Hillco Technologies

Food for Thought: Digestible Baling

While the idea of digestible, ecofriendly baling presents several advantages, it is essential to acknowledge its limitations both in the context of wrapping hay bales and its potential impact on the stomachs of cows. Here are some limitations to consider, based on the established creation methods of Sisal Twine:

1. Durability and Stability

Digestible, ecofriendly baling alternatives are generally not as durable and stable as traditional materials. One farmer explained that the digestible, biodegradable, nature of this option entices rodents to chew through it quickly, and it rots in wet weather. This leads to potential issues during the storage and transportation of bales, especially if exposed to adverse weather conditions. The same farmer attests that it “doesn’t make as nice of a bale for storing and shipping large quantities.”

2. Not Completely Digestible

Bruce Anderson, Nebraska Extension Forage Specialist, published a study on the digestibility of biodegradable twine at the University of Nebraska. After conducting multiple experiments, it was discovered that neither plastic net wrap nor biodegradable twine were digested by rumen microbes.

Read about this study here: Remove Net Wrap and Twine | Announce | University of Nebraska-Lincoln (unl.edu)

Rumen microbes live in one of a cow’s four stomach compartments. They play a critical role in cattle’s immunity and nutritional functions.

Another study found that while Sisal Twine is “technically” digestible, it takes additional time to break down. It was still found in the rumen after 14 days along with three different types of traditional net wrap. Moreover, roughly 40% of the Sisal Twine was still present in their stomachs after this two-week period.

Read more here: Should You Be Worried About Cattle Ingesting Net Wrap? (beefmagazine.com)

3. Cost Considerations

growth, credit, cost-4518406.jpg

While the development of an effective edible net wrap is still being refined, an official comparison cannot be completed yet.

Read more here: Scientists one step closer to a sustainable bale wrap | Ontario Agri-Food Innovation Alliance (uoguelph.ca)

However, digestible baling materials, often derived from natural fibers or plant-based polymers, tend to be more expensive than traditional non-digestible alternatives. As an example, Sisal Twine (digestible) runs about twice as much per foot as plastic twine. This can pose economic challenges for farmers, especially those with larger operations.

Read more here: Pros And Cons Of Plastic, Sisal And Net Wrap For Bale Grazing – Canadian Cattlemen

4. Breakdown Rate Variability

The breakdown rate of digestible materials in baling can vary depending on environmental conditions, microbial activity in the cow’s stomach, and the specific material used. Inconsistent breakdown rates may result in remnants of the net wrap or twine remaining in the digestive system for extended periods.

5. Potential for Incomplete Breakdown

Despite being labeled “digestible,” there is a risk that portions may not break down completely in the cow’s stomach. This incomplete breakdown could lead to blockages or other digestive issues for the animals.

6. Impact on Feed Quality

cow, massage, farm yard-2627719.jpg

The introduction of digestible net wrap to hay bales may have unintended consequences on the quality of the feed. There could be concerns about the incorporation of foreign materials affecting the nutritional content of the forage.

7. Long-Term Effect on Cattle Health

While digestible net wrap is a promising innovation, there are still gaps in research regarding its long-term effects on cattle health. More studies are needed to fully understand how different materials used in digestible net wrap interact with the digestive processes of cattle.

8. Compatibility with Machinery

Farmers may need to invest in equipment that is compatible with the unique characteristics of digestible net wrap. This could involve modifications to existing machinery or the purchase of specialized equipment.

9. Environmental Conditions

The breakdown of digestible baling materials relies on specific environmental conditions, including temperature and microbial activity. In regions with extreme weather conditions or variations, the effectiveness of digestible net wrap or twine may be compromised.

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Shopping Cart
Scroll to Top
close-roi-calculator
Return on Investment Calculator

This calculator is designed to determine the return on investment for a Hillco leveling system equipped combine versus a non-leveling combine operating in sloping conditions.

Crop Type
Wheat       Corn and Soybean
Acreage Information

Crop Information

Enter your operation's statistics and estimates.
Wheat
Corn
Soybeans

Acreage / Slope Information

Estimate the percentage of total harvested acres that lay within the various slope ranges in your farming operation.
For all Wheat Acreage
See Slope reference chart
Percentage slope values must equal 100%
100%
Your Harvest Speeds and Machine Harvested Yield (MHY)

Non-Leveling Ground Speed in MPH

Enter the average harvesting speed for your non-leveling combine in the various slope ranges at the average yield entered in the Crop Information section above.

