L I-E, R.A-RiY
OF THE
UNIVERSITY
Of ILL I MO I. 5
630.7
XUi
Cop.
AGRICULTt/nr
NON CIRCULATING
CHECK FOR UNBOUND
CIRCULATING COPY
1
SELF-FEEDING SILAGE
TO BEEF CATTLE
FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS
A Study of 49 Farms
By R. N. Van Arsdall
BULLETIN 642
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
In cooperation with the U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND METHOD OF STUDY 3
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY FARMS 4
General farm information 4
Cattle and feeding program 5
Facilities 6
HORIZONTAL SILOS 7
Reasons for building 7
Type and age 7
Materials and methods of construction 8
Size and capacity 10
Initial cost 11
Depreciation 11
MAKING AND KEEPING SILAGE 12
Preventing spoilage 12
, Labor and equipment 17
Most important factors 20
Expected changes 20
SELF-FEEDING SILAGE 21
Width of silo 21
Feeding gates 23
Labor 30
Farmers' opinions 37
PROBLEMS IN SELF-FEEDING 38
Frozen silage 38
Drifting snow 41
Drainage 41
Low consumption of silage 41
SUMMARY. ..42
Acknowledgment is due Charles F. Wendt, formerly Student
Trainee, Agricultural Research Service, for his assistance
in field work and summarizing of data for this report.
Urbana, Illinois April, 1959
Publications in the Bulletin series report the results of investigations
made or sponsored by the Experiment Station
SELF-FEEDING SILAGE TO BEEF CATTLE
FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS
By R. N. VAN ARSDALL*
STORING SILAGE in trenches, pits, and stacks is as old as the prac-
tice of making silage, but adapting this method to modern systems
of farming is a recent development. Illinois farmers did not show
appreciable interest in horizontal silos until the late 1940's, when
emphasis was placed on more grasses and legumes in the rotation, re-
sulting in a need for an inexpensive method of storing grass silage.
Trench silos first appeared in numbers on feeder cattle farms about
1950. Ordinarily they were limited to areas in which the terrain was
suited to the construction of trenches below ground level, and silos
were seldom convenient to the feedlot. Self-feeding was not practiced.
Recent developments of wood and concrete bunker silos built at
ground level have encouraged the spread of horizontal silos throughout
the feeder-cattle and dairy areas of Illinois. This type of silo can be
constructed adjacent to the feedlot as an integral part of a drylot
feeding system.
Most of the bunker silos were used originally for storage only;
the silage was removed by hand or with mechanical equipment and
hauled to the cattle. Many farmers later converted their facilities to
self-feeding of silage direct from the silo. Others have planned and
built horizontal silos specifically for self-feeding. Most of these self-
feeding programs have been successful, but inexperience and the ap-
parent simplicity of self-feeding have caused difficulties with results
ranging from the need to add some labor to the failure of the feeding
program.
PURPOSE AND METHOD OF STUDY
The purpose of this study was to collect and interpret data on the
experiences of Illinois farmers as a basis for detailed recommenda-
tions for the operation of self-feeding silage to beef cattle from hori-
zontal silos.
Forty-nine farmers using horizontal silos to self-feed silage to
beef cattle were surveyed during the spring of 1957. Data were
obtained for 1956-57 on the following: (1) type of cattle, feeding
1 Agricultural Economist, Farm Economics Research Division, Agricultural
Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
BULLETIN NO. 642
[April,
programs, and physical facilities; (2) construction and costs of hori-
zontal silos; (3) practices involved in the two major operations
making and keeping silage, and self- feeding silage to cattle; (4) capital
and labor requirements of these two operations; and (5) problems
encountered.
Observations and photographic records were made of all silage-
feeding operations active at the time the farms were visited. Sale
weights of the cattle that were on the self-feeding program were
obtained from the farmers by mail questionnaires in the fall of 1957.
Visits were made to selected farms during the winter of 1957 to ex-
amine the effects and condition of synthetic covers that had been used
on silos the previous summer. Additional information on problems of
freezing of silage and drifting snow during the exceptionally cold
winter of 1958 was obtained by a mail questionnaire.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY FARMS
General farm information
Most of the farms included in the study were in the north-central
section of Illinois (Fig. 1). They ranged in size from 120 to 900 acres
and averaged 290 acres. The predominant crop rotation was two
years corn, one year small grain, and one year meadow. Oats were
the chief small grain and alfalfa-brome was the usual meadow mix-
ture. Soybeans were of little importance.
Feeder cattle and hogs, the chief livestock enterprises, comprised
Location of the 49 farms in-
cluded in the study. (Fig. 1)
7959J SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS 5
95 percent of the total animal units. 1 The ratio was nearly two animal
units of feeder cattle to one of hogs. Small numbers of sheep, feeder
lambs, dairy cows, and laying hens were present on a few farms.
Total animal units averaged 161 per farm, with an average density of
58 animal units per 100 acres of land.
Operation of the farms was evenly divided between tenant-operators
and owner-operators. Only seven farmers had self-fed silage for more
than three years. Thirty-three farmers had two or three years of
experience, and nine men were in their first year of operation. All
farmers included in the study had fed beef cattle by other methods
before they turned to self-feeding of silage.
Cattle and feeding program
More than 4,700 feeder cattle were self-fed silage from horizontal
silos on the 49 farms included in the study. Three- fourths of the
farmers had one lot of cattle on the self-feeding program during
1956-57, and one-fourth had two or more lots.
The cattle were about evenly divided between calves and yearlings,
assuming 500 pounds as the dividing point between the two classes.
Seventy percent were graded good-to-choice or better. Seventy-two
percent were of the Hereford breed, 8 percent were Angus, and 20
percent were mixed breeds.
Ninety percent of the cattle were purchased between August and
November, but some purchases were made each month from June to
the following March.
On most farms the self-feeding program began in November or
December, and ended between March and May. The programs usually
lasted four to six months.
Except for the method of feeding silage, the feeding program on
the farms studied did not differ from that on other farms. Calves were
kept for about 12 months and yearlings were on feed for about 9
months. Steers were usually held longer than heifers. Approximately
the same number of cattle were fed grass silage as were fed corn silage,
with no apparent relation between the grade of cattle and the kind of
silage fed them.
On December 1, the usual date for beginning the self-feeding pro-
gram, more than half the cattle weighed between 500 and 700 pounds.
About 30 percent weighed less than 500 pounds.
From the date of purchase until the date of sale, the cattle gained
1 One animal unit equals one mature cow, five mature sheep, 100 hens, one
and one-third feeder cattle, or five hogs.
6 BULLETIN NO. 642 [April,
an average of 1.7 pounds a day, with a few lots gaining more than
2 pounds a day. The average rate of gain was about the same as that
from other feeding methods, 1 even though it was biased downward
because of the following: shrinkage was encountered twice because
total gains were computed from purchase weights at the western ship-
ping point and sale weights at market; sick or injured animals that
made little or no gain during the feeding period were included in the
rate-of-gain calculations; and the initial weight of cattle that died dur-
ing the feeding period was deducted from the net gain of the entire
drove. No deaths were traceable to any part of the self-feeding
operation.
Because calves were kept on feed longer than yearlings, the sale
weights of the cattle were about the same regardless of whether they
had been calves or yearlings when purchased. The sale weights for
steers averaged 1,100 pounds and, for heifers, 900 pounds.
Facilities
Barns. General-purpose barns with mow storage for hay were
usual on the farms studied. Barns built within the last few years were
of the one-story, open-front type with storage for hay and bedding at
ground level.
Shelter space, exclusive of the area used for storage of hay and
bedding, ranged from 20 to 100 square feet per animal, based on the
average number of cattle housed during the 1956-57 feeding period.
An average of 43 square feet per animal was provided, but the median
space allotment was 34 square feet per head, which approximates the
usual recommendation. 2
On nearly three-fourths of the farms the floors of shelter barns
were paved. Most of the farmers who ran hogs with the cattle con-
sidered paved floors essential.
Lot areas. All cattle lots were paved on 40 percent of the farms.
Another 40 percent had some paved and some dirt lots, partly by de-
sign and partly because paving had not been completed. The remaining
20 percent had no paving.
Paved lot space per animal, based on the 1956-57 stocking rate,
ranged from 20 to 478 square feet on those farms on which all lot
1 Twentieth Annual Report of Feeder Cattle, College of Agriculture, Uni-
versity of Illinois, December, 1958, AE3356 (mimeo).
2 Feeder cattle should have 20 to 33 square feet of shed space per head,
depending on the size of the animals. Planning the Farm Business, College of
Agriculture, University of Illinois, 1947.
7959J SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS 7
areas were paved. The average of 100 square feet and the median of
77 square feet were considerably greater than the recommended 30 to
40 square feet per head. 1
On farms with part or all of the lot area unpaved, the space per
animal was greater than on farms with all areas paved. For the most
part, lot space per animal ranged from 200 to 400 square feet, but it
was much higher 911 the few farms on which several acres were open
to the cattle.
Building a horizontal silo as part of the feedlot provided additional
paved space for the cattle 20 to 25 square feet per animal by the
end of the silage- feeding period.
Equipment. The equipment for grinding corn and feeding hay was
essentially the same as that on farms employing the usual beef-feeding
methods. Bunk space was not reduced on the farms in the study.
Farmers fed concentrates by hand to relatively large droves. This
was because the self-feeding of silage reduced by about three-fourths
the amount of feed that had to be transported, thus reducing also the
need for a mechanical distribution system.
All farms were equipped with tractor-mounted loaders for handling
manure. Some farmers also used scrapers mounted on the rear of the
tractor to clean the lot and floor of the silo. Manure spreaders of
medium to large capacities were available on all farms.
HORIZONTAL SILOS
Reasons for building
Four-fifths of the farmers listed the lower initial cost as a primary
reason for building a horizontal rather than an upright silo. Another
reason, named by two-thirds of the operators, was the reduction in
labor achieved by putting the cattle on self-feeding. Only a few
farmers thought that it was easier to fill a horizontal silo than an
upright silo. The farmers admitted that losses from spoilage were
greater in a horizontal silo, but considered them to be more than offset
by savings in labor and other costs.
