# Alfalfa yield quality tradeoff - try some economics



## hay wilson in TX (Jan 28, 2009)

An Excellent Alfalfa Harvesting Paper. 
I first printed off the information using their font size. My eyes are not as good as they were and the font was a little small for me. Your mileage may be different.
While I was at it I increased the size of the charts and graphs by 25%.
Figure 1. is interesting as it has the full weight of the scattered results not just the clean lines.

http://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=10941

The Alfalfa Yield-Quality Tradeoff -Try Some Economics!










Author: Daniel H Putnam
Author: Steve Orloff
July 22, 2013

'To cut, or not to cut, that is the question. Whether 'tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageously low prices or to harvest when the slender shoots are yet tender to the tongue" --I think Shakespeare said that.

The tradeoff between high yields and high quality in alfalfa is a quandary that farmers have wrestled with for generations. However, this has become particularly important as dairies have demanded ever higher quality for their higher-producing dairy cows. After all, the average 2013 dairy cow produces >70% more milk than a cow in 1970, and dairies have demanded higher quality forage as a result. This has meant that growers cut at increasingly shorter schedules, often with losses in yield and stand life. But should they?

Is the higher quality worth it if you sacrifice yield? Harvest scheduling (days until harvest) is probably the most powerful agronomic practice affecting both yield and quality. Figure 1 shows a wide range of harvests (from early to late over many cuts) in Yolo County, CA, that illustrates this concept. As the crop grows, yields increases (from about 0.5 tons/acre to >2 tons/acre) and quality decreases (from 60% TDN down to 48% TDN-determined by fiber value). Similar changes in digestibility have been observed with harvest schedule. This is termed the 'yield-quality' tradeoff. Rarely, if ever, can growers maximize BOTH yield and quality - they must make a compromise which produces 'high enough' quality at 'high enough' yields.



*Figure 1.* Change in yield and quality of alfalfa harvested every few days - Woodland, CA

*So what is 'high enough'? * A study conducted over 3 years with 18 varieties at Davis, CA showed that yields were increased from about 9.5 to 11.5 tons/acre when we went from an 'early' cutting schedule (about 24-25 days) to a 'late' cutting schedule (about 35 days) as illustrated in Figure 2. This corresponds to a '7 cut system' vs. a '5 cut system' (Figure 2). However, the short cutting schedule produced a much higher percentage (82%) of higher quality Premium and Supreme hay compared with the longer cutting schedules (39% for the Late Schedule, 50% for the mid). So which one is best?



*Figure 2.* Change in yield and quality over a 3 year period, all cuts, 18 varieties, 3 replications, Davis, CA.

*Economics.* Perhaps it is best to look at this economically, at least for cash-hay growers. Several years ago, we reported that more times than not, yield is the more important economic factor in the yield-quality tradeoff (see Orloff and Putnam, 2010). Figure 3 shows the gross returns to be superior in a 5 cut system vs. a 7 cut or 6 cut (28 day) schedule at Davis. (See: http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/+symposium/proceedings/2010/10-191.pdf for details). Long cutting schedules have the added advantage of lower harvest costs.



*Figure 3.* The importance of yield, modelled from cutting schedule data (Figure 2), over a 10-year price result (Orloff & Putnam, 2010).

However, one can calculate the necessary value of quality for any situation utilizing the below table (Table 1). For example, if you expect 1.8 tons/acre in a cutting at 32 days, and might see a 0.3 tons/acre reduction when cut at 26 days (1.5 tons/acre per cut) - a reasonable scenario - you should expect a minimum of 20% higher price by making that sacrifice. Thus if 'normal medium quality hay' sells for $220, you would need a minimum of $264/ton just to break even if you sacrificed 0.3 ton/acre to obtain higher quality.

In another example, if the annual yield potential was about 11.5 tons per acre (as per Figure 2), a 21.1% increase in price would be necessary to justify a 2 tons/acre loss in yield (average of 11 and 12t/a in Table 1). If one believes that such an increase in price due to quality would be GREATER than 21%, then it makes sense to sacrifice the 2 tons/acre/year, if not, cut for yield, not for quality. This doesn't include other costs, like more frequent harvests/year, weed intrusion or stand decline.

These are examples of why growers have often gravitated towards a 'yield priority' strategy for their cutting schedules, since yield is likely to be the most important economic factor, year in and year out.

*However, it's not so simple.* In some markets, lower quality hay often doesn't even sell, at any price. There is obviously a continuing need to consider quality. So what to do? When considering all of these factors including stand decline and weed intrusion, and the need for high yields, and the high demand for high quality, we have often recommend a 'mixed' strategy, of alternating 'short' cuts with 'long' cuts over the season. The idea here is to provide some quantity of higher-quality forage, along with a stream of higher-yielding but lower quality harvests. A minimum of 2 'long cuts' during the year may be important for stand health. A 'rest period' of longer harvest intervals is highly helpful at replenishing root-reserves, and encouraging good re-growth and longer-lived alfalfa stands.

