Dipl. Ing. Agr. Heinz-Günter Gerighausen
Expert in technology related to beef and milk production at the Landwirtschaftszentrum (LWZ) Haus Riswick (Agricultural Centre House Riswick) in Germany.

To make the best use of grassland, the primary focus is on the exploitation of crops. Besides productive pasture farming, stockpiling for the stable period means first and foremost grass silage in fermentation heaps. With the structural change of farms the distances between storage area and fields are increasing and new methods for harvesting, transportation and conservation of silage may lead to significant efficiencies. When it comes to round baled and packed silage, extensive research, information and experience are available. This article makes a cost comparison of different methods and shows that baling silage in double pack, string or sausage bales can offer opportunities for farmers.

Making grass silage in bales or packs has increasing numbers of supporters. In certain situations it makes good sense but not for the entire quantity of grass silage. This is because a bale 1.20m wide and 1.25m in diameter has a volume of barely 1.5m3. At compressed densities of 210kg dry matter and 40% wilting level it weighs around 800kg. As €16 incl. VAT are calculated for pressing, wrapping, transport and stacking, a tonne of silage ex stockyard costs almost €20. These high costs are only attained with a chopper or bale trailer at storage area to field distances of over 8km. To summarise, bale silage makes economic sense in the case of:

  • Very long distances between storage area to fields
  • Different crop maturity times
  • Low forage quantities per unit of area
  • Harvest quantities less than 150m3 or 100t
  • Low estimate of costs for transport
  • Forage feed rate too low at the bunker silo
  • Limited feed supplementary to pasture

Therefore a baling press is initially of significance and interest to the contractor only as a supplementary procedure for the abovementioned types of usage. Incidentally, this also applies to the use of a square baling press. However, it provides an appealing alternative when making silage in twin packs. With twin pack silage, whereby two packs are stacked and then rolled, it is possible to choose large bale dimensions. Two stacked packs of 1.6 to 1.8m length produce a package measuring 1.20m wide, 140m high and 1.6 to 1.8m long. This stack has a volume of approx. 2.9m3 and a mass of 1.4 to 1.6t. As €25 incl. VAT are charged per stack for pressing, rolling and stacking with a tele-hander, the costs per tonne are around €18, without loading on the field and transport. This is a good system for farms with large areas and long storage area to field distances.

As with the round bales, crop quality does not approach that of a self-loading bale trailer. When the forage is used on its own the blades fitted are sufficient for basic breakdown and distribution. When deploying distribution- and especially mixing trailers - shorter cutting lengths are required. It is only when grass silage breaks down well that good mixing can be achieved. For a homogeneous mix ratio without selection options very short cuts are thus essential. Therefore, at least 80% of the crop should be in the 0–100mm range. This assumes a theoretical crop length of max. 40mm. With round and square baling presses with press duct widths of 1.20m more than 25 blades are required. The latest developments meet these standards to a great extent. With very high densities bale weights of 1t are indeed quite common. High-torque loading technology is also required.

With individual round bales as well as twin packs the amount of stretch film required for six layers is 1.2–1.5kg/t. The question of disposing of stretch film wrap still remains unresolved. Nonetheless great interest in this flexible cropping procedure still remains.

Advantages:

  • Very low investment in storage
  • High flexibility, easy to organise, not tied to a location
  • Labour and time saving
  • Each bale is its own little fermentation heap
  • No problems with post-fermentation
  • Additional capacities in the case of unforeseeably high forage availability
  • Silage is marketable

Disadvantages:

  • Rather strongly dependent on the contractor
  • Not very suitable for rough stalked and only slightly wilted forage
  • Bale covering only possible with special machinery
  • Wrappings may become damaged, risk of quality loss
  • Environment may be adversely affected by storing in inappropriate locations

Is string tying an alternative?

