1451 Peters Mountain Road
Dauphin, PA 17018-9504
Cooperative Extension
in Dauphin County
(717) 921-8803
Fax: (717) 921-0135
E-mail: [email protected]
Penn State University
Bunker Silo Density Study
Summary Report
2004 – 2005
Paul H. Craig
Extension Educator
Dauphin County Cooperative Extension
Capital Region Agronomy Team
Dr. Greg Roth
Professor
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences
Penn State University
July 15, 2005
College of Agricultural Sciences
Penn State, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Pennsylvania Counties Cooperating
An Equal Opportunity University
Introduction
The science and art of producing high quality corn silage has changed dramatically in the past few
years. Today corn silage hybrids are selected for high grain yields with highly digestible nutrients
and fiber levels. Crop managers are more closely monitoring crop maturities to ensure optimum dry
matter levels at harvest. Harvesters adjust chop length, height and processing to deliver a potentially
high quality feed to the storage structure. And nutritionists monitor forage analyses to maintain feed
consistency at the feed bunk. A great challenge to successful silage production occurs in the silo, an
upright or a bag or a pile or bunker. In a silo, microbial processes can be modified to enhance
fermentation, through management practices such as harvest moisture, length of harvest period,
oxygen exposure, and silage inoculation. However the most important factor influencing silage
quality is the density of the silage mass.
Optimum silage fermentation occurs in an oxygen free environment. More dense silage provides
ideal conditions for rapid oxygen depletion at the start of fermentation and minimizes the
introduction of oxygen back into the silage pack during storage and feedout. Both of these benefits
result in a higher quality forage ingredient.
Research at The University of Wisconsin and Cornell identified a significant advantage for bunker
silos with a density pack greater than 14 pounds of dry matter per cubic foot of silage. In a 1992
study, Curt Ruppel, Cornell determined that bunker silo dry matter losses approach 17 to 20% at
silage densities less than 14 lbs dm/ft3. Investigations by Agricultural Engineer Dr. Brian Holmes at
The University of Wisconsin measured bunker silo densities and recorded management practices to
determine that silage delivery rates, silage dry matter content, depth of silage pile, average packing
tractor weight, packing layer thickness and packing time had considerable influences on silage
density.
This study was initiated to determine bunker and silage pile densities in south central Pennsylvania.
It was anticipated that by informing producers of existing silage densities and recommended packing
procedures that forage quality of silages would result. In addition knowledge gained by the
investigators would enable more confident recommendations on bunker silo management.
Tremendous support and encouragement for this educational program was received from many
individuals. Dr. Greg Roth, Crops and Soil Sciences Department, Penn State assisted in design,
implementation, statistical analysis and encouragement. Dr. Dennis Buckmaster, Department of Ag
and Biological Engineering Department, Penn State provided funding and direction. Sky View Labs,
Jennerstown, PA provided reduced cost forage analysis
in 2004. Dr. Brian Holmes, Agriculture Engineering
Department, The University of Wisconsin provided
experienced recommendations for sampling procedures
and data collection and evaluation and strong
motivation. Feed industry interest in this project has
been very positive and helpful. Finally the cooperators,
dairy managers and livestock feeders, who were
interested in investigating forage storage management
and offered their facilities, knowledge, experience and
time in order to collect and interpret this information.
2
Pennsylvania Bunker Density Study
Investigations into the existing bunker silo densities in South Central PA began in late winter 2004.
Paul Craig, Extension Educator, Dauphin County Cooperative Extension and Dr. Greg Roth,
Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Penn State University initiated a bunker silo
density survey. A Stihl gas-operated drill and a 2 inch diameter core sampler were used to drill into
the face of each corn silage bunker at 12 locations. The density of the silage, at these 12 locations,
was calculated based on volume, forage mass and dry matter content. The 12 location points were
combined to determine an average bunker silo density value.
Samples were collected at three levels of each bunker or pile. The bottom level was approximately 4
feet above the base, the top level approximately 3 feet below the surface and the middle level located
half way between. Four points were sampled on each level. Positions were numbered 1 to 4, left to
right. Points 1 and 4 were taken within 8 – 10 feet of the outside wall or edge of the pile and points 2
and 3 taken at approximately 1/3 and 2/3 of the width.