Slope Reference Graph
Wheat
Corn
Soy

Reduction in Machine Harvested Yield (bu/acre)

Estimate the reduction of Machine Harvested Yield (MHY) for each slope range if you were harvesting at the speed you entered for 0-3% slopes. (The calcultor will then project expected reductions in MHY for each slope range at your previously estimated ground speeds.)

You may opt to enter the test data which was determined by actual field testing by Hillco (based on 5 mph harvesting speed).

Reduction in MHY is used in these calculations rather than field loss. Reduction in MHY is a more accurate guage of combine harvesting efficiency because it can be determined by actually weighing the harvested yield rather than estimating the amount of yield lost to the ground.

Use test data or your own
Corn
Soy
Your Combine and Header Information
Enter your expected combine harvesting efficiency. Typically a combine operates at approximately 70% efficiency. If the Total Annual Separator Hours calculated below look too small you may want to decrease the combine efficiency. If the Total Annual Separator Hours calculated below look too large you may want to increase the combine efficiency.
Wheat head width in feet
Corn head width in feet
Flex header width in feet
Combine Field Efficiency (Typically 70%)
(Must enter value other than 0%)
Your Operational Costs
This total should include additional cost of benefits and taxes. If you wish to include the grain cart operator's cost add the hourly wage to the combine operator hourly labor costs.
Combine Operator Labor Cost (per hour, including taxes and benefits)
Combine Fuel Cost

If you wish to include added grain cart fuel add hourly grain cart fuel usage to the combine fuel usage.

Combine Fuel Consumption (Hourly - Typically 11-13 gph)

Cost per added separator hour usually runs approximately $180 per hour for new combines to $30 per hour for older used combines. If you don't want to consider the added benefit of lower separator hours enter $0.

Cost Per Separator Hour
(How much does your combine devalue for each added separator hour of use?)

Use example prices below or obtain a quote from your local dealership.

List price examples for leveling systems used on John Deere combines:
Leveling System Model 2955S for -- 9560-70 STS combine dual tire, w/ Hillco Leveler Installed = $42,960.00 List Price

Leveling System Model 2970S for -- 96-97-9860-70 STS combine,dual tire w/ Hillco Leveler Installed = $42,085.00 List Price

List price examples for leveling systems used on Case-IH combines:
Leveling System Model 2800 for -- 2577-88 combine, dual tire w/Hillco Leveler, Installed = $42,210.00 List Price


See examples or call your local dealership for a quote.
(On Leveling System Financing)

Enter the number of years (from 1 to 5, whole number) for the desired calculation period.

Market value at the end of 5 years regardless of the length of the calculation period.

Used in net present value calculation

Cash Flows (Totals for Calculation Period)
Positive Cash Flows
Labor Savings
0
Fuel and Lubcriation Savings
0
Increased Income from Machine Harvested Yield
0
Residual Value of Leveling System (At end of Calculation Period)
0
Increased Combine Value Due to Reduced Separator Hours
0
Total Positive Cash Flows
0
Negative Cash Flows
Leveling System Cost (Total Principle & Interest Payments)
-0
Remaining Principle Balance On 5 Year Note
-0
Leveling System Maintenance Cost (Annual 2% of Purchase Price)
-0
Total Negative Cash Flows
-0
Total Net Cash Flow (Positive - Negative)
0
Investment Analysis
Total Average Annual Separator Hours (without leveling system)
0
Total Average Annual Separator Hours (with leveling system)
0
Average Annual Separator Hour Savings
0
Total Separator Hour Savings as % of Total Separator Hours
0
Average Payback Period (in years)
The length of time it takes for an investment to recover its initial cost.
0
Total Net Present Value of Cash Flows
NPV compares the value of a dollar today to the value of that same dollar in the future, taking inflation and returns into account.
0
Internal Rate of Return
The internal rate of return (IRR) method allows you to consider the time value of money. It is the interest rate that is equivalent to the dollar returns you expect from your project. Once you know the rate, you can compare it to the rates you could earn by investing your money in other projects or investments. Usually a business owner will insist that in order to be acceptable, a project must be expected to earn an IRR that is at least several percentage points higher than the cost of borrowing, to compensate the company for its risk, time, and trouble associated with the project.
0