Type and age
Nearly all of the horizontal silos on the study farms were of the
bunker type and of relatively recent origin. Three were built before
1954, 40 in 1954 and 1955, and 6 in 1956.
1 Planning the Farm Business, College of Agriculture, University of Illinois,
1947.
BULLETIN NO. 642
[April,
Materials and methods of construction
The side walls of 23 silos were made of two-inch tongue-and-
groove lumber that had been pressure treated with a preservative.
Fourteen silos had walls of poured concrete or preformed concrete
slabs. Other materials used for side walls included concrete blocks,
railroad ties, and snow fence. Three operators merely piled the silage
on a concrete slab and used an electric w r ire to keep the cattle away.
A sealing material, generally tar, was applied to the joints of the
side walls in only 11 silos.
Wooden posts treated with a preservative were used for the wall
framing of 29 silos. These posts were usually placed 4 feet on center,
although in some silos, the spacing was as great as 8 feet. The top
diameter was usually at least 6 inches. Other wall supports used were
concrete pilasters and banks of earths.
The walls or supporting members of the walls were firmly an-
chored to a concrete footing in most of the silos. Frequently j^-inch
iron tie rods were placed around the base of the posts of wood-walled
silos and allowed to extend into the concrete floor for additional
reinforcement.
Most farmers considered paved silo floors essential for self-feeding.
In 43 silos the entire floor was paved, with all but one of them having
paved approaches or the open end of the silo joining a paved feedlot.
In this silo, the preformed concrete-slab walls are sloped and supported by
a bank of earth. In addition to supporting the walls, the earth bank helps
prevent freezing of the silage during very cold weather. (Fig. 2)
19591 SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS 9
Table 1. Initial Costs per Ton of Capacity of Horizontal Silos
Constructed by Farm or Contracted Labor, 46 Illinois Farms, 1954-1956"
Wood-walled silos 1 '
Concrete- walled
silos
Other
silos d
Contract
Farm
Contract
Farm
Farm
Number of silos. . .
8
12
104-
357
245
3.28-
7.71
5.18
5
101-
210
142
$ 6.69-
11.97
9.45
11
121-
382
189
$ 2.96-
11.84
6.95
10
108-
433
197
$ .97-
7.58
3.38
Capacity, tons 6
Range
104-
Average . . .
325
. . . 194
Cost per ton f
Range
$ 3.78-
Average
10.81
7.00
1 No adjustments were made for changes in price level during this period.
' Above-ground silos constructed of treated posts and 2-inch plank for the side walls.
Floors are of concrete.
c Side walls constructed of concrete block, preformed concrete slabs supported by
earth banks or concrete pilasters, or poured concrete. Floors are of concrete.
' Constructed of miscellaneous materials not included in the first two classifications.
e Based on a silage weight of 35 pounds per cubic foot.
f Unpaid labor used in construction was charged at $1 per hour.
On six farms such materials as limestone, crushed rock, and railroad
ties were used for the floors, and the approaches were not paved.
Most concrete floors were 4 to 5 inches thick, and half of them
were reinforced with welded wire mesh.
Paved floors were sloped for drainage. Usually a single slope was
made toward the open end of the silo, but a few farmers had sloped
the floor from the center of the silo toward both ends so that the
cattle could feed from both ends. Nearly half of the silos had floors
with a slope of 1 percent; only 5 silo floors sloped as much as 3 percent.
Slope of the side walls varied considerably, depending upon the
kind of wall material and the belief of the operator as to the effect of
slope on the ease of packing the silage and the extent of spoilage.
Some poured-concrete and concrete-block walls were built vertically.
Wooden walls were sloped 5 to 10 percent; the common rule was 1
inch of slope per foot of rise. If the side walls were supported by a
bank of earth, as was often the case with preformed concrete slabs,
the slope of the walls usually exceeded 10 percent.
Half of the farmers had constructed filling ramps at one end of the
silo. These ramps consisted of a bank of earth that rose gradually to
a height of about 4 feet as it approached the end of the silo. A con-
crete or wooden abutment was often used to square the end of the
10 BULLETIN NO. 642 [April,
112
W 10
2
A" CONTRACTED LABOR
A CONCRETE -WALLED
* WOOD-WALLED
A FARM LABOR
A A CONCRETE-WALLED
o WOOD-WALLED
(46 FARMS, 1954-1956)
o
o
o
A O O
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
CAPACITY OF SILO IN TONS
In general, the larger the volume of storage space, the lower the initial cost
per ton. If spoilage were added to storage costs, the advantage of larger
silos would be more apparent, since the percentage of spoilage loss is great-
est in small silos, particularly those that are shallow. (Fig. 3)
ramp next to the silo. These ramps eased the job of filling the silo
and reduced spoilage at the end of the silo.
Size and capacity
The silos on the 49 study farms ranged in size from 5 to 12 feet
deep, 16 to 48 feet wide, and 40 to 150 feet long. A typical size of
silo was 6 x 24 x 72 feet.
A conservative estimate placed the weight of silage in a horizontal
silo at 35 pounds per cubic foot, which is the approximate weight of
silage in a tower silo at depths of 5 to 7 feet. 1 On this basis, the
capacities of the silos ranged from 101 to 662 tons, and approximated
181 tons for the typical silo. Four-fifths of the farmers said they
filled their silos to capacity in 1956.
1 J. B. Shepherd and T. E. Woodward, Estimating the Quantity of Settled
Corn Silage in a Silo, USDA Circular 603, April, 1941, p. 9.
7959J SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS 11
Initial cost
About three- fourths of the horizontal silos were built by labor
available on the farm. They cost about $2 less per ton of capacity
than silos built on a contract basis (Table 1); the actual* cash outlay
was nearly $3 less per ton of capacity for farm-constructed silos.
Silos built of concrete cost about $2 more per ton of capacity than
wood-walled silos, whether constructed by farm labor or on a contract
basis. Costs averaged $5 to $7 per ton of capacity in the wood- walled
silos and $7 to $9 in the all-concrete silos, depending upon the method
of construction. Individual silos varied considerably from the aver-
age, according to the price and quality of materials, distance in hauling
bulk materials, extent of site preparation, installation of ramp, and
size of silo.
Initial costs per ton can be lowered if the volume of storage space
is increased by increasing the width, height, or both. The data in
Fig. 3 partly indicate the effect of volume on unit costs.
Depreciation
The silos on the study farms were not old enough to permit obser-
vation of structural depreciation. Permanent-type silos showed little
or no evidence of deterioration after three years of use, if basically
sound plans of construction had been followed. All concrete floors
and side walls were in good condition. Plank side walls of four silos
for which low-quality materials had been used or which were inade-
quately supported were considerably out of alignment. The condition
of silos built of such miscellaneous materials as railroad ties, snow
fence, untreated lumber, limestone, and earth varied greatly even after
only one year of use.
Farmers' estimates of the useful life of silos made of treated lumber
Table 2. Farmers' Estimates of Useful Life of Their Horizontal Silos,
46 Illinois Farmers, 1957"
Wood-
walled silos
Concrete-
walled silos
Other
silos
Number of silos
19
16
11
Estimated life, years
Range
6-25
15-50
3-50
Average ,
16 2
28 9
18 2
Standard deviation
4 7
10 1
12 6
Most of the silos were constructed from 1954 to 1956.
12 BULLETIN NO. 642 [April,
and concrete averaged 16 years (Table .2). The average for silos
built entirely of concrete was 29 years, but the variation among indi-
vidual estimates was greater than for wood-walled silos. The esti-
mated life . ri/., p. 10.
14 BULLETIN NO. 642 [April,
silo's width is less than twice the span of the wheels of the packing
tractor. The farmers in the study reported that they considered a
minimum width to be one which would permit free passage of the
packing tractor and the hauling vehicle on the silo at the same time.
Forty percent of the farmers specified 20 feet as the minimum width
(Table 3). Most of the cattle feeders believed that unless the feeding
operation is large enough to justify a horizontal silo at least 20 feet
wide, forages should be stored in another type of silo or by another
method. The more experienced operators preferred even wider silos.
A wider silo will not reduce the amount of spoilage along the sides,
but the proportion of side spoilage in relation to the volume of the silo
will be lower.
These opinions concerning width of silos are related only to the
processes of making silage and preventing spoilage. Width must also
be considered in relation to the number of cattle to be self- fed (see
page 21).
Depth of silage in a horizontal silo is inversely related to the pro-
portion of spoilage. But if the silage is too deep for complete self-
feeding, extra labor may be required. More than half the farmers
recommended a maximum depth of 6 to 7 feet (Table 4) ; they believed
that if the depth exceeded 7 feet, the extra labor needed in the feeding
operation would more than offset the advantage gained through reduced
spoilage. Three-fourths of the farmers believed that the minimum
depth should be 4 to 6 feet if surface spoilage were to be kept from
becoming a prohibitive cost.
Table 4. Farmers' Recommendations as to Minimum and Maximum
Depths of Settled Silage in a Horizontal Silo for Use in a Self-Feeding
Program, 47 Illinois Farmers, 1957
Farmers recommending specified silage depths as:
Minimum
Maximum
feet
Below 4.0
no.
9
perct.
20
26
30
22
2
100
feet
4.8
1.1
no.
9
15
11
12
47
perct.
19
32
23
26
100
feet
6.9
1.7
4.0
12
5.0... .
14
6.0
10
7.0
8.0 and above
1
Total
46
Mean
Standard deviation. .
7959J SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS 15
Thus the combined experiences of nearly 50 cattle feeders indicate
that a horizontal silo should not be used unless the drove is large
enough to justify a silo at least 20 feet wide containing 5 to 7 feet of
settled silage.
