IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v14y2021i24p8584-d706602.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of Cumulative Energy Needs for Chosen Technologies of Cattle Feeding in Barns with Conventional (CFS) and Automated Feeding Systems (AFS)

Author

Listed:
  • Witold Jan Wardal

    (Institute of Wood Sciences and Furniture, Warsaw University of Life Sciences in Warsaw, 166 Nowoursynowska St., 02-787 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Kamila Ewelina Mazur

    (Department of Rural Technical Infrastructure Systems, Institute of Technology and Life Sciences, Rakowiecka 32 Street, 02-532 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Kamil Roman

    (Institute of Wood Sciences and Furniture, Warsaw University of Life Sciences in Warsaw, 166 Nowoursynowska St., 02-787 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Michał Roman

    (Institute of Economics and Finance, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Nowoursynowska Street 166, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Marcin Majchrzak

    (Independent Researcher, 02-495 Warsaw, Poland)

Abstract

The increasing popularity of automated systems and the increased market share of producers of robotic feeding equipment for cows causes the need for a deeper study of energy demand in such technologies. This article provides an analysis of the inputs of energy accumulated in conventional (CFS) and automated feeding systems (AFS) for cattle. The aim of this is to determine the impact of robotic technologies for the preparation and feeding of fodder on the cumulative energy inputs. The aim of this paper is to investigate the effect of machinery and the equipment applied to the cumulative energy intensity in cattle farming facilities. The cumulative energy consumption for four technologies of automated cattle feeding (AFS) was tested and compared to the energy consumption for six technologies with a conventional feeding system (CFS). The research involved nine cow barn facilities for dairy cows and one for beef cattle. An evaluation has been made for cattle farming structures (milk and meat production) with various mixing and feeding systems for feeds of various concentrations, and keeping system (tied system and free-stall). The cow barns differed in feed mixing, feeding machinery, and equipment. Measurements of live labor inputs and the consumption of electric and mechanical energy carriers were carried out, and the mass of various types of machines and devices with software was taken into account, which became the basis for calculating cumulative energy consumption for individual technologies. The obtained average of electric and mechanical energy inputs for robotic technologies of feeding fodder (AFS) was 0.60025 kWh∙day −1 ∙LU −1 (where LU means Large Animal Unit 500 kg), and it was 39.3% lower than for conventional technologies (CFS) where it was 0.989052 kWh∙day −1 ∙LU −1 . However, taking into account all components of cumulative energy consumption, the average for the group of robotic technologies (AFS) was higher by 35.18% than for conventional technologies (CFS).

