Bunker Silo/Pile Density Study Findings & Industry Applications

Transcription

1 Bunker Silo/Pile Density Study Findings & Industry Applications 2008 Feed Dealers Meetings Prepared by: John Conway

2 Will we have adequate packing? Major influencers of silage density -- Tractor weight Packing time per ton Layer thickness Crop DM (lesser extent) Particle length Height of silo

3 Where it all started still basis for WI spreadsheets Packing Density & DM Loss - Ruppel, 1992 DM loss,% Density (lbs DM/ft3)

4 Bunker Silo Densities - Holmes, 1999 Hay crop silage (87 silos) Average = 14.8 lbs/cu ft ( ) Corn silage (81 silos) Average = 14.5 lbs/cu ft ( ) (note that these were single samples, chest high )

5 Bunker Silo/Pile Density Study Describe Silo Filling Dynamic Relative to DM Densities: 124 Samples from 68 Silo Faces Legume, Grass, Mixed, Corn Silage & BMR CS 2004 Æ 2008, Most in 2006 & 2007 Crop Seasons Led us to these conclusions

6 What We ve Found: University of Wisconsin spreadsheets for predicting density of bunkers and piles remain the most reliable tool out there. But - Legumes, particularly when drier, tend to run slightly higher than predictions. The glueyness factor. - Corn silage trends slightly lower than predictions sometimes due to loads being dumped faster than you think they are. - Grass really resists compression. It is also tough to blade as it wants to roll. We need more data. Same equipment and delivery rates and it s up to 5 lbs./ft. 3 lower. More storage needed! You can use your own tested density predictions to arrive at a smaller silo space required compared with average densities. This allows bunkers or piles to be compared fairly with other storage systems or with each other. (See Cost of Forage Storage spreadsheet)

7 What We ve Found continued: Water trapped in plant material occupies space. Wetter materials do not achieve the dry matter densities of similarly packed drier materials. -Top notch packing does not help with consequential fermentation problems (i.e. butyrate) when silage is put up too wet (<33% DM legumes and grasses). -Top notch packing does allow you to push the envelope on the dry side without apparent consequence (42-55% DM legumes and maybe up to 45% DM in grasses). BMR corn silage trends to pack to a greater dry matter density than conventional corn silage under the same packing dynamic. Something to consider when making financial comparisons

8 What We ve Found continued: While dry matter losses translate easily into dollars, it is the cost of additional storage needed with sub-optimal densities that really drives up storage costs. A haylage silo filling strategy that seems to work well use a long ramp to keep blade layer minimized. When stretching out the life of silo; layering a subsequent cutting on top and in front of initial cutting will compress the lower material even more. Useful when you need to stretch the utilization of a silo while minimizing losses. When corn silage (or haylage) is so far over the sidewalls that it looks like a bread loaf, it s time to consider more packing weight or even better, a new silo! A lot of diesel and labor is spent on not a lot of dry matter!

9 Closer L k Straight Grass Grass Rolling, Ridging & Springing Back Mvi_0240.avi

10 Closer L k Storage Costs Horizontal Silo What s Happening in that Cubic Foot of Bunker Silo Storage Space? 32 W x 106 L x 10 H = 33,900 ft. 3 Capital Cost structure plus share of tractors = ~$61,000. Capital Cost per ft. 3 = $1.80 Annualized Capital Cost per ft. 3 (10 yr. depreciable life) = $ lbs. forage DM/ ft % storage loss = 10.7 lbs./ft. 3 retained 18 lbs. forage DM/ ft % storage loss = 15.6 lbs./ft. 3 retained Value of 10.7 lbs./ft. $0.05/lb.* over 33,900 ft. 3 = $18, Value of 15.6 lbs./ft. $0.05/lb.* over 33,900 ft. 3 = $26, A 38% difference in packing density amplifies to a 45.8% difference in forage $ value retained and fit into space. A $8, difference in retained forage value. Net value of forage losses due to lower density = $ but you may still need to find a home for 4.9 lbs. DM/ ft. 3 you need as feed that did not fit into the space. At $0.18 annualized capital cost per ft. 3 = $ Wasted silo space costs are additive to DM losses twice the $ value!! *Value of $35.00/ton haylage at 35% Dry Matter (DM), converted to 100% DM and expressed in pounds

11 Closer L k Storage Costs The Beast (dozer that is) 110,000 lbs. of packing force

12

13

14 Closer L k Re-Packing 4th/5th 3rd 1st Crop Crop Crop 17.0 lbs./ft.3 sole face 17.6 lbs./ft.3 sole face 18.4 lbs./ft.3 over 3rd 17.6 lbs./ft.3 over 3rd & 1st 19.0 lbs./ft.3 over 1st & under 4th/5th 23.8 lbs./ft.3 under 3rd & 4th/5th Each new crop came over the top of what was below and had a full face of its own on the front side. Peak height is 6 over side walls. Little or no waste. Trucks dump fresh forage onto a concrete backwall/landing area that is just below the top of the sidewalls.

