How to Price Hay: A Guide to Pricing Round and Square Bales

By the XES Netting team — bale net-wrap manufacturer · Updated August 16, 2026 · ~18 min read

"What's hay worth?" gets asked by two people with opposite interests, and most guides answer only one of them. This one is written for both, because the arithmetic is the same in either direction — and because a seller who understands the buyer's calculation prices better, not worse.

About the numbers on this page. Hay prices are local, seasonal and quality-driven, and they move fast. Every dollar figure below is either a clearly labelled hypothetical used to show the arithmetic, or a dated figure attributed to the study that published it. None of them is a current market price, and none should be used as one. The current number for your market comes from the sources in the next section.

---

Four different things people call "the price of hay"

Most pricing arguments are really definitional. These are four separate numbers and they are rarely equal:

A seller who quotes cost of production as though it were a market price will not sell. A buyer who compares farm-gate quotes without adding freight and waste will pick the wrong load. Keep the four separate and most disagreements resolve themselves.

Finding a current number for your market

Yes, there is a national average — and no, it will not tell you what to charge

It is often said that hay has no national price. That is not quite true, and it is worth being precise about. USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service publishes monthly prices received for all hay, alfalfa hay and other (non-alfalfa) hay, in dollars per ton, at both national and state level, in its Agricultural Prices report. The series is easiest to query through NASS Quick Stats.

What matters is what that number is. It is a survey-based average of prices producers reported receiving, released at the end of the following month — so it is weeks behind the market by the time you read it, and it blends every quality, package and location into one figure. It is a good instrument for trend and year-over-year context, and the wrong instrument for "what should I ask for this load". Treat it as the weather record, not the forecast.

Current regional evidence

USDA AMS market news. The Agricultural Marketing Service hay reports are the closest thing hay has to a public price feed — state and regional reports broken out by hay type and quality grade. Check the cadence of the specific report you rely on, because it varies: many state direct hay reports are bi-weekly, some are monthly, a few are semi-monthly, and several auction reports run seasonally or only when sales are held.

Read them with their limits in mind. AMS reporting is built on voluntarily reported sales, so a given report reflects the loads that were reported in that period and region, not the whole market. Thin trading weeks produce thin reports.

• Local auction results are often the closest thing to a live price in your radius, and many auctions post results online.
• Nearby growers and buyers. A few calls establish what is actually clearing, which is not always what is being asked.

Normalise before you compare

Most "that price seems wrong" arguments are really comparisons of two numbers that were never measuring the same thing. Before setting one price beside another, check that they match on five points:

Get those five aligned and most of the disagreement disappears before you argue about the money.

The weight problem: converting between per bale and per ton

Prices are published both ways. Direct hay reports and volume sales are usually quoted in dollars per ton; auction reports commonly quote per bale, especially for small squares and large rounds. Most farm-gate sales happen per bale. So sooner or later you have to convert — and the bridge is bale weight, which is where money quietly changes hands.

The conversion

A US short ton is 2,000 lb. That is the U.S. ton used when the USDA reports cited here quote dollars per ton — those same reports also carry per-bale and per-unit rows. The two formulas are just each other rearranged:

$ per short ton = ($ per bale × 2,000) ÷ measured average lb per bale
$ per bale = ($ per short ton × measured average lb per bale) ÷ 2,000

Worked both directions, using hypothetical numbers to show the method:

• Bales sold at $65 each, measured average 1,150 lb → (65 × 2,000) ÷ 1,150 = $113.04 per ton. That is the figure to set beside a published report.
• Hay quoted at $120 per ton, same 1,150 lb bales → (120 × 1,150) ÷ 2,000 = $69.00 per bale. That is the figure to set beside a neighbour's per-bale price.

Now watch what an assumed weight does. Take the same $65 bale and assume a round 1,000 lb instead of measuring 1,150 lb: (65 × 2,000) ÷ 1,000 = $130.00 per ton. Same hay, same money, a per-ton figure 15% higher than the truth — because per-ton price moves inversely with bale weight. Whether that error favours the buyer or the seller depends on which way the assumption is wrong. That it happens silently, on every load, is the problem.