Quantity of silage stored in a horizontal silo affects the percentage
of spoilage loss. Low-capacity structures present a greater exposed
surface area in relation to volume than do large silos. On the farms
studied most of the silos were comparatively large. The average
quantity of silage stored per silo was 232 tons, with a range of 60 to
500 tons. About one-fourth of the variation in the percentage spoiled
was associated with differences in quantity of silage. Within the ob-
served range of 60 to 500 tons, the percentage of spoilage, assuming
average harvesting and storing methods, decreased by one percentage
point for each additional 50 tons of silage. Differences among the
average spoilage losses in corn, grass-legume, and small-grain silage
were not significant.
Cracks in the walls of silos caused small quantities of silage to
spoil. A few farmers attempted to seal wooden walls with heavy paper,
but found the practice to be of little value. The paper was difficult to
keep in place during filling and was easily torn when the tractor wheels
came too close to the sides. Tar was the most satisfactory method of
applying a permanent seal to the cracks in wooden walls and preformed
concrete slabs.
Surface covers. Most cattle feeders would probably use surface
covers on their horizontal silos if an effective and economical material
for such covers were available. During the 1956-57 feeding period only
12 of the 49 farmers used surface covers. Of these, 6 used polyethylene
sheets and 6 used low-value forages.
Polyethylene covers. Four farmers used clear polyethylene covers.
All deteriorated within a few months and did little to reduce spoilage.
Two farmers used black polyethylene covers. These were successful
in reducing spoilage and resisting decomposition, but the operators had
difficulty in preventing wind damage. One of them held the cover in
place with a layer of chopped forage, but the forage froze and, in
removing the frozen material, he destroyed the cover. The other
operator used limestone around the edges and posts, pipes, hay, and
miscellaneous materials in the center. Mice nesting in the hay cut
holes in the cover.
If these problems of mechanical difficulty could be overcome, per-
mitting surface covers to last longer, significant savings from spoilage
16
BULLETIN NO. 642
.2
T3
IS'"? -S
w
C
cs
O 00 -O r*5 -H
u ^~ M
13
c
rt M
69
PO CN tN (M e
69
be .S
o
>%^-
4_, j- O
N
> ^^
oo vO 01 O r^-
-*_< o ^
O
E
x In C
QJ rt O
b* -M
(VI CN *-H -i ^-l
69
5,c -u
So Q c
CO
!n !
~ J2
* ^" 9:
^i CN 00 to ro
U-^^S
UH
~ 8
69
t-~ IO CN O OO
. K 4) -C
In "*
> S ] ' O
""' = JJ 2
W)^
O """
CJ jn cU
69
69
V .*"""
p g'o S ^
JS ^
*^ " oj 5*
O cu J5
>,*^ o r"
'o v
a-S
aj *
lO Tt* tN > i O
" 41
3 ""S*" J
""O
*^~ l en ^
69
tN T-* ^ 1
tn be
u J2
69
rt'^'S. ^*
JM CO
cd - ^j
"X3 '"" ^ n
of
o- fc i
en S; ,^
O
00
*< O OO t^ 'O
bO gr 14 ~ l U 41
o
w
6>J.
~H ^H
2 U
^ cu_3
69
*** ^" S O "^
^
g %J=
S.
t^ ^j< * 1 T- 1 IO
^- ~
cu !>
69
S^SH g
CU
_c
^ ^ . ,35
|3
c
la.bl I
>*o
B "c 'en'
CN
3;S^2
I'll.s 1
+3 S
cu o3
69
o i- ^
u cu
^ *j
u o! be
*>
he u ^ ^ iT
j **\^ ...
_ 2 g f
O o
CU *^>TT^
0. o
rt (u
O +-^
to ^ CM eD\ O
CN l^ tN e>J OO
60 " "2 " -^
{-<
cd ^ c
T"J
*r" *^3 c5 2 C
_c *"
cu j2 o
.S u ^
3^ _^
H? -t->
'rt ^ J^
- O CN CO rf
c.S S 2*2 4*
'"' T3
M O ""o
OO
\O ^ * eD\ *}<
> w'o'^ u _
t-l ;_,
o ^
rt 0-0 0** .
C i i- _~
^ III
^* ^^
-M Oj
t- .."^ ^
-Sx ^x w ^
- MH
cu cu
to ^O 00 cDv O
^ -- * bc^ 3 J5
CO w
JS ^
^O
O to o to *-i
**-> o *- i >
^H CO
^ ^
69
69 ^ i i CS
4-1
^ w *"* a; C x
1 1 1 1 1
CO
rt " C +- '-^ 2
QJ
*"* _c 3 O > 4*
F*1
*-. "^ **- ^_, nj t-
V
1_
4- 5j CU
Suu ^ W ?
r
! n ^"
*i 2^ rt "*~* hr
EH
O < o3
tx O P O rt S
" v. 3
u i
IT, : y ^ r 'J5
1
en
eu
'J^! O
"H-.
rt " dj ^ c
to
'c^jo
^ 1., * i u. C f i-
C rt O **^
4)
3
~"
SOOOO
to o to o
H
69696969^9
Q ** ^
7959J SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS 17
losses could be effected, particularly if the silage were of high value
(Table 5). On most farms, the reduction in losses could at least equal
the cost of the cover. If the silage were not packed properly, there-
fore being subject to excessive spoilage, a surface cover could be of
even greater benefit.
Low-value forages. The six farmers who used 4 to 5 inches of low-
value forage as a surface cover found it effective. The material was
obtained from grass waterways or the edges of fields, or it was corn
stover from which the ears had been snapped. These materials spoiled
and had to be removed from the silo, but the labor requirements
differed little from those of managing a plastic cover. The costs of
this method were the labor and equipment expenses for harvesting and
applying the forages.
Conditioners. 1 Farmers were not convinced that conditioners were
necessary or even beneficial in the making of good silage. 2 No condi-
tioners were used with corn silage. Nine farmers used a conditioner
with alfalfa-brome or alfalfa-timothy mixtures. Observations indicated
that the palatability of grass-legume silage probably would have been
increased by the use of conditioners on some farms where the forage
contained too much moisture.
Molasses pellets were used by 6 of the 9 farmers who used condi-
tioners. These pellets or other dry material were either scattered over
the silo with a shovel or spread over the bottom of the forage wagon.
Neither method was completely satisfactory. Farmers believed that the
materials remained in layers and did not permeate the mass of silage
even after several months of storage. One operator attached a hop-
pered bin to the packing tractor and scattered a small amount of
conditioner over the surface of the silo whenever the tractor was in
motion. This appeared to be a satisfactory method.
Labor and equipment
Harvesting and storing corn or a forage crop in a horizontal silo
requires a large amount of labor and equipment for a short period of
time. Most of the farmers surveyed completed harvest in 3 to 4 days.
For capacity operation 4 or 5 men were needed 1 to operate a field
forage harvester, 2 or 3 with trucks or tractor equipment to haul
forage to the silo, 1 to operate a packing tractor on the silo, and often
1 Sometimes called preservatives.
2 Silage conditioners have not been recommended for use in horizontal silos
that are properly filled. Shepherd, Gordon, and Campbell, op. cit., p. 3.
18 BULLETIN NO. 642 [April,
Table 6. Man-Hours Used in Harvesting and Storing Forages
in Horizontal Silos, 47 Illinois Farms, 1956
Grass silage (30 farms) a Corn silage (17 farms)
Per acre Per ton Per acre Per ton
All farms
Range . . . .
1 8-7
3-1 4
2 5-14
1-1 1
Median
4 3
7
6 2
5
Average
4 1
7
6 9
5
Standard deviation
1 4
3
3 1
2
One-third most efficient farms b
Median
2 3
4
3 5
3
Average
2 3
4
3 4
3
One-third least efficient farms 1 '
Median
5 7
1
10
6
Average
5 7
1
10 4
7
a Includes six farms with small-grain silage.
b Farms are classified on the basis of man-hours used per acre or per ton of silage.
The most (or least) efficient farms with respect to inputs' per acre were not necessarily the
most (or least) efficient with respect to inputs per ton.
another at the silo to help unload and level the forage. Sharing of
equipment and labor among neighbors was common. Custom harvesting
was seldom relied upon because of the short time during which the crop
was at the optimum stage of maturity for making into silage.
Labor inputs averaged 6.9 hours per acre for harvesting and stor-
ing corn silage, and 4.1 hours for grass silage (Table 6). In terms of
hours per ton, corn silage required 0.5 hour and grass silage required
Table 7. Tractor-Hours Used in Harvesting and Storing Forages
in Horizontal Silos, 47 Illinois Farms, 1956
Grass silage (30 farms) a Corn silage (17 farms)
Per acre Per ton Per acre Per ton
All farms
Range
1.7-5.7
.2-1.1
2 5-12.0
.1-1.1
Median
3.5
.6
6 2
.4
Average
3.5
6
6
4
Standard deviation
1 1
3
2 7
2
One-third most efficient farms b
Median
2.0
.4
2.8
.2
Average
2.1
.3
3
.2
One-third least efficient farms' 1
Median . . .
4 4
9
8
6
Average
4 5
9
8 6
6
Includes six farms with small-grain silage.
b Farms are classified on the basis of man-hours used per acre or per ton of silage.
The most (or least) efficient farms with respect to inputs per acre were not necessarily the
most (or least) efficient with respect to inputs per ton.
7959J
SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS
19
2 u
u o H
g CM O t--
O CM
^
oo
vo^
a "
^ vO VO vO
00 UO
2
CM UO
VO CM
111!
o _^ .^^
::
vO
CN
T-I CM
O ro
CM CM
-^ n
M
_C
^^> OsON
t CM
ro
vO 00
lOO
w
s s
3 '
CM Tj<
ro
CM Tt<
CM <*
4J
^^
E
CS
VO
S
pT]
o g
PO CM ON
t-i CM
ON
CM ro
IO O
o^
o
00 OM^.
ON 00
i^-
00 00
00 00
r*j
1-H
rt u
?; .