The decisions on cutting schedule should be continually re-examined in line with market demand, field condition, variety, and agronomic practices, but it is clear that yields shouldn't be ignored. For more information on the yield quality tradeoff, see the California Alfalfa Symposium proceedings and search under quality or cutting schedules: http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/+symposium/proceedings/search.aspx


----------



## hog987 (Apr 5, 2011)

This has been something I have been trying to figure for my second cut hay. Do I let it grow a bit more for higher yeild and sell a bit here and there to regular farmers. Most guys will pay more for second cut but wont usually buy more than about 50 bales at a time. Or do I go for dairy hay. The dairies around here will sometimes pay a bit more but on the other hand some of them will take all my second cut hay so less work to sell it.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

hog987 said:


> This has been something I have been trying to figure for my second cut hay. Do I let it grow a bit more for higher yeild and sell a bit here and there to regular farmers. Most guys will pay more for second cut but wont usually buy more than about 50 bales at a time. Or do I go for dairy hay. The dairies around here will sometimes pay a bit more but on the other hand some of them will take all my second cut hay so less work to sell it.


That all depends on your prices for the year or more importantly what you think they will be.

If your area has unusually high prices then your better off going for quality over quantity and try to hit the highs.

If prices are down in your area then go for quantity over quality and make the difference up in volume sold.

Was an article from one of the AG university's experts. My personal opinion most "experts" are ten pounds of bullshit in a five pound bag.

Years ago the price of row crops were in the crapper but yields were very good, some "expert" said the farmers were in very good shape even though prices were low the volume would make up for it. Not hardly, takes more fuel, time and storage to handle a large cheap crop than it does to handle a small expensive crop.

I'd much rather have 120 bushel corn at $8.30 than 200 bushel corn at $5. The reason being both have the same yield per acre but with the lower yielding but higher priced corn your harvest costs are much lower. Less fuel burnt per acre to harvest, less trips to the farm to get it home, less fuel burnt to dry it and less fuel and time spent delivering it to the elevator.


----------



## dbergh (Jun 3, 2010)

IMHO:
Dairies wont pay the premium unless you have really high test hay ie:200 RFV or better. Therefore you are risking a lot to cut early and potentially having hay get rained on or otherwise suffer quality loss beyond your control. In our area they wont pay for 2nd cutting even though it looks beautiful usually. First and fourth are their preferred cuttings. If we make good quality so much the better but we don't plan on hitting that high quality market because the premium just isn't enough to justify the lower yields and higher expenses. Yield is still king in a strong market. If the market softens and you cant move lower to medium test hay for a decent price then the dynamics change and you have to start trying to hit the higher quality market to move your product at a decent price. The latest price structure is $1.25 per point of RFV in our area. This is a good way to price hay and it treats both parties fairly IMHO!


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

Interesting!

My haybarn has room for about another 25 big round bales, then it's full! I have about another 150 bales on my outside storage pad. My per acre yield this year is running significantly higher than the last 2-3 years, but my quality is way low. Both alfalfa and orchardgrass are real stemmy, 3-4 weeks past prime.

Just did second cutting on alfalfa last week, yielded about 1.1 tons/acre. Haven't had it tested yet, but I would guess 15-18% CP. Doing my second cutting OG on first field right now. Field is great in some spots, very thin in others (this is the field I put urea on). Guessing maybe .5 t/a.

OG field I put anhydrous on is growing like gang-busters! But I cut it only about 3 weeks ago.

Based on comparison, I am considering changing my OG nitrogen plan to putting on about 120 lbs of anhydrous and 50-60 lbs of urea. Seems that the urea gives it a big kick to get started, but doesn't carry over into later cuttings, whereas the anhydrous works later but doesn't give it as much of a jump start. Also, anhydrous is much easier to get an even spread; I can see every skip or overlap on the urea.

The problem with balancing yield versus quality hereabouts is weather. This year I could've said I was going for quality, but the weather windows just weren't there.

My own personal preference is go for a good weather window to make sure it doesn't get rained on.

Ralph


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

mlappin said:


> That all depends on your prices for the year or more importantly what you think they will be.
> 
> If your area has unusually high prices then your better off going for quality over quantity and try to hit the highs.
> 
> ...


You forgot a hidden cost.When you have a bumber crop you pull nutrients from the soil and takes more fertilizer to maintain your fertility in soil.


----------



## hog987 (Apr 5, 2011)

The solution to the problem is we need a high quality high yeilding hay and for prices to stay high. A triple win situation. Will I can dream cant I?


----------



## hog987 (Apr 5, 2011)

I am hopping I can get RFV =price per ton in my area for my first cut. We have had too many years of cheap hay here and it takes some marketing to get more. Still get too many people selling hay for 2.5 to 3 cents per pound. They sell hay for the same price they have sold for 25 years ago. But than again some of that hay is poor and they might be getting the same price I want based on RFV.


----------



## hay wilson in TX (Jan 28, 2009)

dbergh probably has a better feel for the California Dairy Alfalfa Market.

Alfalfa that is cut at a prebud stage and is baled with reasonably good humidity will make that magic high value TDN. 
The slight yield increase for slightly more mature alfalfa usually will not cover the loss from Supreme Price.
Fact is the yield price becomes a benefit with quality in the Good to maybe Fair hay grade.

As I understand that market some dairies want a real high protein & TDN, while others are looking for a quality filler hay. 
The trick is to fill the requirements of the customer. 
Thus the California interest in quality ( pricing) vs quantity, looking for the best net income.


----------