Estimates are not a settlement basis

Iowa State University Extension's Ag Decision Maker publishes a working formula for round bales:

Weight (lb) ≈ bale length (in) × bale diameter (in)² ÷ 200
Illustrative: a 5 ft × 5 ft bale = 60 × 60² ÷ 200 = 1,080 lb (0.54 ton)

That is a planning figure, not a settlement basis. Density varies with crop, moisture, baler setting and operator, so two bales of identical dimensions can differ substantially in weight. University of Missouri Extension's guidance on what bales really weigh reports that errors of 15–20% between assumed and actual bale weight are common — and an error of that size moves the computed per-ton price by the same 15–20%.

Weigh a representative sample

• Weigh 10–20 bales, not two, and take them from across the run rather than picking the ones that look good.
• Tare properly. Weigh the empty trailer or truck, then the loaded weight, and subtract. On a truck scale, tare with the same fuel level and the same people aboard.
• Record the average and the spread. The spread is what tells you whether a single average is safe to trade on.
• Re-check when conditions change. A number from last year's first cutting does not describe this year's third.
• Use equipment rated for the load, and keep to the handling limits in your machine's manual.

Estimating for yourself is not the same as settling a sale

Those two jobs have different standards, and it is worth knowing which one you are doing.

• An internal estimate — working out roughly what you have, setting an asking price, checking a buyer's figure — can use any suitably rated scale you trust, including an onboard loader or bale-handler scale.
• Settling a transaction by weight is a regulated activity. Weighing devices used commercially are built to the specifications in NIST Handbook 44, and the way commodities may be sold by measure is set out in NIST Handbook 130. Both are model documents that individual states adopt through their weights-and-measures programmes, so the requirements that bind you are your state's. In practice a sale settled by weight is expected to be weighed on a certified, inspected and sealed scale.

Onboard loader and bale-handler scales are generally treated as indicative rather than legal for trade unless that specific device is certified and approved for commercial use in your state. Use one to price and plan; do not assume it settles a disputed load. If a sale turns on weight, agree in advance which scale governs.

Then state it. A seller who advertises "$X per bale, average weight Y lb, equivalent to $Z per ton" is easy to compare against a USDA report and looks like someone who knows their crop. A seller who quotes a flat per-bale price across a wide weight range is systematically giving away their heaviest bales. Buyers: if no weight is offered, ask, and ask where the weighing happened.

The moisture problem: as-fed vs dry matter

You are buying and selling feed, not water. Two lots quoted at similar as-fed prices can differ materially once moisture is taken out, and Mississippi State Extension is explicit that the balanced way to compare hay is on a dry-matter basis, per ton.

Price per ton of dry matter = as-fed price per ton ÷ (dry matter % ÷ 100)

Worked comparison, using hypothetical prices to show the arithmetic:

Illustrative figures only, chosen to show the method. Lot B looks 7.5% dearer as-fed and is actually about 11% dearer per ton of dry matter. The wetter the hay, the wider that gap opens.

Quality: test it, grade it, match it to the animal

Sample it properly, or the number means nothing

A forage test is only as good as the sample. The National Forage Testing Association protocol:

• Define the lot first. One field, one species, one harvest period — typically under 200 tons. Do not mix cuttings, fields or species into one sample.
• Take at least 20 cores per lot, using a probe of about 3/8–5/8 inch diameter.
• Probe the butt end — the flat face — at 90° to the surface, going roughly 18 inches in.
• Combine, mix and send about half a pound in a sealed, labelled bag to a certified laboratory. Keep it cool and post it early in the week.

Match the result to a published grade

USDA AMS publishes Hay Quality Designation Guidelines (PDF), effective 1 January 2003 and used by its Market News reporting programme. They let you place a tested lot in the same grade language the reports use. For alfalfa — domestic livestock use, not more than 10% grass, on a 100% dry-matter basis:

Source: USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Hay Quality Designation Guidelines, effective 1 January 2003. The same document grades grass hay on crude protein, dry-matter basis: Premium over 13%, Good 9–13%, Fair 5–9%, Utility under 5%. Its physical descriptions place Utility as hay that may be discounted for excessive damage, mould or weed content — and the market report identifies those defects.

