Likewise, longer forage particle length of warm-season annuals has been shown to alter eating and chewing behavior (Jastic and Murphy, 1983) and decrease dry matter intake in ruminant diets (De Boever et al., 1993).

Previous literature indicates that hay rings with both a modified cone or cone-shape center reduce feeding waste compared with open-shaped rings when dry hay is fed (Wells and Lalman, 2013; Sexten et al., 2013; Moore and Sexten, 2015). However, forage nutritive value of B hay used in the present study was greater than those reported in the above trials, which may have altered refusal patterns at the feeder relative to previous trials. Moore and Sexten (2015) also reported that forage waste from baleage was not affected by feeder design, which further supports the potential for baleage wastage to be related to physical aspects of summer annuals, bale feeding pressure, and environmental conditions.

Economics of Winter Feeding Systems

An economic evaluation of the feeding costs for each forage system is presented in Table 4. Pruitt and Lacy (2013) reported cost savings of $46.96 per cow for a baleage system utilizing an inline wrapper and 5% storage loss compared with harvesting hay and storing outdoors with 25% storage loss. Differences reported in this study could be due to greater amounts of forage wasted observed with using baleage than the hay. Cost savings ($/cow–calf pair for 52 d) from utilizing a cone-shaped hay ring rather than an open-shaped hay ring were $3.44, $5.40, and $2.15 for PM baleage, SS baleage, and B hay, respectively. Differences in the percentage of forage waste among hay-feeding ring types in this trial were not enough to offset the additional expense of purchasing a modified cone-shaped ring. Because of the greater percentage of waste from baleage treatments, the cost of waste was $19.73 and $18.07 more for PM and SS baleages, respectively, than the hay treatment utilizing an open-shaped hay ring. Cost among systems may be more similar if baleage was compared with hay stored outdoors, rather than indoor stored hay utilized in this study. Because of the increased cost of production and similar animal performance observed across forage systems evaluated in this trial, this study supports the findings of Lacy et al. (2015) that reported that the breakeven herd size for baleage adoption was above 50 cows.

Table 4.

Estimated costs associated with feeding warm-season annual baleages or bermudagrass hay to beef cow–calf pairs

Treatments1
Item Ring type2 PM baleage SS baleage BG hay
$/Mg DM — $112 $123 $94
$/cow–calf pair/d — $1.97 $2.16 $1.65
Cost of feeding for 52 d — $102.55 $112.47 $86.01
Cost of waste, $/pair/d — — — —
— O $0.51 $0.48 $0.13
— MC $0.45 $0.38 $0.09
Open in a new tab

1PM = pearl millet; SS = sorghum × sudangrass; BG = bermudagrass.

2MC = modified cone-style ring; O = open-style ring.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study indicate that feeding pearl millet baleage, sorghum × sudangrass baleage, or bermudagrass hay result in similar animal performance in beef cow–calf systems, and that summer annual baleage may be used as an alternative to bermudagrass hay in winter feeding systems for beef cow–calf pairs. Pearl millet and sorghum × sudangrass baleages had greater forage waste than bermudagrass hay, largely due to rapid potential for spoilage during feeding. Forage ring type did not affect forage waste or cow performance among the warm-season forages evaluated in this study. The additional cost of machinery and plastic wrap needed to harvest forage as baleage should be compensated by improved animal performance for a producer to profit from this management practice. Because animal performance did not differ among forage types, this study suggests that it would not be economical to harvest summer annual forage as baleage to supplement lactating beef cows during a fall-winter forage gap compared with bermudagrass hay. Future studies should evaluate the use of summer annual baleage as an alternative to low-quality conserved hay and methods for improved utilization in beef cow–calf operations.

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.

Footnotes

1

This publication was supported by the Hatch program of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, and the Alabama Cattlemen’s Association State Beef Checkoff Program.

