AN UAR Y I 964 we! A TEXAS ARM UNIVERSITY ULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIIIN - - - TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE College Station, Texas w: LUUPERATIUN WITH TIIE ll. S. DEPARTMENT 0E AGRICULTURE CONTENTS Summary Introduction Crops Used for Silage Moisture Content of Forage Use of Preservatives Silo Types and Construction. Harvesting and Filling Sealing the Silo Silage Density Self-feeding Silage Mechanical Unloading Costs of Harvesting, Storing and Feeding Silage... Harvesting and Storing Costs eleeding Costs Acknowledgments n: Q QQQO@\IUSGIGSUI|BQQNQQQON S UMMAR Y Research conducted at Beaumont College Station 1957-63 resulted in the developing of practical methods ~§ ing clovers and grasses during weather too wet and h haying. t The addition of zinc bacatracin to forage at the ensiling reduced dry matter losses in direct-cut clover Preservatives used in these tests were not effective in p dry matter losses in high-moisture (80 percent) sorghum -~_ Silos used were above-ground types designed for y preservation of silage. Covered bunker and stack sil economical and practical storage facilities that offered J in locating the silos for efficient management practices. .1 A 4 to 6-inch layer of sawdust spread uniformly surface of a plastic film cover eliminated top spoilage f types of silos. Tight sidewalls were effective in prevent‘ age on the sides in bunker silos. Side spoilage was nevg pletely eliminated in stack silos, but was greatly reduc the edges of the plastic cover were sealed air-tight. Self-feeding from bunker and stack silos was a prac '0 i, labor-saving method of feeding silage when a concrete ' used and {maximum depth of the silage was 6 feet. inches of feeding space per animal were adequate for self on a 24-hour-a-day basis. An experimental silo unloader was developed for f ically unloading horizontal-type silos. A capacity of 7.3 A silage per hour was obtained with the machine in t‘! sorghum and clover silages. A commercial unloader, y after the experimental machine, but with increased wig capacity, has been built and tested. ' Annual costs for harvesting, filling the silo and sto '4 ton of feedable silage were $4.80 for a 20 by 90-foot p; with concrete floor and preservative-treated lumber w pared to $6.54 for the same size stack silo with concr, and no walls and $5.40 for stack silos with concrete temporary walls. The lower cost for bunker silos was a A less labor required for filling, more uniform and tighter and less spoilage loss. a Costs of feeding silage per animal unit per day 1.5 cents for self-feeding from one end of the silo, 12.4 y‘ two different methods of hand feeding and 9.0 cents for ' ical feeding. Silage was hauled 5 miles in the mechanical tests, compared to 0.5 mile for the hand feeding methods. on a hauling distance of 0.5 mile, the cost for mechanical i would be approximately 5.8 cents per animal unit per ~ 1 _ e Gulf Coast area of Texas, the greatest n of pasture forage occurs in the spring i humidity and frequent rains hinder field A; of hay. Since this production is usually ,1 grazing requirements at the time, ensiling (cal way to preserve the excess for use during low forage production. i ch' was started in 1957 by the Texas _) 1 Experiment Station and the U. S. De- of Agriculture to develop structures and a methods and equipment for storing and rsilage economically on the Coast Prairie. (ts obtained during the 3-year period, 1957- freported in MP-525, Handling Silage in (und Silos on the Coast Prairie. A copy Lblication will be sent upon request. This L" arizes the results obtained during the l-63. ~ CROPS USED FOR SILA 0E Tu grasses and their mixtures were ensiled ‘e contents of 51 to 85 percent and protein - 6 to l5 percent (dry basis) during the 3-year 957-59. Species used were persianclover, - fr, burclover, sweetclover, ryegrass, canary- iisgrass, Angletongrass, oats, sorghum. almum i’ sorghum. Tracy sorghum and common ’- er‘ were ensiled from 1960 to 1962, inclu- liitical evaluation of preservatives and field racy was ensiled at 81 percent moisture and protein (dry basis) while common persian- ' ensiled at 78 to 82 percent moisture and ircent protein (dry basis). STURE CONTENT OF FORA 0E ’ moisture was important in the preserva- j age. When moisture content was high p; percent), drainage of silage juices was ex- ; nerally, this silage was dark in color, had 4' trid odor and was of low palatability. The ioisture content was 70 to 75 percent. (oisture contient of forage crops harvested y bloom stage was usually 8O to 85 percent. f professor, Department of Agricultural Engineering; re- ‘mist, Crops Research Division, Agricultural Research 3 Department of Agriculture, Beaumont, Texas; assistant artment of Agricultural Engineering; and agricultural s Agricultural Extension Service. TORING AND HANDLING SILA 0E IN ORIZONTAL ABO VE- GROUND s11; 0s f. W. Sorenson, In, R. M Weihing, N. K. Person, fr. and W S. Allen* The moisture content of these high-moisture forages was reduced to about 75 percent by mowing and allowing the forage to wilt in the swath for 2 to 5 hours, depending on weather conditions. However, more labor and equipment were involved in handling wilted than unwilted forage. The direct-cut method of handling unwilted forage reduced labor and equip- ment requirements and minimized the risk of weather damage. It was possible to direct-cut some forage crops at the optimum moisture content and stage of maturity for high-quality silage. USE OF PRESER VA TIVES Small-scale silos (55 gallon drums) were used to study the effects of methods of harvesting and use of preservatives on dry matter losses in sorghum and clover silages. Grab samples were taken as the forage was ensiled. These samples were placed in each drum at two levels in 1960 and at five levels in 1961 and 1962. The samples were recovered when the silos were opened. Dry matter losses during storage were computed from these samples and from the total forage put into and taken out of the drums. Data were obtained on direct-cut and wilted silages har- vested by conventional and flail-type harvesters. Results of these tests, Tables 1, 2 and 3, were (1) dry matter losses were about the same for forages har- vested with the two types of harvesters, (2) zinc bacatracin and sodium bisulfite did not reduce dry matter losses in high-mo-isture (80 percent) sorghum silage, (3) dry matter losses in direct-cut clover silage were less when treated with zinc bacatracin than when no preservative was used (this was not true for silages treated with sodium bisulfite and propylene oxide); and (4) no significant difference was shown in dry matter losses in treated and untreated wilted clover silage. Dry matter losses computed from samples and from total forage ensiled were about the same in all tests for untreated silage. However, in some of the tests with treated silage there was considerable varia- tion in dry matter losses computed by these two methods. The changes in dry matter for treated silage were consistently higher when computed on the basis of total forage rather than sample weights, but the same relationship was shown for both methods on the effect of preservative used on dry matter losses. The simple correlation was 0.705 (significant at 1 per- 3 TABLE 1. DRY MATTER LOSSES, CRUDE FIBER PERCENTAGE, AND pH OF DIRECT-CUT TRACY SORGHUM SILAGE HARVESTED WI VENTIONAL AND FLAIL-TYPE HARVESTERS AND STORED IN SMALL-SCALE SILOS FOR 6 MONTHS WITH AND WITHOUT PRESERVATIVES, 1. M°lsfurE Loss in dry Crude fibgr, Type of presewzfive £3,221.35" matter, percent percent harvester used ensiled, Forage Total When End of percent samples‘ forages ensiled storage NOIIG 81.0 9.8 9.4 31.8 _ 35.6 Conventional‘ Zinc bacatracina 80.8 11.8 17.9 31.0 i f’ 35.4 Sodium bisulfite 81.6 16.7 18.1 31.2 35.6 Flail-type None 80.9 12.2 12.5 32.1 37.1 Zinc bacatracins 81.1 10.0 12.9 33.4 35.8 ‘Harvester set for a % -inch cut. . zPreservatives were added at the following rates: zinc bacatracin at a rate of 5 pounds per ton of silage; and sodium bisulfite of 9 pounds per ton. 3Zinc bacatracin is sold under the trade name of SILOTRACIN. ~. ‘Based on initial and final dry-matter weights of samples placed at different levels in each silo as the forage was ensiled. Statistica values were not significantly different. “Based on initial and final dry-matter weights of the total amount of forage ensiled. Statistically, these values were not significantly ~ “Based on dry weight. 