A caveat on the index. Those grades are built on RFV. University of Wisconsin Extension's comparison of RFQ to RFV explains why RFQ is generally the better index for grasses and mixed hay, because it accounts for fibre digestibility rather than fibre quantity alone. If your test reports RFQ, note that the 2003 grade table is not an RFQ table.

Grade describes the market, not the ration

A grade is a market descriptor. It lets a buyer and a seller use the same word for the same hay, and it is what published reports quote against — which is exactly why it is useful for pricing. What it is not is a feeding recommendation. No single index — RFV, RFQ or crude protein — can establish whether a lot suits a particular animal. That decision needs the full analysis read against the animal's class and stage of production, its expected intake, and everything else in the ration, including any grain, by-product or mineral supplement.

So price on grade, because grade is the language the market trades in, and let a veterinarian or a qualified nutritionist formulate the ration. Buying hay to a grade and feeding hay to a requirement are two different jobs, and only the first one belongs on a pricing page.

Seller worksheet: what a ton actually costs you

Cost of production is a decision benchmark, not a hard floor. Over the long run the enterprise has to recover its total cost — land, machinery ownership, labour and all — or growing hay is not viable, and that is the number that tells you whether to keep doing it. Any single load is a narrower question. Once the crop is baled and in the shed most of that cost is already spent, and it can be entirely rational to take a price below total cost rather than carry hay into another year, watch it lose quality, keep paying to store it, or pass up cash you need now. What a short-run offer should be measured against is the cost you can still avoid, plus what the same hay could realistically fetch later. Build the number per saleable ton, not per acre, because loss between the field and the sale is real.

Two mistakes that wreck the number.

• Double-counting machinery. Pick one method per operation. If you own the machine, list depreciation, interest, insurance, housing, repairs, fuel and labour as separate items. If you hire the work done, enter the rate you pay as a single bundled line for that operation and do not also charge your own depreciation, repairs or fuel against the same work. Mixing the two inflates cost and produces a benchmark you can never sell above. Published custom rate surveys — Iowa State's Ag Decision Maker survey A3-10, Nebraska's farm custom rates, and equivalents from Kansas and Oklahoma — report dated averages of what operators in that state said they charged or paid for mowing, raking, baling and hauling. They are a sense-check on a quote, not a quote.
• Costing per acre and stopping. Divide by saleable tons. If field, harvest and storage losses take a meaningful share of what you grew, your cost per sold ton is higher than your cost per acre suggests.

Then check opportunity value. If the ground could grow something else, compare net return above all costs including land, using the same template for both — Nebraska and Ohio State both publish enterprise budgets set up that way. This page does not tell you what margin to add over cost. That is a business decision that depends on your risk, your market and your alternatives.

Buyer worksheet: what a ton actually costs you

The farm-gate quote is the start of your cost, not the end of it.

1. Convert to $/ton using a real weight — and ask where the bales were weighed.
2. Convert to $/ton of dry matter using the test, so you are comparing feed with feed.
3. Adjust for quality against the animal class that will eat it. Mississippi State's dry hay value estimator is a free tool built for exactly this comparison; note it carries an explicit disclaimer that it is not for use in contracts or binding agreements.
4. Add freight and unloading. Custom rate surveys publish hauling as a rate per bale or per hour rather than per loaded mile, so get a firm quote for your distance and equipment rather than assuming a per-mile figure.
5. Allow for storage and feeding waste. This is the line most buyers skip and it can dominate the comparison. Use your own measured or locally expected loss where you can, because published figures come from particular bales, feeders and conditions. Two worked examples, each scoped to the study that produced it:
   • South Dakota State Extension works an example in which a four-inch weathering and spoilage layer on a six-foot bale represents 21% dry-matter loss, and, assuming a purchase or opportunity cost of $160 per ton, a 20% loss is $32 per ton. The $160 is SDSU's stated assumption for the illustration, not a market price.
   • A 2013 Oklahoma State trial reported by the Noble Research Institute compared four feeder designs, measuring waste as the hay left outside the feeder, weighed at 24-hour intervals from day four to day seven of the second bale fed, after a one-bale adjustment period. It reported 5.3% waste with a modified cone feeder, 13% with a sheeted-bottom ring, 20.5% with an open-bottomed ring and 21% with a polyethylene pipe feeder. Those are that trial's feeders, hay and cattle over a four-day window — read them as a ranking of designs, not as rates that transfer to your herd.
6. Price the risk. Payment terms, what happens if a load is rejected, and whether you can inspect before unloading.

