A method of estimating timeliness costs in forage

harvesting illustrated using harvesting systems in

Sweden
C. Gunnarsson*, R. Sporndly, H. Rosenqvist, A. de Toro and P-A. Hansson
*Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Uppsala, Sweden, Swedish Institute of
Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Uppsala, Sweden, Department of Animal Nutrition and
Management, SLU, Kungsangen Research Centre, Uppsala, Sweden and Department of Energy and
Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

Abstract

Introduction

A method for estimating timeliness costs, depending on

dry-matter yield and nutritive value of forage is
presented, and used to estimate timeliness costs, to
examine different harvesting systems and to present
conclusions on machinery selection when harvesting
silage for dairy cows in Sweden. Timeliness costs (in
ha)1 d)1) of forage for silage were significantly higher
for the first cut compared with the second or third cuts
in the season. It is, therefore, important to avoid
delaying the first cut. The timeliness costs also varied
greatly between years. Harvesting costs decreased with
increasing forage area up to a certain threshold area
beyond which decreasing machinery costs were outweighed by increasing timeliness costs due to a longer
duration of harvest. At increasing transport distances,
the difference in cost between different harvesting
systems and different sizes of machinery increased.
Harvesting of forage by contractors decreased harvesting costs, particularly for small forage areas, since
increased annual use of the machinery lowered the
machinery costs and enabled larger machines with
higher capacity to be used. To avoid high timeliness
costs it is important to avoid delays in harvesting.

High nutritive value of silage for dairy cows is promoted

by a high harvesting capacity since it is important that
harvesting is performed when all the forage has such a
high value. When the harvesting of forage is delayed
beyond the optimal harvest date, the value of the
overall harvest is affected through dry-matter (DM)
yield increasing with time and the nutritive value
decreasing with time. Weather is one of the most
important constraints on nutritive value, e.g. rain on
wilting herbage leads to a decrease in nutritive value
(Orosz et al., 2008). The relatively mild winters of
north-western Europe and the relatively even distribution of rainfall throughout the year favour herbage
production but it may vary considerably between years
and also within a growing season due to weather
conditions (Herrmann et al., 2005a).
Timeliness costs, describing the cost for each day that
harvesting is delayed beyond the optimal day, can be
calculated for each cut of forage by using information
on the change in nutritive value and yield over the
delay period. Since forage is usually harvested more
than once per season, the time of the first cut has
implications not only for the nutritive value and yield of
the first cut but also on the nutritive value and,
depending on choice of cultivar, the DM yield of
regrowths (Hall et al., 2005). Adding timeliness costs
to the machinery and labour costs of forage harvesting
takes into consideration the costs arising when the
forage is not harvested at its optimal value or when
the harvest is extended in time due to low capacity of
the harvesting equipment or interruptions and delays
due to weather. According to Forristal and OKiely
(2005), a model considering changes over time in yield
and nutritive value of forage would be valuable in
the optimal selection of machinery systems and
capacities. Ward et al. (1986a,b) developed a model

Keywords: grassland, forage evaluation, forage quality,

harvesting date, machinery capacity, mechanization
costs

Correspondence to: Carina Gunnarsson, Swedish Institute

of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, Box 7033,
SE 750 07 Uppsala, Sweden.
E-mail: Carina.Gunnarsson@jti.se
Received 4 December 2008; revised 5 May 2009

276  2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 64, 276291

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2494.2009.00693.x

Timeliness of forage harvesting 277

that determines the optimal machinery and labour

requirements for systems of silage mechanization and
calculates the costs both for private ownership and
machinery ring membership, while also considering
timeliness costs. Timeliness costs were calculated as the
additional costs of concentrates required to offset any
reductions in the nutritive value of the forage.
A number of harvesting and machinery systems exist
for harvesting of forage for silage and, according to
Forristal and OKiely (2005), the choice of system has a
major influence on the demand for machinery, labour
and management. The most relevant harvesting system
for a particular farm is dependent on farm-specific
factors such as existing equipment, labour availability,
transport distance and forage area. In continuous
harvesting systems using a forage harvester, forage
collection in the field, transport and ensiling must
follow in direct conjunction with each other, whereas
with a round baler harvesting in the field and transport
can be separated in time (Schick and Stark, 2002).
Continuous systems generally place higher demands on
labour and planning of harvesting to match capacities
and avoid costly delays and waiting times (Schick and
Stark, 2002). Because contractors typically prefer continuous harvesting systems, the use of the forage wagon
has been in decline (Forristal and OKiely, 2005). In
humid temperate areas, however, baled silage is the
most common system on farms (Orosz et al., 2008).
In Sweden, many dairy farms use more than one
machinery system for harvesting silage and round baling
is the most common system, used to some extent on more
than 080 of farms (Pettersson et al., 2009). With increasing area of forage, the round bale system gives way to
systems conserving silage in bunker or tower silos. The
precision-chop forage trailer (PCFT), common in Sweden, and the precision-chop forage harvester with separate transport trailer, are used to some extent on 025 of
Swedish farms (Pettersson et al., 2009). The average dairy
farm in Sweden has 55 cows (SJV, 2008) but there is a
wide range of herd size with many herds over 100 cows.
The typical winter feeds of dairy cows on a DM basis are
055060 grass/clover silage and 040045 cereal-based
concentrates. A 55-cow farm typically harvests 220
metric tonnes of silage DM from 30 ha with two or three
cuts per year. Since all cows are required to graze in
summer in Sweden due to animal welfare legislation, the
closest areas of grassland to farm buildings are used for
grazing. Most farms have had their grasslands <23 km
from farm buildings but, as farm sizes have increased, the
distance to grasslands has increased. It is also becoming
more common to use contractors to perform some of the
harvesting, or to cooperate with other farmers in sharing
harvesting machinery.
The main objective of this study was to develop a
method to calculate timeliness costs by valuing forage

 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 64, 276291

in terms of changes in DM yield and nutritive value

with delayed time of harvesting. A secondary objective
was to calculate daily timeliness costs per ha suitable for
use under Swedish conditions. The study then examined how the timeliness costs of harvesting forage in
dairy production varied due to annual variations in
weather and due to geographical location. The importance of including timeliness costs was also investigated
for different harvesting systems, machinery sizes and
forage areas.

Materials and methods

The work is presented in terms of calculating daily
timeliness costs per ha from the changes in DM yield
and nutritive value of forage for different harvest days,
and then using the timeliness costs pertaining to
Swedish conditions for different harvesting systems.

Timeliness costs
A computer model was constructed to calculate timeliness costs for harvesting forage due to delays in time of
harvesting. The model consisted of two parts, one of
which calculates the DM production of grass-clover
herbage at different harvesting dates using a model of
herbage production (Torssell et al., 1982; Torssell and
Kornher, 1983) for mixed timothy and red clover
swards while the other estimates the feed value from
the change in nutritive value of forage harvested on
different dates.
The data needed for calculation of DM yield and
nutritive value were taken from the computer program
PCVALL (Fagerberg et al., 1990), which is based on the
model of herbage production developed by Torssell et al.
(1982) and Torssell and Kornher (1983). The feed value
was calculated from the concentrations of metabolizable energy (ME) and crude protein (CP) of forage by
making complete rations with forage and concentrates
and considering both the need for an increased use of
concentrates and possible decreased milk yield when
offering forage of a lower nutritive value.

Dry-matter yield of herbage

The model of herbage production is used to calculate
daily herbage growth and requires daily weather variables as input data. According to Herrmann et al.
(2005a), the model has also been used in the agricultural advisory service to predict optimum harvesting
dates of grass swards and has recently been used to
predict yields under different environmental conditions
and management strategies.
To calculate the DM yield of herbage for different
cutting dates, the model requires daily weather data as

278 C. Gunnarsson et al.

accounted for the impact of crop ageing quantified as a

function of the leaf area index (LAI). The Age-function
is described by Equation 2.