In 2004, twenty-two bunkers were sampled; in 2005 twenty-one bunkers were tested. There were
fourteen bunkers that were sampled in 2004 and 2005. More than 525 density calculations were
measured. Densities ranged from 6.0 to 21.7 lbs dm/ft3. The average value for each bunker or pile,
12 points per bunker, varied from 8.3 to 16.8 lbs dm/ft3.
Summary Bunker Silo Density Calculations
Year
2004
2005
# Bunks/Piles Sampled
22
21
Total Sample Points
272
252
Range of Bunk Averages
8.3 – 16.4 lbs dm/ft3
11.1 – 16.8 lbs dm/ft3
Density Score Card
Earlier investigations have recommended that a bunker silo dry matter density goal should be a
minimum of 14 lbs dm/ft3. Of the 22 bunkers sampled in 2004 only seven (7), 32%, achieved a silage
density greater than 14 lbs dm/ft3 and eight (8), 36% averaged less than 12 lbs dm/ft3. In 2005, ten
(10), 48%, exceeded 14 lbs dm/ft3 and only three (3), 14%, were below 12 lbs dm/ft3.
Bunker Silo Densities
2004
2005
Exceeding 14 lbs dm/ft3
7 out of 22 – 32%
10 out of 21 – 48%
12 – 14 lbs dm/ft3
7 out of 22 – 32%
8 out of 21 – 38%
Less than 12 lbs dm/ft3
8 out of 22 – 36%
3 out of 21 – 14%
3
Year to Year Comparison
There were fourteen (14) bunkers sampled in both 2004 and 2005. These bunkers had a change in
density values from -8% to +74%. Overall, the improvement average for all 14 bunkers was 1.3 lbs
dm/ft3 or 12.8%. Impact was greatest with producers who had the lower densities in 2004.
Bunker CS
Density
Density by Producers-Year to Year
2004
2005
U
R
N
M
L
K
J
I
H
G
E1
D
C
A
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Producer
Density Trends by Bunker Silage Level
It is evident that the bottom level of a silage mass has the greatest density, followed by the middle
level and then the top. This effect is caused by self packing of the silage as the increasing depth of
silage results in additional weight to increase silage density. The trend also shows that too frequently
the bottom and the middle level densities were sufficient for storage but the top level density was not
packed adequately for optimum fermentation and storage. Unfortunately the top level is the area of
the silage that is most likely to be exposed to air and moisture. Lower densities can result in rapid
dry matter losses and potential spoilage in this zone.
Bunker Level Densities
Bunker Level
2004 Average
Density
2005 Average
Density
Top
11.2 lbs dm/ft3
11.9 lbs dm/ft3
Middle
12.9 lbs dm/ft3
13.9 lbs dm/ft3
Bottom
14.0 lbs dm/ft3
15.1 lbs dm/ft3
These findings indicate that additional packing attention on the upper portion of a pile or bunk is
recommended. Perhaps, but highly unlikely, the slowing down of the delivery rate or adding
additional packing equipment close to the completion of the filling process could be a management
strategy. Other considerations would be to put slightly wetter silage on top of the pile, perhaps
incorporate inoculants and especially ensure an airtight cover or seal as quickly as possible. Safety
risks increase with a second or third packing tractor and as wall heights are challenged.
4
Overfilling Wall Heights
Placement of silage above wall heights is not advantageous. Consistently, density samples from
over-filled bunkers had a significant decrease in densities in areas above wall heights. One farm with
8 foot side walls, filled to nearly 14 feet at the highest point, had densities of: Bottom – 16.1; Middle
– 14.8; and at the Top – 11.3 lbs dm/ft3. Covering with securely anchored plastic sheets is vitally
important to prevent additional spoilage but it cannot substitute for reduced silage densities.
Top – 11.3
Middle – 14.8
Bottom – 16.1
Picture of a bunker exceeding side wall height and corresponding average densities.
