Organic Agriculture

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 307–322 | Cite as

Yield and herbage quality from organic grass clover leys—a meta-analysis of Norwegian field trials

  • Håvard SteinshamnEmail author
  • Steffen A. Adler
  • Randi B. Frøseth
  • Tor Lunnan
  • Torfinn Torp
  • Anne Kjersti Bakken


A meta-analysis based on experiments in organically cultivated grasslands in Norway was conducted to quantify the effects of management factors on herbage yield and feed quality. A dataset was collected that included 496 treatment means from experiments in five studies carried out at eight locations with the latitude range of 58.8 to 69.6 N between 1993 and 2010. We tested the effect of harvesting system (two vs. three cuts annually), plant developmental stage at the first cut, growth period (temperature sum) and the herbage clover proportion. Plant maturity at the first cut and herbage clover proportion explained to a large extent herbage yield and quality of the first cut and annual yield. The timing of the first cut influenced also the yield and herbage quality of the second cut. The analysis confirmed the importance of legumes performance for herbage yield and quality from grasslands in organic production. Estimated annual herbage DM yield harvested at standardized plant development stage and at average clover proportion was 9 % higher in the two—compared to the three-cut system. The crude protein concentration and in vitro dry matter digestibility was 17 and 3 % higher and the NDF concentration 7 % lower in the annual herbage from the three-cut than from the two-cut system, respectively. The empirical equations developed in this study may be applied to explore different options for grassland management as basis for ration and production planning and in scenario analysis of economic performance of individual and model farms. The equations do also reveal in numeric terms the trade-offs in management practice between high yields, yield digestibility, NDF and crude protein content in organic forage production relying on red clover N2 fixation as the engine in the system.


Grass-legume mixture Herbage yield Herbage quality Empirical relationships 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.


The project was funded by the Norwegian Agricultural Agreement Research Fund (Project number 207755 in The Research Council of Norway), the County Governors of Sør- and Nord-Trøndelag, the Sør- and Nord-Trøndelag County Authorities, TINE SA and the Norwegian Agricultural Extension Service.


