IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

The profitability of harvesting grass silages at early maturity stages: An analysis of dairy farming systems in Norway


  • Flaten, O.
  • Bakken, A.K.
  • Randby, Å.T.


Feeding forages produced by early and frequent harvests may improve animal performance. This paper evaluates how harvesting regimes (HRs) in grass silage production influence optimal use of inputs and profitability in two types of Norwegian dairy farming systems: a mountain grassland farm and a lowland mixed crop–livestock farm. A whole-farm linear programming model was developed to compare three HRs within each farm type. HR1 and HR2 were three-cut systems harvested at very early (HR1) or early (HR2) crop maturity stages producing highly digestible forages. HR3 was a two-cut system returning higher dry matter yields of medium digestibility. Input–output response relations incorporated into the model were derived from field trials (N-fertilisation × HR), conducted at two representative locations for the two farm types, and from dairy cow and finishing bull feeding experiments at various levels of concentrate feeding to supplement silage from each HR. The model maximised total gross margin of farms with 150,000 l milk quota, and housing capacity for 25 cows. Farmland availability varied from 10 to 30 ha with 20 ha as the basis. The results indicated that farmland availability profoundly influences the input intensity and the profitability of producing and feeding silages harvested at early maturity stages. At restricted land availabilities in the mountain, the three-cut silages were obtained at too high costs in terms of lower grass yield, increased harvesting costs, and costs of shorter ley life. Silage DM consumption per head also increased with increasing digestibility. Under HR1 and HR2 it was impossible to fully produce the quota with 20 ha farmland and overall mountain farm profitability was depressed. With more land available, sufficient quantities of three-cut silages were produced to take advantage of the enhanced animal performances. Within all HRs, grass yields were highest in the lowland. The profitability of HR3 in the lowland was limited to smaller land areas, and, generally, producing highly digestible silages of HR1 was more profitable than devoting more land to barley. For both farm types, inputs of fertilisers and concentrates declined as more land became available, but at lower land areas for HR3. Removal of the milk quota constraint resulted in higher milk yields per cow, and strengthened profitability of HR3 endured into larger farmland areas than with a quota. With abundant land available, however, the three-cut silages were relatively more profitable without rather than with a restricting quota, and HR1 outperformed HR2.

Suggested Citation

  • Flaten, O. & Bakken, A.K. & Randby, Å.T., 2015. "The profitability of harvesting grass silages at early maturity stages: An analysis of dairy farming systems in Norway," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 85-95.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:136:y:2015:i:c:p:85-95
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.03.001