Table 1 Daily input variables and model parameters

required for estimation of yield of dry matter of herbage
from Torssell et al. (1982).
Daily input variables

Model parameters

Average
temperature (C)
Average incoming
radiation [cal (cm2 d))1]
Precipitation (mm)
Potential
evapo-transpiration (mm)

050 of maximum leaf

area index (LAIh)
Curvature of
AGE-function
Radiation for maximum
growth rate [cal (cm2 d))1]
Curvature of the response
curve of radiation
Mean daily temperature for
maximum growth rate and
zero growth rate (C)
Curvature of response of
temperature*
Initial value of herbage mass
in the spring (g m)2)
Initial value of relative
growth rate (Rs) [g (g d) )1]
Maximum plant-available
soil water (mm)

*The function describing the temperature index is symmetric

and calculated based on mean daily temperature, mean daily
temperature for maximum growth rate and for zero growth
rate.

inputs and a set of model parameters specific for the

sward and site (Table 1). Daily increase in DM yield is
calculated as the product of the current herbage mass
and the relative growth rate, Rs. The model is summarized by Equation 1, where Wt describes the harvested
herbage mass in g m)2 on day t.
Wt Wt1 Wt1  Rs  AGE  GI

AGE h

1
1 LAI=LAIh k1

LAI is the leaf area index, LAIh half the maximum

LAI (50 for spring growth and 40 in regrowth) and k1 a
constant equalling 40 for spring growth and 30 for
regrowth. Radiation index, RI is described by Equation
3 where Ri is the daily incoming global radiation, Rmax
the insolation at light saturation of the stand and k2 a
constant determining the curvature of the radiation
response curve.


"
1  e
RI

k2 x

Ri=
Rmax

#
3

1  ek2

The initial herbage mass and the initial Rs at the start

of each growth period take into account the influence
of botanical composition and management practices,
such as the application of nitrogen fertilizer, number of
cuts per season and geographical location. The initial
values of Rs (Table 2) and the initial herbage mass used
in this study were taken from Fagerberg et al. (1990).
The swards used consisted of a mixture of timothy
(Phleum pratense L.) and red clover (Trifolium pratense L.)
and fertilizer applications were made following the
strategies described in Hoglind (1997) and Jordbruksverket (2006). The proportion of red clover of the
individual cuts was estimated from field experiments
initiated in 1995 in southern and central Sweden
(Stenberg et al., 2001) and was dependent on the age
of the sward and the level of fertilizer applied (Table 2).

In this study, Rs was modified by a growth index (GI)

and an age-function (AGE), where GI summarized the
effects on plant growth of temperature, radiation
and plant-available soil water and the AGE-function

Feed value of forage

The feed value of the forage was calculated using a
method developed by Gunnarsson et al. (2005). The ME
and CP concentrations of forage at the first and last day

Table 2 Values used for N-fertilizer application rates (manure + chemical fertilizer), proportion of red clover in the sward and the
resulting relative growth rate (Rs) value used for each cut in the model of herbage growth.
Proportion of red
clover

Fertilizer rate (kg N ha)1)

Age of sward
(years)
Cut number
1
2
3

Rs [g (g d))1]

0 + 50
0 + 40
20 + 0

20 + 50
20 + 40
20 + 0

20 + 50
20 + 40
20 + 0

024
049
060

015
023
032

011
007
017

0192
0218
0194

0209
0229
0201

0209
0226
0198

 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 64, 276291

Timeliness of forage harvesting 279

Table 3 Metabolizable energy (ME) and crude protein (CP)

concentration of silage and calculated feed value of the forage
from the first and last harvesting day in cut numbers 1, 2 and 3.

Cut
no.

Harvesting
day

ME
conc.
(MJ kg)1
DM)

CP
conc.
(g kg)1
DM)

Feed
value
( kg)1
DM forage)

165*
175*
57
72
53
69

110
104
106
101
106
101

1470
1235
1566
1317
1872
1611

0145
0106
0123
0100
0130
0102

1
1
2
2
3
3

The ME and CP concentrations of herbage were calculated

according to Fagerberg et al. (1990) and the feed value of the
forage was calculated from the rations in Table 4.
*Day number of the calendar year starting from 1 January.

Number of days after first cut.

Number of days after second cut.

of the possible harvesting period was identified from the

regression of Fagerberg et al. (1990). The harvesting
days chosen are shown in Table 3. In first cut the ME
concentrations of the first and last day of the possible
harvesting period were 110 and 104 MJ kg)1 respectively and in the second and third cuts were 106 and
101 MJ kg)1 respectively. The corresponding concentrations of CP are also given in Table 3.
A ration was then constructed using the nutritive
value of the forage at the first cutting day at each
harvest. By using prices relevant for Swedish conditions
for concentrates, milk and the forage harvested at the
first possible day of the first cut, a resulting sum of milk
price minus feed costs was established. A new ration
was then constructed using the nutritive value of the

forage at the last cutting day at each harvest based on

the ME and CP concentrations given in Table 3. In
constructing the new ration, the objective was to
achieve the same milk production by replacing the
forage with a lower nutritive value with more concentrate. By using the same prices of concentrates and milk
as for the first ration, a new price (feed value) was
calculated for the forage to keep the sum of milk price
minus feed costs constant. Due to the fact that cows
consume less silage when harvested at a later growth
stage (Bertilsson and Burstedt, 1983), it was not fully
possible to achieve the same high peak milk production.
The milk production at the last cutting day of each
harvest was, therefore, somewhat lower than at the first
cutting day. It was also necessary to alter the concentrate in the third harvest due to the higher CP
concentration in the forage.
The resulting amounts of feeds used per cow per year
with the different feed qualities are presented in
Table 4. The DM contents of barley and straw were
870 and 850 g kg)1 respectively (Sporndly, 2003). The
concentrates all had a DM content of 880 g kg)1 and
were commercial concentrates available in Sweden in
2007. Common prices for Sweden in 2007 were used for
feed components and milk. The rate of exchange used
was 10 = SEK 93.
By keeping the sum of milk price minus feed costs
constant for all cuts, the feed value of the forage at
each cut was calculated in relation to the nutritive
value of the forage at the first possible day of the first
cut. These values are presented in the last column in
Table 3. The daily change in feed value, calculated
from the difference in feed value between the two
harvesting days in each cut and the number of days
between the two harvesting dates, was used together
with the DM yield in further calculations of the
timeliness costs.

Table 4 Metabolizable energy (ME) concentration of silage, amounts of silage, straw, concentrate (C1 containing 290 g crude
protein kg)1 DM; C2 containing 260 g crude protein kg)1 DM) and minerals in the rations and the calculated milk yield cow)1 yr)1
for first, second and third cuts of forage.
ME conc. of silage
(MJ kg)1 DM)
First cut
110
104
Second cut
106
101
Third cut
106
101

Silage
(kg DM yr)1)

Barley
(kg yr)1)

Straw
(kg yr)1)

C1
(kg yr)1)

3660
3355

1674
1937

137
137

3508
3203

1845
2050

137
137

3508
3203

1845
2050

137
137

 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 64, 276291

C2
(kg yr)1)

Minerals,
(kg yr)1)

Milk yield
(kg ECM yr)1)

1562
1549

15
15

10065
9669

1629
1604

15
15

9913
9669

15
15

9913
9669

1562
1604

280 C. Gunnarsson et al.

Calculation of daily timeliness costs per hectare

The value of the forage as a function of date of harvesting
was calculated by multiplying the DM yield by the feed
value of the forage. The optimal time to harvest the forage
was determined by finding the dates for each cut that
maximized the total forage value of all cuts (in ha)1).
The objective function describing the total forage value
(FVtot) of the three cuts is described as:
FVtot M1  V 1 M2  V 2 M3  V 3

where M denotes the yield in kg DM ha)1, V denotes

the feed value of forage in kg)1 DM, and the numbers
1, 2 and 3 denote first, second and third cuts. Choosing
the date for every cut that resulted in the highest value
of the sum of all three cuts allowed account to be taken
of the fact that delays in a cut also affected the following
cuts. It was assumed that all cuts were performed on the
dates calculated as optimal, i.e. when the dates of the
second and third cuts were optimized using the Excel
solver, and it was assumed that the preceding cut/s
occurred on the optimal day. The method used to find
the optimal harvest dates was as follows:
(i) for different cutting days of the first (T1) cut, the
cutting dates of the second (T2) and third (T3) cuts
were optimized with the aim of maximizing FVtot,
the total forage value of all three cuts;
(ii) the T1 resulting in maximum FVtot was set as T1opt;
(iii) for different cutting dates of T2 the cutting dates of
the third (T3) cut were optimized with the aim of
maximizing FVtot;
(iv) the T2 that maximized FVtot was set as T2opt;
(v) FVtot was calculated for different dates of the third
cut (T3); and
(vi) T3opt was set as the date that resulted in the highest
value of FVtot.
The two harvesting days for each cut used for
calculating the change in feed value (Table 3) were
set as boundary conditions when finding the optimal
harvesting days. To avoid the solution being limited by
the boundary conditions, the optimization of harvesting
dates for the first cut was carried out for an extended
range of harvesting days corresponding to ME concentrations between 114 and 100 MJ kg)1 DM. For the
second and third cuts the corresponding extensions of
the boundary conditions for harvesting days were made
with ME concentrations of 110 and 97 MJ kg)1 DM.
Finally, the daily timeliness costs per ha, expressing
both quantity and quality losses in economic terms in
ha)1 d)1, were calculated. The result of the harvesting
day optimisations were curves for the forage value of
the first, second and third cuts. The daily timeliness
costs per ha for each cut, i.e. daily change in monetary
value ( ha)1 d)1), were calculated as the difference in

forage value at the optimal date and the forage value 7

d after the optimal date, divided by 7. A delay of up to
one week was considered an appropriate time range on
which to base the calculations. The calculations were
repeated for 10 years. For the same sward type the
model of DM yield of forage was run with daily weather
data for southern Sweden for the years 19841993 and,
for central Sweden, for the years 19781987.
While the DM yield was calculated for each year
based on daily weather data, the feed value, which
depended upon change in nutritive value of forage, was
based on average values for a number of years. The
change in CP and ME concentration with time was,
therefore, the same for each of the 10 years for which
calculations were made. Consequently, the timeliness
costs accounted for differences in DM yield between
years but not for annual variation in change in feed
value.
Repeated measurements A N O V A , as implemented in
the STATISTICA ver. 80 software package, was used to
infer the timeliness effects of geographic location and
cutting occasion. With measurements repeated annually, the effect of last years yield was compensated
throughout the material, sigma-restricted parameterisation was used, and type VI sum of squares calculated.

Calculation of harvesting costs

Harvesting systems
Calculations of costs were made for each of the three
cuts per season in southern (approx. 56N) and central
(approx. 60N) Sweden based on the DM yields of
the individual harvests arising from the results of the
optimizations of harvest days. Three different machinery systems, each with three different sizes of machinery, small, medium and large, for mowing, harvesting
and transport, were studied.
The three machinery systems studied were a precision-chop forage harvester (metered-chop) with separate transport trailers (PCFH/T), a PCFT and a round
baler with integral wrapping (RBI). The PCFH/T and the
PCFT systems used the same technique for chopping
the grass using a high-speed chopping cylinder, but the
PCFT system fed the herbage into an integral trailer
instead of into a separate trailer towed by the chopper
as in the PCFH/T system. The round baler is of the type
with separate baling and wrapping units on the same
chassis, resulting in only a short stop to discard the
wrapped bale. The RBI system required 12 persons, the
PCFT system 23 persons and the PCFH/T system 35
persons, depending on whether mowing was carried
out in parallel with harvesting.
Harvesting costs included costs for machines, labour
and timeliness. In addition, ensiling costs, such as

 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 64, 276291

Timeliness of forage harvesting 281

Table 5 Specifications of small, medium and large sizes of harvesting machinery mower, precision-chop forage trailer, precisionchop forage harvester with separate transport trailers and round baler with integral wrapping.
Small
Mower-conditioner
Mower-conditioner working width (m)
28
Tractor for mower-conditioner (kW)
70
Working speed* (km h)1)
10
Field efficiency
080
Precision-chop forage trailer (PCFT)
Trailer volume (m3)
30
Tractor for PCFT (kW)
90
Maximum working speed* (km h)1)
12
25
Transport speed (km h)1)
12
Maximum theoretical capacity3(tonne DM h)1)
Field efficiency
075
Precision-chop forage harvester with separate transport trailers (PCFH/T)
Tractor for PCFH/T (kW)
80
12
Maximum working speed* (km h)1)
10
Maximum theoretical capacity (tonne DM h)1)
Field efficiency
075
Transport trailer volume (m3)
20
Tractor for transport (kW)
70
25
Transport speed (km h)1)
Round baler with integral wrapping (RBI)
Tractor for round baler (kW)
Maximum working speed* (km h)1)
Maximum theoretical capacity (tonne DM h)1)
Field efficiency
Plastic use (kg tonne)1 DM)
Transport trailer 10 tonne (number of bales per trailer)
Tractor for transport (kW)
Transport speed (km h)1)

Medium

Large

32
80
10
080

40
100
10
080

40
110
12
25
14
075

50
140
12
25
16
075

110
12
14
075
25
80
25

140
12
18
075
30
90
25

90
9
14
070
64
14
80
15

*Source: ASABE (2006b) and experience-based values.

Source: Field efficiency factors from ASABE (2006b) considering time for non-productive activities such as turnings, overlapping,
shorter stops and adjustment.
Source: Theoretical machine capacity decided by the tractor power, details from machine manufacturers and from the calculation
programme Agrimach (2000).
Source: Experience-based values.

bale plastic and the investment, interest and maintenance cost for the bunker silo, or the storage area for
round bales, were included when comparing the
harvesting systems. Specifications for the machines
used are summarized in Table 5. For the three sizes of
each harvest system, maximum theoretical capacity in
tonnes DM h)1, working speed and price were
decided according to specifications and power requirement. The theoretical capacity of each machine was
calculated for each harvest considering the DM yield
and the working speed. If the maximum theoretical
capacity of the machine was exceeded, the speed was
reduced until the capacity was no longer exceeded.
After that, the gross harvest capacity of each machine

 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 64, 276291

was calculated by reducing the theoretical capacity

according to a field efficiency factor considering time
for non-productive time in the field (turnings, overlapping, shorter stops and adjustments). Time for
transport to storage was calculated separately depending on the transport distance and was not included in
the field efficiency factor. The same field efficiency
was assumed for the PCFT and the PCFH/T systems.
Calculations were based on a 1-km transport distance.
The capacity for harvest in the field and for transport
were compared and the limiting gross capacity of each
of the harvest systems (Table 6) determined
the duration of the harvest, and was used for the
calculations of cost.

282 C. Gunnarsson et al.

Table 6 Limiting gross harvest capacity (ha h)1) at 1 km

transport distance for small, medium and large sizes of
machinery of the harvest systems using a precision-chop forage
trailer (PCFT), a precision-chop forage harvester with separate
transport trailers (PCFH/T) and a round baler with integral
wrapping (RBI) in southern and central Sweden for each of
three cuts in a season.
Southern Sweden

Central Sweden

Cut no. Small Medium Large Small Medium Large

PCFT
1
2
3
PCFH/T
1
2
3
RBI
1
2
3

17
14
17

20
17
20

24
20
24

18
18
18

21
21
21

26
26
27

19
15
19

25
21
25

31
28
31

22
21
22

26
26
26

32
32
32

18
18
18

20
20
20

25
22
25

18
18
18

20
20
20

25
25
25

Mowing is separated in time from the harvesting

operations that follow and was therefore assumed not
to limit the harvesting capacity. It was assumed that the
herbage was left to dry in the swath formed by the
mower-conditioner for one day and then ensiling in a
bunker silo at a DM content of 300 g kg)1 and left to
dry in the swath for 2 d when ensiling in round bales
at a DM content of 450 g kg)1 (Eldelind et al., 1974).
Dry-matter losses in the field are mainly dependent on
the DM content of herbage and were set as 008 for
round bale silage and 006 for bunker silage (Belotti,
1990).
Harvesting, using the PCFT system, included two
parallel machine operations: 1) harvesting, loading and
transport of the herbage to the bunker silo; and 2)
loading and packing into the bunker silo. The first
operation was performed using the PCFT and the
second using a wheeled loader. After transport, the
herbage was unloaded onto a concrete area in front of
the bunker silo where it was picked up by the wheeled
loader. The same chopper was mounted on the PCFT for
all machinery sizes and, as a consequence, only the
trailer volume varied between the machinery sizes.
Harvesting using the PCFH/T system included three
parallel operations, each performed with separate
machines: (i) harvesting in the field using the PCFH/T
towed by a tractor; (ii) transport of the grass to the
bunker silo using two transport trailers; and (iii) loading
and packing into the bunker silo using a wheeled
loader. During the field work the transport trailers were
towed by the forage harvester. The chopper size varied

for all three PCFH/T machinery sizes, with the medium

chopper size being the same as that mounted on the
PCFTs (Table 5).
A wheeled loader loaded the herbage into the bunker
silo and packed the herbage to a density of 250 kg DM
m)3. The packing capacity was calculated using a
programme developed by Holmes and Muck (2006).
With a silage height of 27 m after packing, a DM
content of 300 g kg)1, a thickness of each layer put into
the silo of 015 m and a 9000-kg wheeled loader,
maximum loading capacity was calculated to be
9000 kg DM h)1. The wheeled loader was assumed to
spend 025 of its working time loading the herbage into
the silo and 075 of its working time packing.
The bunker silo consisted of sections, each 40 m long,
6 m wide and 3 m high. Each section was estimated to
contain 600 m3 or 150 ton DM. The size of the sections
chosen is common in Sweden and was applicable to all
of the forage areas studied. However, for larger forage
areas it would have been more applicable to have wider
sections. The costs of building the bunker silo were
determined according to Agriwise (2007) and included
the costs for the silo, the area for unloading in front
of the silo and equipment for collection of the effluent.
The cost of covering the bunker silo included the cost of
plastic covers and labour costs. The calculated investment costs were 61 m)3 for the bunker silo consisting
of one section and 48 m)3 for more than one section.
The annual maintenance cost was set at 0005 of the
investment cost (Agriwise, 2007). The depreciation time
was set at 20 years and the capital interest at 5%.
For harvesting with a round baler (RBI), the same
round baler was assumed for all three machinery sizes
and only the mower-conditioner varied between the
machinery sizes (Table 5). The bales were assumed to
have a diameter of 125 m and a weight of 250 kg DM.
The bales were picked up with a tractor and transport
trailer and transported to storage. The bale transport
was assumed to be carried out at a time when it did not
limit the harvesting capacity, i.e. after the harvest
period. The bales were stored on an area paved with
tarmac and sand. The investment cost for the storage
area was set at 15 m)2 (Lindgren and Benfalk, 2003).
Depreciation time was set at 15 years and the annual
maintenance cost at 007 of the investment cost. The
capital interest was set at 5%.

Machinery and labour costs

Machinery costs were calculated according to ASABE
(2006a,b) and included depreciation, capital interest
(5%), maintenance, tax and insurance, housing and
fuel. Depreciation was based on the machine list price
from Maskinkalkylgruppen (2007) with 20% discount
(due to the sale price being normally lower than the list

 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 64, 276291

Timeliness of forage harvesting 283

price), on the residual value, on age and on annual use.

Total life repair and maintenance costs were calculated
as a proportion of the list price (ASABE, 2006b) and,
since machines in Sweden generally have a relatively
short annual use, reduced for shorter total use
compared with estimated life according to ASABE
(2006b). A constant replacement age was assumed
(Maskinkalkylgruppen, 2007) irrespective of annual
harvested area. Two tractors of 70 and 130 kW, needed
for harvesting operations, were assumed to also be used
for operations other than harvesting and their
costs ha)1 were calculated based on estimates from
Maskinkalkylgruppen (2007) for shorter annual use
(455 h for the tractors and 420 h for the wheeled
loader). An extra tractor was needed for an additional
transport trailer at longer distances with the PCFH/T
system and this extra tractor was assumed to be older
and only used for 200 h annually. Its depreciation and
interest costs were, therefore, reduced.
Fuel consumption was calculated using a machinerycost estimator described by Cardoso et al. (2009), based
on ASABE (2006a,b) but adapted to Swedish conditions. Fuel consumption was dependent on specific
energy requirement for cutting per tonne and adjusted
for the yield and cutting length. The fuel price was set at
068 L)1.
Machinery and labour costs were calculated for the
number of hours that the machines were used in the
field or for transport work. Time for breaks was not
included in the annual use on which calculations of the
machinery cost were based. However, labour costs
included idling time when one operation was delayed
due to another operation. Labour costs were calculated
at 19 h)1. The length of the working day was set at 9 h
including lunch and breaks, resulting in a working time
of 75 h.
Harvesting with the machines owned by the farmer
was also compared with harvesting by contractor. The
contractor costs for the machinery, including driver,
tractor and fuel, were set at 102 h)1 for the mower
conditioner with 4 m working width, 140 h)1 for the
50-m3 PCFT and 52 h)1 for the wheeled loader. The
cost for an additional tractor used, when the packing
capacity of the wheeled loader was exceeded, was
50 h)1 (Maskinring Sjuharad, 2007). Since list prices
for the contractor rates were used without possible
reductions due to price negotiations, contractor costs
were also reduced by 020.

Timeliness costs
The daily timeliness costs per ha resulting from changes
in feed value with harvest date were used to calculate
timeliness costs for different harvesting systems using
the same method as in the study of Gunnarsson et al.

 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 64, 276291

(2005). It was assumed that, due to low fibre concentrations and high CP concentrations in the forage,
harvesting did not start before the optimal day. Timeliness costs during the harvest were calculated using the
following equation (Gunnarsson and Hansson, 2004):
S


m 
X
ni  1
i1

ki  li  ni

where ni is the average number of days to perform the

harvest (including days not workable) of crop i, m are
the number of crops, ki is the average area harvested
each day of crop i in ha day)1, li is the timeliness costs in
ha)1 d)1 for crop i. Parameter ni was calculated from
Equation 6:
ni

Ai
days
BPC

where Ai represents the total area in ha of crop i, B

represents the number of working hours d)1, P represents the work-day probability and C represents the
gross capacity of the harvesting system in ha h)1
(Table 6). The work-day probability, i.e. the probability
that harvesting can be performed on a certain day in the
harvest period, was decided from weather data and is
presented in Table 7. If the harvest start was delayed
from the optimal day to start, as assumed when using
contractors, timeliness costs were calculated for the
whole forage area Ai until the harvest started using
Equation 7 (Gunnarsson and Hansson, 2004):
di li  Ai  d1 

Timeliness costs are dependent on the length of the

harvesting and interruptions due to weather increase
the duration of the harvest. Available field days were
described as a work-day probability showing how large
a part of the days in a given time period on which
harvest could be performed. The work-day probability

Table 7 Work-day probability, i.e. probability that harvesting

is possible on a certain day in the harvest period, calculated
from weather data from Malmo for three cuts in a season in the
period 19841993 for southern Sweden and from Uppsala for
the period 19801994 for central Sweden.
Southern
Sweden

Cut
1
2
3

Central Sweden

Bunker
silo

Round
bales

Bunker
silo

Round
bales

Period

070
064
058

064
056
051

071
062
062

065
052
053

May-June
July-August
Sept-Oct

284 C. Gunnarsson et al.

Figure 1 Daily timeliness costs per ha

( ha)1 d)1) for southern Sweden for
the period 19841993 (left) and central
Sweden for the period 19781987 (right)
for cuts 1 (j), 2 ( ) and 3 (h).
prolonged the duration of harvesting (Equation 6). For
ensiling in bunker silos, it was assumed that one day
without precipitation was sufficient to achieve a DM
content of 300 g kg)1 (Eldelind et al., 1974). The workday probability was, therefore, calculated from daily
weather data on the number of days without precipitation in each harvest period. When the forage was
preserved in round bales after drying in the field to a
DM content of 450 g kg)1, the work-day probability
was calculated from the occurrence of two days with a
maximum of 1 mm cumulative precipitation (Table 7).

Results and discussion

Daily timeliness costs per hectare
The daily timeliness costs per ha calculated for 10 years
for each harvest in southern and central Sweden are
shown in Figure 1. Average values for the daily timeliness costs for the studied years are summarized in
Table 8. The optimal day of each harvest that resulted
in the highest forage value varied between years and
Table 8 also shows the average optimal harvesting day
for the first, second and third cut, as well as the average
DM yield on the optimal harvest day. These yields,
reduced for field losses of DM, were used in the
calculations of harvesting costs.

The daily timeliness costs varied greatly between the

10 years for which the calculations were made in this
study (Figure 1). Similarly, de Toro (2005) found
considerable annual variations in timeliness costs in a
study of grain crops. Since average values for changes in
feed value of forage were used, this limits the usefulness
of the results for individual years. However, the
machinery systems were compared using average values of timeliness losses over 10 years, not values for
individual years. As Ward (1989) has pointed out,
machinery planning must be based on a long time
period due to annual variations in weather. Using
average values of feed value of the forage, derived from
regression analysis of experiments from different years,
results in lower changes in feed value with respect to
time compared with the results for individual years
(Witney, 1995). More rapid changes in feed value of
forage would have resulted in higher timeliness costs.
Timeliness costs were significantly higher for the first
cut compared with the second and third cut (P < 005)
in both regions of Sweden but there was no significant
difference between the second and third cuts. A
previous study (Gunnarsson et al., 2005) also showed
that timeliness costs were highest in the first harvest. In
addition, there was no significant difference between
timeliness cost between southern and central Sweden.
One reason for this could be that differences in nutritive

Table 8 The daily timeliness costs ( ha)1 d)1 and kg)1 DM d)1), optimal harvest day (Topt, calendar day number) and
corresponding forage yield (M, kg DM ha)1), as mean values (standard deviation in brackets with n = 9) for three cuts in the season
for the period of 19841993 for southern Sweden and for the period of 19781987 for central Sweden.
Southern Sweden
Cut
Daily timeliness costs
( ha)1 d)1)
( kg)1 DM d)1)
Topt (day no.)
M (kg DM ha)1)

Central Sweden

87 (55)
00024
157 (5)
3658 (624)

30 (14)
000064
214 (6)
4331 (608)

21 (09)
000054
267 (7)
3699 (390)

64 (35)
00020
160 (4)
3109 (712)

25 (11)
000075
211 (3)
3169 (444)

15 (07)
000054
263 (5)
2948 (490)

 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 64, 276291

Timeliness of forage harvesting 285

value of forage between the two regions were not

accounted for as the ME and CP concentrations of the
forages were calculated from experimental data presented as average values for southern and central
Sweden. However, the DM yields were calculated
separately for southern and central Sweden.
The data used here for calculation of DM yields
of herbage came from field experiments performed
between 1960 and 1980 (Belotti, 1987). The data on
nutritive value the forage were also obtained from
older field experiments (Jonsson, 1981). To consider
possible changes in DM yield of modern plant material,
it would be necessary to update the forage production
model with data from more recent field experiments.
However, the data used in this study were based on a
large number of experiments and it is uncertain
whether newer field data are available to the same
extent.
When calculating timeliness costs, it was assumed
that the whole forage area had the same optimal
harvesting date but in reality there may be differences
between fields and due to the age of a sward. The Rs
values used to calculate DM yield were average values
for first-, second- and third-year swards. If different
optimal harvesting dates were set for first-, second- and
third-year swards, timeliness costs would decrease. A
study of grain harvesting has shown that timeliness
costs can be determined more exactly if they are
calculated individually for smaller areas with different
maturity dates instead of the whole area as one unit
(de Toro and Hansson, 2004).

Harvesting costs
The harvesting costs are presented in detail for the
PCFH/T system in central Sweden, with a transport

Figure 2 Harvesting costs ( ha)1 yr)1) for timeliness (j),

labour ( ) and machinery (h) for medium-sized machinery in
the precision-chop forage harvester with separate transport
trailers (PCFH/T) system in central Sweden for a range of
annual forage areas.

 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 64, 276291

distance from field to farm of 1 km (Figure 2). When

the forage area yr)1 (first, second and third cuts)
increased from 20 ha to 150 ha, timeliness costs
increased proportionately from 001 to 019 of the
total harvesting costs for the medium-size machinery
(Figure 2). Table 9 summarizes the minimum harvesting costs for all harvesting systems and machinery sizes
in both southern and central Sweden.
For small forage areas the capital cost of the machinery was the dominant harvesting cost, as noted previously by de Toro and Rosenqvist (2005), who concluded
that large farms usually have lower machinery costs
ha)1 since the fixed costs can be divided over a larger
area. Machinery costs ha)1 (or kg harvested DM)
decreased with increasing forage area since the annual
use of the machines increased. Timeliness costs
increased with increasing forage area since the harvest
took a longer time to carry out. Labour costs ha)1 were
independent of the harvested area. This resulted in a
forage area for each machinery system where the
harvesting costs had a minimum value (Figure 2). This
area was reached when the increasing timeliness costs
outweighed the decreasing machinery costs. The reason
for the relatively large range of forage areas with about
the same minimum cost was that, at small forage areas,
the fixed machinery costs (depreciation, interest and
housing) decrease faster when the forage area increases
but the larger the forage area the smaller the decrease in
fixed costs. The flat curve in Figure 2, due to a range of
forage areas with only minor differences in costs around
the minimum cost for the system, shows a robustness
of the harvesting systems for small changes in forage
area. The constant replacement age for machinery that
was assumed may have overestimated the depreciation
and interest costs for small forage areas since low
annual use increases the residual value of the machine.
Figure 2 also illustrates that, if timeliness losses are
ignored, harvesting costs are underestimated and there
is a risk that the harvesting capacity chosen will be too
low. This is confirmed by Ward et al. (1986b) who
found that timeliness costs are of major importance at
high levels of annual use outside the recommended
operations band. Similar results were obtained by de
Toro (2005) for grain harvesting.
The area where the harvesting costs kg)1DM was at a
minimum was smaller in southern Sweden than in
central Sweden. The reason for this was that the gross
harvest capacity in tonne DM h)1 was higher in southern
Sweden due to higher DM yields using the theoretical
capacity of the machine to a larger extent. Timeliness
costs also constituted a larger proportion of the total costs
in southern Sweden. Higher DM yields resulted in lower
machinery and labour costs kg)1 DM, which increased
the proportion of total costs as timeliness costs. Furthermore, timeliness costs were influenced by the length of

286 C. Gunnarsson et al.

Table 9 Area, capacity and total harvesting costs for small, medium and large sizes of machinery and the area at which each
machinery size of the harvest systems, using a precision-chop forage trailer (PCFT), a precision-chop forage harvester with separate
transport trailers (PCFH/T) and a round baler with integral wrapping (RBI), had its minimum harvesting costs in southern and central
Sweden.
Harvest
system

Total costs
Machine
Labour
Timeliness
Area Capacity
(ha) (ha h)1) ( ha)1 yr)1) ( kg)1 DM) Prop. ( ton)1 DM) Prop. ( ton)1 DM) Prop. ( ton)1 DM)

Southern Sweden
System PCFT
Small
80
Medium
90
Large
110
System PCFH/T
Small
80
Medium 100
Large
130
System RBI
Small
70
Medium
80
Large
90
Central Sweden
System PCFT
Small
90
Medium 110
Large
140
PCFH/T
Small
100
Medium 120
Large
150
RBI
Small
70
Medium
80
Large
100

16
19
22

347
341
333

0031
0031
0030

053
057
060

168
176
181

29
26
22

91
81
68

18
17
18

57
53
56

17
24
30

365
325
333

0033
0030
0030

048
053
060

159
158
183

37
31
24

121
92
72

15
16
16

52
46
47

18
20
24

406
381
352

0038
0035
0033

060
059
060

226
211
197

27
26
26

101
93
85

13
14
14

50
50
46

18
21
26

306
299
282

0035
0034
0032

054
057
059

190
195
193

30
27
23

107
93
75

16
16
18

55
56
57

22
26
32

301
290
288

0034
0033
0033

049
052
059

170
175
193

37
33
26

129
110
88

14
15
15

48
49
49

18
20
25

371
347
313

0044
0041
0037

062
062
061

273
253
226

27
26
26

116
107
95

11
12
13

48
48
48

Machinery, labour and timeliness costs together with their proportion (prop.) of total costs are also included.

the harvest and by the daily timeliness costs per ha,

which were higher for southern Sweden. Although gross
harvest capacity in tonnes DM h)1 was lower in central
Sweden, the lower DM yields resulted in higher capacity
in ha h)1 compared with southern Sweden (Table 6).
Sensitivity analyses were performed for some input
variables with effects on the harvesting costs. As can be
seen from Figure 1, daily timeliness costs per ha varied
between years. A 020 increase or decrease in the daily
timeliness cost per ha affected harvesting costs by 003
when harvesting 100 ha in central Sweden with
medium-size machinery in the PCFT system. The
calculations of harvest costs were made for the average
DM yield at optimal harvesting resulting from the
calculation of daily timeliness costs per ha. A 010
change in DM yield changed the total harvesting
costs by 0014 for harvesting of 100 ha forage using

medium-size machinery in the PCFH/T system in

central Sweden.
One way to shorten the duration of the harvest and
thereby reduce timeliness costs is to work longer days.
In this study a 9 h working day was assumed in the
calculations. When the length of the working day was
increased to 12 h (10 h working time excluding lunch
breaks etc.) timeliness costs decreased by 028 and total
costs (machine, labour and timeliness) decreased by
0035 when 100 ha forage was harvested using medium-size machinery in the PCFT system in central
Sweden. The number of workable days also varied with
year and influenced the timeliness costs. Increasing the
work-day probability by 010 decreased harvesting costs
by 0015 for the harvesting of 100 ha forage using
medium-size machinery in the PCFT system in central
Sweden.

 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 64, 276291

Timeliness of forage harvesting 287

Figure 3 Harvesting costs ( kg)1 DM) for the precision-chop

forage harvester with separate transport trailers (PCFH/T
system) using small ( ), medium ( ) and large ( ) sizes
of machinery in central Sweden as a function of the annual
forage area in hectares.

Choice of machine size

A comparison of the harvesting costs for the small,
medium and large sizes of machinery for the PCFH/T
harvesting system in central Sweden (Figure 3) shows
that the small size gave the lowest costs up to an area of
60 ha, while above 100 ha the large size gave the
lowest costs. In contrast, in southern Sweden the
medium size of machinery gave the lowest costs for a
wide range of areas for harvesting using the PCFH/T
system (Figure 4). The main reason for this difference
was that the higher yields in southern Sweden resulted
in higher harvesting capacity in tonnes DM h)1 for the
PCFH/T harvesting system and required an extra packing tractor to be used in the bunker silo for the large size
of machinery. The extra tractor increased the costs but
the harvesting capacity was not increased to the same

extent, since the packing capacity in the bunker silo

again limited the overall harvesting capacity. When the
medium size of machinery was used, the packing
capacity of the silo was not exceeded and, although
harvesting capacity was somewhat lower, the costs
were also lower. To minimize harvesting costs it is,
therefore, important to utilize the capacity of the
machines involved in harvesting in order to avoid
costly over-capacity and idle times.
Figure 4 shows the forage area for which the small,
medium and large sizes of machinery resulted in the
lowest harvesting costs. Where the machinery sizes in
Figure 4 overlap, the difference in cost between sizes
was <00005 kg)1 DM. For round baling this study
showed that, irrespective of forage area, the lowest
harvesting costs were achieved with the largest size of
machinery, i.e. the largest mower-conditioner, since
the same round baler was used for all sizes of
machinery (Figure 4). The cost of machinery for the
mower-conditioner increased with increasing size of
machinery but the difference in cost between mowerconditioner sizes was small, and the larger mower
increased the harvesting capacity and thereby reduced
harvesting costs. One potential reason why the
machinery sizes of the PCFT system overlapped each
other more than the machinery sizes of the PCFH/T
system is that the difference in theoretical capacity
between the three sizes of machinery was smaller for
the PCFT system than for the PCFH/T system
(Table 5). Furthermore, the difference in machine
investment costs between the three machinery sizes
was less for the PCFT system.
Although not as pronounced as the results reported
by Ward et al. (1986b), the results showed that when

Figure 4 Area for which small ( ), medium ( ) and large (j) sizes of machinery resulted in the lowest harvesting costs for
the precision-chop forage trailer system (PCFT), the precision-chop forage harvester with separate trailers system (PCFH/T) and the
round baler with integral wrapping (RBI) system.

 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 64, 276291

288 C. Gunnarsson et al.

Table 10 Harvesting and ensiling costs [ per kg dry matter

(DM)] using medium-sized machinery for different harvesting
systems (PCFT, precision-chop forage trailer; PCFH/T, precision-chop forage harvester with separate transport trailers; and
RBI, round baler with integral wrapping) on 70 ha of forage in
central Sweden.
System

Machinery costs
Labour costs
Timeliness costs
Total harvesting costs
Plastic and netting costs
Silo/storage area costs
Covering silo costs
Total harvesting +
ensiling costs
Storage and ensiling losses*
as proportion of DM yield
Harvesting + ensiling costs
including losses

PCFT

PCFH/T

RBI

0024
00093
00033
0037

0021
0011
00027
0035

0020
00032
0060

0020
00032
0059

0026
0011
00042
0041
0017
00064

0064

017

017

007

0072

0071

0070

*Sources: Honig (1977); Lingvall and Sporndly (1996).

the forage area increased above the area corresponding to the minimum total costs, timeliness costs
increased more slowly for the larger machinery sizes.
This means that systems with higher capacity have
greater possibilities to withstand timeliness costs at
increased annual use.

Comparison of harvesting systems

Table 10 shows the resulting harvesting and ensiling
costs for the different systems. In order to compare
ensiling in a bunker silo with ensiling in round bales,
costs associated with the silo were included. In a wider
perspective, losses occurring during storage and handling of the silage after the forage is placed in the silo
can be included. When harvesting 70 ha of forage, the
RBI system had slightly lower harvesting and ensiling
costs at a 1-km transport distance compared with silage
in bunker silos due to lower losses.
The harvesting and ensiling costs for the different
harvesting systems reacted differently to changes in
transport distance (Figure 5). With the PCFH/T system,
the transport capacity started to limit the entire
harvesting capacity at a transport distance of 3 km.
When the option of adding another transport trailer was
investigated, it was found that using three transport
trailers resulted in lower costs compared with using two
trailers for transport distances longer than 3 km. As
mentioned by Ward et al. (1986a), Harrigan (2003) and

Figure 5 Harvesting and ensiling costs ( kg)1 DM) for the

three harvesting systems [ precision-chop forage trailer (PCFT,
), precision-chop forage harvester with separate transport
trailers (PCFH/T) and round baler with integral wrapping
(RBI,
)] at varying transport distance for harvest of 90 ha
forage with medium-sized machinery in central Sweden.
PCFH/T-2 ( ) and PCFH/T-3 ( ) refer to using two or
three transport trailers.

Amon et al. (2007), transport trailers should be in

adequate supply to make sure that the harvester can
operate to maximum capacity. However, when studying large-scale harvesting of biomass for biogas production, Amon et al. (2007) suggest that, due to long
waiting times for the transport trailers in some situations, it may be more economical to accept some
waiting time for the harvester.
Harvesting with the RBI system was most expensive
at transport distances shorter than 34 km and least
expensive at distances longer than 78 km because
transport is a separate operation that does not interfere
with the field operations. The harvesting capacity of the
RBI system, therefore, did not decrease when the
transport distance increased. The PCFT system could
only compete on costs up to a transport distance of
1 km. According to Schick and Stark (2002), for long
transport distances it is better from a cost point-of-view
to separate harvesting and transport, i.e. to use different
machines for the two operations. For long transport
distances, it is suggested that the PCFT will spend a large
part of the time on transport instead of harvesting in the
field (DLZ, 1996). This was confirmed in the present
study, where the PCFT and the PCFH/T systems had
comparable harvesting costs at a transport distance of
1 km but lost in cost-competitiveness when the transport distance increased due to idle machine and labour
time in the field.
Sensitivity analyses showed that, due to slightly
lower total fuel consumption, the RBI system was less
affected by changes in fuel consumption. A change of
020 in fuel consumption changed total costs by 0020
for the RBI system, compared with 0025 for both the
PCFT and PCFH/T systems harvesting 90 ha forage in
central Sweden.

 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 64, 276291

Timeliness of forage harvesting 289

Figure 6 Harvesting costs ( kg)1 DM)

for small. medium and large sizes of
machinery in the precision-chop forage
trailer (PCFT) system in central Sweden
compared with using a contractor with the
large size of machinery (L). Small, farmowned ( ), Medium, farm-owned ( );
Large, farm-owned ( );Large, contractor = harvesting starts on the optimal day
( ); Large, contractor + 3days =
harvesting starts 3 d after the optimal day
( ); Large, contractor + 7days =
harvesting starts 7 d after the optimal day
( ).

Contractor harvesting
The analysis thus far has considered farm-owned
machinery. An alternative approach to decrease costs
is to hire contractors to carry out harvesting. One
common perception about the use of contractors is that
harvesting may not start on the optimal day, leading to
increased timeliness losses, in particular during
years with difficult weather conditions (de Toro and
Rosenqvist, 2005). On the other hand, harvesting
capacity may be higher due to the larger machines
often used by contractors.
For contractor harvesting the cost ha)1 was fixed and
the reason for the costs increasing with forage area
(Figure 6) was the increasing timeliness costs. The
timeliness costs occurring at a delayed start of the
harvest are illustrated in Figure 6 as the difference
between the parallel lines showing costs for contractor
harvest starting on the optimal day or with a delay of 3
or 7 d.
Figure 6 shows that the smaller the forage area, the
greater the benefits of machine contractors, a finding
also reported by Ward et al. (1986b) for silage harvesting and by de Toro and Rosenqvist (2005) in a study of
machine cooperation in grain production. As Figure 6
demonstrates, hiring contractors resulted in lower
harvesting costs compared with farm-owned machinery
for forage areas less than about 100 ha. However, when
the start of harvesting was delayed by 3 d, the
timeliness costs increased and this made farm-owned
machinery a cheaper alternative even at forage areas
above about 70 ha. The corresponding forage area for a
delay of 1 week was about 45 ha. A result confirmed by
Ward et al. (1986b) was that it was not economically
justifiable to have farm-owned machinery for small
forage areas, regardless of contractor reliability. Figure 6 also illustrates the importance of finding the
optimal day for harvesting. If the contractors use higher

 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 64, 276291

capacity machines than normal for farm-owned

machinery, the timeliness costs, occurring due to delays
to the start of harvesting, could be compensated for by
lower timeliness costs during the harvest when completed in a shorter time. The cost of using a contractor
varies between different contractors. A 020 change in
contractor charges for the large-size PCFT system
resulted in a 016 change in harvesting costs for
harvesting of 100 ha in central Sweden.

Conclusions
The method presented here for valuing forage and
calculating timeliness costs could be used in other
regions by adapting the calculations on DM yield and
feed value to the prevailing conditions and by selecting
appropriate machinery systems and work rates. Forage
for other uses, such as for biogas, could also be valued
using this method. The daily timeliness costs per ha
calculated in this study are suitable for use in future
studies of timeliness and harvesting costs for forage in
Sweden.
It is important to know when the harvest has its
optimum value with respect to both DM yield and
feed value since delaying the start of harvesting
increased timeliness costs, irrespective of harvesting
capacity. Moreover, because timeliness costs were
highest in the first cut, it is important to avoid delays
in this cut.
Harvesting costs decreased with increasing forage
area up to a certain threshold area beyond which
decreasing machinery costs were outweighed by
increasing timeliness costs due to a longer duration
of harvest. After an initial rapid decrease in costs with
increasing forage area, however, the harvesting systems showed an robustness where smaller changes in
forage area did not affect the total costs to any great
extent.

290 C. Gunnarsson et al.

At increasing transport distances, the difference in cost

between different harvesting systems and different sizes
of machinery systems increased. It proved to be more
important to choose the most appropriate machinery
system at large transport distances. In contrast to the
harvesting capacity of the PCFH/T and PCFT systems,
round bales can be transported to storage after harvesting and, therefore, harvesting capacity of this system was
not affected by changes in transport distance.
The use of contractors for harvesting forage decreased
harvesting costs, particularly for small forage areas,
since increased annual use of the machinery lowers
machine costs and allows larger machines with higher
capacity to be used. To avoid high timeliness costs,
however, it is important to avoid delays in harvesting
from the optimum date for feed value.

References
AG R I M A C H (2000) Agrimach- multimedia info 2000. Reggio
Emilia, Italy: CRPA, Research Centre for Animal
Production. http://www.agrimach.com/en/ [accessed on
10 May 2009].
AG R I W I S E (2007) Databoken 2007. Uppsala, Sweden:
Department of Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. http://www.agriwise.org/databoken/
databok2k7/databok2007htm/kap11/18_kostnad
sexempel_for_plansilo.htm [accessed on 10 May
2009].
AM O N T., HO P F N E R -SI X T K., AM O N B. and BA U E R A.
(2007) Handbuch- Optimierung der Beschaffungs- und
Distributionslogistik bei grossen Biogasanlagen (HandbookOptimisation of the supply and distribution logistics for large
biogas plants). Vienna, Austria: Department fuer
Nachhaltige Agrarsysteme, Institut fuer Landtechnik
Universitat fuer Bodenkultur Wien.
ASABE (2006a) Agricultural machinery management. ASAE
EP496.2 FEB2006, pp. 385390. St. Joseph, Michigan,
USA: ASAE.
ASABE (2006b) Agricultural machinery management data.
ASAE D497.5 FEB2006, pp. 391398. St. Joseph,
Michigan, USA: ASAE.
BE L O T T I C. (1987) Valleko: radgivningsmodell for planering i
vallfoderproduktion. Projekt- och modellbeskrivning (Valleko:
a forage production planning model), Smaskriftserien nr. 2.
Uppsala, Sweden: Department of Economy, Swedish
University of Agricultural Sciences.
BE L O T T I C. (1990) Vallboken (The book of forages), Speciella
skrifter No. 40. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences.
BE R T I L S S O N J. and BU R S T E D T E. (1983) Effect of
conservation method and stage of maturity on the
feeding value of forage to dairy cows. Swedish Journal of
Agricultural Research, 13, 189200.
CA R D O S O P.M., OL S S O N J. and D E TO R O A.A. (2009)
Manual for the JTI/SLU s Farm Machinery Cost Estimator in
Excel. Report 5. Uppsala, Sweden: Department of Energy
and Technology, Swedish University of Agricultural

Sciences, http//www2.et.slu.se/maskinkalkyl/ [accessed

on 10 May 2009].
DLZ (1996) Futterernte: Arbeitsketten im kostenvergleich
(Fodder harvesting: Cost comparison of work chains).
DLZ agrarmagazin Ausgabe Osterreich, pp. 2024. Vienna,
Austria: DLZ.
EL D E L I N D J., CA R L S O N G. and LA R S S O N A. (1974)
Fortorkning till hetluftstorkning (Field wilting of forage for hot
air drying), Meddelande nr 353. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish
Institute of Agricultural Engineering.
FA G E R B E R G B., TO R S S E L L B.W.R. and NY M A N P. (1990)
Summary: users manual for the computer programme pcvall.
Part iii: Model description with biological- physical background, Vaxtodling 21. Uppsala, Sweden: .Department of
Crop Production Science, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
FO R R I S T A L P.D. and OKI E L Y P. (2005) Update on
technologies for producing and feeding silage. In: Park
R.S. and Stronge M.D. (eds) Silage production and
utilization, pp. 8396. Wageningen, The Netherlands:
Wageningen Academic Publishers.
GU N N A R S S O N C. and HA N S S O N P.-A. (2004) Optimisation
of field machinery for an arable farm converting to
organic farming. Agricultural Systems, 80, 85103.
GU N N A R S S O N C., SP O R N D L Y R. and HA N S S O N P.-A. (2005)
Timeliness costs for silage harvest in conventional and
organic milk production. Biosystems Engineering, 92,
285293.
HA L L M.H., ST O U T R.C. and DE A K A. (2005) Effect of initial
harvest timing on cultivar yield in cool-season forage
grass trials. Agronomy Journal, 97, 137141.
HA R R I G A N T.M. (2003) Time-motion analysis of corn silage
harvest systems. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 19,
389395.
HE R R M A N N A., KE L M M., KO R N H E R A. and TA U B E F.
(2005a) Performance of grassland under different cutting
regimes as affected by sward composition, nitrogen input,
soil conditions and weather - a simulation study.
European Journal of Agronomy, 22, 141158.
HO G L I N D M. (1997) Blandvall med vitklover- vallfoderpris
bestammer kvavegivan (Mixed forages with white clover- the
forage price decides the nitrogen fertiliser rate), Fakta mark/
vaxter nr 13 Informationsavdelningen. Uppsala, Sweden:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
HO L M E S B.J. and MU C K R.E. (2006) Bunker silo silage
density calculator. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/crops/
uwforage/storage.htm#Storage%20Sizing%20and%20
Management%20(silage) [accessed on 10 May 2009].
HO N I G H. (1977) Schatzung der verluste an tm und energie bei
verschiedenen konservierungsverfahren. Memeo. KBTLArbeitsgemeinschaft Kalkulationsunterlagen. Grunddaten der
Futterwirtschaft (Estimation of DM and energy losses at
different preservation methods). Braunschweig, Germany:
Institut fur Grunlandwirtschaft, Futterbau und Futterkonservierung der FAL.
JO N S S O N N. (1981) Kvalitetsforandringar hos vallvaxter.
Resultat fran skordetidsforsok med olika arter och sorter
(Changes in quality of herbage plants. Results of cutting time
trials with different species and varities) Rapport 93. Uppsala,

 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 64, 276291

Timeliness of forage harvesting 291

Sweden: Department of Plant Husbandry, Swedish

University of Agricultural Sciences.
JO R D B R U K S V E R K E T (2006) Riktlinjer for godsling och
kalkning 2007 (Guidelines for fertilization and liming 2007),
Rapport 2006:33. Jonkoping, Sweden: Jordbruksverket.
LI N D G R E N K. and BE N F A L K C. (2003) Drivningsgator och
rastning av ekologiska uppbundna kor- underlag, godselbelastning, renhet och tekniska hjalpmedel (Cow track construction and exercise of ecological dairy cows in tied-up systems),
JTI-rapport Lantbruk& Industri 319. Uppsala, Sweden:
Swedish Institute of Agricultural and Environmental
Engineering.
LI N G V A L L P. and SP O R N D L Y R. (1996) Databok for
driftsplanering (Handbook for management planning), Speciella skrifter No. 62. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish University
of Agricultural Sciences.
MA S K I N K A L K Y L G R U P P E N (2007) Maskinkostnader 2007,
underlag och kalkylexempel pa timkostnader for lantbruksmaskiner (Machinery costs 2007, basic data and calculation
examples of annual costs for farm machinery). Bjarred,
Sweden: Hushallningssallskapet Malmohus and Linkoping, Sweden: LRF Konsult Linkoping.
MA S K I N R I N G SJ U H A R A D . (2007) Maskintaxor for 2007
(Machine rates for 2007). Boras, Sweden: Maskinring
Sjuharad.
OR O S Z S., SZ U C S N E -PE T E R J., OW E N S V. and BE L L U Z Z.
(2008) Recent developments in harvesting and
conservation technology for feed and biomass production
of perennial forage crops. Grassland Science in Europe, 13,
529548.
PE T T E R S S O N O., SU N D B E R G M. and WE S T L I N H. (2009)
Maskiner och metoder i vallodling. Resultat av en enkat till
mjolkproducenter(Machinery and methods in forage production. Results of a survey to milk producers), JTI-rapport
Lantbruk & Industri 377. Uppsala, Sweden: Swedish
Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering.
SC H I C K M. and ST A R K R. (2002) Arbeitswirtschaftliche
kennzahlen zur raufutterernte (Work management ratios in
roughage production), FAT-Berichte Nr. 588. Tanikon,
Switzerland: Eidgenossische Forschungsanstalt fuer
Agrarwirtschaft und Landtechnik (FAT).
SJV (2008) Livestock in June 2008, final results. Statistiska
meddelanden JO 20 SM 0802. Jonkoping, Sweden:
Jordbruksverket.

 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Grass and Forage Science, 64, 276291

SP O R N D L Y R. (2003) Fodertabeller for idisslare 2003 (Feed

tables for ruminants). In: Sporndly R. (ed) Rapport 257,
p. 96. Uppsala, Sweden: Department of Animal Nutrition
and Management, Swedish University of Agricultural
Sciences.
ST E N B E R G M., NI L S D O T T E R -LI N D E N. and TU V E S S O N M.
(2001) Vitklover i tvaskordesystem. I: Vallbaljvaxter- senaste
nytt fran odlingsforsoken (White clover in a two-cut system. In:
Forage legumes- recent knowledge from studies in field
experiment), Rapport no. 7, pp. 816. Uppsala, Sweden:
Faltforskningsenheten, Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences.
D E TO R O A. (2005) Influences on timeliness costs and
their variability on arable farms. Biosystems Engineering,
92, 113.
D E TO R O A. and HA N S S O N P.-A. (2004) Machinery cooperatives- a case study in Sweden. Biosystems
Engineering, 87, 1325.
D E TO R O A. and RO S E N Q V I S T H. (2005) Machinery
cooperation- a study of three cases, Rapport-miljo, teknik och
lantbruk 2005:03. Uppsala, Sweden: Department of
Biometry and Engineering, Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences.
TO R S S E L L B.W.R. and KO R N H E R A. (1983) Validation
of a yield prediction model for temporary grasslands.
Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research, 13, 125135.
TO R S S E L L B.W.R., KO R N H E R A. and SV E N S S O N A. (1982)
Optimization of parameters in a yield prediction model for
temporary grasslands, Report 112. Uppsala, Sweden:
Department of Plant Husbandry, Swedish University of
Agricultural Sciences.
WA R D S.M. (1989) Rainfall patterns in relation to peat
extraction and silage-making. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology, 46, 173178.
WA R D S.M., MC NU L T Y P.B. and CU N N E Y M.B. (1986a)
Cost model of silage mechanization systems. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research, 34, 173185.
WA R D S.M., MC NU L T Y P.B. and CU N N E Y M.B.
(1986b) Determining least-cost silage
mechanisation systems. Irish Journal of Agricultural
Research, 25, 191196.
WI T N E Y B. (1995) Choosing and using farm machines.
Edinburgh, UK: Land Technology Ltd.