{"id":616,"date":"2026-07-21T03:12:01","date_gmt":"2026-07-21T03:12:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forage-balers.com\/?p=616"},"modified":"2026-07-21T03:12:01","modified_gmt":"2026-07-21T03:12:01","slug":"net-wrap-vs-twine-for-round-bales-which-binding-method-is-right-for-your-crop-and-storage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forage-balers.com\/nb\/application\/net-wrap-vs-twine-for-round-bales-which-binding-method-is-right-for-your-crop-and-storage\/","title":{"rendered":"Net Wrap vs. Twine for Round Bales: Which Binding Method Is Right for Your Crop and Storage?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Hay Production Knowledge<\/p>\n

The choice between net wrap and twine is not a simple cost-per-bale calculation \u2014 it is a decision that affects dry matter retention, outdoor storage performance, baling cycle speed, and the total cost of the hay you produce from field to feedbunk.<\/h2>\n

The binding method that saves you USD 0.60 per bale on consumables can cost you USD 7 per bale in storage losses \u2014 or it can be the right choice for your operation. Understanding the trade-off is the only way to know which side of that equation you are on.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n


\n\"Round<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The debate between net wrap and twine has run through the hay industry since net wrap became commercially available in the 1980s and steadily displaced twine as the default binding method for commercial operations. The net wrap advocates cite better outdoor storage performance, faster baling cycle times, and lower dry matter loss. The twine defenders cite lower consumable cost per bale and adequate performance for operations with good covered storage. Both sides are right for their specific situation \u2014 the problem is that most producers making this decision do not have a clear picture of their own situation, and end up choosing based on price rather than total cost.<\/p>\n

The total cost framework for the net wrap versus twine decision includes five variables: consumable cost per bale, baling cycle time difference, dry matter loss during outdoor storage, nutritional quality preservation, and buyer or market requirements. Most cost comparisons stop at the first variable and ignore the other four \u2014 which is exactly the analysis that leads to the wrong decision for the majority of commercial hay operations whose bales spend more than 30 days in outdoor storage before sale or feeding.<\/p>\n

This article works through all five variables systematically, provides the calculations needed to apply them to your specific operation, and identifies the conditions under which twine genuinely is the better economic choice. For the round balers and net wrap systems referenced throughout this guide, browse our complete hay baling equipment range<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

1. How Each Binding Method Works \u2014 and Why the Mechanics Matter<\/h2>\n

Twine: The Original Round Bale Binding Method<\/h3>\n

Twine binding applies two or more parallel strands of synthetic or sisal twine around the circumference of a completed round bale. The twine is fed from spools mounted on the baler frame, guided by a mechanical arm that traverses the bale width during the binding cycle, and tied at a fixed number of wraps determined by the baler’s timing mechanism. The result is a bale held together by parallel twine strands spaced across its width \u2014 typically at 150\u2013200mm intervals \u2014 that resist the bale’s outward spring pressure but do not seal the bale face against weather penetration.<\/p>\n

The binding cycle for twine takes 15\u201325 seconds on most modern balers \u2014 the time required to complete the wrapping traversal and tie the knots. During this period the baler must stop accumulating new material into the chamber (the pickup is typically disengaged or the baler continues forward without adding material), which represents productive time lost per bale. On a baler producing 60 bales per hour with 20-second twine cycles, approximately 20 minutes per hour \u2014 one third of the working hour \u2014 is consumed in binding, not baling.<\/p>\n

Net Wrap: Sealed Surface, Faster Cycle<\/h3>\n

Net wrap is a open-mesh polypropylene netting applied across the full width of the bale face in a helical spiral as the bale rotates inside the chamber. Two to three overlapping spiral passes of net wrap seal the bale’s full cylindrical surface \u2014 including the two flat ends \u2014 against rain penetration, UV radiation, and physical contact damage. The net wrap feed mechanism is simpler than the twine traversal mechanism (the net unrolls directly from a roll mounted in the bale chamber as the bale rotates), and the application cycle takes 5\u201310 seconds \u2014 60\u201375% faster than twine binding on most baler models.<\/p>\n