LITERATURE CITED

  1. AOAC 1990. Official methods of analysis. 15th ed. Arlington, VA: Assoc. Offic. Anal. Chem. [Google Scholar]
  2. AOAC 2000. Official methods of analysis. 17th ed. Arlington, VA: Assoc. Offic. Anal. Chem. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ball D., Gimenez D. M., Kerth C., Kriese-Anderson L., Owsley W. F., Prevatt W., Rankins D. L., and Rodning S.. 2008. Alabama beef cattle pocket guide. ANR 1323. Auburn (AL): Alabama Cooperative Extension System. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ball D. M., Hoveland C. S., and Lacefield G. D.. 2012. Forage crop pocket guide. Norcross (GA): International Plant Nutrition Institute. [Google Scholar]
  5. Ball D. M., Hoveland C. S., and Lacefield G. D.. 2015. Southern forages: Modern concepts for forage crop management. 5th ed. Norcross (GA): International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI). [Google Scholar]
  6. Bates D. B., Kunkle W. E., Chambliss C. G., and Cromwell R. P.. 1989. Effect of dry matter and additives on bermudagrass and rhizoma peanut round bale silage. J. Prod. Agric. 2:91–96. doi: 10.2134/jpa1989.0091 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Burns J. C., and Fisher D. S.. 2012. Intake and digestibility of big bluestem hay and baleage. Crop Sci. 52:2413–2420. doi: 10.2135/cropsci2012.02.0123 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Buskirk D. D., Zanella A. J., Harrigan T. M., Van Lente J. L., Gnagey L. M., and Kaercher M. J.. 2003. Large round bale feeder design affects hay utilization and beef cow behavior. J. Anim. Sci. 81:109–115. doi: 10.2527/2003.811109x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dawson W. M., Cook A. C., and Knapp B. Jr. 1960. Milk Production in beef Shorthorn cows. J. Anim. Sci. 19:502. doi: 10.2527/jas1960.192502x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. De Boever J. L., De Smet A., De Brabander D. L., and Boucque C. V.. 1993. Evaluation of physical structure. 1. Grass silage. J. Dairy Sci. 76: 140–153. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(93)77333-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dillard S. L., Mullenix M. K., Gladney J., and Shoup S. L.. 2018. Producing & feeding baleage in Alabama. Auburn (AL): Alabama Cooperative Extension Service. ANR 2511. [Google Scholar]
  12. Drewry K. J., Brown C. J., and Honea R. S.. 1959. Relationship among factors associated with mothering ability of beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 19:938. doi: 10.2527/jas1959.183938x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Forte E. M., Mullenix M. K., Tucker J. J., Elmore J. B., and Bergen W. G.. 2018. Conserved forage-based systems for backgrounding weaned beef calves. Transl. Anim. Sci. 2:272–279. doi: 10.1093/tas/txy063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. González G., and Rodríguez A. A.. 2003. Effect of storage method on fermentation characteristics, aerobic stability, and forage intake of tropical grasses ensiled in round bales. J. Dairy Sci. 86:926–933. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73675-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hancock D. W., Hicks R., Kichler J. M., and Smith R. C. III. 2018. Georgia forages: Grass species. Bulletin 1351. Athens (GA): University of Georgia Cooperative Extension. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hancock D., Stewart L., Saha U. K., Bernard J. K., and Smith B.. 2017. Understanding and improving forage quality. Bulletin 1425. Athens (GA): University of Georgia Cooperative Extension. [Google Scholar]
  17. Herd D. B., and Sprott L. R. 2013. Body condition, nutrition and reproduction of beef cows. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension B-1526; p. 1–12. http://counties.agrilife.org/gillespie/files/2013/02/Body-Condition-Nutrition-and-Reproduction-of-Beef-Cows.pdf (Accessed May 2019). [Google Scholar]
  18. Hersom M., Driver D., Faircloth B., and Wasdin J.. 2007. Utilization of round bale silage as a complement to hay production. Gainesville (FL): University of Florida Beef Report; p. 25–28. [Google Scholar]
  19. Jastic E. H., and Murphy M. R.. 1983. Effects of varying particle size of forage on digestion and chewing behavior of dairy heifers. J. Dairy Sci. 66:802–810. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(83)81860-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Knapp B. Jr., and Black W. H.. 1941. Factors influencing the rate of gain of beef calves during the suckling period. J. Agric. Res. 63:249. [Google Scholar]
