Alfalfa growers make a variety of management decisions that affect profitability, including site selection and preparation, seed variety selection, fertility program, insect and weed control, harvest method and timing, and target market and timing.

Only a limited amount of research addresses some of the interrelated aspects of alfalfa management. This [article] summarizes several aspects of alfalfa production and discusses their economic implications for alfalfa growers.

Profit, returns, costs
The primary objective of growers when planting alfalfa is to earn a profit. Profit is simply total revenue (sales) minus total costs (expenses). Many aspects of production and marketing combine to affect both total revenue and total costs. Since alfalfa is a perennial crop, total costs are divided into establishment costs and annual operating costs. Establishment costs are incurred the year a new stand is established but can be averaged over the life of the stand. Annual operating costs occur each production year.

Many management practices affect both revenue, either price received or yield, and costs, either establishment costs or annual costs. Price often depends on quality, which in turn is affected by establishment practices such as seedbed preparation and annual production practices such as fertilization, weed and insect control and harvest method. Yield, another revenue component, is affected by establishment practices such as seedbed preparation, seed selection and fertilization; and annual production practices such as fertilization, weed and insect control and harvest method.

Annualized establishment costs depend on stand life, which in turn depends on establishment practices such as seedbed preparation, seed selection and fertilization, and annual production practices such as fertilization, weed and insect control and harvest method.

Therefore, establishment and annual production practices are both very important. Both affect profitability by contributing jointly to returns – i.e., yield and quality – and costs.

Seedbed preparation
OSU researchers studied four types of seedbed preparation at three locations in Oklahoma. Chemical weed control was used at each site. Results depended somewhat on the research plot location. Weed pressure was affected by weed control practices in the preceding crop. Tillage method results showed no effect on first-year plant counts or yields. Poor weed control at one location resulted in a higher weed component in the harvested forage than at the other locations. The higher weed content of the forage reduces its value, especially for dairy markets.

Tillage with a moldboard plow reduced the population of cool-season weeds, which could have several positive effects. It may result in higher alfalfa quality for buyers, reduced use and cost for chemical weed control in the established stand and a longer stand life. Light disking caused a noticeably rougher field surface than deeper tillage methods.

Seed variety
Improved varieties of alfalfa seed cost more than common alfalfa (or variety unknown), but research shows they can provide a greater return. Dowdy found that over a five-year period improved varieties yielded one ton per acre per year more on average than Oklahoma common. Insect and weed control costs in the same study were also less for the improved varieties. Quality was higher without weeds and grasses in the harvested alfalfa and without leaf damage from insects.

In addition, nearly the entire stand of Oklahoma common had died by the end of the sixth growing season. Thus, improved varieties contributed to increased stand longevity by at least one year. Also, fewer pounds of seed per acre of improved varieties are typically required than for common alfalfa, reducing somewhat the total dollar outlay for improved varieties at planting time.

Weed control
As noted above, weed control increased average yields in the same study. Most significant gains occurred after the third year. Weed control was not cost-effective for the first three years but led to increased returns the final two years of the study. Weed interference was not serious enough in the early years of the stand to economically justify application of herbicides.

The degree to which weeds are controlled in the preceding crop will affect the need for weed control in the newly established alfalfa stand and for the subsequent year or two. The alfalfa site also can affect weed growth, especially depending on rainfall or whether alfalfa is grown under dryland or irrigated conditions. Weed control in the OSU research also contributed to increased alfalfa quality and a longer stand life.

Insect control
Insect control is imperative and is required sometimes simply to save the stand and preserve within-season yields. However, research also confirms its importance over a longer time period, where returns from insecticide applications increased as the alfalfa stand aged. The greatest difference in returns was likely due to relatively low alfalfa weevil populations in two years of the five-year study. Thus, within-year weather and growing conditions significantly affect insect populations and research results. Potential savings through reduced use of insecticides are dependent on insect infestation levels (i.e. damage potential) regardless of alfalfa stand age.

Fertilization and liming
OSU researchers have assessed the importance of phosphorus fertility methods and rates in alfalfa production. Alfalfa plots that received phosphorus over six years were compared with check plots without a phosphorus fertilizer application. Both the timing of fertilizer application and method of application varied.

Results showed a significant yield response to the application of phosphate fertilizer. In the first year, there was a marked increase in yields associated with increasing rates of phosphorus. The lowest yields came from the check plots which had no phosphorus application. When compared with smaller and more frequent applications of phosphorus, availability of phosphorus to the plant decreased from the large application at preplanting and the resulting first-year yields to the sixth-year yields.