The faster binding cycle produces a measurable throughput advantage on identical windrows. A baler producing 60 bales per hour with 8-second net wrap cycles uses approximately 8 minutes per hour in binding \u2014 versus 20 minutes for twine \u2014 allowing 12 additional minutes of productive baling time per hour. Over a 10-hour baling day, this is 2 additional hours of productive baling time, or approximately 10\u201315% more bales per day from the same tractor, operator, and fuel cost. The throughput advantage of net wrap is largest when binding cycle time is the constraint on production rate \u2014 which it is on well-formed, consistent windrows where the pickup and compression system are not the limiting factors.<\/p>\n

\"Round<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

2. The Outdoor Storage Performance Difference \u2014 Where the Real Money Lives<\/h2>\n

How Moisture Enters Twine-Bound Bales<\/h3>\n

A twine-bound round bale has open face surfaces \u2014 the cylindrical area between the twine strands \u2014 that are exposed to rain, dew, and UV radiation throughout the storage period. Rain falling on the upper surface of a twine-bound bale penetrates the open bale face and wets a shell of material on the outer 50\u2013100mm of the bale circumference. This wetted material does not dry quickly \u2014 it is insulated by the dry bale interior and has limited air movement over its surface due to the bale’s own mass pressing it against the ground contact point. The wetted outer layer undergoes aerobic microbial activity as it alternately wets and partially dries through the storage period, consuming fermentable carbohydrates and producing the brown discolouration that characterises weather-damaged hay.<\/p>\n

The rate of dry matter loss from this mechanism depends on rainfall, temperature, and storage duration. In wet climates (above 600mm annual rainfall) with outdoor storage periods of 90\u2013180 days, twine-bound bales consistently lose 15\u201325% of dry matter from the outer layer \u2014 a loss concentrated in the 50\u2013100mm shell around the full bale circumference. In drier climates with shorter storage periods, the loss is lower but rarely below 8%. The inner core of the bale is protected by the insulating effect of the outer material and typically loses very little dry matter \u2014 which means the total bale loss is dominated by the surface shell loss and scales with the ratio of surface area to bale volume.<\/p>\n

How Net Wrap Limits This Loss<\/h3>\n

Net wrap’s open mesh does not create a waterproof seal \u2014 water can pass through the mesh openings on direct impact \u2014 but it fundamentally changes how water behaves on the bale surface. The mesh creates a surface tension barrier that causes rain to sheet across the bale face rather than penetrating directly into the hay fibres at the point of impact. More importantly, net wrap’s primary protection mechanism is the way it holds the outer bale layer compressed against the bale core, preventing the loose outer fibres from wicking moisture inward by capillary action. The physical compression of the outer surface by net wrap reduces capillary moisture uptake by 60\u201370% compared to unbound or twine-bound bale surfaces \u2014 this compression effect, rather than waterproofing, is the main mechanism of net wrap’s storage performance advantage.<\/p>\n

In controlled outdoor storage comparisons at equivalent sites and weather conditions, net-wrapped bales consistently lose 5\u20138% of dry matter over 90\u2013180 day outdoor storage periods versus 15\u201325% for twine-bound bales. The difference \u2014 7\u201317 percentage points of dry matter loss \u2014 represents the financial advantage of net wrap in outdoor storage applications. At USD 150 per tonne hay value on a 300 kg bale, a 10 percentage point storage loss difference represents USD 4.50 per bale in avoided loss \u2014 significantly more than the USD 0.50\u20131.00 consumable cost premium of net wrap over twine.<\/p>\n

\n

The outdoor storage break-even calculation:<\/strong> Net wrap costs approximately USD 0.60\u20131.00 more per bale than twine. The net wrap storage advantage of 10 percentage points of dry matter at USD 150\/tonne hay value on a 300 kg bale is worth USD 4.50 per bale. Break-even occurs at approximately 13\u201322% of the dry matter loss advantage being realised \u2014 meaning net wrap is financially superior to twine in outdoor storage conditions with more than approximately 2 percentage points of additional dry matter loss relative to twine. Almost every outdoor storage scenario exceeds this threshold, which is why the financial case for net wrap in outdoor applications is so robust.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