Cheap hay that arrives wet, tests poorly and is fed through an open ring is not cheap. Storage and feeding loss is where a good buy quietly becomes an expensive one, and it belongs inside the price you compare rather than in a note you write off afterwards.

Terms of sale: agree these before the truck arrives

Most hay disputes are not about price. They are about something both parties assumed and neither wrote down. Settle these first, and put them in writing:

• Quantity and unit — tons or bales, and if bales, at what stated average weight.
• Where weighing happens, on whose scale, and who pays for it.
• Bale specification — size, density, moisture at baling, and whether bales are round or square.
• Who supplies and pays for the net wrap, twine or film, and whether it stays on at delivery.
• Quality basis — whether the sale is on a test, on grade, or as-seen, and who takes the sample.
• Rejection terms — what constitutes a rejectable load, who inspects, when, and what happens to a rejected load.
• Loading, stacking and delivery — who loads, who unloads, who covers the load, and when title passes.
• Payment — timing, method, deposit, and what happens on late payment.

Rules on selling by weight, on scale certification and on sales-tax treatment of hay vary by state, and this page is not legal or tax advice. Your state department of agriculture handles weights and measures; your state revenue department handles tax. Check both before setting up a scale-based sale.

What to disclose, and why

Three things can be wrong with hay that a buyer cannot see by looking at it. What you are required to do about them and what you should do about them are different questions, and it is worth keeping them apart.

Requirements come from three places, and this page cannot settle any of them for you: the current label on any pesticide applied to the crop, which carries legally binding restrictions; whatever you agreed in the contract or terms of sale; and your own state's rules on agricultural sales and pesticide use. Those differ by state and they change over time.

Good practice is simpler, and it is the same everywhere: tell the buyer the treatment history you know, the test results you hold, and the defects you have seen. A disclosed problem is a discount. An undisclosed one is a dispute — and occasionally a liability.

Persistent herbicide residue

This is the one most often missed, and the damage usually lands on someone else's ground. NC State Extension documents that certain pasture and hayfield herbicides — the aminopyralid, clopyralid and picloram family — pass through the animal's digestive tract and are excreted in urine and manure, can remain active in that manure even after it is composted, and remain active in hay, straw and grass clippings taken from treated areas. NC State reports that hay "has been reported to have residual herbicide activity after three years' storage in dry, dark barns." Sensitive crops include tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, beans, peas, lettuce, spinach, grapes and many flowers.

Their guidance on what to do is specific. Everyone in the chain of use should pass on the herbicide restrictions in detail, to prevent problems for other growers "and for themselves (including possible liability)"; communicate in writing where manure is unsuitable as a fertiliser, soil amendment or compost for broadleaf plants; and do not sell or give away treated hay — even if it is several years old — for use as mulch or for making compost.

Check the label, not this list. NC State's table names products including Milestone, GrazonNext HL, Forefront HL, Grazon P+D, Transline, Curtail and Surmount — and carries exactly the warning to act on: "Herbicide product names and formulations change; always check labels for active ingredients." Any product list in an article is a prompt to go and read the current label, never a substitute for it. The label in force governs.

Mould and mycotoxins

University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension makes a point that cuts squarely against the usual eyeball test. In Use of Mycotoxin-Contaminated Feed for Animals (EC3066), UNL states that "the presence or absence of visible fungal growth on feed or grains is not a reliable indicator of the presence or absence of mycotoxin contamination," and that chemical analysis is the best way to detect them. That cuts both ways: clean-looking hay is not proven clean, and mouldy-looking hay is not proven toxic. Weathered, heat-damaged or musty bales should be identified as such and tested before a feeding decision is made, particularly for pregnant or young stock.