15 Closer L k Overtopping The breadloaf top 10 + above sidewalls. Dry matter density of only 12.8 lbs./ft. 3 at 6 from top, means a lot of diesel and tractor labor are burnt for not a whole heck of a lot of feed-able corn silage. Pad work is done for new silo with shared sidewall (into use Fall, 2008). 2007

16 Useful Tools to Integrate Forage Production with Feeding System at the Silo (CD of Related Wisconsin Spreadsheets)

17 Useful Tools to Integrate Forage Production with Feeding System at the Silo (continued) (CD of Related Wisconsin Spreadsheets) *Bunker Silo Density Calculator (English & Spanish) BunkDensCalc wPOROSITY.xls (spreadsheet) Documentation: BunkDensityCalcDoc doc Dr. Brian Holmes & Dr. Richard Muck Univ. of Wisconsin Inputs: Silo wall height Maximum height Silage delivery rate Silage DM content Silage packing layer thickness Packing tractor(s) weight(s) Outputs: Wet density Porosity DM density

18

19

20

21 Useful Tools to Integrate Forage Production with Feeding System at the Silo (continued) (CD of Related Wisconsin Spreadsheets) *Silage Pile Density Calculator (English & Spanish) PileDensCalcwPOROSITY xls (spreadsheet) Documentation: PileDensityCalculatorDoc doc Dr. Brian Holmes & Dr. Richard Muck Univ. of Wisconsin Inputs: Bottom width Height Top width Side slope (if known) Silage delivery rate Silage DM content Silage packing layer thickness Packing tractor(s) weight(s) Outputs: Wet density Porosity DM density

22 Packed pile with same tonnage stored as last bunker silo best density achievable is 9% lower (16.6 vs lbs./ft. 3)

23 Useful Tools to Integrate Forage Production with Feeding System at the Silo (continued) (CD of Related Wisconsin Spreadsheets) *Determining Value of Improved Silage Management FeedLo$$ xls (spreadsheet) Documentation is a sheet (tab) within spreadsheet Dr. Brian Holmes, Univ. of Wisconsin Inputs: Animal numbers DM consumption Ration ratio of haylage:corn silage Haylage $ value Corn silage $ value Loss values before Loss values after Output: Bottom line Total improvement in value lost, $/year

24

25

26 Useful Tools to Integrate Forage Production with Feeding System at the Silo (continued) (CD of Related Wisconsin Spreadsheets) *Cost of Forage Storage Spreadsheet (Capital investment & annual costs of forage storage) (Ideal for comparing costs of bunkers vs. piles) (Has bunker silo sizing spreadsheet (above) embedded as tab) CSTFORST xls (spreadsheet) Documentation: for-stor.pdf Dr. Brian Holmes & Dr. Gary Frank Univ. of Wisconsin Inputs: Very detailed, all possible costs Helpful calculators for different cost cells Can ignore other types of storage not wanted in comparison Relative cost of concrete vs. macadam may swing results over time Choosing bunker vs. pile generally has other factors to consider beyond cost alone Outputs: Total annual storage cost ($/year) Annual storage cost per ton of DM ($/ton) Annual storage cost per ton of DM fed ($/ton)

27

28

29

30 Project s contribution to farm s Forage Feed Flow operations management: Real time, web-based, silo inventory management software. Why web-based? Speed & capacity of server Greater programming flexibility & efficiency Continuous enhancements/upgrading without user disruptions

31

32 You will receive an click through and you re in!

33

34

35

36

37

38

39 Why use tools? Help in Complicated Decision Making Dynamic Have Competing Related Investment Needs and Wants? *Current Operational Bottleneck(s) -Mowing capacity -Merging capacity -Chopping capacity -Hauling capacity - Blading capacity -Packing capacity -Available quality labor for all above -Functional silo capacity What are Short/Long Term Goals? *Need to get more storage out of existing space. (Pack it in tighter) *Want to limit DM losses *Both of the above Spend Labor and/or Machinery Dollars on More Intensive Packing? What s Driving Demand to Conserve the Most Possible? *Acres available *Yield per acre *Total Herd Forage DM Needs -Current steady state + with optimum quality + at maximum inclusion rate + want/need future expansion Want to Mitigate Risks Associated with Mother Nature? *Are you willing to gamble on 1 st crop weather window length in days? 2006 was really only 4 5! *Soil related constraints under saturated conditions

40 Benefits Experienced by Project Farms Guy with clipboard effect; big response in added tractor weight and packing intensity. Gains in inventory carried over even in modest yield years like 2006 & 2007 crop seasons. Inventory gains are very real. Opens door to some interesting options: - Grow herd if in position to do so -Shift rotations to mix of hay and corn that best suits land resource -Divert some acreage to energy and/or protein grain production -Some profit generating combination of the above

41 Let s end with the start of a well-packed pile