3. Nutritional Quality Preservation: The Variable Most Comparisons Overlook<\/h2>\n

Why Dry Matter Loss Is Only Part of the Storage Quality Story<\/h3>\n

Dry matter loss figures \u2014 8% for net wrap versus 18% for twine \u2014 measure the weight of material lost during storage. But the material lost is not a random sample of the bale’s composition \u2014 it is disproportionately the most digestible, highest-nutritional-value fraction. The microbial activity that consumes the weather-damaged outer layer preferentially degrades the soluble carbohydrates and digestible proteins that are most available to microorganisms under the temperature and moisture conditions of the storage environment. The structural fibre \u2014 the cellulose and lignin that makes up the bulk of the straw and stem material in the bale \u2014 is less digestible by rumen microorganisms but also less digestible by storage-stage bacteria and fungi. The result is that a bale losing 18% of its dry matter in outdoor storage loses substantially more than 18% of its digestible energy and crude protein \u2014 the nutritional fractions that determine the bale’s feeding value.<\/p>\n

For grass hay sold domestically to beef cattle operations, this nutritional degradation may have limited practical consequence \u2014 beef cattle can utilise weathered, high-fibre material as a low-quality maintenance roughage. For alfalfa sold to dairy farms where crude protein directly determines milk production response, or for equine hay where palatability and digestibility determine whether the horse eats it at all, the nutritional quality difference between well-stored net-wrapped hay and weather-damaged twine-bound hay can be the difference between a marketable product and an unsaleable one.<\/p>\n

UV Protection: The Secondary Quality Mechanism<\/h3>\n

UV radiation bleaches the carotene (beta-carotene, a precursor to Vitamin A) and destroys heat-labile vitamins in exposed hay within days of sun exposure. Net wrap’s physical coverage of the bale surface creates shade that reduces UV exposure on the outer bale layer, preserving carotene content and hay colour through the storage period. Colour \u2014 the green to light-gold standard for premium hay \u2014 is heavily influenced by UV exposure during outdoor storage. A twine-bound bale stored for 90 days outdoors typically has a bleached, grey-yellow outer surface that affects visual grade and therefore price, even if the inner material retains its original green colour. Net-wrapped bales stored for the same period retain green colour to within 20\u201330mm of the bale surface, producing a visually superior product that commands premium pricing at markets where colour is assessed on delivery.<\/p>\n

\"Diverse<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

4. When Twine Is the Better Economic Choice<\/h2>\n

The financial analysis above strongly favours net wrap for outdoor storage applications. But twine is not an irrational choice in every context \u2014 there are specific operational situations where twine genuinely delivers better total economics. Understanding these situations prevents the reflexive switch to net wrap that some producers make without evaluating whether it applies to their operation.<\/p>\n

Situation 1: Full Covered Storage, Short Hold Period<\/h3>\n

If every bale produced is moved immediately into covered storage \u2014 a hay shed or barn that protects from rain and limits UV exposure \u2014 and consumed or sold within 60 days of baling, the outdoor storage loss mechanism that justifies net wrap’s premium does not apply. In covered storage without direct rain or sun exposure, twine-bound bales lose similar dry matter fractions to net-wrapped bales over equivalent periods. The net wrap premium cost generates no storage performance advantage under these conditions, and the twine’s lower cost per bale is a genuine saving. This scenario applies most precisely to small on-farm operations producing hay entirely for their own livestock, where the baling-to-feeding cycle is short and all storage is under cover.<\/p>\n

Situation 2: Biomass and Industrial Straw Applications<\/h3>\n

For straw bales destined for biomass combustion, composting, or substrate production \u2014 where nutritional quality and hay colour are irrelevant, and dry matter loss affects only energy content per tonne \u2014 the net wrap premium may not be justified by the end market price. Biomass straw typically sells at USD 30\u201360 per tonne, significantly below hay prices. At these price levels, the dry matter loss avoided by net wrap generates less financial return per bale, and the break-even dry matter loss difference that justifies net wrap’s premium occurs at higher percentage losses than for hay applications. For short-cycle biomass straw collection where bales are transported to the processing facility within 2\u20134 weeks of baling, twine can be the cost-appropriate choice \u2014 confirm with your specific buyer and storage timeline before deciding.<\/p>\n

Situation 3: Processing Facilities That Cannot Handle Net Wrap<\/h3>\n

Some pellet mills, mushroom substrate operations, and TMR mixer systems are configured for twine-bound bales and cannot efficiently remove net wrap at scale. A TMR mixer that can cut and remove twine from the feeder chain in 30 seconds may take 3\u20134 minutes to remove and dispose of net wrap \u2014 a difference that at 50 bales per day feeding cycle adds hours to the daily feeding operation. Processing facility buyers in these contexts often specify twine-only supply and will either reject net-wrapped bales or discount them to cover the additional handling cost. Confirm the binding specification with industrial and processing buyers before committing to either method as a supply standard.<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