As an alternative to the single or twin pack method, round or square bales can also be ensiled in a tying process with stretch film. Pressing is carried out on site using the familiar round bale and pack presses and they are then loaded and transported to the storage location. This is where the string-tying device is located, where the individual bales or packs are placed on a feed table. A kind of drag apron moves and presses the bale placed on it against the previous one. Pressing them together like this produces a seamless join. On a horizontal orbit two satellites with stretch film wind the string around. The wrapping time for a 1.2m wide round bale are approx. 20–25 sec., including contact pressure. The wrapping capacity is therefore very high.

This process is not new and the technology has since been adapted to meet current demands, such as automatic control, on-board drive system and flexible usage. As such, it is possible to wrap round bales up to a diameter of 1.60m as well as packed silage in twin packs with a height of up to 1.60m. An overview of its features:

Advantages:

  • Reduction of stretch film costs by 50%
  • The benefits of baled and/or packed silage are maintained
  • Fixed storage location is sufficient
  • Simple method of wrapping bales

Disadvantages:

  • The string needs more space
  • Wrap protection is more elaborate
  • Marketability is limited
  • Higher risk of quality losses

This process is more commonly used in Scandinavia. Its financial aspects are primarily affected by the stretch film and equipment costs. A saving of 50% on stretch film costs is set against somewhat higher technical costs. These are at a lower level than for individual bales. Compared with the procedures described above the tying process proves to be the cheapest from a purely financial perspective.

Do sausage tubes do the job too?

A crop chopper is a must-have when harvesting maize. So why not make additional use of this tried and trusted technology when harvesting grass as well? In many regions crop choppers are the defining image in making grass silage. The benefits speak for themselves:

  • Highly efficient
  • Evenly short cutting length
  • Good compaction properties
  • Relatively low silo storage requirements
  • High aerobic stability
  • Simple removal and feeding method
  • Best possible dosage of silage additives
  • Foreign body security for virtually all metals
  • Breaks down well when creating feed mixes
  • Superior mixing qualities
  • Very easy to portion

For the large-scale farmer these are familiar criteria and arguments. But which criteria are crucial for the individual operator? Efficiency or costs? (see overview 1). Because it is not often possible to reconcile maximum efficiency and minimum costs. The reason is that no one has answered the question of what constitutes the ideal silage process. Fermentation heap, bunker silo or tube – that is the question.

The silo tube requires little investment, is flexible in how it is used and fairly economical. There is no need to invest in special constructions, as silage can be stored on a fixed firm base such as gravel or ballast. To ensure hygienic conditions for the forage and the environment, solid and secure surfaces, such as asphalt, provide definite advantages.

Advantages:

  • Low investment in silos
  • Superior flexibility in usage, not tied to a specific location
  • For small and/or large storage amounts
  • Suitable for all removal methods
  • Limited area also makes it suitable for smaller livestock herds
  • Summer silage feeding possible
  • Low accident risk

Disadvantages:

  • Wet silage cannot be preserved
  • Requires an efficient harvest
  • Better suited to silo maize than grass
  • Relatively large amount of storage space required
  • Risk of animals damaging the tube wrapping
  • Environmentally friendly and low cost disposal not yet resolved

In economic terms the costs involved in tube silage are within a very favourable range. Using similar quantities they are about the same as the standard fermentation heap but with the definite benefits mentioned above. This means costs per tonne of feed of €13-14 at farm to field distances of 2km. These include harvest, transport, insertion in the tube and “securing the tube” with nets. For farms that do not yet have sufficient fixed storage areas based on “cross-compliance” standards, it is a solution worth considering as it saves on having to invest in silo walls.

Conclusion: The use of stretch film wrap is standard when ensiling individual bales. However, the efficiency of this method needs to be assessed as quantities increase. With the string tying process a technically simple and economical option is available, but which still has to prove its worth under new farming conditions. By ensiling into a tube there are various technical solutions from the start, where existing efficient harvesting procedures can be integrated. Based on procedural costs this is the cheapest method. It is helped by the effect of very short cut lengths on silage breakdown and therefore mixing quality.

< Back
< Back to Autumn '07 Newsletter