A REVIEW OF NUTRIENT LOSSES AND EFFICIENCY OF CONSERVING HERBAGE AS SILAGE, BARN-DRIED HAY AND FIELD-CURED HAY

A review of American literature indicates that barn drying of hay and silage making are both greatly superior to the field curing of hay in preserving nutrients. This is true of total dry matter, crude protein, ether extract and ash; crude-fibre losses are greater in silage making. Energy losses run parallel with dry matter. Bam drying of hay with heat preserves a rather greater proportion of nutrients than does silage making.
Chemical composition and digestibility are mostly a function of stage of maturity of the crop at the time of cutting. Actual carbohydrate (energy) losses are greater than protein losses in all methods. The influence of method of conservation is unimportant if conservation is properly carried out, but considerable deterioration can result from bad application. Field-cured hay usually suffers most in this respect, due to weather damage.
The conservation processes reviewed have no influence per se on feeding value where each is applied under ideal conditions. Differences found in practice are usually linked to the stage of maturity or to weather damage, which explains the usually superior feeding value of silage and barn-dried hay over field-cured hay.
When the efficiency of each method is compared by determining the quantity of milk produced from equal areas of forage, conserved in the three different ways, barn-dried hay is somewhat superior to silage, but both are greatly superior to field-cured hay.