1 cent level) between dry matter losses computed from self-feed from them for needed supplemental I: samples and dry matter losses computed from total feed. ' forage‘ Plastic bag, bunker and stack silos were h these tests. A plastic bag silo was effective t‘ SILO TYPES AND CONSTRUCTION serving silage, but considerable labor was -. to load and unload it. The bag also punctur and required frequent patching. This type qj is not considered practical for storing large qui‘ of forage, usually handled on most farms. '4 Above-ground silos, designed for low-cost preser- vation of silage, were used in these studies. Above- ground silos were used because underground types frequently flood during the excessive rainfall in the Gulf Coast area. Also emphasis was placed on types . Bunker and horizontal stack silos are re of silos offering flexibility of location. Some were inexpensive and considered practical for th located adjacent to winter pastures where cattle could Co-ast Prairie. Bunkers are recommended wh_ TABLE 2. DRY MATTER LOSSES, CRUDE FIBER PERCENTAGE, AND pH OF DIRECT-CUT AND WILTED PERSIANCLOVER SILAGE q WITH CONVENTIONAL AND FLAIL-TYPE HARVESTERS AND STORED IN SMALL-SCALE SILOS FOR 10 MONTHS WITH AND WITH SERVATIVES, 1961-62 ?_ Mflsfure Loss in dry Crude fiber, Method of Preservative fcomenf I?‘ "10"", PQPW"? Pefwm‘ . 1 orage w en harvestmg used ensiled, Forage Total When End of percent samplesz forage“ ensiled storage Direct cut None 81.6 10.2 9.0 26.5 26.1 with conventional Zinc bacatracinz 78.8 3.7 1.7 27.8 28.5 harvester Sodium bisulfite 78.3 12.6 11.5 . 22.9 24.3 Direct c," None 78.3 12.5 11.3 29.9 29.9 with flail-type Zinc bacatracinz 82,0 4.8 29.7 32.3 ¢II°PP°Y q Sodium bisulfite 80.9 8.2 9.4 28.5 27.4 Mow, cure in swath for ~ Z5 hum, mke and None 77.6 5.3 11.5 27.3 27.1 pick up from windrow Zinc bacatracinz 75.3 4.6 5.6 27.5 27.9 with <9"v9""9"9| Sodium bisulfite 74.1 4.5 10.6 23.0 26.4 harvester Mow, cure in swath for 15 hum, mke and None 63.4 7.1 12.2 2a.2 28.6 pick up from windrow Zinc bacatracina 69.0 4.6 7.6 27.0 27.7 with flail-type Sodium bisulfite 69.9 6.4 9.7 27.7 23.6 chopper ‘Preservatives were added at the following rates: zinc bacatracin at a rate of 5 pounds per ton of forage; and sodium bisulfitoi of 9 pounds per ton. .1 zBased on initial and final dry matter weights of samples placed at different levels in each silo as the forage was ensiled. LSD LSD (.01) = 6.0. aBased on initial and final dry matter weights of the total forage ensiled. Statistically, these values were not significantly different. ~ ‘Based on dry weight. 4 ilage is a permanent part of the livestock peration, since they have walls which make e t0 obtain tighter and more uniform pack- k silos are less expensive to build, but since e no walls, it is difficult to form the stack s, the silage tightly. Horizontal stacks can be pastures or at other locations accessible for and feeding the forage. Stack silos can also -when available forage exceeds the capacity y] s or other types of silos. a‘ stack silos were formed by packing silage é the ground or on a concrete slab, Figure 1. e nd that stack silos should not be less than aide. This minimum width is recommended it permits more uniform packing than ob- fth narrower widths. Also, it is not safe to ks and tractors o-ver stacks less than 16 feet the silage is piled higher than 5 feet. The id height of the stack should permit the use 1' e widths of plastic film. For example, with teeting 32 feet wide and 100 feet long, maxi- lens-ions of the stack could be 20 feet wide long by 5 feet high. y. alls of bunker silos should be constructed te, preservative-treated lumber o-r some other fstant material. Untreated lumber in some 1 sectio-ns of bunker silos used m these tests ‘thin 1 year. Walls constructed of creosoted ere used for five seasons with no signs of a tion. ncrete floor was essential for satisfactory Land removal of silage during wet weather. " ‘freinfosrced slab» provided adequate support and tractors during the filling and packing . Important also was providing good drain- Fj oping the slab toward one end, from the ward each end or to one side. A slope of j 10 feet of length is considered a minimum filing. iRY MATTER LOSSES FOR DIRECT-CUT PERSIANCLOVER v ED IN SMALL-SCALE SILOS FOR 1O MONTHS WITH AND i WITHOUT PRESERVATIVES, 1962-63 content Loss in dry ‘Qpercent preservative matter, percent End of "sedl Forage Total s’ storage samplesz forageg . an None 14.8 17.2 82.3 Propylene oxide 13.4 28.6 81.7 None 18.3 18.9 79.8 Zine lpacatracin 3.5 11.1 i were added at thezifollowing rates: 3 percent solution oxide at a rate of 10 quarts per 100 pounds of wet ‘ezinc bacatracin at a rate of 5 pounds per ton of silage. f itial and final dry matter weights of samples placed at els in each silo as the forage was ensiled. LSD (.05) = 1) = 5.9. eiitial and final dry matter weights of the total amount k oiled. LSD (.05) = 3.3; LSD (.01) = 4.6. Figure 1. Stack silos were formed by packing silage directly on the ground or on a concrete slab. HAR VES TING AND FILLING A conventional forage harvester and a flail-type harvester (rotary chopper) were used to harvest and chop the forage. Initial cost and maintenance are less fo-r a flail-type than for a conventional harvester. However, a shorter and more uniform cut, which was more efficient for packing the silage, was obtained with the conventional harvester. The bunker and stack silo-s used in these tests were filled with trucks or self-unlo-ading trailers that moved up and over the silage as it was placed in the silo. Packing with a tractor was continuous during the filling operation. So-me difficulty was encountered in maintaining vertical walls o-n stacks during filling, particularly with short cuts of forage (harvester set for %-inch cut). However, forage cut at longer lengths (1 to 4 inches) was difficult to pack and resulted in higher spoilage lo-sses than occurred in stacks made with short cuts of forage. The use of temporary, short sides (2 feet high) was helpful in overcoming the difficulty in forming the stacks, Figure 2. The short sides allowed the packing tractor to get clo-se to the sides and resulted in tightly-packed, uniform. stacks. The sides were removed after the stack was completed and before it was covered. They were then available for use on other stacks. Several methods were used to support the tempo- rary walls. The use of fence posts, Figure 2, was the most practical method used. The posts were spaced 4 feet apart and were set 18 inches deep in slightly oversized holes. Dirt was not placed around the posts. The posts were left loose to be removed easily after the stack was completed. Bunker and stack silos were filled and sealed as quickly as possible. This was more important for stack silos than for bunkers because of the greater surface; area expose-d. Stack silos should be small enough to permit filling and covering in 2 days or less. This was accomplished in these tests with silos up to 24 feet wide by 90 feet long by 6 feet deep. Figure 2. Temporary sideboards were helpful in forming stack silos. Posts were set loosely in slightly oversized holes (top). Posts and walls were removed after the stack was completed (bottom). SEALING THE SILO Six-mil, black polyethylene film was usedfor covering the bunker and stack silos. These covers were effective in reducing top spoilage when the cover was weighted to» hold it in close contact with the surface of the silage. Top spoilage was reduced, but not completely eliminated, by weighting the top with o-ld automobile tires. However, a 4- to 6-inch layer of sawdust spread uniformly over the surface of the plastic cover completely eliminated top spoilage in bo-th bunker and stack silos. Bunker and stack silos with sawdust coverings are shown in Figure 3. Tight sidewalls were effective in preventing spoil- age losses along the sides in bunker silos. Side spoil- age was never completely eliminated in stack silos, but was greatly reduced when the edges of the plastic cover were sealed air-tight. This was accomplished by burying the edge of the cover in a trench and covering with 8 to l0 inches o-f soil. SILA GE DENSITY Density measurements were made with a 12-inch square metal box, 6 inches deep, open on both ends. The box was placed on the silage at the location where the measurement was to be made and then forced down as the forage was cut loose from around 6 the edge of the box. Measurements were y different depths and at several locations in y The density of silage was affected by such f‘ as the length o-f cut, moisture co-ntent and dd the ensiled forage, type o-f silo, amount of v5 during the filling operation and type of ensiled. 