  21. Kress D. D., and Anderson D. C.. 1974. Milk production in Hereford cattle. Proc. West. Sec. ASAS 25:37. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lacy R. C., Pruitt J. R., and Hancock D. W.. 2015. Economic returns and risk analysis of forage wrapping technologies. J. ASFMRA 2015:139–153. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lane C. 2009. Hay storage. Research Report AS-BV-M 14. Knoxville (TN): University of Tennessee. [Google Scholar]
  24. Mandebvu P., West J. W., Hill G. M., Gates R. N., Hatfield R. D., Mullinix B. G., Parks A. H., and Caudle A. B.. 1999. Comparison of Tifton 85 and Coastal bermudagrasses for yield, nutrient traits, intake, and digestion by growing beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 77:1572–1586. doi: 10.2527/1999.7761572x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Martin R. M., Walker R. S., Kearney M. T., and Williams C. C.. 2015. Effects of feeding baleage to beef calves on performance, rumen fermentation, and metabolic response during the fall backgrounding period. Prof. Anim. Sci. 4:324–332. doi: 10.15232/pas.2015-01402 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. McCormick M. 2013. Bale silage production issues. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Southern Pastures and Forage Crop Improvement Conference http://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/spfcic/files/2013/02/mcmormick.pdf (Accessed 2019). [Google Scholar]
  27. McCormick M. 2014. Use of annual forage crops as baleage. Baton Rouge (LA): LSU Agricultural Center, Forage Focus. [Google Scholar]
  28. McCormick M. E., Cuomo G. J., and Blouin D. C.. 1998. Annual ryegrass stored as baleage, haylage, or hay for lactating dairy cows. J. Prod. Agric. 11:293–300. doi: 10.2134/jpa1998.0293 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. McCormick M. E., Han K. J., Moreira V. R., Blouin D. C., and Forbes S.. 2011. Forage conservation efficiency and lactation response to bahiagrass conserved as barn-stored hay, outdoor-stored hay, or baleage. J. Dairy Sci. 94:2500–2507. doi: 10.3168/jds.2010-3796 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Moore W. A., and Sexten W. J.. 2015. Effect of bale feeder and forage on hay waste, disappearance, and sorting. Prof. Anim. Sci. 31:248–254. doi: 10.15232/pas.2014-01365 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. National Research Council . 2000. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 7th revised ed. Washington (DC): National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9791 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. NRC 2016. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 8th rev. ed. Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
  33. Pruitt J. R., and Lacy R. C.. 2013. Economics of baleage for beef cattle operations. Baton Rouge (LA): LSU AgCenter Pub. 3330. [Google Scholar]
  34. SAS Institute 2013. User’s guide: Statistics, Version 9.4. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sears B., Smith R., Hancock D. W., Collins M., and Henning J. C.. 2013. Baleage: Frequently asked questions. Middletown (NY): SENA Review. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sexten A. J., McMurphy C. P., Mourer G. L., Richards C. J., Jones C., Huhnke R., and Lalman D. L.. 2013. Effects of bale feeder type and processing on hay waste, intake, and performance of beef cattle. Oklahoma State Univ., Anim. Sci. Res. Rep; http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/research/research-reports-1/2013/Sparks%202013%20–1.pdf (Accessed June 2017). [Google Scholar]
  37. Tilley J. M. A., and Terry R. A.. 1963. A two-stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. J. Br. Grassl. Soc. 18:104–111. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Van Soest P. J. 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminant. 2nd ed. Comstock Publ. Assoc., Ithaca, NY. [Google Scholar]
  39. Van Soest P. J., Robertson J. B., and Lewis B. A.. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74:3583–3597. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Vendramini J. 2010. Haylage of warm-season perennial grasses in Florida South Florida Beef-Forage Program Article of the Month Series. http://sfbfp.ifas.ufl.edu/articles/article_2010_may.shtml (Accessed May 2019).
  41. Wells R., and Lalman D.. 2013. Hay feeder design can reduce hay waste and cost. Oklahoma State Univ., Anim. Sci. Publ; https://www.noble.org/globalassets/images/news/ag-news-and-views/2013/11/pdf/hay-feeder-design.pdf (Accessed June 2017). [Google Scholar]
  42. Williams J. H., Anderson D. C., and Kress D. D.. 1979. Milk production in Hereford cattle. II. Physical measurements: Repeatabilities and relationships with milk production. J. Anim. Sci. 49:1443–1448. doi: 10.2527/jas1979.4961443x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Translational Animal Science are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES