| |
Abstract |
Clover-grasses address the following objectives:– Decreased input use (N-fertilization), reduced dependency ofinorganic N => reduced GHG emissions– Possibility for increased protein content of silage, reduceddependency on purchased protein feed supplement (homegrown proteins, resilience)© Natural Resources Institute Finland– Better utilisation of farmland in the context of climate changein the north: Higher T – improved N fixation– Compatible with sustainable agriculture and sustainableintensification: more output with the same inputs / the sameoutput with reduced (non-renewable) inputs• In contrast: Shifting to silage maize increases N fertilisation– Major shift from grasslands to silage maize in e.g. Denmark 1. Small cost reductions in clover-grass cultivation, or clover-grasspremiums, may or may not increase clover cultivation- Their effectiveness is uncertain and subject to prices2. N tax is effective, but is not a suitable policy action in currentfinancial situation of farms (milk crisis 2015-2016)3. However, the results suggest that a 25% higher N price lead to© Natural Resources Institute Finlandsignificantly higher clover grass area and a small reduction ínmilk output – with no cost reductions or extra premiums!4. To increase clover cultivation, price ratios should be adjusted!5. If increasing clover -grass yield, a robust increase in clovergrass areas may realise, with small benefits for farm economyand overall production – How much more clover grass yieldcould be attained at low costs? A topic for further discussionand analysis |
|