1 Densities of direct-cut sorghum silage and clover silage, stored at a depth o-f 6 feet in silos, ranged from 45 to 55 pounds per cub, with the highest values for persianclover l“ Densities of the same silage materials stor 5-foot depth in stack silos ranged from 35 to 42 '5 per cubic foot. The values given are aver! the silo. 5 SELF -FEEDIN G SILA GE The self-feeding of stacks and bunker-story“ was a practical and labor-saving method of} silage to beef and dairy cattle. However, w conducted at Texas A8cM University, som producing dairy cattle did not obtain sufficie j ‘I under a self-feeding program} A concrete A 1M. A. Brown, personal communication. Dairy Science Texas A8cM University, College Station, Texas. August I, y Figure 3. Plastic film covers with a 4 to v of sawdust spread uniformly over the cover was . eliminating top spoilage in bunker silos (top) a silos (bottom). ~ .'" was necessary to keep cattle out of the mud et weather. The most efficient operation ceding from both ends of the silo at the same i hen this is done the silo floor should be if 0m the center toward each end or to one yrovide drainage away from the silage. al different types of feeding gates were used. lric-pipe gate and a stanchion-type gate, 4-6, inclusive, proved the most satisfactory. ‘ves worked their way through the openings itanchion gates and damaged silage. The ipe gate, suspended at a height of from 18 es from the silo- floor, prevented this. Four es of feeding space per animal was adequate eeding silage on a Zll-hour-a-day basis. A 3| of 6 inches of feeding space is recommended cing dairy cows. A maximum silage depth f- before settling, was found desirable for self- MECHANICAL UNLOADING f_al makes and models of commercial mechan- ders which are suitable for horizontal-type i-available. However, some of these are self- L» units, and others are designed and con- 0 that rigid support of the tractor or power required. Some of the tractor-mounted f require a co-nsiderable amount of time for g and dismounting and for all practical pur- i4. The self-feeding of stacks and bunker-stored iced labor costs. Stanchion-type gate (top) and feeding gates proved satisfactory. To self-feed, was rolled back and gate pushed ahead. Figure 5. Construction details for stanchion-type gate. This type of gate also can be constructed of wood. poses tie-up a tractor during the unloading and feed- ing season. The silo unloader, Figure 7, is an experimental machine developed by agricultural engineers of Texas AScM University for mechanically unloading hori- zontal silos. The machine consists of a power take-off operated digging attachment mounted on implement coupling beams fo-r two-point, fast-hitch attachment to a tractor. The two-point hitch permits one man to quickly attach and detach the machine fro-m the tractor, making the tractor available fo-r other pur- poses when the unloader is not in use. The unit can be converted to a standard three-point hitch system with minor modifications. Figure 6. An electric-pipe gate consists of a fence charger and a 2-inch diameter pipe suspended from 18 to 28 inches from the floor and 12 inches from the silage. Cattle eat over and under the pipe. Figure 7. Three views of experimental silo unloader. The unit, with power take-off drive, is mounted on implement coupling beams for fast-hitch attachment to a tractor. Unloader detached from tractor (top); backing tractor into position for attachment of unloader to tractor (center); unloader in transport position (bottom). The unloader is put into operation by backing the tractor into the silo until the digging portion of the unloader comes in contact with the silage. After contact with the silage is made, the brakes are locked on the tractor. The unloader, mounted on telescop- ing arms, is then forced into the silage with the tractor hydraulic system. The rate of advance of the unloader into the silage is controlled from the tractor seat by the operator. The upward movement of the combi- nation digger-conveyor against the stack breaks the silage loose as it moves into the stack and conveys the material to a 9-inch diameter cross auger at the top o-f the unloader. The silage is then deposited into another 9-inch auger which transports it into a truck or trailer at the front of the tractor. Plans, giving details of construction, are available upon request from the Department of Agricultural Engi- neering, Texas A&M University. 