5. Practical Comparison: The Numbers Side by Side<\/h2>\n

The following comparison applies to a commercial hay operation producing 2,000 bales per season on grass-legume mixed sward, with bales stored outdoors for 90 days before sale at USD 150 per tonne, and a baling rate of 50 bales per hour on typical windrows. All figures are illustrative estimates \u2014 apply your own costs and prices to the same framework.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Cost \/ Performance Item<\/th>\nTwine<\/th>\nNet Wrap<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Consumable cost per bale<\/td>\nUSD 0.40 \u2713 Lower<\/td>\nUSD 1.10 Higher<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Total consumables (2000 bales)<\/td>\nUSD 800 \u2713 Lower<\/td>\nUSD 2,200 Higher<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Baling cycle time per bale<\/td>\n20 sec (slower)<\/td>\n8 sec \u2713 Faster<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Effective daily output advantage<\/td>\nBaseline<\/td>\n+10\u201315% bales\/day \u2713<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Outdoor DM loss (90 days)<\/td>\n~15% of bale weight<\/td>\n~6% of bale weight \u2713<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Storage loss cost (2000 bales @ 300kg)<\/td>\nUSD 13,500 lost<\/td>\nUSD 5,400 lost \u2713<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Net storage advantage of net wrap<\/td>\n\u2014<\/td>\nUSD 8,100 saved \u2713<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Net total cost advantage<\/td>\nUSD 12,700 worse overall<\/td>\n\u2713 USD 6,700 net saving<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

The table makes the outdoor storage case clearly: even after paying the higher net wrap consumable cost, the operation saves USD 6,700 net across the season \u2014 equivalent to USD 3.35 per bale. The consumable cost saving of twine at USD 0.70 per bale is outweighed by the storage loss saving of net wrap at USD 4.05 per bale, for a net advantage of USD 3.35 per bale in the outdoor storage scenario. The arithmetic changes in covered storage: replace the storage loss line with near-zero loss for both, and net wrap’s only remaining advantage is the baling speed increase \u2014 which may or may not offset the higher consumable cost depending on the value of the additional daily bale output.<\/p>\n

\"Commercial<\/p>\n

\n

<\/p>\n

6. Making the Right Choice for Your Operation<\/h2>\n

The net wrap versus twine decision reduces to four questions that, answered honestly, identify the better choice for your specific situation:<\/p>\n

\n
1<\/div>\n
\n

How long do your bales sit outdoors before they are consumed or sold?<\/p>\n

If the answer is more than 30 days in a climate with regular rainfall or dew, net wrap’s storage loss advantage almost certainly outweighs its consumable cost premium. If the answer is less than 30 days in a dry climate with immediate covered storage, twine may be the better economic choice.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
2<\/div>\n
\n

What is the value per tonne of the hay you are producing?<\/p>\n

Higher hay value makes the dry matter loss cost of twine storage proportionally larger. At USD 80\/tonne straw for biomass, a 10% storage loss difference costs USD 8\/tonne \u2014 modest against the backdrop of gross margins. At USD 250\/tonne premium alfalfa, the same 10% loss costs USD 25\/tonne \u2014 substantial and clearly worth preventing with net wrap.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
3<\/div>\n
\n

Do your buyers specify or prefer net wrap?<\/p>\n

Export buyers for premium hay, large domestic feedlots, and equine hay suppliers almost universally specify net wrap or offer a price premium for net-wrapped product. If your market has a binding preference or specification, that requirement determines the choice regardless of the cost comparison between storage scenarios.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
4<\/div>\n
\n

Is your baling season constrained by cycle time or by windrow availability?<\/p>\n

If your baling days are limited by the number of hours with suitable windrow conditions and your baler is the throughput constraint (not waiting on windrows), the faster net wrap cycle time generates more daily output \u2014 a production advantage that has financial value independent of the storage comparison. If the baler regularly waits on windrow formation or on the operator’s schedule, the cycle time difference has no practical value.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Choosing Between Net Wrap and Twine for Your Hay Operation?<\/h3>\n

