Many Contractors will spend
more on Netwrap, over the lifetime of the baler,
than on the actual cost of the baler itself.

Why, then, do so few take the time to check

What is the true cost of a roll of netwrap?

 

TO MANY, one roll of net is much like another, a commodity product, purchased on price alone. For them NETWRAP is NETWRAP is NETWRAP.

Not so…

During the last 2 years, UAT randomly tested various makes of netwrap.
It became very clear that many users are being seriously ‘short changed’.

Large differences were found in 3 main areas …

  • ACTUAL ROLL LENGTH
  • AMOUNT OF NET REQUIRED TO SECURELY HOLD THE BALE
  • BALE COVERAGE ACHIEVED BY THE NET

ACTUAL ROLL LENGTH

The shortest roll tested was a staggering 16.6% short in length. Based upon this shortfall you would have to buy 40 rolls to bale 10,000 bales costing £3,600; which is £630 more than when using 33 full 3,000m length rolls.

The above calculations are based upon: Netwrap required to bale 10,000 1.2m x 1.2m bales, using 2 turns per bale assuming a fixed cost of £90 per roll.

AMOUNT OF NET REQUIRED TO SECURELY HOLD THE BALE

Field trials showed clearly a large variation in the number of turns required to securely hold the bale. This was very evident when producing heavier weight bales, such as those made when using balers fitted with a ‘crop cutting’ attachment.
An extra half turn of the bale may seem insignificant but over 10,000 bales it becomes a very costly exercise.

HERE, AN INITIAL SAVING OF £10 PER ROLL ACTUALLY ENDED UP COSTING THE END USER MORE THAN £300 TO DO THE SAME JOB !

BALE COVERAGE ACHIEVED BY THE NET

The tests also showed many nets were unable to fully cover the bale.

A contractors work is judged by the appearance of the bale produced and it’s quality. Poor coverage in straw leads to crop loss, through poor weathering. In silage, however, inadequate coverage by the net will produce ‘shoulders’ on the bale, trapping air when wrapped, causing serious spoilage to the forage inside
Many nets were found to be wound on to the roll at less than the correct width. This will transfer directly to the bale at less than adequate coverage, again, leading to crop losses.

Of the nets tested, many failed in other important quality characteristics, such as …
• Lack of U.V. protection
• No roll i/d marking
• Poor roll winding, creating un-even ended rolls
• Non-protruding core ends
• Poor quality protective packaging
• Roll diameter in excess of 30cm
• No roll marking for manufacturer identification

Clearly, using a poor quality Netwrap will cost you far more in the long run, both in money and reduced performance.

THE NEXT TIME YOU BUY A ROLL OF NET CONSIDER THE TRUE COST OF YOUR PURCHASE

“…the cheaper roll made only 238 bales compared to 308 from my normal net.”
Mr C. Bell, Northumberland

“…silage baling with cheaper nets leads to problems, if the net does not spread fully across the bale.”
Mr E. Webber, Devon

“…buying a cheaper net was false economy as I needed at least one more turn to hold the bale, which equated to me having to buy 30% more rolls to do the same job.”
Mr G. Thomas, Pembrokeshire

“…the first roll used gave me 45 more bales than my usual brand, it was very obvious I was getting more bales per roll.”
Mr S. Dunn, North Yorkshire