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL:
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Blank, Steven C. & Orloff, Steve B. & Putnam, Daniel H., 2001. "Sequential Stochastic Production Decisions For A Perennial Crop: The Yield/Quality Tradeoff For Alfalfa Hay," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 26(1), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Ramsden, S. & Gibbons, J. & Wilson, P., 1999. "Impacts of changing relative prices on farm level dairy production in the UK," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 201-215, December.
    3. van de Ven, G.W.J. & van Keulen, H., 2007. "A mathematical approach to comparing environmental and economic goals in dairy farming: Identifying strategic development options," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 231-246, May.
    4. Janssen, Sander & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2007. "Assessing farm innovations and responses to policies: A review of bio-economic farm models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 622-636, June.
    5. Van Middelaar, C.E. & Berentsen, P.B.M. & Dijkstra, J. & De Boer, I.J.M., 2013. "Evaluation of a feeding strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from dairy farming: The level of analysis matters," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 9-22.
    6. Berentsen, P. B. M. & Giesen, G. W. J., 1995. "An environmental-economic model at farm level to analyse institutional and technical change in dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 153-175.
    7. B. R. Davidson & B. R. Martin & R. G. Mauldon, 1967. "The Application of Experimental Research to Farm Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 49(4), pages 900-907.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Bakken, Anne Kjersti & Daugstad, Kristin & Johansen, Astrid & Hjelkrem, Anne-Grete Roer & Fystro, Gustav & Strømman, Anders Hammer & Korsaeth, Audun, 2017. "Environmental impacts along intensity gradients in Norwegian dairy production as evaluated by life cycle assessments," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 50-60.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Le Gal, P.-Y. & Dugué, P. & Faure, G. & Novak, S., 2011. "How does research address the design of innovative agricultural production systems at the farm level? A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(9), pages 714-728.
    2. van Boxmeer, Emma & Modernel, Pablo & Viets, Theo, 2021. "Environmental and economic performance of Dutch dairy farms on peat soil," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    3. Vayssières, Jonathan & Guerrin, François & Paillat, Jean-Marie & Lecomte, Philippe, 2009. "GAMEDE: A global activity model for evaluating the sustainability of dairy enterprises Part I - Whole-farm dynamic model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 128-138, July.
    4. Tzemi, Domna & Breen, James, 2019. "Reducing greenhouse gas emissions through the use of urease inhibitors: A farm level analysis," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 394(C), pages 18-26.
    5. Dieu Linh Hoang & Brienne Wiersema & Henri C. Moll & Sanderine Nonhebel, 2022. "The impact of biogas production on the organic carbon input to the soil of Dutch dairy farms: A substance flow analysis," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(2), pages 491-508, April.
    6. Reidsma, Pytrik & Janssen, Sander & Jansen, Jacques & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2018. "On the development and use of farm models for policy impact assessment in the European Union – A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 111-125.
    7. van der Linden, Aart & de Olde, Evelien M. & Mostert, Pim F. & de Boer, Imke J.M., 2020. "A review of European models to assess the sustainability performance of livestock production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    8. Chapman, D.F. & Kenny, S.N. & Beca, D. & Johnson, I.R., 2008. "Pasture and forage crop systems for non-irrigated dairy farms in southern Australia. 2. Inter-annual variation in forage supply, and business risk," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 97(3), pages 126-138, June.
    9. Janssen, Sander J.C. & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2007. "Assessing farmer behaviour as affected by policy and technological innovations: bio-economic farm models," Reports 9293, Wageningen University, SEAMLESS: System for Environmental and Agricultural Modelling; Linking European Science and Society.
    10. Veysset, P. & Lherm, M. & Bébin, D., 2010. "Energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and economic performance assessments in French Charolais suckler cattle farms: Model-based analysis and forecasts," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 41-50, January.
    11. Crosson, P. & O'Kiely, P. & O'Mara, F.P. & Wallace, M., 2006. "The development of a mathematical model to investigate Irish beef production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 89(2-3), pages 349-370, September.
    12. Glithero, N.J. & Wilson, P. & Ramsden, S.J., 2015. "Optimal combinable and dedicated energy crop scenarios for marginal land," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 82-91.
    13. Groeneveld, Rolf A. & Wesseler, Justus & Berentsen, Paul B.M., 2013. "Dominos in the dairy: An analysis of transgenic maize in Dutch dairy farming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-116.
    14. Wang Cheng, 2022. "The Impact of Enterprise Digital Transformation on Service Innovation Performance -- Taking the construction enterprises in the Yangtze River Delta as the research object," International Journal of Science and Business, IJSAB International, vol. 14(1), pages 155-172.
    15. Hutchings, Timothy R., 2009. "A financial analysis of the effect of the mix of crop and sheep enterprises on the risk profile of dryland farms in south-eastern Australia – Part 1," AFBM Journal, Australasian Farm Business Management Network, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, October.
    16. Boyer, Christopher N. & Griffith, Andrew P. & Roberts, Roland K. & Savoy, Hubert J. & Leib, Brian G., 2014. "Managing Nitrate Levels in Bermudagrass Hay: Implications for Net Returns," Journal of the ASFMRA, American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, vol. 2014, pages 1-16.
    17. Schreefel, L. & de Boer, I.J.M. & Timler, C.J. & Groot, J.C.J. & Zwetsloot, M.J. & Creamer, R.E. & Schrijver, A. Pas & van Zanten, H.H.E. & Schulte, R.P.O., 2022. "How to make regenerative practices work on the farm: A modelling framework," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    18. Hopper, Jared A. & Peterson, Hikaru Hanawa & Burton, Robert O., Jr., 2004. "Alfalfa Hay Quality and Alternative Pricing Systems," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 36(3), pages 1-16, December.
    19. Parisa Aghajanzadeh-Darzi & Pierre-Alain Jayet & Athanasios Petsakos, 2017. "Improvement of a Bio-Economic Mathematical Programming Model in the Case of On-Farm Source Inputs and Outputs," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 15(3), pages 489-508, September.
    20. Jacquet, Florence & Butault, Jean-Pierre & Guichard, Laurence, 2011. "An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1638-1648, July.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:136:y:2015:i:c:p:85-95. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.