Suggested Citation

  • Witold Jan Wardal & Kamila Ewelina Mazur & Kamil Roman & Michał Roman & Marcin Majchrzak, 2021. "Assessment of Cumulative Energy Needs for Chosen Technologies of Cattle Feeding in Barns with Conventional (CFS) and Automated Feeding Systems (AFS)," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-15, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:24:p:8584-:d:706602
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/24/8584/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/24/8584/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Giuseppe Todde & Maria Caria & Filippo Gambella & Antonio Pazzona, 2017. "Energy and Carbon Impact of Precision Livestock Farming Technologies Implementation in the Milk Chain: From Dairy Farm to Cheese Factory," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-11, September.
    2. Adam Kleofas Berbeć & Beata Feledyn-Szewczyk & Christian Thalmann & Rebekka Wyss & Jan Grenz & Jerzy Kopiński & Jarosław Stalenga & Paweł Radzikowski, 2018. "Assessing the Sustainability Performance of Organic and Low-Input Conventional Farms from Eastern Poland with the RISE Indicator System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, May.
    3. Giuseppe Todde & Lelia Murgia & Maria Caria & Antonio Pazzona, 2018. "A Comprehensive Energy Analysis and Related Carbon Footprint of Dairy Farms, Part 1: Direct Energy Requirements," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Giuseppe Todde & Lelia Murgia & Maria Caria & Antonio Pazzona, 2018. "A Comprehensive Energy Analysis and Related Carbon Footprint of Dairy Farms, Part 1: Direct Energy Requirements," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Maria Caria & Giuseppe Todde & Antonio Pazzona, 2018. "Modelling the Collection and Delivery of Sheep Milk: A Tool to Optimise the Logistics Costs of Cheese Factories," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.
    3. Ronaghi, Marzieh & Ronaghi, Mohammad Hossein, 2021. "Investigating the impact of economic, political, and social factors on augmented reality technology acceptance in agriculture (livestock farming) sector in a developing country," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    4. Giuseppe Todde & Lelia Murgia & Maria Caria & Antonio Pazzona, 2018. "A Comprehensive Energy Analysis and Related Carbon Footprint of Dairy Farms, Part 2: Investigation and Modeling of Indirect Energy Requirements," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, February.
    5. Philip Shine & John Upton & Paria Sefeedpari & Michael D. Murphy, 2020. "Energy Consumption on Dairy Farms: A Review of Monitoring, Prediction Modelling, and Analyses," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-25, March.
    6. Hauke F. Deeken & Alexandra Lengling & Manuel S. Krommweh & Wolfgang Büscher, 2023. "Improvement of Piglet Rearing’s Energy Efficiency and Sustainability Using Air-to-Air Heat Exchangers—A Two-Year Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-30, February.
    7. Wan Nor Syafikah Wan Abdullah & Nur Anisah Syafiqah Mohamad Shukri & Norhafizah Md Zain & Farah Adilla Abdullah & Suhana Zakaria & Tengku Halimatun Sa’adiah T Abu Bakar & Norsida Man & Jasmin Arif S, 2024. "Understanding of the Fruit Farmers’ Adoption Intention toward Organic Farming," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 8(3), pages 1976-1985, March.
    8. Radka Redlichová & Gabriela Chmelíková & Ivana Blažková & Eliška Svobodová & Inez Naaki Vanderpuje, 2021. "Organic Food Needs More Land and Direct Energy to Be Produced Compared to Food from Conventional Farming: Empirical Evidence from the Czech Republic," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, August.
    9. Martinho, Vítor João Pereira Domingues, 2021. "Direct and indirect energy consumption in farming: Impacts from fertilizer use," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C).
    10. Rares Halbac-Cotoara-Zamfir & Andrea Colantoni & Enrico Maria Mosconi & Stefano Poponi & Simona Fortunati & Luca Salvati & Filippo Gambella, 2020. "From Historical Narratives to Circular Economy: De-Complexifying the “Desertification” Debate," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-18, July.
    11. Evangelos Alexandropoulos & Vasileios Anestis & Federico Dragoni & Anja Hansen & Saoirse Cummins & Donal O’Brien & Barbara Amon & Thomas Bartzanas, 2023. "Decision Support Systems Based on Gaseous Emissions and Their Impact on the Sustainability Assessment at the Livestock Farm Level: An Evaluation from the User’s Side," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-29, August.
    12. Hafiz Muhammad Abrar Ilyas & Majeed Safa & Alison Bailey & Sara Rauf & Marvin Pangborn, 2019. "The Carbon Footprint of Energy Consumption in Pastoral and Barn Dairy Farming Systems: A Case Study from Canterbury, New Zealand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-15, September.
    13. Beatriz García-Cornejo & José A. Pérez-Méndez & David Roibás & Alan Wall, 2020. "Efficiency and Sustainability in Farm Diversification Initiatives in Northern Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-18, May.
    14. Xiaowen Dai & Xin Wu & Yi Chen & Yanqiu He & Fang Wang & Yuying Liu, 2022. "Real Drivers and Spatial Characteristics of CO 2 Emissions from Animal Husbandry: A Regional Empirical Study of China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, April.
    15. Honorata Sierocka & Maciej Zajkowski & Grzegorz Hołdyński & Zbigniew Sołjan, 2023. "Characteristics of Electricity Consumption on the Example of Poultry Farming in Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(1), pages 1-17, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:14:y:2021:i:24:p:8584-:d:706602. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.