  1. Bakken AK, Vaga M, Hetta M, Randby ÅT, Steinhsamn H (2014) Feed value of restrictedly and extensively fermented organic grass-clover silages from spring and summer growth. Grassland Sci Eur 19:603–605Google Scholar
  2. Bonesmo H (2000) Regrowth rates of timothy and meadow fescue as related to the content of remaining water-soluble carbohydrates and non-elongated tillers. Acta Agric Scand B-S P 50:22–27. doi: 10.1080/090647100750014376 Google Scholar
  3. Bonesmo H (2004) Phenological development in timothy and meadow fescue as related to daily mean temperature and day length. Grassland Sci Eur 9:799–801Google Scholar
  4. Bonesmo H, Skjelvåg AO (1999) Regrowth rates of timothy and meadow fescue cut at five phenological stages. Acta Agric Scand B-S P 49:209–215. doi: 10.1080/713782028 Google Scholar
  5. Buxton DR (1996) Quality-related characteristics of forages as influenced by plant environment and agronomic factors. Anim Feed Sci Techol 59:37–49. doi: 10.1016/0377-8401(95)00885-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buxton DR, Brasche MR (1991) Digestibility of structural carbohydrates in cool-season grass and legume forages. Crop Sci 31:1338–1345. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183X003100050052x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buxton DR, Hornstein JS (1986) Cell-wall concentration and components in stratified canopies of alfalfa, birdsfoot trefoil, and red clover. Crop Sci 26:180–184. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1986.0011183X002600010043x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buxton DR, Redfearn DD (1997) Plant limitations to fiber digestion and utilization. J Nutr 127:814S–818SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. E Commission (1991) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs. Off J Eur Commun L 198:1–15Google Scholar
  10. Eriksen J, Askegaard M, Søegaard K (2012) Complementary effects of red clover inclusion in ryegrass–white clover swards for grazing and cutting. Grass Forage Sci 69:241–250. doi: 10.1111/gfs.12025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fagerberg B (1988) Phenological development in timothy, red clover and lucerne. Acta Agric Scand 38:159–170. doi: 10.1080/00015128809438480 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fagerberg B, Ekbohm G (1995) Variation in clover content and in nutritional value of grass-clover leys. Swedish University of Agricultural Science. Crop Prod Sci 23:46Google Scholar
  13. Fagerberg B, Torssell B (1995) Estimation of variation in growth potential of leys with different red clover contents, nitrogen applications and cutting regimes. Wirtschaftseigene Futter 41:145–162Google Scholar
  14. Finn JA, Kirwan L, Connolly J et al (2013) Ecosystem function enhanced by combining four functional types of plant species in intensively managed grassland mixtures: a 3-year continental-scale field experiment. J Appl Ecol 50:365–375. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frøseth RB, Bakken AK, Bleken MA, Riley H, Pommeresche R, Thorup-Kristensen K, Hansen S (2014) Effects of green manure herbage management and its digestate from biogas production on barley yield, N recovery, soil structure and earthworm populations Eur J Agron 52, Part B: 90–102 doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2013.10.006
  16. Fystro G, Lunnan T (2006) Analysar av grovfôrkvalitet på NIRS. In: Kristoffersen AØ (ed) Plantemøtet Østlandet 2006, Bioforsk FOKUS (3): 180–182Google Scholar
  17. Gierus M, Kleen J, Loges R, Taube F (2012) Forage legume species determine the nutritional quality of binary mixtures with perennial ryegrass in the first production year. Anim Feed Sci Techol 172:150–161. doi: 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.12.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grønnerød B (1988) The effect of cutting intensity on yield, quality and persistence of timothy. In: Halevy AH (ed) Proceedings of the 12th General Meeting of EGF, Dublin, 4–7 July. CRC Handbook of Flowering. pp 520–521Google Scholar
  19. Halling MA, Topp CFE, Doyle CJ (2004) Aspects of the productivity of forage legumes in Northern Europe. Grass Forage Sci 59:331–344. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2494.2004.00435.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hetta M, Gustavsson AM, Cone JW, Martinsson K (2004) In vitro degradation characteristics of timothy and red clover at different harvest times. Acta Agric Scand A-An 54:20–29. doi: 10.1080/09064700410024337 Google Scholar
  21. Johansen A, Bakken AK, Hansen S (2008) Balancing milk yield and stocking rate to the output from an organic crop rotation system. Grassland Sci Eur 13:592–594Google Scholar
  22. Kirwan L, Lüscher A, Sebastià MT et al (2007) Evenness drives consistent diversity effects in intensive grassland systems across 28 European sites. J Ecol 95:530–539. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2745.2007.01225.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kleen J, Taube F, Gierus M (2011) Agronomic performance and nutritive value of forage legumes in binary mixtures with perennial ryegrass under different defoliation systems. J Agric Sci 149:73–84. doi: 10.1017/S0021859610000456 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lemaire G, Gastal F (1997) N uptake and distribution in plant canopies. In: Lemaire G (ed) Diagnosis of the Nitrogen Status in Crops. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 3–43. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-60684-7_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lunnan T (1989) Raudkløver, kvitkløver, luserne og kaukasisk strekbelg i blanding med timotei og i reinebestand. Norsk landbruksforsking 3:25–39Google Scholar
  26. Lunnan T (2004a) Avling, kvalitet og varigheit i okologisk klovereng. Grønn Kunnskap 8:136–143Google Scholar
  27. Lunnan T (2004b) Samanlikning av lang- og kortvarig eng—effektar på avling, fôrkvalitet og plantebestand. Grønn Kunnskap 8:192–200Google Scholar
  28. Mallarino AP, Wedin WF (1990) Effect of species and proportion of legume on herbage yield and nitrogen concentration of legume-grass mixtures. Grass Forage Sci 45:393–402. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2494.1990.tb01964.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moore KJ, Moser LE, Vogel KP, Waller SS, Johnson BE, Pedersen JF (1991) Describing and quantifying growth stages of perennial forage grasses. Agron J 83:1073–1077. doi: 10.2134/agronj1991.00021962008300060027x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Øyen J, Aase K (1988) Rødkløver i blanding med gras. Avling og kløverinnhold ved ulik N-gjødsling og høstingspraksis. Norsk landbruksforsking 2:41–49Google Scholar
  31. TINE Rådgivning (2014). Faglig rapport 2013. TINE Rådgivning og Medlem. Accessed 26 June 2015
  32. Riesinger P, Herzon I (2008) Variability of herbage production in mixed leys as related to ley age and environmental factors: a farm survey. Agric Food Sci 17:394–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rinne M, Nykänen A (2000) Timing of primary growth harvest affects the yield and nutritive value of timothy-red clover mixtures. Agric Food Sci Finland 9:121–134Google Scholar
  34. Røthe G, Adler S, Steinshamn H (2007) Hvitkløver og rødkløver i blanding med grasarter ved ulike høsteregimer i økologisk landbruk. Bioforsk FOKUS 2(13):24–26Google Scholar
  35. SAS (2004) SAS/STATr 9.1 User's Guide. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA,Google Scholar
  36. Steinshamn H (1997) Growth potential and herbage quality of low input grass-clover leys. Dissertation, Agricultural University of NorwayGoogle Scholar
  37. Steinshamn H (2001) Effects of cattle slurry on the growth potential and clover proportion of organically managed grass-clover leys. Acta Agric Scand B-S P 51:113–124. doi: 10.1080/09064710127615 Google Scholar
  38. Steinshamn H, Thuen E (2008) White or red clover-grass silage in organic dairy milk production: Grassland productivity and milk production responses with different levels of concentrate. Livest Sci 119:202–215. doi: 10.1016/j.livsci.2008.04.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sturludóttir E, Brophy C, Bélanger G, Gustavsson AM, Jørgensen M, Lunnan T, Helgadóttir Á (2014) Benefits of mixing grasses and legumes for herbage yield and nutritive value in Northern Europe and Canada. Grass Forage Sci 69:229–240. doi: 10.1111/gfs.12037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wachendorf M, Collins RP, Elgersma A et al (2001) Overwintering and growing season dynamics of Trifolium repens L. in mixture with Lolium perenne L.: a model approach to plant-environment interactions. Ann Bot 88:683–702. doi: 10.1006/anbo.2001.1496 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilson JR, Kennedy PM (1996) Plant and animal constraints to voluntary feed intake associated with fibre characteristics and particle breakdown and passage in ruminants. Aust J Agric Res 47:199–225. doi: 10.1071/AR9960199 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NIBIO—Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy ResearchTingvollNorway
  2. 2.NIBIO—Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy ResearchHeggenesNorway
  3. 3.NIBIO—Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy ResearchÅsNorway
  4. 4.NIBIO—Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy ResearchStjørdalNorway

Personalised recommendations