Our technical team can help you run the total cost comparison for your specific operation \u2014 storage period, hay value, annual volume, and market requirements \u2014 to identify which binding method delivers the better annual economics for your situation.<\/p>\n

Browse Round Balers<\/a>
\nDiscuss Your Operation<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

<\/p>\n

Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n
\n
\n

Q: Can I retrofit my existing twine baler to apply net wrap?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Most modern commercial round balers with twine binding systems can be retrofitted with net wrap conversion kits that replace the twine mechanism with a net roll dispenser and guide system. Conversion kit availability depends on the specific baler model \u2014 confirm with the baler manufacturer or a qualified service centre whether a retrofit kit exists for your model before purchasing. On older balers, the conversion may not be available, making replacement with a net-wrap-equipped baler the practical path. The retrofit cost is typically USD 1,500\u20133,500 depending on baler model \u2014 often recovered within 1\u20132 seasons through the storage loss savings described in this article.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Q: How many net wrap passes are needed for good outdoor storage performance?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The standard recommendation is 2\u20133 spiral passes of net wrap across the bale face, with each pass overlapping the previous by 50% of the net width. This provides double-layer coverage across the full bale face and triple-layer coverage at the overlap zones. A single net wrap pass \u2014 sometimes used to reduce consumable cost \u2014 provides inadequate overlap coverage at the bale ends and shoulders, where moisture penetration risk is highest. Setting the baler for 2 complete passes is the minimum for reliable outdoor storage performance; 3 passes provides additional security in high-rainfall storage environments with little additional consumable cost.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Q: Does net wrap affect how the bale feeds in a TMR mixer?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Net wrap must be removed before feeding net-wrapped bales into a TMR mixer or any other infeed system where net material would contaminate the ration or damage equipment. Most modern TMR mixers and bale processors can cut and remove net wrap efficiently with a spike or claw attachment \u2014 the process takes 30\u201360 seconds per bale for an experienced operator. On older equipment or in systems configured specifically for twine, net wrap removal can add 2\u20134 minutes per bale to the feeding cycle. Confirm your feeding equipment’s net wrap handling capability before standardising on net wrap production if large-volume daily feeding is part of your operation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Q: Does the PTO shaft specification affect net wrap application quality?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Indirectly, yes. The net wrap application system relies on consistent bale rotation speed during the binding cycle \u2014 a speed governed by the compression chamber drum or roller drive, which in turn depends on stable PTO input speed. A worn or imbalanced pto shaft<\/a> that introduces rotational speed variation causes the bale to rotate unevenly during the binding cycle, producing net wrap passes that are not correctly spaced and may leave coverage gaps at the bale shoulders \u2014 the most vulnerable area for moisture penetration. Correct PTO shaft specification and maintenance is therefore a quality factor for net wrap application, not just for bale density consistency.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Q: Is silage-grade bale wrap the same as hay net wrap?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

No \u2014 they are different products for different applications. Standard net wrap for round hay bales is an open-mesh polypropylene netting that physically holds the bale together and provides partial surface protection without creating an airtight seal. Silage bale wrap (stretch film) is a multi-layer polyethylene film applied in multiple layers to create an airtight seal that allows anaerobic fermentation inside the bale \u2014 the fermentation process that preserves high-moisture silage material. Silage wrap cannot substitute for hay net wrap (it would prevent air drying in the field if applied to hay bales before sufficient moisture reduction), and net wrap cannot substitute for silage wrap (it does not create the oxygen exclusion needed for silage fermentation).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Hay Production Knowledge The choice between net wrap and twine is not a simple cost-per-bale calculation \u2014 it is a decision that affects dry matter retention, outdoor storage performance, baling cycle speed, and the total cost of the hay you produce from field to feedbunk. The binding method that saves you USD 0.60 per bale […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-616","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/forage-balers.com\/nb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/616","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/forage-balers.com\/nb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/forage-balers.com\/nb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forage-balers.com\/nb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forage-balers.com\/nb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=616"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/forage-balers.com\/nb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/616\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":618,"href":"https:\/\/forage-balers.com\/nb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/616\/revisions\/618"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/forage-balers.com\/nb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forage-balers.com\/nb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=616"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forage-balers.com\/nb\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}