|
|
Author |
|
Message | |
|
Nick
Joined: 02 Nov 2004 Posts: 34535 Location: Hereford
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46207 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6612 Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 16 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
Probably best to lay them so the rain hits the hay "lengthwise" and not the end where it may flow in better. This would also keep those ends from wicking moisture up from the ground, so that only the very bottom layer and top layer get damp (hopefully)
I would still monitor the bales closely before storage. It all depends on your system and your equipment. Can you put a loosely filled wagon under cover somewhere to dry out again before tight stacking?
Is this hay for feed, or just meant to be mulch? After a few days of rains it won't be much value for feed, except maybe the very core of the bale
I just googled around since I didn't have a good source of the top of my head, but here's this: https://www.extension.umn.edu/agriculture/forages/utilization/preserving-the-value-of-dry-stored-hay/
Quote: |
Dry matter losses caused by the combination of soil moisture and precipitation can be fairly large. For example, in Oklahoma, researchers found 13.1% dry matter loss for uncovered storage on the ground versus 2% loss for covered storage on pallets. Wisconsin researchers found 10.9% loss for uncovered storage on the ground versus 4.6% in a barn. In the Morris study, average dry matter losses in the uncovered piles on sod were 11.2% versus 2.3% in the barn. It appears that for eight to nine months of storage, you can expect a 6 to 11 percentage unit advantage by keeping bales off wet ground and under cover.
Besides losing dry matter, uncovered hay also loses quality as determined by nutritional analysis and by appearance. The loss in dry matter reduces weight available for sale and the loss in quality can have a large impact on animal performance and on hay value. For example, in our study at Morris, the internal parts of bales stored in the shed had a relative feed value (RFV) of 133 and the bottom six inches of the bales at the bottom of the pile had an RFV of 106. The internal parts of bales stored uncovered, outside on sod had an RFV of 114 and the external parts of the bales had RFVs ranging from 55 to 107. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ty Gwyn
Joined: 22 Sep 2010 Posts: 4613 Location: Lampeter
|
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6612 Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
|
|
|
|
Ty Gwyn
Joined: 22 Sep 2010 Posts: 4613 Location: Lampeter
|
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6612 Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6612 Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
|
|
|
|
Ty Gwyn
Joined: 22 Sep 2010 Posts: 4613 Location: Lampeter
|
|
|
|
|
Ty Gwyn
Joined: 22 Sep 2010 Posts: 4613 Location: Lampeter
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46207 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Nick
Joined: 02 Nov 2004 Posts: 34535 Location: Hereford
|
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6612 Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
|
|
|
|
dpack
Joined: 02 Jul 2005 Posts: 46207 Location: yes
|
|
|
|
|
Slim
Joined: 05 Mar 2006 Posts: 6612 Location: New England (In the US of A)
|
|
|
|
|
|