Claim · model-written summary
At lower yields, replacing grass with lucerne had little economic attraction.
- Taxon
- lucerne
Medicago sativae0 - Outcome
- economic attractione0
- Direction
- smalle0
- Qualifier
- At the lower yieldse0
- Comparator
- grasse0
Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleTreatmentSettingValue
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At the lower yields, the economic attraction of growing and feeding lucerne in place of grass is small”
Title
The future of lucerne in British agriculture: an economic assessment
C. J. DOYLE; D. J. THOMSON Grass and Forage Science 1985. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2494.1985.tb01720.x
Other claims from this paper (7)
- Association Well managed lucerne had lower production costs than grass.
- Association Feeding lucerne could significantly lower dairy cow winter feed costs.
- Association Lucerne inclusion did not lower winter feed costs for beef cattle.
- Observation Lucerne yields differed significantly among farms, ranging from 9 to 13 t dry matter ha −1 a −1.
- Observation Lucerne production is concentrated in southern and eastern Britain.
- Association A conserved lucerne price giving a comparable gross margin to arable crops would leave dairy farmers little feeding advantage.
- Recommendation Lucerne is likely economically viable only with high yields and on-farm use.