8 A maximum capacity of 7.3 tons of silai hour was obtained with this machine in tes sorghum and clover silages. The capacity increased by increasing the width of the , attachment and with experience in operati machine. A commercial concern has built and machine patterned after the: experimental u 1 The width of the digging attachment is abou wider on the commercial unloader than it is- experimental machine.. With this increased; the capacity of the commercial unloader than double the capacity of the experimen chine. The same company has built another t; that has several improvements over the origi i’ Figure 8. A commercial unloader, patterned experimental machine developed at Texas AScM a (top). The unloader in operation (bottom). l ine will be used as a prototype for pro- lII(X1€lS. f. TS OF HARVESTING, STORING H AND FEEDING SILAGE T g and Storing Costs sparative costs for harvesting and storing the same size (20 feet wide by 9O feet long) nd stack silos are given in Tables 4-6. ‘ tcosts per ton of feedable silage were $7.93 s, er silo with a 4-inch reinforced concrete fifpreservative-treated lumber sides and posts; stack silo with a 4-inch reinforced concrete temporary walls (2 feet high); $6.15 for a _ with a 4-inch reinforced concrete slab and L, alls; 88 cents for a stack silo on a sand fill 1 temporary walls; and 51 cents for a stack jsand fill and without walls. Annual storage ~ ton of feedable silage for these silos were 778, $2.43, $1.64 and $2.15, respectively. (own in Table 6, annual costs per ton for g filling the silo and storing silage were i a bunker silo with a concrete floor and lve-treated wood walls, compared to $5.40 fANNUAL STORAGE COSTS FOR STORING SORGHUM ‘f’ ~IN THE SAME SIZE BUNKER AND STACK SILOS‘ Type of silo Stack Blmkelz Concrete Concrete Sand Sand slab slab fill fill s, feet 20 20 20 20 20 9O 9O 90 9O 90 6 23 No walls 23 No walls $1,380 $790 $720 $130 $60 25 25 25 5 5 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.0 45 40 35 40 35 ., 183 163 137 163 137 i’ loge 5 10 15 10 15 _, ble y‘. 174 147 117 147 117 dollars: s 55.20 s 31.60 s 20.00 s 26.00 s 12.00 y; I 30.00 10.00 5.00 15.00 10.00 a es 41.40 23.70 21.60 3.90 1.a0 48.00 68.00 68.00 68.00 68.00 72.00 128.00 160.00 128.00 160.00 $246.60 $261.30 $283.40 $240.90 $251.80 luse. tment$7.93 slfsiar s 6.15 s 0.0a s 0.51 i 1.42 1.78 2.43 1.64 2.15 v - obtained with experimental silos. forced concrete floor with preservative-treated lumber * ts. Posts set in concrete. olls used to form stacks and then removed. i 11st covering not included. c- ot $8 per ton. for a stack silo with a concrete floor and temporary walls and $6.54 for a stack silo with a concrete floor and no walls. The annual costs also were higher for a stack silo on a sand fill than for the bunker. The lower costs for the bunker silo were a result of less labor required for filling, the ability to obtain more uniform and tighter packing and less spoilage loss. Labor costs were less for bunker silos than stack silos, because the silage was easier to pack and less labor was required for filling and sealing the silos. Feeding Costs Records were kept on labor and equipment re- quirements for hand-feeding, self-feeding and mechan- ically-feeding silage. Hand-feeding methods used were (1) silage loaded into portable feed troughs at the silo and then pulled 600 feet to the feeding areas, and (2) silage loaded into a trailer and pulled by a tractor to three locations at distances ranging from 400 feet to l/2 mile from the silo. A commercial silo unloader with a cage-type reel digger head was used TABLE 5. EQUIPMENT