Nitrate

Two things are commonly got wrong here. The first is the cause. UNL's Nitrates in Livestock Feeding (G1779) states that nitrate concentrations "depend more on plant species and environmental conditions prior to harvest than on the amount of available nitrogen in the soil," listing stresses including low light or shading, drought, frost, hail, low temperatures, herbicide application and disease. Heavy nitrogen fertilisation raises the risk, but it is not a precondition — a stressed crop on merely adequate soil nitrogen can accumulate nitrate.

The second is what curing does about it, which is: not enough. UNL states plainly that "the drying process does not decrease nitrates". Do not assume that because a crop was baled dry and has sat in the shed, nitrate has stopped being a question. If the crop was stressed or heavily fertilised, disclose it and test it, and take the feeding decision with a veterinarian or nutritionist.

And describe the lot honestly

Do not market questionable hay as generic "cow hay". The USDA grade structure already supplies the honest language: Utility grade covers hay discounted for damage, mould or weed content, and market reports identify those defects. Describing a lot accurately protects the seller as much as the buyer.

---

The bottom line

There is a national average, and it is simply the wrong tool for this job — a lagged survey figure that blends every quality, package and location into a single number. What this page has given you instead is a sequence: find current local evidence, normalise the five things that make two prices comparable, convert between per bale and per ton on a measured weight, put lots on a dry-matter basis, and place the hay in a published grade with a proper forage test. Sellers then check that against a cost of production built per saleable ton without double-counting machinery — remembering it is a viability benchmark, not a floor the market owes them. Buyers check it against delivered cost including freight, storage loss and feeding waste.

Do that and the negotiation stops being an argument about opinions and becomes a comparison of numbers — which is usually shorter, and better for whichever side is right.

---

Frequently asked questions

How much does a bale of hay cost?

There is no single answer, and the national number needs handling with care. USDA NASS does publish monthly national and state prices received for all hay, alfalfa hay and other hay in dollars per ton, but it is a survey average released at the end of the following month that blends every quality, package and location into one figure — useful for trend, not for setting a price this week. For a current number, use the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service report covering your region, checking that report's own cadence because it varies from bi-weekly to monthly to seasonal, and add local auction results. Then make sure any price you compare against matches yours on five points: quality, package, unit, location, and whether it is farm-gate or delivered.

How do I convert hay price per bale to price per ton?

A US short ton is 2,000 pounds, which is the US ton used when the USDA reports cited here quote dollars per ton, though those reports also carry per-bale and per-unit rows. To go from bales to tons, multiply the price per bale by 2,000 and divide by the measured average bale weight in pounds. To go the other way, multiply the price per ton by the measured average bale weight and divide by 2,000. Using illustrative figures, bales at 65 dollars each with a measured average weight of 1,150 pounds work out at 113.04 dollars per ton, and hay quoted at 120 dollars a ton in those same bales works out at 69 dollars a bale. The weight has to be measured rather than assumed: using a round 1,000 pounds for those same 65 dollar bales gives 130 dollars a ton, which is 15 percent higher than the truth, because price per ton moves inversely with bale weight.

Should I price hay by the bale or by the ton?

Quote both. Published reports use both units — direct hay reports and volume sales are usually per ton, while auction reports often quote per bale, especially for small squares and large rounds — so the useful thing is to state the price per bale, the measured average bale weight, and the equivalent price per ton. That lets a buyer check you against any published report. A flat per-bale price across a wide weight range systematically gives away the heaviest bales.

How do I work out what my bales weigh?

Weigh a representative sample rather than estimating. Take 10 to 20 bales from across the run, tare properly by weighing the empty trailer or truck first, and record the average and the spread. Iowa State Extension publishes an estimation formula for round bales of length in inches times diameter in inches squared divided by 200, but that is a planning figure only: University of Missouri Extension reports that errors of 15 to 20 percent between assumed and actual bale weight are common, because density varies with crop, moisture, baler setting and operator. Note the difference between estimating for yourself and settling a sale. A sale by weight is generally expected to be weighed on a certified, inspected scale under your state's weights and measures rules, and onboard loader or bale-handler scales are usually treated as indicative rather than legal for trade.

What is the difference between as-fed and dry matter price?

As-fed price includes the water in the hay; dry matter price does not, so it is the fair basis for comparing lots. Divide the as-fed price per ton by the dry matter percentage expressed as a decimal. Using illustrative figures, hay at 200 dollars a ton and 88 percent dry matter works out at about 227 dollars per ton of dry matter, while hay at 215 dollars a ton and 85 percent dry matter works out at about 253 dollars — so the lot that looked 7.5 percent dearer is actually about 11 percent dearer as feed.

How should hay be sampled for a forage test?

Per the National Forage Testing Association, define the lot first as one field, one species and one harvest period, typically under 200 tons, and do not mix cuttings or fields. Take at least 20 cores per lot with a probe of about three-eighths to five-eighths inch diameter, probing the flat butt end at 90 degrees to the surface and going roughly 18 inches in. Combine and mix the cores, send about half a pound in a sealed labelled bag to a certified laboratory, keep it cool, and post it early in the week.

What do the hay quality grades mean?

USDA Agricultural Marketing Service Hay Quality Designation Guidelines, effective January 2003, grade alfalfa on a 100 percent dry matter basis: Supreme is above 185 RFV, Premium 170 to 185, Good 150 to 170, Fair 130 to 150 and Utility below 130, with matching ADF, NDF, TDN and crude protein ranges. Grass hay is graded on crude protein, with Premium above 13 percent, Good 9 to 13, Fair 5 to 9 and Utility below 5. Two cautions. The alfalfa table is built on RFV, and University of Wisconsin Extension explains that RFQ is generally the better index for grasses and mixed hay because it accounts for fibre digestibility, so an RFQ result should not be read against the RFV table. And a grade is a market descriptor, not a feeding recommendation — no single index can establish whether a lot suits a particular animal, which is a decision for a veterinarian or qualified nutritionist working from the full analysis, the animal's class and stage, expected intake and the rest of the ration.

What should a buyer add to the farm-gate price?

Freight and unloading, and an allowance for storage and feeding waste, which is the line most buyers skip. Use your own measured or locally expected loss where you can, because published figures are specific to the study that produced them. South Dakota State Extension works an example in which a four-inch weathering layer on a six-foot bale represents 21 percent dry matter loss, and, assuming a purchase or opportunity cost of 160 dollars a ton, a 20 percent loss is 32 dollars a ton — that 160 dollars is SDSU's stated assumption for the illustration, not a market price. A 2013 Oklahoma State trial reported by the Noble Research Institute compared four feeder designs, weighing the hay left outside the feeder daily from day four to day seven of the second bale fed, and reported 5.3 percent waste with a modified cone feeder, 13 percent with a sheeted-bottom ring, 20.5 percent with an open-bottomed ring and 21 percent with a polyethylene pipe feeder. Read that as a ranking of designs rather than as rates that transfer to your herd.

What should a hay seller disclose?

Keep requirements and good practice separate. Requirements come from the current pesticide label, from your contract, and from your own state's rules, all of which differ and change. Good practice is the same everywhere: disclose the treatment history you know, the test results you hold and the defects you have seen. Three problems a buyer cannot see are worth naming. NC State Extension documents that aminopyralid, clopyralid and picloram products remain active in hay and in the manure of animals that eat it, with residual activity reported after three years of dry barn storage, and advises passing the restrictions on in writing and never selling or giving away treated hay for mulch or compost — while cautioning that product names and formulations change, so the current label governs. University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension states that visible fungal growth is not a reliable indicator of mycotoxin contamination in either direction, so chemical analysis is the way to know. And nitrate depends more on plant species and pre-harvest conditions than on soil nitrogen, so stress alone can elevate it and heavy fertilisation is not a precondition, while drying does not decrease it — so do not assume dry storage has settled the question.

Should I write a hay sale agreement?

Yes, and it does not need to be elaborate. Cover quantity and unit, stated average bale weight, where weighing happens and on whose scale, bale size and density and moisture, who supplies and pays for net wrap or twine, whether the sale is on a test or as seen, rejection terms and who inspects, loading and delivery responsibilities, and payment timing. Rules on selling by weight, scale certification and sales tax vary by state, so check your state department of agriculture and revenue department. This is general information, not legal or tax advice.

---

Sources: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Prices — monthly national and state prices received for all hay, alfalfa hay and other hay (nass.usda.gov/Publications and quickstats.nass.usda.gov, accessed August 16, 2026), with survey methodology at nass.usda.gov/Surveys/Guide_to_NASS_Surveys/Prices_Received_and_Prices_Received_Indexes; USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Hay Reports (ams.usda.gov/market-news/hay-reports, accessed August 16, 2026); USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Hay Quality Designation Guidelines, effective 1 January 2003 — alfalfa ADF/NDF/RFV/TDN/CP bands and grass-hay crude protein bands, read from the primary PDF (ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/HayQualityGuidelines.pdf, accessed August 16, 2026); NIST Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, and NIST Handbook 130, Uniform Laws and Regulations in the Areas of Legal Metrology and Fuel Quality — model documents adopted state by state (nist.gov/pml/owm, accessed August 16, 2026); Iowa State University Extension, Ag Decision Maker A1-65, round bale weight estimation, and A3-10, Iowa Farm Custom Rate Survey (extension.iastate.edu/agdm — cited in text; the site returns 403 to automated requests, so no hyperlink is given); University of Nebraska–Lincoln Center for Agricultural Profitability, Nebraska Farm Custom Rates and Crop Budget Reports (cap.unl.edu, accessed August 16, 2026); Ohio State University Farm Office, Enterprise Budgets (farmoffice.osu.edu, accessed August 16, 2026); University of Missouri Extension, "The skinny on what your hay bales really weigh" — 15–20% bale weight error, weigh 10–20 bales (extension.missouri.edu; the site returns 403 to automated requests, so no hyperlink is given); Rocky Lemus et al., Mississippi State University Extension, "Estimating Dry Hay Value," Publication 3431 — dry-matter basis comparison (extension.msstate.edu, accessed August 16, 2026); Dan Putnam, Vance Owens and Tracy Ackerly, National Forage Testing Association, hay probe and sampling guidance — 20 cores, butt end, 18 inches, half-pound sample (foragetesting.org, accessed August 16, 2026); Dan Undersander et al., University of Wisconsin Extension, "Comparison of Relative Forage Quality (RFQ) to Relative Feed Value (RFV)" (cropsandsoils.extension.wisc.edu, accessed August 16, 2026); South Dakota State University Extension, "Best Management Practices for Reducing Dry Hay Storage Loss" — 21% loss example, with $160/ton stated by SDSU as an assumption (extension.sdstate.edu, accessed August 16, 2026); Robert Wells (Noble Research Institute) and David Lalman (Oklahoma State University Extension), "Hay Feeder Design Can Reduce Hay Waste and Cost," reporting a 2013 Oklahoma State four-design trial (noble.org, accessed August 16, 2026); North Carolina State University Cooperative Extension, "Herbicide Carryover in Hay, Manure, Compost, and Grass Clippings" (content.ces.ncsu.edu, accessed August 16, 2026); University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension, "Use of Mycotoxin-Contaminated Feed for Animals," EC3066, 2023 — visible fungal growth is not a reliable indicator of mycotoxin contamination (extensionpubs.unl.edu, accessed August 16, 2026); Mary E. Drewnoski, Bruce E. Anderson, Paul J. Kononoff and M. Beth Reynolds, University of Nebraska–Lincoln Extension, "Nitrates in Livestock Feeding," G1779, and UNL BeefWatch, "What to Do with High Nitrate Forage" (extensionpubs.unl.edu and beef.unl.edu, accessed August 16, 2026). Every dollar figure on this page is either a labelled hypothetical used to demonstrate arithmetic, or a dated figure attributed to the publication that reported it. None is a current market price. Hay prices are local, seasonal and quality-driven; obtain a current figure for your own market. This page is general information and is not legal, tax, financial or veterinary advice.

Featured photo: Oregon Hay Ready For Transport by Tequask, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.