U OJ
>,
t/r
H a
P
c
c
en
JJ
'D
to
O
U
vO t^ ON
vo^
-*
T*< CN
O VO
i
GO
IH
f*5 CO f*5
ro <*5
ro
ro ro
ro ro
H
'S
H
o
J3
bO
C en
**?> to
(U
en
P
9
J|lg
"a! g bo
"c ^
t
-i S OO t t~-
v. S ^, ^
4,-s,
Tf ^
r^ vo
ON
CM
^
O Tj<
wf
g
13
J2
00
c'S
,_
t
US _O
CM CM PO
CM CM
CM
CM ro
O -H
CU
CO
Cti "S
S CM CM CM
CM CM
CM
CM CM
CN CM
S
c
K>
o
13
N
C
C- Sx,
rt
w
"-*->
o
E
^ o3 o3
a g "O
w u
^00 0000
S OO l^ OO
00 ON
ON
O ^
ON ON
ON ON
"S
Tjl/5
-*
**<*
rot
C
a 1
.2
c
tfl
"o3
+J
00
fi
C
U
n
CJ
o
O
o
o
03
03
1
c
u,
U
u.
v.
i
CO
tu
CX
ON
ON
a.
00
a ^
en
en
en
en
4>
rt c
Ui
3-o-a
3-D "g
3
o.b.Ss
O .h .53
o .h .-
O .h .=
ro
bO cj
*^ "^ *TT
* J ~*
-*- ^c *^
-* *^ "^
H
>*-. *"
o o
c V ^
1 1
111
en
E
Hi
111
1 ls
"v'n'S
111
based on
efficient
t efficient
^ .s J S
en ~ ^'
bO en 2
. 8
'en
_C O j
oo en tn
.Sjjg
en
03 Di
Qi
b
n
K
u "
O
O
U
20 BULLETIN NO. 642 [April,
0.7 hour. The labor per ton was larger for grass silage because of its
lower average yield (6.2 tons per acre) as compared with that of corn
(14.4 tons per acre). Tractor-hours made up 80 to 90 percent of the
man-hours used in the harvesting of corn and grass silage (Table 7).
Labor inputs for making silage varied considerably among farms.
Farmers with the most efficient combinations of facilities and methods
used less than half the man- and tractor-time to handle an acre or a
ton of forage than was used on the farms of lowest efficiency (Tables 6
and 7). Among the factors responsible for the variations in hours of
labor and tractor inputs were the following: size of crew, yields,
length of season, and efficiency of self-unloading wagons (Table 8).
Distance from the field to the silo was probably another important
factor, but data on it were not available.
Most important factors
According to the 49 farmers, the following factors are the most
important ones in making and keeping silage:
Number of farmers
Factors of major importance . ,
reporting
Thorough packing 45
Harvesting at right stage of maturity 35
Chopping forage as short as possible 10
Spreading forage evenly over silo before packing 8
Covering surface of silo 4
Using forage of good quality 3
Filling silo rapidly 2
Using a conditioner 1
Expected changes
Many farmers were considering one or more possibilities for doing
a better job of handling silage. Nearly half planned to try a black
polyethylene cover. A few were going to use low r -value forages as a
surface cover. Only three operators indicated that they would change
their packing operations, but most should become more proficient with
experience. There was considerable dissatisfaction with the equipment
used to haul forages to the silo, because of the difficulty of getting onto
the pile of silage and spreading the silage evenly. Other changes being
considered by some of the farmers were: harvesting the crop earlier,
using a forage that will pack more easily, using a conditioner, sealing
the side walls, and using a different method for holding the polyethylene
cover in place. Sixteen farmers indicated that they would make no
change in their silage-handling operation.
7959J SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS 21
SELF-FEEDING SILAGE 1
As pointed out earlier, reduction in labor was one of the primary
reasons given by the farmers for putting cattle on self-feeding. To
maintain the advantage of low labor requirements, cattle feeders must
provide for maximum consumption by the cattle and minimum waste
of silage, with a minimum of labor and other costs. Two things which
greatly influence consumption by cattle and waste of silage are the
width of the silo and the type of feeding gate. The depth of silage
influences the rate at which silage can be used horizontally, but it is a
minor consideration in the management of self-feeding.
Width of silo
Besides its relationship to the silage-handling operation (page 13),
the width of a horizontal silo must be considered in relation to the
number of cattle to be self-fed. If the silo is too narrow, crowding
of cattle may result in inadequate consumption of feed, possible injury
to the animals, damage to the feeding gate, and, if the cattle break
through the gate onto the silo, loss of silage. If the silo is too wide,
the cattle may not be able to eat the silage rapidly enough to keep it
from freezing in cold weather, and from losing palatability and spoil-
ing in warm weather.
Space per animal. On the study farms, during the 1956-57 feed-
ing period, the feeding space per animal ranged from 2 to 9 inches,
averaging 4.1 inches (Table 9). These space allotments, however, were
not necessarily the optimum allotments. Factors other than size of silo
often determined the number of cattle on hand in 1956-57.
The average space per animal for the largest drove ever self-fed
on each of the farms was 3.7 inches, but 3.0 inches was the more
typical allotment (Table 9). Of 29 farmers who provided 2 to 3
inches, 9 reported evidence of crowding and 20 reported complete
success. These data indicate that cattle had adequate feeding space if
at least 3 inches were provided per animal and that a space allotment
of 2 to 3 inches was generally adequate, although there was a possi-
bility of crowding the cattle.
On about half of the farms self-feeding continued during the
warmer months of May and June. On some, the number of cattle
was considerably reduced, since some of the cattle had been marketed
1 Records of the self -feeding operation are based for the most part on 46
farms. For various reasons, the data covering this operation were not available
for 3 of the 49 study farms.
22 BULLETIN NO. 642 [April,
earlier. The average space allowance on the farms that employed
self-feeding during the warm months was nearly 5.0 inches per animal
(Table 9). One operator, who allowed 8.5 inches per animal in warm
weather reported darkening of the silage but no apparent loss of
palatability. No other difficulties were reported because of warm
weather.
On some of the farms with low stocking rates during the winter
months there were reports of freezing or partial spoilage along the
face of the silo.
Minimum and maximum widths. Farmers' opinions as to the mini-
mum and maximum widths permissible without reducing the effective-
ness of the self-feeding program were as follows:
One-half believed that the feeding space could be reduced to less
than 3 inches per head, and one-third placed the minimum space at
3 to 5 inches per head (Table 9). Only three operators considered
less than 2 inches an adequate minimum.
Opinions as to the maximum allowable space varied considerably.
More than half felt that 3 to 7 inches per head was a suitable maxi-
mum, while about one-third considered 9 or more inches permissible.
Minimum and maximum number of cattle. Most farmers believed
that there was considerable flexibility in the size of drove that could
Table 9. Actual and Suggested Silo Width Allowances per Head
for Cattle Self-Fed From Horizontal Silos, 45 Illinois Farms, 1957
Actual
Suggested 11
Horizontal space For feed -
per animal" period of
1956-57
For warm-
weather
operations' 1
For largest
number ever
self-fed
Minimum
space
Maximum
space
inches
1.0-2.9
no.
. . . 10
perct.
23
44
21
7
5
100
hes
1
.0
no. perct.
3 13
13 54
1 4
6 25
1 4
24 100
inches
4.9
3.6
no. perct.
12 27
21 47
9 20
2 4
1 2
45 100
inches
3.7
3.0
no. perct.
22 51
15 35
6 14
43 100
inches
3.4
2.9
no. percl.
1 2
11 25
12 27
5 12
15 34
44 100
inches
7.9
6.3
3.0-4.9
. . . 19
5.0-6.9
9
7.0-8.9 . .
3
9.0 and above. . . .
2
All widths
. . . 43
inc
4
4
a Bottom width of the silo used for self-feeding.
b Data were obtained only from farmers having experience with self -feeding of silage beyond
May 15. Silos were seldom open later than June 15.
c These data reflect the largest number of cattle self-fed at any one time on each farm regardless
of season of the year or length of experience. Most of the low stocking rates were found on farms
whose operators had used self-feeding for only one year.
d Derived from farmers' opinions as to the smallest and largest droves that could be successfully
self-fed at one time from their silos during a regular feeding period. Part of the difference in opinion
among farmers results from differences in size of cattle considered, pecularities of individual silos, and
differences in experience with various stocking rates.
J959J SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS 23
be handled successfully with a given silo. The largest drove that could
be self-fed without crowding was commonly set at two to three times
the smallest drove capable of keeping the silage fresh during self-
feeding.
Feeding gates
Three types of feeding gates were in use on the study farms:
electric wires, manger-type gates suspended by a pole resting on the
side walls of the silo, and self-supported gates resting on the floor of
the silo. Twenty farmers used suspended gates, 18 used electric wires,
and 8 used self-supported gates.
Feeding gates on the farms were seldom constructed according
to a standard plan. 1 Half the farmers formulated their own plans with
ideas from a variety of sources. One- fourth copied the system used
on neighboring farms. The rest obtained plans from public agencies,
farm magazines, or professional farm managers.
Electric-wire gates consisted of a fence charger, an insulated wire
to and along one side of the silo, insulators, a bare cross wire, and
fasteners for the cross wire. Two-strand barbed wire, or the equivalent
of No. 10 or larger plain wire, was commonly used as a cross wire.
The cross wire was fastened across the silo by staples driven into the
walls or by hooks attached to inverted U-hangers on the side walls of
the silo. A single wire located so that the cattle fed below it at all
times was used on all except one of the farms; one farmer used two
wires.
When used at a fixed height, as was the case on about half of the
farms, the cross wire was kept about 36 inches above the floor and
at least 12 inches from the silage. Many feeders fixed the height of
the stationary wire so that it touched the cattle on the top of the
shoulders if they tried to walk under it.
Varying the height of the cross wire was more effective than
keeping it at a stationary level. This was done by driving staples in
the side at the desired heights or having several hooks on the side
hangers. With such an arrangement, an experienced operator could
guide the feeding over a greater part of the face of the silo than with
a stationary wire. Silage remained fresher and less hand labor was
necessary than when the cattle were allowed to feed in one place.
1 For details of constructing a suspended or self-supported feeding gate, see
Plan 518, Department of Agricultural Engineering, College of Agriculture, Uni-
versity of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois.