AND LABOR COSTS FOR HARVESTING SOR- GHUM FORAGE AND FILLING BUNKER AND STACK SILOS OF THE SAME SIZE‘ Type of silo Stack silos Item 2 Bunk" Concrete Concrete Sand Sand slab slab fill fill Silo dimensions, feet Width 20 20 20 20 20 Length 90 90 90 90 90 Wall height 6 23 No walls 23 No walls Silage depth before settling, feet 6 6 5.5 6 5.5 Tons of settled silage 183 163 137 163 ‘I37 Tons of feedable silage 174 147 117 147 117 Equipment costs for: Harvesting Tractor‘ $28.80 $25.00 $22.50 $25.00 $22.50 Field- chopper5 66.70 58.00 52.20 58.00 52.20 Hauling forage to silo“ 380.00 320.00 288.00 320.00 288.00 Packing silage 26.45 26.45 24.15 26.45 24.15 Total equipment cost $500.95 $429.45 $386.85 $429.45 $386.85 Labor costs for? Harvesting $23.00 $20.00 $18.00 $20.00 $18.00 Hauling forage to silos Filling silo 54.00 70.00 62.00 70.00 62.00 Covering silo” 10.00 12.00 14.00 12.00 14.00 Total labor cost $87.00 $102.00 $94.00 $102.00 $94.00 Total equipment . and Ialoorcost $587.95 $531.45 $480.85 $531.45 $480.85 ‘Based on data obtained with experimental silos. gFour-inch concrete floor with preservative-treated lumber sides and posts. Posts set in concrete. sTemporary walls used to form stack and then removed. ‘Cost based on $1.25 per hour. 5Cost based on $2.90 per hour. “Dump trucks hired with a driver for $4 per hour. 7Labor costs based on $1 per hour. slncluded in equipment cost for hauling forage to silo. °Does not include cost for applying sawdust cover. TABLE s. ANNUAL-COSTS FOR HARVESTING SORGHUM FORAGE, FILLING suos AND sronms sum: m m: SAME SIZE BUNKER AND STACK SILOS‘ Type of silo Stack silos Item 2 Bunker Concrete Concrete Sand Sand slab slab fill fill Dimensions of silo, feet Width 2O 20 20 20 2O Length 9O >90 90 9O 9O Wall height 6 23 No walls 23 No walls Depth of settled silage, feet 5.5 5.5 5.0 5.5 5.0 Tons of settled silage 183 163 137 163 137 Tons of feedable silage 174 147 117 147 117 Annual costs for: Harvesting forage and filling silo $587.95 $531.45 $480.85 $531.45 $480.85 Storing silage 246.60 261.30 283.40 240.90 251.80 Total annual cost $834.55 $792.75 $764.25 $772.35 $732.65 Annual cost per ton of feedable silage: Harvesting forage and filling silo $3.38 $3.62 $4.11 $3.61 $4.11 Storing silage 1.42 1.78 2.43 1.64 2.15 Total $4.80 $5.40 $6.54 $5.25 $6.26 lBased on data obtained with experimental silos. 2Four-inch reinforced concrete floor with preservative-treated lumber sides and posts. Posts set in concrete. BTemporary walls used to form stack and then removed. to remove silage from a bunker silo in the mechanical feeding studies. The unloader was mounted on a tractor and was PTO operated. Spring teeth on the reel dug the ensilage loose. The loose material was caught in a hopper and delivered by an auger to a rubber conveyor belt, which conveyed it to a power forage feeder mounted on a truck. The silage was then transported about 5 miles to feed bunks where it was unloaded mechanically. As shown in Table 7, labor and equipment costs for feeding one animal unit per day were 11.7 and 13.0 cents, respectively, for the hand-feeding methods; 1.5 cents for self-feeding; and 9.0 cents for mechanical feeding. Based on a 30-day feeding period, com- parative costs per animal unit were $3.51, $3.90, 45 cents and $2.70, respectively. A CK N O WLED GMEN TS The authors express their appreciation for the cooperation of the following individuals: M. M. Garcia and C. B. Brown, Substation No. 4, Beaumont, Texas, for their assistance in conducting the tests; L. H. Wilkes, Department of Agricultural Engineer- ing, Texas A8cM University, College Station, Texas, for assistance in the design and construction of the experimental silo unloader; A. C. Magee, Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology, Texas A8cM 1O TABLE 7. COMPARATIVE costs o|= DIFFERENT METHODS me SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL suos "em Self M' No.1 No.2 ieediw A Number of animal units fed 412 703 344 Feeding space per animal unit, inches 3 5.3 Number of days fed 42 ~12 14 37 Distance from silo to If feeding area, miles 0.11 See note Pounds of silage consumed per animal unit per clay 49.2 56.1 Labor requirements: Total man-hours 91.0 42.0 16.8 