Large round bale feeder design affects hay utilization and beef cow behavior1,2

Abstract

One hundred sixty beef cows (631 +/- 78 kg) were used to evaluate the quantity of hay loss and feeding behaviors from different round bale feeders. Twenty cows were allotted by weight and body condition score to one of eight pens with four feeder designs: cone, ring, trailer, or cradle. All feeder types provided approximately 37 cm of linear feeder space per 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 7-d period, each feeder type was assigned to a different pen for a second 7-d period. On four consecutive days in each period, animal behavior was recorded using a time-lapse video system. Data were collected from 5-min observational intervals from the video tapes every 0.5 h each day. Feeder access, occupancy rate, and occurrence of agonistic interactions were recorded. 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 2.0% of body weight and was not different among feeder type (P < 0.05). 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 (P < 0.05). Cows feeding from the cradle feeder had nearly three times the agonistic interactions and four times the frequency of entrances compared to cows feeding from the other feeder types (P < 0.05). Feed losses were positively correlated with agonistic interactions, frequency of regular and irregular entrances, and feeder occupancy rate (P < 0.05). Agonistic interactions by cows and frequency of feeder entrances differed among feeders and were correlated to feeder design induced feed losses.

Feeder Type Affects Growth in Weanling Horses

“…What can be stated is that providing hay and grain in more typically-used open hay racks and tub feeders resulted in reduced growth in the animals in this study as compared to the animals fed using a combination of hay and grain feeder. These results are consistent with the findings of Martinson et al [4] and Buskirk et al [5] in their studies of horses and cattle, in which using different hay feeders resulted in different degrees of feed wastage. This study only compared two different feeding systems using three types of feeders, though numerous other feeder designs are on the market available to horse owners.…”

“…Similarly, Buskirk el al. [5] found that round bale feeder design affects the utilization of the hay in beef cattle. Several other studies [6][7][8][9] have documented the importance of proper storage and protection of large round bales to reduce nutrient losses.…”

Feeding behaviour of broiler chickens: a review on the biomechanical characteristics

“…Several studies indicate that some design features, such as size, location, geometry, spacing and angle, can affect the behaviour of animals. Deployment of design strategies that weaken the agonistic interactions and produce feed wastage during the use of these devices by the animals is common (Buskirk et al, 2003;Wolter et al, 2009). The feed continuously provided for broiler is essential for them to express their genetic potential.…”

Field curing methods and storage duration affect the quality of hay from six rangeland grass species in Kenya

“…Hay and silage-making are some of the oldest and most popular methods of conserving forages (Suttie 2000). The main goal in production and conservation of any plant material for feeding to livestock later is to minimize loss of quantity and quality during harvesting, storage, and feeding (Buskirk et al 2003;Mackie 2004). Under good husbandry practices, forage materials when growing can be of very high quality but lose most of it between harvesting, transportation, storage, and feeding but mostly higher during storage (Roberts et al 2009;Bernués et al 2011).…”