Economic results are contingent on considering several factors, including cost associated with purchasing fertilizer (large initial cost versus smaller, more frequent costs), application rates (single application versus more frequent applications) and harvest costs (higher costs associated with higher yields). Smaller rates and more frequent applications proved most economical.

This research clearly shows the importance of proper phosphorus levels for high alfalfa yields. Proper fertility also results in healthier, hardier plants, making them more resistant to weed and insect infestations and thereby contributing to longer stand life.

Harvest management
Research has addressed various aspects of harvest management. One study evaluated alternative end-of-season management practices. Alternatives included a late-fall cutting, winter grazing and not harvesting late-season alfalfa. Winter grazing produced the highest returns each year and for the five‑year period. Removal of fall alfalfa growth by grazing reduced stress on alfalfa plants resulting from insect and weed infestations. This management practice increased yields and improved alfalfa quality, both of which contributed to enhanced returns. Returns from harvesting small late-season yields did not offset harvest costs.

Other harvest management research considered alternative machinery implements for harvesting alfalfa, with emphasis on evaluating the costs of different balers. Small rectangular bales increase marketing flexibility since they are used by nearly all groups of buyers (dairy producers, horse raisers, cattle producers and feedlots). Large square bales enable targeting larger dairies and reduce the time and cost of moving bales to the side of the field for storage or shipping. Round bale harvesting is most cost-effective when harvesting lower-quality alfalfa targeted for beef cattle or cattle feedlots.

Larger acreage reduces per-acre harvesting costs significantly for larger and most costly equipment. The target market for alfalfa and amount of alfalfa acreage will affect the choice of harvesting equipment. Also important is the size of equipment necessary to harvest in a timely manner.

Stand life
Using a sample budget for an alfalfa enterprise and excluding capital costs for land, buildings and equipment, establishment costs represent over 35 percent of first-year production costs. However, if the stand survives eight years and establishment costs are averaged over the eight-year period, establishment costs represent only 7 percent of the total costs for the eight years of production (assuming constant annual costs).

As noted previously, stand life is dependent on many factors, so extending the productive stand life to as many years as economically possible requires long-run planning combined with timely execution of annual management practices. Sometimes, what appears as a cost savings by not following a recommended management practice results in a lower plant population, less vigorous plants, lower yields, poorer quality alfalfa and a reduction in stand life. Therefore, not following recommended practices may be more costly in the long run than the associated short-term expenses.

Stand life is especially important to profitability of the alfalfa enterprise, but at some time the stand needs to be replaced with an interim crop and later re-established. The yield pattern of an alfalfa stand over several years is difficult to estimate due to weather and other factors. However, generally the stand is most productive in the early-to-mid years and declines in later years.

One approach is to allocate all establishment costs to the first crop year. Then total costs each year (establishment plus operating costs in year one and just operating costs in subsequent years) are divided by each year’s yield to determine the marginal or added cost per ton for maintaining alfalfa another year. Marginal or added costs are by far the highest the first year due to the establishment costs. Then the added cost of maintaining the alfalfa stand declines and remains relatively low during the higher-yielding years. Finally, as annual yields decrease in later years of the stand and annual weed and insect control costs increase, marginal costs increase.

Growers should track their yield pattern and costs and note when yields are decreasing and marginal costs are increasing. At some point, marginal costs increase above the expected marginal or added revenue from each ton of alfalfa sold. Marginal or added revenue per ton is simply the expected selling price. To be profitable, the added revenue from maintaining the alfalfa stand one more year must equal or exceed the added cost of maintaining the stand one more year. Consequently, whenever expected marginal revenue (expected sale price for the year) exceeds expected marginal costs (annual operating costs), the stand should be maintained for another year. However, when expected marginal revenue drops below expected marginal cost, the stand should be taken out of production.

Conclusions
Several factors affect alfalfa costs and returns and, therefore, profit. Most production practices are interrelated and thus affect both costs and returns. “Saving” money by not following recommended production practices must be considered carefully. Such presumed “savings” may result in larger long-run expenditures and may also result in lost income from smaller yields, lower quality, or reduced stand life.  FG

References omitted but are available upon request at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it '; document.write( '' ); document.write( addy_text31516 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); //--> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it