Bunker Densities by Position
A significant difference in silage densities across the face of the pile was noted. Samples taken from
the outside edges, within 8 -10 feet of the walls, consistently had lower values than interior samples
on each level of silage sampled. This trend was evident in both 2004 and 2005.
Density Trends by Bunker Position
Position
2004 Average
Density
2004 Average
Density
Left Outside (#1)
12.4
13.4
Left Center (#2)
12.9
14.0
Right Center(#3)
13.2
14.1
Right Outside (#4)
12.3
13.1
5
Recommendations
The lower densities measured along walls or the outside edges of piles results from the
challenge of operating equipment in these areas. Traveling along a wall with large equipment
requires experienced operators to achieve desired affects. Silage in the center of a pile will be
traveled over at least 2 times as equipment works across a pile. The area within the width of
equipment (8 - 10 feet) will only be traveled on one
time in this scenario. This results in lower pack in this
area. Unfortunately concrete walls are not air tight
with many joints and cracks that can allow air to
interface with a large area of silage that does not have
a very dense pack. Extra attention to this situation is
needed.
Picture on the Right Side Wall Plastic
Many bunker operators are now incorporating an
extra sheet of plastic on the sidewalls to minimize
oxygen and moisture exposure on wall faces.
Effect of Level and Position on Silage Density
The following graph illustrates the relationship between silage densities for 21 bunkers at each level
(top, middle and bottom) and position across each level. No matter what level of silage the densest
silage was in the center of the pile and the lowest densities were found on the outside edges. The
bottom layer was denser than the middle layer which is denser than the top level.
Results from 2004 are very similar.
Density (Lbs DM/cu ft)
Effect of Level and Position on Silage Density-2005
20
15
Bottom
Middle
10
Top
5
0
1
2
3
4
Position Across Face (Left to Right)
6
Factors Affecting the Density of Silage
Dr. Brian Holmes, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural Engineer is a leading investigator of
optimum bunker silo management. Dr. Holmes has uncovered that the following factors have the
greatest affect on bunker and pile silage densities. These include: delivery rate into the bunk or pile,
crop dry matter content at harvest, depth of silage pile, average packing tractor weight, number of
packing tractors used, packing layer thickness, and packing time. Many of these factors can be
managed by silage producers; however, many are not likely to be affected, such as delivery rate.
Dr. Holmes has created an Excel-based spread sheet that can be used to estimate bunker silo
densities based on individual producers and their existing practices. Factors such as adding weight or
slowing delivery rates or adding a second tractor can be changed and the program will estimate what
the resulting density level should be. The spreadsheet can be downloaded from the internet at the
following website <http://www.uwex.edu/ces/crops/uwforage/Silage.htm>.
Recommendations for Increasing Density
A significant portion of silage harvest is done by custom harvesters. The potential exists for harvest
rates to significantly exceed the ability of on-farm packing equipment to have the size and weight
necessary to provide adequate packing at high harvest rates. Since slowing down delivery rate is not
a realistic management practice, increasing the weight of the packing equipment is probably the
most likely alternative to increase silage pack. Increasing the weight of the packing tractor(s) is
possible with wheel weights and liquids, front and/or rear hanging weights, and a distribution blade.
Dual wheels can provide additional tractor weight and stability. Adding one or more heavy tractors,
especially as the pile is nearing completing is advantageous. Many custom harvesters are able to
provide a large packing tractor as part of their service.
Most bunks are filled using a wedge process rather than a drive over method, more common in piles,
for better results. Extra attention to wall areas in bunkers by a second tractor can be beneficial. These
areas require an alert and deliberate operator. This may not be possible on narrow bunks.
Reducing the layer thickness of silage that is compressed with each pass will increase densities. A 6
inch layer compacts more effectively than a 12 inch layer. Poor distribution of fresh silage on the
pile creates uneven layers from 6 to 24 inches thick throughout the pile. Harvest rate, operator
experience and packing equipment used will affect management of layer thickness.
The top level of a pile is always the least well packed. In addition this area is more likely to be
exposed to runoff and oxygen. Extra time spent packing the surface will improve densities in this
area. This sealing off of the bunk would be the time to slow down harvest rates, add an extra tractor
or pack for a longer time prior to rapid covering.
