2-Input-data/2.4-Animal-activity-and-performance-data/2.4.5-Feed-and-energy-intake.md

@@ -13,7 +13,6 @@
 <span dir="">The DLG feed quantities are the sums of the lactation and dry period, converted to one year (personal communication by H. Spiekers, 2019, LfL Grub-Poing).</span>
 
 **Table 1: <span dir="">Dairy cows, farming systems and milk yields for which DLG (2005, 2014) provide recommendations on annual feeding amounts</span>**
-
 ![grafik](uploads/05880c2c20f0727ee868cf5da6f9fbda/grafik.png)
 
 <span dir="">For the example of an annual milk yield of 8000 kg ECM per place (roughly the average in Germany in 2018), Table 2 shows the dry matter composition of the four feeding options from </span>[<span dir="">DLG (2014)</span>](/9-Literature#dlg-deutsche-landwirtschaftsgesellschaft-ed-2014)<span dir="">. For this purpose, the concentrate feed quantities given by DLG in fresh mater were converted into dry mass, which was done with the aid of the dry mass content from </span>[<span dir="">DLG (2014)</span>](/9-Literature#dlg-deutsche-landwirtschaftsgesellschaft-ed-2014)<span dir="">, p. 15.</span>
@@ -21,7 +20,6 @@
 <span dir="">The total dry matter intake depends on the total energy requirement, which is calculated in the emissions inventory as a function of performance and weight data and thus varies regionally and from year to year.</span>
 
 **Table 2: <span dir="">Dairy cows, feed composition recommende by DLG (2014) for a milk yield of 8000 kg ECM per place and year</span>**
-
 ![grafik](uploads/d3e6afbd358699149f5e939d6a28e10a/grafik.png)
 
 <span dir="">The feeding recommendations by </span>[<span dir="">DLG (2014)</span>](/9-Literature#dlg-deutsche-landwirtschaftsgesellschaft-ed-2014)<span dir=""> for milk yields of 6000, 10000 and 12000 kg ECM basically agree with the structure shown in Table 2 for 8000 kg ECM, but the ratio of concentrated feed to roughage dry matter increases noticeably with increasing milk yield. The feeding recommendations in </span>[<span dir="">DLG (2005)</span>](/9-Literature#dlg-deutsche-landwirtschaftsgesellschaft-ed-2014)<span dir=""> also correspond to the structure shown in Table 2, but without oilseed rape and MLF 20/7, instead with MLF 16/3; the percentage composition also differs somewhat from </span>[<span dir="">DLG (2014)</span>](/9-Literature#dlg-deutsche-landwirtschaftsgesellschaft-ed-2014)<span dir=""> in some cases.</span>
@@ -57,7 +55,6 @@ These <span dir="">are then combined by weighted averaging to give the populatio
 <span dir="">The inventory model of feed intake in calf rearing is based on the feed quantities recommended by German experts in </span>[<span dir="">DLG (2014)</span>](/9-Literature#dlg-deutsche-landwirtschaftsgesellschaft-ed-2014)<span dir="">, p. 29. These recommendations are based on the assumption that within 16 weeks after birth, a weight gain of 90 kg per calf will be achieved. For this, a metabolisable energy (ME) requirement of 3400 MJ per calf is assumed. It is assumed that three calves are reared per animal place and year. Table 3 shows, in dry matter units, the feeding recommendations per calf as well as per place and year. For this, it was taken into account that </span>[<span dir="">DLG (2014)</span>](/9-Literature#dlg-deutsche-landwirtschaftsgesellschaft-ed-2014)<span dir=""> generally specifies the concentrate quantities in fresh matter units in feeding recommendations, which are converted into dry mass units for Table 3 using the dry mass content from </span>[<span dir="">DLG (2014)</span>](/9-Literature#dlg-deutsche-landwirtschaftsgesellschaft-ed-2014)<span dir="">, p. 15 (whole milk, milk replacer, calf concentrated feed.)</span>
 
 **Table 3: <span dir="">Calves, feeding per calf and per place and year as recommended by DLG (2014), in units of dry matter</span>**
-
 ![grafik](uploads/1894819985b76dc954acc4ad4009aa6a/grafik.png)
 
 <span dir="">In preparation for the feeding modeling in the inventory, the ME requirement of 3400 MJ calf<sup>-1</sup> assumed by </span>[<span dir="">DLG (2014)</span>](/9-Literature#dlg-deutsche-landwirtschaftsgesellschaft-ed-2014)<span dir=""> was checked using the data and formulas on the energy requirements of rearing cattle described in </span>[<span dir="">GfE (2001)</span>](/9-Literature#gfe-gesellschaft-f%C3%BCr-ern%C3%A4hrungsphysiologie-ausschuss-f%C3%BCr-bedarfsnormen-2001)<span dir="">, Chapter 1.5. A birth weight of 45 kg calf<sup>-1</sup> was assumed for this. This value is not mentioned in </span>[<span dir="">DLG (2014)</span>](/9-Literature#dlg-deutsche-landwirtschaftsgesellschaft-ed-2014)<span dir="">, p. 29; however, </span>[<span dir="">DLG (2014)</span>](/9-Literature#dlg-deutsche-landwirtschaftsgesellschaft-ed-2014)<span dir="">, p. 34, assumes a calf birth weight of 45 kg calf<sup>-1</sup> for dairy cows. In the case of the increase of 90 kg calf<sup>-1</sup> assumed by </span>[<span dir="">DLG (2014)</span>](/9-Literature#dlg-deutsche-landwirtschaftsgesellschaft-ed-2014)<span dir="">, p. 29, this in turn means an end weight of 135 kg an<sup>-1</sup>. According to </span>[<span dir="">GfE (2001)</span>](/9-Literature#gfe-gesellschaft-f%C3%BCr-ern%C3%A4hrungsphysiologie-ausschuss-f%C3%BCr-bedarfsnormen-2001)<span dir="">, Chapter 1.5, these data result in a cumulative ME requirement per calf of 1720.4 MJ calf<sup>-1</sup> for maintenance and 1461.0 MJ an<sup>-1</sup> for growth, a total of 3181.5 MJ calf<sup>-1</sup> . In comparison with the ME requirement of 3400 MJ calf<sup>-1</sup> assumed by </span>[<span dir="">DLG (2014)</span>](/9-Literature#dlg-deutsche-landwirtschaftsgesellschaft-ed-2014)<span dir="">, this result implies a safety margin by DLG.</span>
@@ -73,7 +70,6 @@ These <span dir="">are then combined by weighted averaging to give the populatio
 <span dir="">The recommendations, which are broken down into feed components, take into account that the roughage in grassland farms is grass-dominated and in arable forage farms it is corn-dominated. In addition, it is taken into account whether the animals go to pasture. Table 4 shows an overview of the DLG recommendations on which the feeding modulation in the inventory is based.</span>
 
 **Table 4: <span dir="">Heifers, farming systems for which DLG (2005, 2014) provide recommendations on annual feeding amounts</span>**
-
 ![grafik](uploads/4cde9f45eb7fc5ba851a5d839360d45a/grafik.png)
 
 <span dir="">Table 5 shows the dry matter composition of the feeding options from </span>[<span dir="">DLG (2005, 2014)</span>](/9-Literature#dlg-deutsche-landwirtschaftsgesellschaft-ed-2005)<span dir="">. For this purpose, the concentrate quantities, which are given by DLG in fresh matter, were converted into dry mass, which was done with the help of the dry mass contents from </span>[<span dir="">DLG (2005)</span>](/9-Literature#dlg-deutsche-landwirtschaftsgesellschaft-ed-2005)<span dir="">, p. 13, and </span>[<span dir="">DLG (2014)</span>](/9-Literature#dlg-deutsche-landwirtschaftsgesellschaft-ed-2005)<span dir="">, p. 15.</span>
@@ -81,7 +77,6 @@ These <span dir="">are then combined by weighted averaging to give the populatio
 <span dir="">The total dry matter intake depends on the total energy requirement, which is calculated in the emissions inventory as a function of performance and weight data and thus varies regionally and from year to year.</span>
 
 **Table 5: <span dir="">Heifers, feeding composition as recommended by DLG (2005) and DLG (2014)</span>**
-
 ![grafik](uploads/fa26875fd95fd7a1bc28e343ccd7172a/grafik.png)
 
 ### Modeling dry matter intake
@@ -139,7 +134,6 @@ and
 <span dir="">The properties of the diet constituents are listed in Table 6.</span>
 
 **Table 6: Male beef cattle, diet Characteristics used in the inventory**
-
 ![grafik](uploads/142366447a0976bbe02f9692f7e5ec83/grafik.png)
 
 ## Suckler cows
@@ -178,7 +172,6 @@ and
 <span dir="">Specific N reduced feeding of sows is not relevant in practice (expert jugdement Brigitte Eurich-Menden, KTBL). Hence it is not applied in the inventory.</span>
 
 **Table 7: <span dir="">Sows, diets used in the inventory, and their properties</span>**
-
 ![grafik.png](uploads/9746eef67f8ac608daf4c206840b540a/grafik.png){width="798" height="240"}
 
 <span dir="">The subsequent equation describes the calculation of the daily feed intake (dry matter) averaged over the production cycle. For the input data see Table 3 in Chapter </span>[<span dir="">2.4.4</span>](/2-Input-data/2.4-Animal-activity-and-performance-data/2.4.4-Energy-requirements#sows-and-suckling-pigs)<span dir=""> and the table above. It was used that in this case the units "pl<sup>-1</sup>" and "sow<sup>-1</sup>" are equivalent.</span>
@@ -202,7 +195,6 @@ and
 <span dir="">N reduced feeding of weaners is of minor relevance (expert judgement Küster, LWK Niedersachsen) and no reliable data are available. Hence, the inventory does not consider N reduced feeding of weaners.</span>
 
 **Table 8: <span dir="">Weaners, diets used in the inventory, and their properties</span>**
-
 ![grafik.png](uploads/35cb498ed8b6f54cb2f0d51eb2195748/grafik.png){width="742" height="189"}
 
 <span dir="">The daily intakes of feed, nitrogen, and gross energy (GE<sub>we</sub>) are averaged over both feeding phases by analogy to the method described for sows. Digestibility X<sub>DE</sub> and metabolizability X<sub>ME</sub> are obtained by analogy.</span>
@@ -228,8 +220,7 @@ and
 ![grafik](uploads/6d888956b4452db20a7ecdaa0655b8db/grafik.png)
 
 **Table 9: <span dir="">Fattening pigs, feeding parameters</span>**
-
-![grafik](uploads/5198d536f2079aba957b4f8a21e4b59c/grafik.png)
+![grafik.png](uploads/b6d71b4457e463a4993ec46cfa8c7737/grafik.png)
 
 <span dir="">The N contents of the feed are derived from the crude protein contents (x<sub>XP</sub>) by dividing by 6.25. Due to lack of more detailed information the data in Table 9 are assumed to be constant in space.</span>
 
@@ -272,7 +263,6 @@ and
 <span dir="">Feed requirements are derived from the postulation that the energy intake with feed meet the energy requirements of the animal. The feed characteristics used in this inventory are collated in Table 10 (derived from data from </span>[<span dir="">Haenel and Dämmgen, 2007b</span>](/9-Literature#haenel-h-d-d%C3%A4mmgen-u-2007b)<span dir="">). A regional and temporal differentiation is not possible in the absence of statistical surveys. For the same reason, N-reduced feeding cannot be taken into account.</span>
 
 **Table 10: <span dir="">Laying hens, diet used in feeding modeling</span>**
-
 ![grafik.png](uploads/5933308eaf48e16c1a0d2d3d25ee4263/grafik.png){width="739" height="154"}
 
 <span dir="">The specific N content of the feed is obtained by dividing the XP content by 6.25.</span>
@@ -308,7 +298,6 @@ and
 [<span dir="">KTBL (2006b)</span>](/9-Literature#ktbl-kuratorium-f%C3%BCr-technik-und-bauwesen-in-der-landwirtschaft-ed-2006b)<span dir="">, pg. 576, provides the amount of feed required for 4 phases, see Table 11 (fresh matter). As no data on the intake of metabolizable energy (ME) is mentioned by KTBL, Table 11 was complemented with data on the content of metabolizable energy provided by </span>[<span dir="">Halle (2002)</span>](/9-Literature#halle-i-2002)<span dir="">, Table 1. This leads to a weighted mean ME content of the feed of </span>η<span dir=""><sub>ME, feed</sub> = 11.22 MJ kg<sup>-1</sup>, related to fresh matter.</span>
 
 **Table 11: <span dir="">Pullets, phase-related diet mass intake (fresh matter) and ME contents of feed</span>**
-
 ![grafik](uploads/595844fce78813705f6fdc7edd077762/grafik.png)
 
 <span dir="">The daily feed intake (fresh matter) is calculated as follows (average over the lifespan as pullet):</span>