Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Advantages of combining linear programming and weighted goal programming for agriculture application

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Operational Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to present the basic characteristics of linear programing (LP) and weighted goal programming (WGP) to optimize processes on farms. Characteristics of both mathematical techniques are presented through the development of the crop planning model for solving some objective problems: maximizing financial results and minimizing different production costs on agricultural holdings. The model is structured from two sub-models, where the first based on linear programming and the second based on weighted goal programming are supported with penalty functions. The authors dispatch the weaknesses of LP with the application of WGP in the model and support this statement with results in this paper. The model was tested and validated on crop rotation with combinations of different field and vegetable crops in two different scenarios (WGPSC1 and WGPSC2) on a real agricultural holding in Slovenia. The results show that WGP combines more suitable crop rotation from an economic perspective than LP and provides a better solution for diversified and economically feasible crops that are included in the crop rotation. LP gives completely unacceptable results from the aspect of underachievement (for more than 100 %) of the maximum cropping area on a farm, while WGP completely satisfies all goals. From the obtained results in this paper, the authors identify several weaknesses of LP and present how it could be removed by applying the WGP technique.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Babić Z, Perić T (2011) Optimization of livestock feed blend by use of goal programming. Int J Prod Econ 130:218–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson EL, Darmon N, Fahmida U, Fitriyanti S, Harper TB, Premachandra IM (2006) Design of optimal food-based complementary feeding recommendations and identification of key “problem nutrients” using goal programming. J Nutr 136:2399–2404

    Google Scholar 

  • Gass S (1987) The setting of weights in linear goal-programming problems. Comput Oper Res 14(3):227–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris P, Bishop REM (2007) Recent developments in equine nutrition and feeding. J R Agric Soc Engl 168:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Jafari H, Koshteli QR, Khabiri B (2008) An optimal model using goal programming for rice farm. Appl Math Sci 2(23):1131–1136

    Google Scholar 

  • Lara P, Romero C (1994) Relaxation of nutrient requirements on livestock rations through interactive multi-goal programming. Agric Syst 45:443–453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee H, Chambers RG (1986) Expenditure constraints and profit maximization in U.S. agriculture. Am J Agric Econ 68:857–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons JJ, Oja D, Ageloff R, Carey P (2008) New perspectives: Microsoft Office Excel 2007; comprehensive. Thomson Course Technology, USA, p 824

    Google Scholar 

  • Prišenk J, Pažek K, Rozman Č, Turk J, Janžekovič M, Borec A (2013) Application of weighted goal programming in optimization of rations for sport horses. J Anim Feed Sci 22:335–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehman T, Romero C (1984) Multiple-criteria decision-making techniques and their role in livestock ration formulation. Agric Syst 15:23–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarker R, Ray T (2009) An improved evolutionary algorithm for solving multi-objective crop planning models. Comput Electron Agric 68(2):191–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma DK, Jana RK, Gaur A (2007) Fuzzy goal programming for agricultural land allocation problems. Yugosl J Oper Res 17(1):31–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor CR (1984) Stochastic dynamic duality: theory and empirical applicability. Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 66:351–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor CR (1989) Duality, optimization, and microeconomics theory: pitfalls for the applied researcher. West J Agric Econ 14(2):200–212

    Google Scholar 

  • Waugh FV (1951) The minimum-cost dairy feed. J Farm Econ 33:299–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Žgajnar J, Erjavec E, Kavčič S (2010) Multi-step beef ration optimization: application of linear and weighted goal programming with a penalty function. Agric Food Sci 19:193–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang F, Roush WB (2002) Multiple-objective (goal) programming model for feed formulation: an example for reducing nutrient variation. Poult Sci 81:182–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Maribor, Pivola 10, 2311, Hoče, Slovenia

    Jernej Prišenk, Jernej Turk, Črtomir Rozman, Andreja Borec & Karmen Pažek

  2. Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetošimunska cesta 25, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia

    Magdalena Zrakić

Authors
  1. Jernej Prišenk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jernej Turk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Črtomir Rozman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andreja Borec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Magdalena Zrakić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Karmen Pažek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jernej Prišenk.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Prišenk, J., Turk, J., Rozman, Č. et al. Advantages of combining linear programming and weighted goal programming for agriculture application. Oper Res Int J 14, 253–260 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-014-0159-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-014-0159-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation