Tama Assist Think Net Replacement Film Is the Future? Maybe Not the Whole Picture
We’ve seen more stories lately about farmers moving away from traditional wrappings like netwrap + stretchfilm and adopting Net Replacement Film (NRF). On paper, NRF offers promises: simpler wrapping, less handling of multiple materials, perhaps cost savings or environmental appeal. But swapping to NRF isn’t a magic fix, in many real farm situations it comes with downsides, extra costs, and compromises.
Here’s what you need to consider, based on what we’ve seen on farms, and what many traditional wrapping systems (and newer ones like EZ Web) still outperform NRF at.
Farmers considering NRF often hear:
- You drop netwrap + film, and just use one film. Fewer materials to handle.
- Simpler logistics in wrapping.
- Eco-friendly claim: less waste or easier recycling.
But from the field, there are frequent reports and observations of problems:
- Durability: NRF tends to be more fragile, especially under tough conditions. Stemmy crops, sharp stalks, rough transport, rain/damp/heat before wrapping. The film can puncture or tear more easily than netwrap.
- Requirement for extra layers or thicker film: To get performance anything like netwrap + film in all conditions and crops, many users have to add extra layers of NRF or choose thicker film. That means more plastic, more cost, more weight, more time.
- Reduced efficiency: Roll lengths of NRF tend to be shorter, binding takes longer, and in order to get the benefit of efficiency savings during handling and feeding out requires investment in suitable handling equipment/feeding attachments.
- Silage quality myths: It’s a common misconception that NRF automatically gives better silage. In fact, no strong scientific evidence supports that NRF by itself improves fermentation, nutritive value, or spoilage resistance over traditional wrap choices when those are used correctly.
Cost drift over time: The “one material, simpler system” idea can hide rising costs in labour, time, more frequent roll changes, more damage in transport or storage, and occasionally increased spoilage or waste. And that is without even adding in the high up front costs e.g. additional machinery (and on going maintenance).
There are good reasons traditional wrapping (netwrap + stretchfilm) remain widely used, and newer solutions like EZ Web are designed to take the best of those good practices, while trying to solve some of the pain points NRF users say they have.
- Netwrap + film: Offers proven strength, great compaction, often longer roll coverage, sturdy transport/handling performance, and well understood behaviours in many forage types.
- EZ Web + film: Offers many of the labour, recycling, and feed out benefits NRF claims, but with fewer trade offs. Easier removal, ability to recycle together with stretchfilm, less prone to film failures under rough usage or transport, good seal, consistent performance.
If you’re a contractor, farmer, or advisor thinking about making the switch, here are some practical questions to test whether NRF really saves you more than it costs:
| Issue | Questions to ask |
| Crop type / moisture / handling | Does the field forage include stemmy or sharp-stem crops? How wet or dry will you be when wrapping? How often will the bales be moved or handled? |
| Film / roll cost & layers | How many rolls will you need per season? Do you need thicker film or extra layers to achieve performance similar to netwrap + film? |
| Labour & time costs | What is your labour rate? How much extra time is added per bale in wrapping, reloads, fixing film slips or tearing? |
| Transport & storage damage | How often are rolls moved or stored before use? Will rolls bounce around, be exposed to rough handling or harsh weather? |
| Silage quality & feed-out ease | How will feeding out be done? Is wrap removal easy or messy? How strong is the seal in your climate or during storage? |
NRF isn’t always a bad option. In certain situations it can make sense:
- For operations with consistent, mild weather, limited bale handling, and stable storage.
- Where crop types are not stemmy and moisture levels are moderate, so film isn’t under extreme stress.
- Where recycling infrastructure supports the type of film used, or cost differences are small.
If you go this route, watch out for the pitfalls: ensure you over spec the film rather than under rate; plan for more maintenance or replacement; document whether your actual per bale time and cost increases match your expectations.
At Tama, we think the question isn’t just “NRF vs traditional” it’s “what do your farm conditions demand, and which solution gives the best all round outcome”.
Here’s how EZ Web stacks up:
- Combines many of the claims of NRF (recycling, simpler feed-out, etc.) with durability more like netwrap or traditional methods.
- Designed for tougher real world usage: moving, handling, weather changes.
- Quicker feed out removal, less downtime.
- Less “waste surprises” from wrap failures in bad weather or under rough storage.
Switching from traditional silage wrapping methods to NRF might seem appealing but it’s seldom as straightforward or cost free as it looks. For many farms and contractors, especially those with demanding conditions (wet forage, handling, transport, varying weather), the trade offs can exceed the benefits.
If you want to protect your forage, reduce waste, retain quality, and keep costs predictable, you’d be wise to compare all options (netwrap + film, NRF, EZ Web) under your own conditions. Often what looks cheaper or simpler initially, ends up costing more in time, quality, or frustration.
For the full lowdown on what option would be best for your baling challenges, talk to our expert team, who will be happy to discuss all options with you and help determine which is best for your needs.