24
BULLETIN NO. 642
[April,
A footboard used with an electric-wire gate protects the silage at floor level,
keeping it palatable and facilitating cleaning of the silo floor. (Fig. 4)
There were no fixed rules for the heights of the wire or the fre-
quency of adjustment. The most successful operators closely observed
the cattle and their feeding habits during the early stage of the feeding
period to determine the necessary management of the cross wire. A
common method was to start the wire about 4 feet high and move it
down to about 2.5 feet over a period of three or four days. Any
silage overhang that developed was broken down to floor level about
one day before moving the wire forward.
The experiences of the farmers indicated that cattle usually fed
about 3 feet above the floor and had to be forced to consume silage at
floor level. However, unless a footboard (a 2- x 12-inch board on edge
with braces at each end) was placed across the silo directly below the
cross wire, thus protecting the silage from drainage, it was usually im-
practicable to force the cattle to use all the silage at floor level. Unpro-
tected silage was frequently unpalatable and often resulted in greatly
reduced consumption.
Suspended gates were used in silos up to 30 feet in width. Two-
inch lumber was commonly used for their construction. The gate
frame was usually made of 2- x 6-inch material. Larger sizes were
19591
SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS
25
avoided chiefly because of weight. Nails were used for some gates,
but bolts appeared to be advisable. Cross poles of different sizes were
used, but poles or iron pipe with the equivalent strength of a 6-inch
wooden pole were found to be sufficient for suspending the gates from
the side walls of silos up to 30 feet wide. Chains, steel cables, or
tripled strands of No. 9 wire attached the gate to the support pole.
Most of the gates were 5 to 6 feet in height, and were hung so that the
bottom just cleared the silo floor. Maximum height above the floor
was 6 inches, but the average clearance was only 1.5 inches. Close fits
at the base of the gate increased protection against drainage.
Major differences of construction were in the placement and spac-
ing of the vertical partition members. A simple and inexpensive gate
consisted of only enough vertical members to support the gate panel.
Horizontal space between members ranged from 6 to 18 feet and
averaged 9 feet. The vertical space through which the animals fed
The most satisfactory type of gate with respect to control of cattle, waste of
silage, and labor inputs was the suspended gate with individual feeding par-
titions and a solid-panel base. (Fig. 5)
26 BULLETIN NO. 642 [April,
ranged from 12 to 40 inches and averaged 20 inches. Another type of
gate, preferred by most farmers, consisted of individual feeding stalls
formed with vertical 2- x 6-inch members. Openings between the
vertical partitions ranged from 11 to 15 inches and averaged 14 inches.
Vertical space ranged from 20 to 46 inches, averaging 30 inches.
The base of most suspended gates was constructed as a solid panel
for protection against drainage and hogs. This panel ranged up to 26
inches in height, averaging 15 inches.
The support pole was usually anchored at the side walls to keep
the cattle from pushing the gate forward too rapidly. Gates were
secured at least 12 inches from the face of the silo and kept there
until the cattle had cleaned up what they could reach usually 2.5 to
3.0 feet from the front of the gate. Overhangs were broken down by
hand into the reach of the cattle.
Waste silage in front of the gate and any spoilage along the side
walls were removed before the gate was moved forward. Pressure
from cattle reaching for fresh silage was often enough to move the
gate forward when it was released. If the pole did not slide or roll
freely from the pressure of the cattle, a pinch bar or fence stretcher
was used to move it. A tractor and power scoop were used to lift the
support pole over posts that extended above the side walls.
Self-supported gates were used on eight farms. Those made of
wood were similar to suspended gates except for a floor-level platform
extending about 3 feet toward the cattle. The w r eight of the animals
standing on this platform kept the gate from tipping toward the silage.
A brace between the gate and the face of the silo was sometimes used
for added stability.
Some gates were made of welded 2-inch iron pipe or angle iron.
Triangular braces or runners extended about 2 feet from the base of
the gate on the open side and 1 foot on the side next to the silage.
Partition bars were commonly V-shaped rather than vertical.
Sectional self -supported gates effectively replaced suspended gates
in some silos 30 feet or more in width. The difficulty of moving self-
supported gates reduced their popularity. To move this type of gate,
first all residue was removed from in front of it; then a pinch bar or
tractor was used to shove the gate forward.
Relative merits of the three types of gates. Comparisons of the
three types of feeding gates were made with respect to the following:
initial and annual costs, control of cattle, exclusion of hogs, waste of
silage, and labor requirements.
J959J
SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS
27
Self-supported gates were used on only eight farms. This one is made of
iron pipe, with V-shaped partitions. Triangular braces support the gate.
(Fig. 6)
Initial and annual costs are affected by the type of gate, materials
used, and labor. If all materials were bought at retail value, the elec-
tric wire would be the least expensive system and the suspended gate
the most expensive (Table 10). But annual costs showed an advantage
of only $10 for an electric-wire gate in a system designed for approx-
imately 100 cattle. Other differences among the types of gates, listed
below, were of such magnitude as practically to eliminate both initial
and annual costs from consideration.
Control of cattle. Suspended and self-supported gates gave more
certain control of cattle than did electric-wire systems. Some animals
were fearful of receiving an electric shock and refused to use the silo
except when driven by hunger. There was also the possibility of a
power failure or a broken cross wire permitting the cattle to get onto
the silage or even to escape from the feedlot. Electric-wire and open-
panel suspended and self-supported gates permitted animals to turn
their heads over the open floor, thus increasing losses of silage from
cattle dropping mouthfuls of silage on the floor.
28 BULLETIN NO. 642 [April,
Table 10. Approximate Cost of Materials and Labor for Constructing
Selected Types of Feeding Gates for a Horizontal Silo
25 Feet Wide, Illinois, 1957
Type of gate
Initial cost
Annual
cost c
Materials 8
Labor 13
Total
Electric wire
$32
$16
42
36
$ 48
127
108
$ 9.44
19.68
16.74
Suspended
85
Self -supported
72
Two-inch lumber and bolt construction were assumed for suspended and self-supported
gates.
b Labor cost was arbitrarily set at half the value of materials.
Annual costs include depreciation at 10 percent of initial cost, interest at 5 percent
of average depreciated value, and all other costs at a total of 3 percent of initial cost.
Electricity is a separate charge, but it amounts to only about $2 for a 3 1/2 -month feeding
period.
On suspended and self-supported gates, a large vertical space
coupled with a long horizontal opening sometimes permitted the cattle
to get through the gate onto the silage. It also gave "boss" animals
more control of the silo and, when cattle of different sizes were kept
in the same lot, the smaller and more timid animals were often kept
from getting enough silage. When individual feeding stalls were used,
the cattle seldom managed to get through the gate onto the silage.
Exclusion of hogs. On 35 of the 49 farms, hogs had access to the
silo. Nine operators could not keep them from getting into the silage.
Most of the difficulty occurred on farms using electric wires, especially
when the wire remained at a stationary height well above the hogs. The
problem was usually more serious with corn than with grass silage.
Varying the height of an electric wire so that it would touch the
hogs part of the time was usually effective in keeping them away from
the silage all of the time. A 12- to 15-inch footboard made it more
difficult for hogs to get to the silage without touching the wire.
Suspended and self-supported gates with solid panels at the bottom
were the best barriers against hogs. V-shaped partitions increased the
effectiveness of these gates. If hogs nevertheless got through the
feeding spaces onto the silage, the only practical solution was to remove
them from the feedlot.
Waste of silage. Waste of silage other than spoilage could not be
measured, but 12 of 46 farmers found it large enough to be disturbing.
Most of the loss occurred at floor level where drainage, manure,
trampling, spoiled materials from the top of the silo, seepage from
high-moisture silage, and hogs had made the silage unpalatable. Such
losses were reported by eight of the 18 operators who used electric
7959J
SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS
29
wires. Only two farmers who used suspended gates reported significant
losses.
Other losses occurred because the cattle dropped silage that they
had pulled from the silo. Some farmers who used suspended gates
found that partition members installed at an angle forced the cattle to
turn their heads slightly to the side to get them through the opening,
thus reducing losses from dropped silage. Some of the dropped
silage fell at the base of the feeding gate and dried out or became
unpalatable for other reasons. Some fell on the feeding floor and was
immediately lost. Losses from dropped silage were highest with grass
and small grain silage. Only two farmers who fed corn silage reported
such losses, and these resulted largely from using an electric wire with
no protection at floor level.
Labor requirements of the three types of gates are discussed on
page 34.
General performance. The general performance of feeding gates
was reported unsatisfactory on a third of the farms. Electric wires
accounted for half of the unsatisfactory systems. Users of these
electric wires either planned to change to another type of feeding gate
or were undecided as to what to do. The difficulty of handling a self-
supported gate caused a shift away from self -feeding on at least one
farm. On other farms, changes to be made in suspended and self-
An open-panel gate made with only enough vertical members to support
the gate panel is simple and inexpensive to build. However, if the vertical
space is too large, cattle may be able to climb through the gate onto the
silage. (Fig. 7)
30 BULLETIN NO. 642 [April,
supported gates were minor; they involved such matters as adjusting
the spacing of vertical members or increasing the height of the bottom
panel. None of the users of. these two types of gates contemplated a
change to an electric wire.
Labor
Jobs and frequency of performance. The self-feeding of silage
includes five jobs: moving or adjusting the feeding gate; loosening
silage; removing spoilage; cleaning the silo floor; and supervising the
operation. Records of the jobs clone and the frequency of each were
obtained from 49 farmers. Total labor inputs were available from 44
of the records, and most of them included data for the individual jobs.
Jobs were sometimes combined in such a way that farmers could not
make accurate divisions of labor inputs.
The frequency of performance of the five jobs varied considerably
among farms (Table 11). Unlike the distribution of feed by hand or
with mechanical equipment, the jobs were performed irregularly rather
than as an everyday routine.
Adjusting the feeding gate. Periodic adjustment of the feeding
gate was necessary on all farms. The frequency of this job varied
through the seasons with changes in the rate at which silage was con-
sumed. On the average, one-fifth of the farmers adjusted the gate
daily, about half moved it every other day, and, on the rest of the
farms, the average frequency of this job varied from twice a week to
once in two weeks.
