An evaluation of the "WASTE-NOT" STOCKFEEDERS FOR CATTLE.

A trial conducted by Jodie Martell, third year student project of Bachelor of Applied Science in Agriculture Course.  Roseworthy Campus, The University of Adelaide

This trial was set up to establish the claims of the "WASTE-NOT" STOCKFEEDER, that it is a much better method of feeding hay than with no feeder.

METHOD & MATERIALS

27 heifers were divided, and fed with cereal hay in large round bales.  The cattle were weighed before being placed in the paddock.  Each bale given to the cattle was individually weighed.  Each paddock was eaten out so the pasture didn't effect the final result, and fed the same type of hay, each bale had strings removed and was then left to the heifers unaltered in anyway.  In the paddock with no feeder, the hay was dumped directly onto the ground without being rolled out.  The other paddock had the "WASTE-NOT" STOCKFEEDER in it.

After the first feeding, the heifers were checked daily to see how they were adjusting to each feeding system and to make sure that there were no problems.   When the hay looked like it had been completely eaten and the heifers were again hungry a rake and pitchforks were used to collect what was left on the ground.  After collecting the waste hay it was then weighed and the weight recorded.  The hay was then dumped into a different paddock so that it would not effect further results.  The cattle were then given a new bale of hay in a new location in their paddock.

DISCUSSION

Feeding hay, especially round bales, results in waste as animals trample it and use it as bedding.  These cattle were able to use the hay fed out to them as bedding within 12 hours, resulting in massive losses of good quality, previously edible hay. There  was still a remarkable amount of hay left on the ground, however  the heifers had no intentions of eating it.  On one inspection of the waste hay when collecting it was evident that a large percentage of the hay left was of good quality, however the damage done to the hay from the cattle made it not only impossible to eat, but very difficult to collect remnants.

The paddock with no hayfeeder left a considerable amount of hay that the cattle may have been forced to eat, if the hay was left in the paddock long enough.  There is little point in this as growth rates would be negative (or negligible) and the health and production of the cattle would surely suffer.  When supplementary feeding cattle, it is essential that it is done to the benefit of the farm, and the animal, both economically and health wise.

CONCLUSION

The "WASTE-NOT" STOCKFEEDER that was put at the Roseworthy Campus was tested against no hayfeeder to establish a comparison of waste that was produced.  On all occasions the feeders proved that they were the best option to save time, money, hay and improve production.

Several claims of the "WASTE-NOT" STOCKFEEDER were tested and all proved to be correct.  The Feeder does save extraordinary amounts of hay.  There is no bullying when the cattle are feeding and as the Feeder is easily transported around the paddock (this claim is also proven) there is no possibility of bogginess around the Feeder.

The "WASTE-NOT" STOCKFEEDER proved to live up to it's name and all of the claims that the inventor claims