Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:24:52.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Profitability of controlled traffic in grass silage production – economic modelling and machinery systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2017

H. Alvemar ,
H. Andersson  and
H. H. Pedersen
H. Alvemar*
Affiliation:
Alvemar Konsult AB, Box 63, 532 21, Skara, Sweden
H. Andersson
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden
H. H. Pedersen
Affiliation:
Aarhus University, Dept. of Engineering, Aarhus, Denmark
*
†E-mail: hans@alvemarkonsult.se
Get access

Abstract

Controlled traffic farming (CTF) systems aim to reduce soil compaction by restricting machinery field traffic to permanent traffic lanes. Grass-clover silage production is generally associated with intensive field traffic, resulting in reduced silage clover content. If CTF can increase yield and clover content in grass-clover leys, this would reduce the need for grain and expensive protein concentrate in dairy cow feed rations. A mixed integer programming model was developed to evaluate the potential profitability of CTF in a dairy farm context. Existing field trial data were used to calculate the expected yield outcome of CTF, based on reductions in trafficked area. The results revealed that CTF increased profitability by up to €50/ha. Total machinery costs are likely to increase on converting to CTF, but variable machinery costs are likely to decrease.

Keywords

Soil compactionSilageForagegrasslanddairy productionCTF
Type
Precision Pasture
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 8 , Special Issue 2: Papers presented at the 11th European Conference on Precision Agriculture (ECPA 2017), John McIntyre Centre, Edinburgh, UK, July 16–20 2017 , July 2017 , pp. 749 - 753
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alvemar, H 2014. Controlled traffic for grass silage production - An economic evaluation for dairy farmers (D-level Thesis). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Douglas, JT, Campbell, DJ and Crawford, CE 1992. Soil and crop responses to conventional, reduced ground pressure and zero traffic systems for grass silage production. Soil Tillage Research 24, 421–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, JT and Crawford, CE 1991. Wheel-induced soil compaction effects on ryegrass production and nitrogen uptake. Grass and Forage Science 46, 405–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elonen, P 1986. Reports from the Division of Soil Management: Jordpackning - ett problem i Finsk åkerodling (Rapporter från jordbearbetningsavdelningen No. 71). Department of Soil Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
European Environmental Agency (EEA) 2015. www.eea.europa.euMean precipitation, 2016-09-05. http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/european-precipitation-1/assessment Google Scholar
Frame, J 1982. The Effect of Wheel Tracking on Red Clover (Trifolium Pratense) Swards, in: Efficient Grassland Farming. British Grassland Society, Reading, UK. pp 313–315.Google Scholar
Frost, JP 1988. Effects on Crop Yields of Machinery Traffic and Soil Loosening Part 1. Effects on Grass Yield of Traffic Frequency and Date of Looseing. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 39, 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Håkansson, I, McAfee, M and Gunnarsson, S 1990. Verkan av körning med traktor och vagn vid vallskörd. Resultat från 24 försöksplatser. (No. 78). Department of Soil Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden.Google Scholar
Hansen, S 1996. Effects of manure treatment and soil compaction on plant production of a dairy farm system converting to organic farming practice. Agricultural Ecosystems and Environment 56, 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jorajuria, D, Draghi, L and Aragon, A 1997. The effect of vehicle weight on the distribution of compation with depth and the yield of Lolium/Trifolium grassland. Soil Tillage Research 41, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jørgensen, RN, Green, O, Swain, KC, Kristensen, R, Bochtis, D and Sørensen, CG 2009. Impact on Clover-Grass Yield Casued by Different Traffic Intensities, International Agricultural Engineering Conference. Bangkok, Thailand.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroulik, Mi, Paula, M, Chyba, J and White, D 2014. Field traffic intensity for forage harvesting in the UK (HAU Project Report No. 099). Harper Adams University, Newport, UK.Google Scholar
McDonald, P, Edwards, RA, Greenhalgh, JFD, Morgan, CA, Sinclair, LA and Wilkinson, RG 2011. Animal Nutrition, Seventh Edition Pearson Education Ltd, Harlow, UK.Google Scholar
Pedersen, HH and Novak, G 2013. Beregning af overkørt areal. AgroTech.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, KJ and Møller, E 1981. Genvækst efter fortørring af græsmarksafgrøder. II. Jordpakning i forbindelse med høst og transport. Tidskr Plateavl 85, 59–71.Google Scholar
Tullberg, J, Yule, D and McGarry, D 2003. On track’ to sustainable cropping systems in Australia. In Proceedings of the International. Soil Tillage Research Organisation 16th Triennial Conference Brisbane, July 13–18. pp. 1271–1285.Google Scholar