Loosening silage. More than half of the farmers believed that
loosening of silage was necessary for adequate feed consumption. Of
these, two-thirds loosened the silage by hand once or twice a day and
the rest loosened it every other day or less frequently. On two-fifths of
the farms, no help was given the cattle in getting the silage.
Removing spoilage. Surface and side spoilage were removed as
feeding progressed on all except one farm. This job varied from twice
daily to once in three weeks, depending upon the general chore routine
and the amount of spoilage. Nearly three-fifths of the farmers re-
moved surface spoilage more than once a week; about a third did the
job weekly; and the rest postponed the removal of surface spoilage
to convenient periods to help smooth the over-all labor demands.
Except in very cold weather, removing spoilage and thus exposing
good silage caused no difficulty in the winter, even if the good silage
were exposed as long as three weeks. In very cold weather, some of the
7959J
SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS
31
Table 11. Frequency of Jobs in Self- Feeding Silage to Beef Cattle
From Horizontal Silos, 44 Illinois Farms, 1956-57"
Frequency
Adjust
gate
Loosen
silage
Remove
spoilage
Clean
floor
Check
operation
2 per day
no.
. . . 1
perct.
2
20
46
16
5
2
7
2
100
no.
4
12
5
1
1
1
1
19
44
perct.
9
27
12
2
2
2
2
44
100
no.
1
4
8
4
3
2
3
14
2
1
1
1
44
perct.
2
9
18
9
7
5
7
32
5
2
2
2
100
no.
3
7
3
12
3
8
4
1
3
44
perct.
7
16
7
27
7
18
9
2
7
100
no.
6
15
2
21
44
perct.
13
34
5
48 h
100
1 per day
.".*. 9
1 per 2 days
. . 20
1 per 3 days
. . 7
2 per week
. . 2
1 per 4 days
1 per 5 days
1
1 per week
. . . 3
1 per 10 days
. . .
1 per 2 weeks
1
1 per 3 weeks. .
1 per month
1 per 2 months
1 per 3 months
o
1 per year
. . .
Not done
. . .
Total
. . . 44
" Based on the average for the complete period of self-feeding of silage.
b This job was not done as a separate activity on these farms; rather it was combined
with other jobs.
good silage that would have been protected by the spoiled material
froze. Spoilage along the side walls was removed each time the feed-
ing gate was moved forward. On all farms, spoilage was removed by
hand forks. The waste was pitched onto the silo floor or directly into
a spreader.
Cleaning the silo floor. On all farms, tractor-mounted manure
scoops or scrapers were used to clean the floor of the silo. This job
usually coincided with cleaning of the feedlot, which was done two or
three times a month on most farms. Spoiled silage that had been
pitched on the silo floor was removed when the floor was cleaned. All
waste was hauled directly to the fields and spread when the ground
was suitable for travel.
Supervising the operation. About half of the farmers made a
special trip to the silo once or twice a day to check the self-feeding
operation. The rest combined supervision with one or more of the
regular jobs.
Relationship to size of drove. Many of the farmers fed more than
one lot of cattle during the year. On some farms, lots overlapped. On
others, they were fed in consecutive periods. The number of head
32
BULLETIN NO. 642
[April,
Table 12. Relationship Between Size of Drove and Labor Inputs
per 100 Head for Specified Jobs in Self-Feeding Silage to Beef
Cattle From Horizontal Silos, 44 Illinois Farms, 1956-57
Size of drove
Farms' 3
Average
size of
drove
Average
daily labor input per 100 head a
Adjust
gate and
loosen
silage
Re-
move
spoil-
age
Clean
floor
Check
opera-
tion
Total d
29- 50
9
43
63
89
118
202
90
.23
.33
.24
.28
.10
.25
.24
.18
.17
.12
.06
.17
hours
.24
.25
.15
.14
.05
.18
.16
.11
.08
.03
.04
.09
.90
.86
.63
.52
.23
.68
51- 75
. . 12
76-100
10
101-150
8
151-230
5
All farms
44
a Farms on which a job was not done were included in the computation of averages
using zero for the labor input.
b These are the numbers of farms for which records of, total labor inputs were available.
Records of labor for individual jobs range from 38 to 44.'
c Labor inputs for adjusting the feeding gate and loosening the silage were combined
because they were often done at the same tin:e.
d The sum of the average labor inputs for individual jobs does not necessarily equal
the average total labor input. A few labor records were indivisible by jobs and were
omitted from the job analysis but retained in the totals.
days on silage was calculated to get a measure of the size of drove
that would permit farms to be compared on an equivalent basis.
Droves averaged 90 head for all farms on the basis of head days on
silage, with a range of 29 to 230 head on individual farms.
The average labor inputs for each of the jobs performed in self-
feeding decreased as the size of drove increased (Table 12 and Fig.
8). This was usually because part of the time for performing each
job was fixed regardless of the size of drove. The effects of a larger
drove were least apparent in the data on adjusting the feeding gate
and loosening silage, largely because of the influence of the type of
gate on labor requirements. For all silage chores the average daily
labor inputs were nearly an hour per 100 head with the smallest droves,
decreasing to less than one-fourth of an hour with the largest droves.
Labor inputs for each of the jobs and for the complete operation
of self-feeding of silage were standardized, by fitting a line to the indi-
vidual observations for all farms, in order to eliminate the irregularities
among the different groups. The standardized average labor inputs
(Table 13) differ only slightly from the actual inputs shown in
Table 12.
Standardized total labor inputs per drove increased with size of
drove to about 100 cattle (Table 13). With 100 to 160 head, total
J959J
SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS
33
labor inputs were relatively constant. With droves of larger size,
total labor inputs decreased. The labor economies that appeared as
droves increased to medium size were primarily results of reductions
in average fixed time. The subsequent drop in total labor per drove
with the largest operations was apparently related to more effective
methods of operation and better management. It was not due to
increased mechanization, since the level of mechanization was about
the same on all farms. In order to compare management practices
among the 49 farms and relate them to size of drove, it would have
been necessary to accurately time each of the operations performed in
self-feeding silage. This was not done because of the irregular occur-
rence of jobs.
All labor data are expressed in terms of daily inputs. The data
can be converted to seasonal estimates by using the appropriate self-
feeding period, usually four to five months. It should be recognized,
however, that self- feeding programs do not exert an equal daily de-
mand for labor, as might be surmised from Tables 12 and 13. The
average frequency of jobs on most of the farms (Table 11) varied
from once a day for checking the operation to once or twice a month
I.OVJ
^ A
ELECTRIC- WIRE GATE
A SUSPENDED GATE
o
m
o 1.20
A SELF- SUPPORTED GATE
H
* A (43 FARMS, 1956-57)
O.
^S *
>
Q
*
.80
9 ^
E
1
*
<
A
u. ' 40
o
" * A
(0
K
M V
O
i
*
r>
i i i i
40
80 120 160
NUMBER OF CATTLE IN HERD
200
240
Farms with a larger drove had lower daily labor inputs per 100 head than
farms with fewer cattle. This chart also reveals the influence of type of
gate on labor inputs: on farms with approximately the same number of
cattle, those using suspended gates more frequently had lower labor inputs
than those using electric-wire and self-supported gates. (Fig. 8)
34
BULLETIN NO. 642
[April,
Table 13. Standardized Daily Labor Inputs for Specified Jobs
and for the Complete Chore of Self-Feeding Silage to Beef
Cattle From Horizontal Silos, by Size of Drove
Daily labor inputs per 100 head
Size of drove
Adjust
gate and
loosen
silage
Re-
move
spoil-
age
Clean
floor
Check
opera-
tion
All
silage
chores
Total
labor
for
drove
20..
32
.28
.23
.17
.11
.08
.06
.05
.33
.27
.18
.12
.08
.05
.04
hours
.14
.12
.10
.09
.06
.03
.02
1.07
.92
.70
.51
.36
.24
.17
.21
.37
.56
.61
.58
.48
.41
40
30
80
25
120
20
160
14
200.. .
10
240
06
for cleaning the silo,
tion could be bud^etei
As most
i into a f;
jobs
irmin:
, i
are flexible, a self -feeding
? nropram as lonp~ as at lea
opera-
st half
of the average labor requirements could be fulfilled within any given
week. All labor needs would have to be met within a month.
Relationship to feeding gate. Labor inputs for self-feeding silage
to beef cattle differed significantly among farms with the three types
of feeding gates. Systems in which suspended gates were used were
the most effective; they required only 0.41 hour per 100 head per day
for all silage chores (Table 14). Daily labor inputs were 0.82 hour
per 100 head on farms with electric wire and 1.03 hours on farms with
self-supported gates. 1 The number of systems with self-supported
gates was low, but their labor inputs were consistently high.
Farms grouped according to type of feeding gate differed as to size
of drove. Those with suspended gates averaged 97 head of cattle;
those with electric wires averaged 81; and those with self-supported
gates averaged 65 head. Since average total labor inputs decreased as
size of drove increased, small droves were partly responsible for the
higher labor inputs on farms with self-supported gates. Conversely, a
part of the reduction in labor inputs on farms with suspended gates
resulted from economies related to scale.
Labor inputs decreased about 0.02 hour for each five additional
head of cattle. If the labor inputs for each of the three groups of
farms as classified by type of gate are adjusted to the over-all drove
average of 90 head, the daily labor inputs per 100 head become 0.44
1 Median figures were used for most comparisons because of the distortion
of averages by extremes.
J959J SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS 35
Table 14. Relationship Between Type of Feeding Gate and Labor
Inputs for the Complete Chore of Self-Feeding Silage to Beef
Cattle From Horizontal Silos, 43 Illinois Farms, 1956-57
Electric- Suspended !
wire gate gate
Self-supported
gate
Number of farms*
18 19
6
Average number of head
81 97
65
Daily labor inputs per 100 head, hours
Average
79 .53
92
Median
82 41
1 03
Median adjusted to drove average
of 90 head
78 44
93
Time data for six farms were not usable.
hour for systems with suspended gates, 0.78 hour for those with
electric wires, and 0.93 hour for those with self -supported gates.