Man-minutes per animal unit per day 3.1 3.2 0.80 Equipment requirements: Total hours of operation Tractor 91.0 22.0 Trailer 22.0 Silage unloader Power forage feeder Minutes per animal unit per day Tractor 3.1 Trailer Silage unloader Power forage feeder Cost per animal unit per day, cents: Labor (based on $1 per hour) 5.2 5.3 1.3 Equipment: Tractor (based on $1.25 per hour) 6.5 4.8 Trailer (based on 75 cents per hour) Silage unloader (based on $2.50 per hour) Power forage feeder (based on $2 per hour) Silage wasted (valued at $8 per ton) 0.2 Total cost 11.7 13.0 1.5 NINI GAIGAI ‘Hand feeding methods were as follows: No. 1—silage __ hand into portable feed troughs at the silo and then l feet to feeding location. No. 2-—silage loaded by trailer at silo and then pulled to three locations at distan A from 400 feet to 0.5 mile from silo, where it was unloa into feed troughs. zForty-one Holstein cows. 1 gSixty-four beef cows with 26 nursing calves. Each calf - as 0.25 animal unit. ‘Twenty-eight beef cows with 24 nursing calves. Each sidered as 0.25 animal unit. _‘ “One hundred and forty-one cows and 126 calves. Each , sidered as 0.25 animal unit. ‘ “Silage was hauled 5 miles to feed bunks compared to a distance of 0.5 mile for the hand feeding methods. l hauling distance of 0.5 mile, this cost would be approxi , cents per animal unit per day. e University, College Station, Texas, for assis; the cost studies; and producers in the Beau I for providing data for the cost studies. l Acknowledgment is also given to the Co Solvent Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri '1 Jefferson Chemical Company, Inc., Austin, their cooperation in the studies on the use of Q tives; and to the Industrial Machinery Fort Worth, Texas, for the photographs of I mercial unloader. I [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] i rum smnou o nu mmnens I Til, FIELD LLIOIAYOIIES Q GOOPIIITINC STATIONS Location oi iield research units oi the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating agencies OPERATION ORGANIZATION Research results are carried to Texas farmers, ranchmen and homemakers by county agents and specialists of the Texas Agricultural Ex- tension Service State-wide Researc The Texas Agricultural Experiment St is the public agricultural research ag , oi the State oi Texas. and is one oi parts oi Texas A&M University. IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are 13f matter departments, 3 service departments, 3 regulatory services Q administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural areas oi f, 2O substations and IO field laboratories. In addition, there are 13 c ] stations owned by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include Forest Service, Game and Fish Commission of Texas, Texas Prison/e U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Tec I College, Texas College of Arts and Industries and the King Ran J experiments are conducted on farms and ranches and in rural ho THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 450 active research projects, " in 25 programs, which include all phases of agriculture in Texas. ‘ these are: l‘ Conservation and improvement of soil Conservation and use of water Grasses and legumes Grain crops Cotton and other fiber crops Vegetable crops Citrus and other subtropical fruits Fruits and nuts Oil seed crops Ornamental plants Brush and weeds Insects Beef cattle Dairy cattle Sheep and goats Swine Chickens and turkeys V Animal diseases and par Fish and game _ Farm and ranch Farm and ranch busin Marketing agricultural ~ Rural home economics _ Rural agricultural econ A Plant diseases , * Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and central AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH seeks the WHATS, a WHYS. the WHENS. the WHERES and the HOWB; hundreds oi problems which confront operators oi i and ranches. and the many industries depending f or serving agriculture. Workers oi the Main and the field units oi the Texas Agricultural ‘ ment Station seek diligently to iind solutions to - problems. joclat; ,5 WQJQQPCA ~95 jomorrow I’) pPOgI? Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, R. E. Patterson, Director, College Station, Texas