Packing Bunkers and Piles to Maximize Forage Preservation
Abstract
Forage is a valuable commodity stored on dairy farms. Bunker and pile silos have increased in use due to increasing herd size. Losses in feed value in bunker and pile silos are frequently higher than they should be because producers are not packing them sufficiently to exclude oxygen during the storage and feed out periods. The objective of this paper was to consider the recommendation of a minimum packing density of 240 kg dry matter/m3 compared to a minimum bulk density recommendation to keep porosity low. Our conclusions are that producers should try to achieve a minimum bulk density of 700 kg as fed/m3 while harvesting forage in the recommended range of 30-40% dry matter so as to limit porosity to a maximum of 0.4. This should result in lower losses of forage dry matter (DM) over a range of DM contents than when following the recommendation of a minimum packing density of 240 kg DM/m3.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Holmes and Muck (2007) recommend a minimum average bulk density of 705 kg/m3 for bunker and pile silos to limit porosity to a maximum of 0.4.
“Holmes and Muck (2007) recommend a minimum average bulk density of 705 kg/m 3 for bunker and pile silos to limit porosity to a maximum of 0.4.”
From Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages (2018) · cites this paper as Holmes and Muck, 2007
Holmes and Muck (2007) recommended minimum feed-out rates to keep DM losses at feed-out below 3%.
“Holmes and Muck (2007) related DM losses and feed-out rates for different DM densities of silages, recommending the minimum feed-out rates to keep DM losses at feed-out below 3% (Figure 13).”
From Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages (2018) · cites this paper as Holmes and Muck (2007)
Cites
Dry matter losses due to oxygen infiltration in silos
Pitt, R. E. (1986) · Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research · doi:10.1016/s0021-8634(86)80056-7 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Silage review: Factors affecting dry matter and quality losses in silages
Borreani, G., Tabacco, E., Schmidt, R. J., Holmes, B. J., & Muck, R. E. (2018) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13837 · Cited by 802 · see citing works
Self-citationSeppälä, A., Heikkilä, T., Mäki, M., & Rinne, M. (2016) · Grass and Forage Science · doi:10.1111/gfs.12221 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
- Authors
- Holmes, B. J., & Muck, R. E.
- ORCID
- Richard E Muck
- Venue
- Sixth International Dairy Housing Conference Proceeding, 16-18 June 2007, (Minneapolis, Minnesota) (Electronic Only)
- Published
- 2007
- OpenAlex
- W2058915299
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Dairy Housing Conference (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Ruminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Crop Yield and Soil Fertility
- Keywords
- bunker silos, forage preservation, packing density, bulk density, porosity, dry matter loss, forage storage, dairy farms
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