Adjusting gate and loosening silage. Each move of a self-supported
gate required considerably more time than was needed to handle other
types of gates, but self -supported gates were moved only once in 4
days, while the other gates were moved at least every other day. Thus
average labor inputs for moving the gates did not differ among the
three types. The infrequency with which self-supported gates were
moved reflects the difficulty of the job rather than an advantage of the
gate.
Evidence indicates that cattle were able to feed through suspended
gates with less assistance than through gates of other types. Only one-
third of the farmers with suspended gates loosened silage as a part
of their regular chore routine (Table 15). This job was done by three-
fourths or more of the farmers who used other kinds of gates.
The influence of type of gate is revealed in the combined labor
inputs for loosening silage and moving the gate (Table 15). These
two jobs took more than three times as much labor on farms with
self-supported gates as on those with suspended gates. Labor for
these jobs on farms using electric wire was at an intermediate level.
The higher labor inputs for electric wires and self -supported gates
were largely due to the farmers' resorting to some degree of hand-
feeding to compensate for the inadequacies of the gates.
Removing spoilage required the smallest amount of labor on farms
using suspended feeding gates (Table 15). On these farms, surface
spoilage was removed once in 5 days. This job was done once in 4
days on farms where electric wire was used and once in 3 days on
36
BULLETIN NO. 642
[April,
a'S
10 oo
'A
I/!
C
I
aj
Cj
~^o
vO *O O fN 00
O rs ~
^
4H
<
^
I'r'l |
^8 IQrs
to M
O 1O r*5
to
U}
O KJ
00
fl
9 ^
O
~* r*
0"?
3 iT C bfl
\O vo O U") 00
1) vo
3 SSl
O rC 5
3 2
|
i| M * o
O\ 00 O^ 10
^ c
^r* i^ .
- -10 00
O rt
^2 C
" ta
t/3
11
C3 O o
^
o\ o^ o ~- oo
^- o o
H -.
M
i f
5*.
A ta
o
V
a
o ~
gi2'5 M
Cv O* O f*5 O
Or
w
C
c
C\ \O tN
"J ^
jl
i; rt
J i*
"o C
2 u" S Si
5|
|lj|
s S
3
" s
*
aj ^ 2 ~
Cfl ^
10 ~ o
_ u
D W
C u
a, 1 ^
i>
11
00 00 O 10 re
~H ^^ O CS fN
^ ^-
a!
W
H U
be
V
^^
3 OJ
1
iltS
2 iZc\ !2
^
4
-
^ '3 i- a
J
"S-S g -go ^
H
-^ fc c o 5 ^^
3
S ^- Z OH *3 *?* ^
4
2 ta Q
J959J SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS 37
farms with self -supported gates. Apparently, farmers tried to alleviate
some of the shortcomings of electric-wire and self -supported gates by
keeping the silage as palatable as possible.
Cleaning the silo floor took the smallest amount of time in systems
using suspended gates and the greatest amount on farms with electric
wires (Table 15). The higher labor inputs on farms with electric
wires were largely due to more frequent cleaning. Frequent cleaning
was necessary with electric-wire systems because, with one exception,
farmers using electric wires did not use footboards. This meant that,
to keep the silage usable at floor level, the floor had to be cleaned more
often than when drainage was blocked by a footboard or the base of
a suspended gate. A footboard or gate with a solid base also facilitated
cleaning, as less care was needed to keep from shoving manure and
water into the silage. Another reason for the high labor inputs on
farms using electric wires was that waste of silage was greater with
these types of gates, and the increased quantity of waste material close
to the feeding gate created a more frequently recurring drainage
problem.
Supervising the operation as a separate activity from other jobs did
not differ among systems with the three types of gates (Table 15).
The job was done on about half of the farms with each type of gate.
Relationship to kind of silage. There was no significant relation-
ship between kind of silage and labor inputs, except perhaps for oat
silage. Labor inputs were lower for oat silage but the small number
of records for this type of silage prevents a definite conclusion.
Although labor inputs did not differ between farms with grass and
those with corn silage, relatively more farmers reported loosening of
grass silage as a regular chore than did feeders of corn silage. Also,
field observations indicated that handling grass silage was more diffi-
cult than handling corn silage, particularly when the silage was frozen.
Farmers' opinions
Only two farmers were thinking of changing from self-feeding to
some other method of handling silage. The majority expressed satis-
faction with the systems in use during the 1956-57 feeding period.
Some of them had made changes in the system earlier. Five farmers
had changed from calves to yearlings because they believed that the
smaller cattle could not get enough to eat through self-feeding. Two
operators had shifted from grass to corn silage.
38 BULLETIN NO. 642 [April,
PROBLEMS IN SELF-FEEDING
Frozen silage
Silage has been successfully self-fed from horizontal silos as far
north as Canada, but freezing sometimes causes difficulty even in cen-
tral Illinois. Frozen silage usually causes extra work and loss of
silage; in very cold weather it may even prevent self-feeding.
Some difficulty w r ith frozen silage during 1956-57 was reported by
32 of the 49 cattle feeders included in the study. Extra labor was
needed on 22 farms. A few farmers had difficulty for more than a
month, but the average period of extra work was 12 days for the
season. Extensive freezing curtailed or stopped self-feeding for short
periods on eight farms during 1956-57, and one operator discontinued
self-feeding for the rest of the year because of frozen silage. Febru-
ary, 1958, was colder than normal, with minimum temperatures in the
northern half of Illinois falling to F. or 'below during most of the
month. Half of 38 farmers who answered inquiries reported that
freezing stopped self-feeding for periods ranging up to a month. The
period off self-feeding averaged 11 days for farmers who reported
difficulties.
Freezing on top of the silo seldom exceeded the depth of the sur-
face spoilage. The maximum depth of freezing ranged from 1 to 15
inches, with an average of 5 inches. Removal of this frozen material
required some extra labor, but little or no good silage was lost. Freez-
ing along the side walls required extra work, usually daily, and, as the
frozen chunks were usually thrown out of the silo, silage was wasted.
Freezing along the face of the silo had the most serious consequences:
it either reduced or stopped self- feeding entirely.
Frozen silage was usually loosened manually with a fork, pick, or
saw, then thrown out of the silo or on the floor behind the cattle.
With an electric-wire feeding gate, a tractor loader could be used to
loosen frozen silage during the coldest periods. Some operators let the
cattle fend for themselves when silage was frozen, but this was un-
satisfactory. Cattle ate holes into parts of the silo while other areas
became dried and frozen. The effective feeding space was thus reduced
and the resulting irregularity of the face of the silo caused waste of
silage, especially when the temperature moderated.
Temperature. The experiences of the farmers indicated that
minor problems at least could be expected from freezing when mini-
mum daily temperatures were 10 F. or below for several consecutive
days. Maximum daily temperatures during such periods were usually
high enough to prevent severe freezing. Extensive freezing could be
1959J SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS 39
expected when the minimum daily temperature was F. or below for
extended periods.
In the light of these two criteria several consecutive cold days
(an average of three) and temperatures of F. or below the winter
temperature records of various weather stations in Illinois from
December, 1930, to February, 1957, were examined to determine the
probability of freezing of silage in various parts of the state.
According to the data, 1 the southern half of Illinois is relatively
free from severe freezing of silage. From 1930 to 1957 none of the
weather stations south of the Bloomington area 2 recorded more than
1 year in 10 with temperatures low enough for severe freezing of silage
for more than 3 days of any month from December through February.
The Galva, Ottawa, and Joliet areas, north of Bloomington, are free
from the possibility of severe freezing in 7 to 8 years out of 10. In
the Rockford area, in northern Illinois, temperatures can be expected
to be low enough to cause extensive freezing of silage for 3 days to a
week during each of the three winter months in about 1 year in 3.
Although temperature was the main determinant of freezing prob-
lems, there were other influences on the severity of freezing. Among
them were the orientation of the silo, kind of side wall, kind of silage,
and temperature of the silage.
Orientation of the silo. Correct orientation of the silo helped to
minimize freezing. The relationship between freezing and orientation
of the silos on the 49 farms was as follows:
Direction which feeding end faced
North South East West
Trouble from freezing, number 9 13 3 7
No trouble from freezing, number. 1 11 3 2
Almost half the farmers using a north-south orientation with feed-
ing from the south end reported no trouble. This orientation provides
for maximum exposure to the sun and protection from prevailing
winter winds. Half the farmers using an east-west orientation with
feeding from the east reported no trouble; the main difficulty with this
type of exposure is that the north wall is always shaded. Ninety
percent of the farmers with silos facing north reported difficulty from
freezing, and 78 percent with silos facing west had trouble. Some of
the most severe freezing occurred in silos that faced west.
1 U. S. Department of Agriculture, Weather Bureau, Climatological Data,
Illinois Section, Volumes 35 to 45, and U. S. Department of Commerce, Weather
Bureau, Climatological Data, Illinois Section, Volumes 45 to 62.
2 Bloomington is located in central Illinois.
40 BULLETIN NO. 642 [April,
Kind of side wall. The earth keeps the silage from freezing along
the walls of trench silos. Only one conventional trench silo was in-
cluded in the study, but one- fourth of the farmers had built a bank of
earth behind their wood or concrete walls. The chief purpose of this
bank was to provide support for the side walls, but it also eliminated
freezing.
Freezing of silage along north walls or walls shaded by a building
from direct sunlight reached depths of 18 to 24 inches during the
coldest periods of 1956-57. The average was about 9 inches. Periodic
thawing prevented serious difficulties except during such protracted
cold periods as that of February, 1958. The depth of freezing was
about 15 percent greater in silos with unprotected concrete walls than
in wooden structures. Two-inch wooden walls provide more insula-
tion than 6- to 8-inch poured concrete or concrete block walls. 1
Kind of silage. Corn, grass-legume mixtures, and small-grain
silages were all subject to freezing in the self-feeding program. Grass
silage in any condition was more difficult to handle than other kinds of
silage and was especially troublesome when frozen. In six of the
eight systems in which freezing had stopped self-feeding in 1956-57,
farmers were using grass silage. Nearly three-fourths of the 19 farm-
ers who were forced to temporarily stop self- feeding the following
winter were using grass silage.