Soil and Silage Compaction Principles
Soil and silage compaction affects are created very similarly. There are 2 relationships to any type of
compaction. These are axle weight for deep compaction and contact pressure or foot print for the
surface area.
The heavier the axle load, the deeper into the soil or silage the compaction effect will be. A light
tractor would have less compaction potential than a bigger, heavier tractor. In silage production the
heaviest packing tractor weight is recommended. A heavier tractor compacts silage to a greater depth
with each pass, (see diagram, next page, on left). More trips over the pile with a heavier tractor
produce a denser pack that decreases as the pile is increased in height.
7
The second aspect of compaction is contact pressure, (see diagram, on right). Contact pressure is
related to the surface area or “footprint” of the equipment and primarily influences the upper most
levels of the silage. A floatation tire, a track tractor, or dual wheels produce a larger footprint
resulting in less compaction than a narrower tire. In a bunker the surface level always has the lowest
level of compaction. More compaction, on the top level, is necessary. On top, a narrower tire or
single wheeled heavy tractor would be more advantageous to increase surface density.
Principals of Soil Compaction
Contact Pressure
Many times dual wheels are selected for compaction and stability against rollover risks and on a
properly weighted tractor can provide excellent silage compaction levels. However, because the top
layer of a bunk or pile is not affected as greatly by the first principle of compaction, axle weight, the
surface compaction affect must be considered. A second tractor with extra weight and single wheels
could be incorporated into a packing procedure where the narrow contact pressure tractor is operated
primarily on the upper levels and the wall areas while the largest tractor distributes silage in six inch
layers and compacts utilizing the axle weight principal to greater depths.
8
Conclusions
Growing the most digestible, highest yielding corn silage crop is of limited value when storage and
feeding practices significantly reduce the amount of milk yield or meat production potential of the
silage crop. Results from the 2004 sampling season indicated that there was significant room for
improvement in bunker and pile silage packing practices. Results from 2005 indicated that many
producers were able to modify their management practices to improve silage packing densities,
(range -8 to +74%). Over 14 bunkers the average improvement was 12.8%.
Producer interest in silage density is impressive. Requests for density determination were received
from across the region. A greater appreciation of management affects has been recognized by many
silage producers. One cooperator commented that this type of investigation was “invaluable” as far
as he was concerned. Another mentioned renting equipment at harvest for the sole purpose to
increase silage density packing potential in his bunkers. A third saw density improvement on his 750
ton capacity bunker improve by more than 74%. It is conservatively estimated that he reduced his
storage dry matter losses by 15%, probably more. At a silage value of $35.00 per ton, he saved
nearly $4000 in potential silage losses and probably produced higher quality silage.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this investigation please contact:
Paul H. Craig,
Dauphin County Cooperative Extension
1451 Peters Mountain Road, Dauphin, PA 17018
717-921-8803
Email – < [email protected] >
This publication is available in alternative media on request.
The Pennsylvania State University is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to programs, facilities,
admission, and employment without regard to personal characteristics not related to ability, performance, or qualifications as
determined by University policy or by state or federal authorities. It is the policy of the University to maintain an academic and work
environment free of discrimination, including harassment. The Pennsylvania State University prohibits discrimination and harassment
against any person because of age, ancestry, color, disability or handicap, national origin, race, religious creed, sex, sexual orientation,
or veteran status. Discrimination or harassment against faculty, staff, or students will not be tolerated at The Pennsylvania State
University. Direct all inquiries regarding the nondiscrimination policy to the Affirmative Action Director, The Pennsylvania State
University, 328 Boucke Building, University Park, PA 16802-5901, Tel 814-865-4700/V, 814-863-1150/TTY..
Penn State encourages persons with disabilities to participate in its programs and activities. If you anticipate needing any type of
accommodation or have questions about the physical access provided, please contact us at (717) 921-8803 in advance of your
participation or visit.
© The Pennsylvania State University 2005
Where trade names appear, no discrimination is intended, and no endorsement by Penn State Cooperative Extension is implied.
9