Temperature of silage. Variations in surface freezing were due
partly to the temperature of the mass of silage. Forages that contain
the proper amount of moisture generate heat during the process of
fermentation. This heat dissipates slowly and helps to retard freezing.
Forages that contain too much moisture do not ensile properly. Their
use may result in a "cold" silo that will be particularly vulnerable to
low temperatures. 2
Appraisal of the freezing problem. Some farmers have difficulty
with frozen silage, but no part of Illinois is cold enough during a
normal winter to prevent self-feeding from a horizontal silo for more
than a few days if the silage program is properly managed. Harvesting
forages at the correct stage of maturity and packing them properly
into the silo, orienting the silo to obtain maximum benefit from the
sun, keeping an adequate number of cattle feeding from the silo, man-
aging the feeding gate to assure removal of silage from the entire
1 Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Guide, 35th edition, 1957, Ameri-
can Society of Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Engineers, 62 Worth
Street, New York 13, N. Y.
2 Joint Committee on Grassland Farming, Neiv Grassland Livestock Hand-
book, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, 1957, p. 31.
7959J SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS 41
exposed area, and protecting above-ground walls with a bank of earth
will assure relatively trouble-free operation of a self-feeding program
anywhere in Illinois.
Drifting snow
Wind-blown snow sometimes drifts in the feeding area of a hori-
zontal silo and must be removed if self-feeding is to continue. Trouble-
some drifts did not occur more often than once or twice a year and few
farmers had made provision to check them. About half of the oper-
ators, however, considered that drifting snow caused enough difficulty
to justify protective measures. Orientation of the silo to take advan-
tage of prevailing winds helped, but most farmers believed that some
type of windbreak would be more effective. When heavy drifts were
encountered, the snow was removed from the silo with a tractor loader.
Drainage
Water and manure on the floor of the silo were controlled by slop-
ing the floor properly and cleaning periodically with power equipment.
Fewer than one-fourth of the farmers were seriously troubled by in-
adequate drainage during the 1956-57 feeding period. Manure hindered
self-feeding on only five farms and made adjustment of the feeding
gate difficult on only two farms.
Drainage problems were infrequent, but when they occurred the
situation was usually serious. Spring was the critical period, especially
with silos that did not have a paved approach. On farms with these
silos, it was often impossible to get to the silo with tractor equipment
for a month or more. Manure that had been frozen or remained firm
during cold weather became semi-liquid after rains and flowed into the
feeding area, spoiling large quantities of silage. Chore labor was diffi-
cult and disagreeable. Attempts to open drainage channels by hand
were usually unsuccessful.
Problems brought on by inadequate drainage can be minimized by
giving the floor plenty of slope. The approach to the silo should be
paved or the silo should join a paved lot to permit year-round use of
tractor equipment. Keeping the silo relatively clean is a preventive
measure, although manure and waste silage can be allowed to accumu-
late during part of the year without causing a great deal of difficulty.
Farmers who had no difficulty with drainage cleaned their silos slightly
more often than three times a month.
Low consumption of silage
Relatively lower consumption of silage with self- feeding than with
hand- feeding systems was reported by 9 of 49 farmers. This problem
42 BULLETIN NO. 642 [April,
occurred most often with calves. Six of these nine farmers fed grass
or oat silage; they stated that the cattle could not pull enough silage
from the silo. Little difficulty was experienced with corn silage, re-
gardless of the size of the cattle fed.
Apparently electric-wire feeding gates increased the problem of
getting a full feed of silage into the cattle. Eight of the nine farmers
who reported less than adequate consumption of silage used electric
wires.
Mixed lots of cattle caused some difficulty, regardless of the type
of feeding gate used or kind of silage fed. Larger animals sometimes
became bossy and drove the smaller ones from the silo.
Farmers who were most successful fed corn silage or helped to
loosen grass silage, kept cattle of uniform size, and used either a
suspended or a self-supported feeding gate.
SUMMARY
Self-feeding of silage from horizontal silos is a relatively new
practice in Illinois cattle- feeding operations. Many farmers are using
the method successfully, but for some, inexperience and the apparent
simplicity of self-feeding have caused difficulties with results ranging
from the need to add labor to failure of the feeding program.
The systems on 49 Illinois farms were studied during 1957 and
1958 to provide information on operating self-feeding programs.
Silage was self-fed to an average of nearly 100 cattle per farm.
Cattle were equally divided between calves and yearlings, and most
graded good-to-choice or above. Purchases were usually made in the
fall and the cattle were sold 9 to 12 months later at weights of 900 to
1,100 pounds. The usual program included a 4- to 6-month period of
self-feeding silage beginning in December. About the same number
of cattle were fed grass silage as were fed corn silage. Daily rates of
gain averaged 1.7 pounds for the feeding period.
Horizontal silos and the self-feeding of silage resulted in more
paved area than in the usual feedlot, but did not affect cattle buildings
or feed-processing equipment. The need for mechanical distribution
systems was reduced and, as a result, hand- feeding of concentrates to
relatively large droves was common.
Farmers in the study had built horizontal rather than upright silos
chiefly because of the lower initial cost and the reduction in labor
achieved through self-feeding. Nearly all the silos were built in 1954
or later. Most had paved floors with walls of either concrete or treated
wood. The capacities averaged 181 tons of silage. About three-fourths
7959J SELF-FEEDING SILAGE FROM HORIZONTAL SILOS 43
of the silos were constructed by farm labor. Initial costs of 200-ton
silos varied from $5 to $9 per ton of capacity. The farmers placed the
useful life of horizontal silos at 15 to 30 years.
Making and keeping good silage was a problem on some farms.
Packing along the side walls was frequently inadequate, resulting in
spoilage of silage. Surface spoilage accounted for an average loss of
9 percent of the total weight of forages ensiled at an average volume
of 232 tons; however, farmers with the most effective preservation
measures kept spoilage losses below 5 percent. Spoilage decreased by
one percentage point for each additional 50 tons of silage within the
observed range of 60 to 500 tons. To minimize spoilage losses, the
farmers recommended a silo with a width of at least 20 feet containing
5 to 7 feet of settled silage.
Few farmers used surface covers, but black polyethylene had
aroused considerable interest. A major problem with synthetic covers
was holding them in place and preventing mechanical damage. Low-
value forages were effective as surface covers on some farms.
Silage conditioners were used in a few silos containing grass-
legume forages. Farmers found it difficult to get an even distribution
of the conditioning material and doubted its value.
Labor for harvesting and storing forages averaged 4.1 hours per
acre for grass silage and 6.9 hours per acre for corn silage. The least
productive farmers worked more than twice as long as the most
productive in making a given quantity of silage. Size of crew, yields
of forages, distances traveled, and length of the harvesting season
affected labor inputs.
Usually the proper practices for making and keeping silage were
known, but were not carried out satisfactorily. About two-thirds of
the farmers were planning changes so as to do a better job.
Most farmers were experienced cattle feeders, but few had more
than 2 or 3 years of experience with self-feeding of silage. Most ex-
pressed satisfaction with self-feeding, but some were having difficulty
with parts of the operation.
Width of the silo affected the feeding as well as the storing of
silage. Excessive width in relation to size of drove permitted freezing
of silage in winter and loss of palatability in summer. Crowding of
cattle reduced consumption of silage.
Horizontal feeding space averaged 4 inches per animal during the
1956-57 feeding period. Three inches per animal resulted in no ill
effects, and 2 to 3 inches per animal were generally satisfactory, al-
though crowding was apparent on a few farms. Most farmers believed
44 . BULLETIN NO. 642
that space allotments were flexible; the largest drove that could be
self-fed without crowding was commonly set at two or three times the
smallest drove capable of keeping the silage fresh.
The feeding gate was a major part of the self-feeding programs.
Three types were in use: electric wires, suspended gates, and self-
supported gates. Control of cattle, labor requirements, difficulty of
work, waste of silage by the cattle, and access of hogs to the silage were
all affected by the type of gate, to such an extent that differences among
the gates in initial and annual costs were virtually eliminated from
consideration of the relative merits of the three types.
Feeding gates performed satisfactorily on two-thirds of the farms.
Electric wires accounted for half of the troublesome situations, mainly
because they provided no protection against hogs and drainage, and
because waste of silage was sometimes excessive. Self-supported gates
were difficult to move. Suspended gates were the most effective in
nearly all respects.
Five jobs were required in the self-feeding of silage: moving the
feeding gate; loosening silage; removing spoilage; cleaning the silo
floor; and supervising the operation. Some jobs were performed regu-
larly while others were done on the basis of need. Frequency of jobs
varied greatly among farms. Daily labor inputs per 100 head of
cattle averaged 0.68 hour for the average drove of 90 head, but ranged
from nearly an hour for small droves to less than one- fourth of an
hour for droves of 200 or more. The type of feeding gate used was
chiefly responsible for variations in labor inputs among farms with
operations similar in size. Farms with suspended gates had the lowest
labor inputs.
Freezing of silage often caused minor difficulties, but it seldom
interrupted self-feeding except after extended periods of sub-zero
weather. Maximum insurance against trouble from freezing was pro-
vided by a north-south orientation of the silo with feeding from the
south end, protection of the sides by earth banks, use of corn or
properly made grass silage, an adequate number of cattle feeding from
the silo, and proper management of the feeding gate. Drifting snow
caused little difficulty.
Drainage created a serious problem on less than one-fourth of
the farms. Inadequate slope of the silo was the chief cause of drain-
age problems.
Low consumption of silage was reported by one-fifth of the farm-
ers. This problem occurred most often with calves fed on grass silage.
"Boss" animals in droves of mixed sizes aggravated the problem.
6M 4-59 67550
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBAN*