DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398

Automatic Feeding Systems

for Cattle
Technology – Performance – Notes on Planning

www.DLG.org
 -2-
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398

Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle
Technology – Performance – Notes on Planning

Authors
– DLG Committee for Technology in Animal Production
– Rosemarie Oberschätzl, Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft (LfL)
– Dr. Bernhard Haidn, Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft (LfL)

No guarantee or liability is assumed for the contents

Published by:

DLG e. V.
Competence Center Agriculture and Food Business
Eschborner Landstr. 122, 60489 Frankfurt am Main, GERMANY

1st Edition, as at: 07/2014

© 2014
Duplication and transfer of individual text sections, drawings or images – even for teaching
purposes – permitted solely after prior consent by DLG e. V., Service Department Marketing,
­Eschborner Landstr. 122, 60489 Frankfurt am Main, Tel.: +49 69 24788-209, [email protected]
 -3-
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 4

2. Automatic feeding systems 4

2.1 System overview 5
2.2 Machinery and equipment 9
2.2.1 Links in the process chain 9
2.2.2 Drive systems for mixing and distribution methods 12
2.3 Structural requirements 13
2.4 Performance and system limits 15
2.4.1 Capacity 15
2.4.2 Hygiene 15
2.4.3 Software (Management) 16
2.4.4 Safety at work 17

3. Important planning tips 18

4. References and further reading (in German) 19

 -4-
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

1. Introduction

Growing numbers of dairy and beef cattle on farms are leading to higher workloads. In pursuit of
the objectives of reducing working time, making it more flexible, facilitating work and caring for
their herds on an individual animal basis, growing family farms in particular are increasingly start-
ing to automate work processes. One example of this is Automatic Milking Systems (AMS), which
have become ever-more widespread in the last 20 years, especially in regions with medium-sized
dairy herds. However, automation of feeding using automatic feeding systems is becoming increas-
ingly popular too. It is estimated that around 1,000 systems are currently in operation throughout
Europe (Bonsels et al., 2013). Bavarian farms are investing more strongly in this technology. By the
end of 2014 there will probably be more than 100 automatic feeding installations in operation. By
contrast, according to manufacturers, only 22 farms in this region were using automatic feeding
methods in spring 2011.
As shown by a survey conducted by the Institute of Agricultural Engineering and Animal
Husbandry of the Bavarian State Institute for Agriculture in spring 2011 among 21 dairy farmers
using automatic feeding systems, the motives leading farmers to invest in an automatic feeding
system vary widely. While from the entrepreneurial point of view the majority of the farm manag-
ers hope in particular to reduce the physical strain of dispensing the feed, cut down on labour time
requirements and make working hours more flexible, another target is to save costs of construction
and mechanisation. Alongside these labour management and process engineering aspects, dairy
farmers also focus on the benefits for their animals. The majority appreciate the possibility of dis-
pensing freshly produced rations several times a day and hope that as a consequence less feed
residue will be left in the trough. By using the option of linking feeding to performance groups, the
farmers seek to improve feed conversion of the mixed rations of their cows. About half of the farm-
ers surveyed used automated milking operations in addition to automated feeding. These farms
aim to increase herd activity by more frequent feed presentation and consequently to achieve
higher and more uniform use of their automatic milking systems in the course of the day (Ober-
schätzl, 2012; Siefer, 2012).
But what technical options are currently available to meet the farmers’ expectations? And
what aspects need to be taken into account when planning an automatic feeding system? This
pamphlet addresses these questions in more detail.

2. Automatic feeding systems

A number of different automatic feeding systems are currently available on the market. These can
be combined and used to meet individual farm requirements. It is possible to distinguish between
three automation stages (Haidn et al., 2013):

Stage I: Mixing – Distribution – (pushing up)

Stage II: Filling mixer – Mixing – Distribution – (pushing up)
Stage III: Unloading and Transport – Filling mixer – Mixing – Distribution – (pushing up)
 -5-
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

In automation stage I a stationary feed mixer has to be filled by mobile equipment from bunker
silos. The advantage of this variant is that a performance group can be fed automatically several
times a day, but filling the feed mixer still takes up time. Stage II is characterised by being able to
feed all performance groups several times a day, while the farmer is no longer tied to fixed filling
and feeding times. However, the stock containers represent a major cost factor. Fully automatic
feeding in stage III has so far only been carried out in conjunction with tower or deep silos, but
these must be classified as comparatively expensive in construction and power consumption. Fig-
ure 1 provides an overview of the various techniques in the process chain for realising the different
automation stages.

Storage Stocking/intermediate store Transport and distribution

Unloading and transport Mixing Pushing up

Feed concentrate
Bunker silos

Rail-mounted feed
Mineral feed mixer
Conveyor belt

Mobile equipment

Stationary distribution
cart
Stationary mixer

Mobile distribution
Tower / deep silos Stock container Stock area, cart
crane filling

Mobile feed mixer

Figure 1: Techniques in the process chain for realising various automation stages
in feeding (Haidn et al., 2013)

2.1 System overview

Various technical approaches have been developed for automatic feeding of cattle (Figure 2).
While only one prototype in the form of a compound feed demand station (Atlantis system from
Lely) was developed for individual animal feeding and not pursued further, only group-related
systems are in use today. With this method the same ration is presented to an animal group at its
feeding placed several times a day (Wendl & Harms, 2007).
The group-related systems can be sub-divided into stationary and mobile systems. Essential
differences between these systems lie in the stocking of the feed and the mixing system, which can
be designed in accordance with conventional methods of feed mixer wagons (horizontal, vertical,
free fall mixers). Further distinguishing criteria are the delivery of the feed mix (feed belt, rail-
mounted distribution and mixing cart, self-propelled feed distribution and feed mixer carts) and
the drive system (power towing cable, power rails, battery, internal combustion engine) (Wendl,
2011b).
 -6-
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

Automatic feeding systems

stationary mobile

stationary stationary
mixer mixer

feed rail-mounted rail-mounted autonomous feed autonomous

belt feed feed distribution cart feed mixing cart
distribution mixing
cart

Figure 2: Systems for automatic compound feed presentation (modified after Wendl, 2003)

Stationary systems are fixed in position. Here the feed is conveyed further from a stationary
mixing container, without the system itself moving to the target location. These systems include
the feed belts that were developed in the 1960s and used on larger East German farms (Heber,
2011; Wendl & Harms, 2007). They are mounted over the feed alley. The feed is brought to the
feed alley with the help of a conveyor belt and ejected from there by a moving pusher (Figure 3)
(Jungbluth et al., 2005). For example, the firms GEA and Pellon offer belt systems. However, feed
mixes are also delivered via a rail-mounted distribution cart. While the stationary mixer has to
be filled mechanically by the farmer, the maximum possible number of rations is limited by the
number of ration mixes (stage I). In practice, 2 to 3 mixes are frequently produced, the last of
which is presented to the lactating cows several times a day. However, if the mixer is filled auto-
matically without the presence of an operator being necessary (stage II + III) a number of rations
can be mixed and distributed each day. This depends on the capacity of the technical compo-
nents. The rations dispensed can be performance related.
 -7-
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

Figure 3: Left: stationary mixer with control unit;

Right: conveyor belt mounted over the feed alley (Source: Oberschätzl)

Stationary systems with a rail-mounted distribution or mixing cart are widespread in practice.
They are used particularly in Scandinavian countries (Wendl & Harms, 2007). The rail-mounted
system is made up of a distribution cart with or without a mixing function and stock or mixing con-
tainers (Figure 4). The area of the cow shed that is to be serviced by the cart must be defined by rails,
points and contact positions.. The carts are filled automatically with the individual components from
the stock or mixing containers. The ration is then presented to the corresponding animal group.

Figure 4: Left: stock container; Middle: rail-mounted mixing and distribution cart;
Right: stationary mixer and rail-mounted distribution cart (Source: Oberschätzl)

Depending on the technical resources, the stock or mixing containers can be filled mechanically
via tractor-mounted equipment or automatically from tower or deep silo facilities (Grothmann &
Nydegger, 2009). Such processes make it possible to produce and distribute several rations a day
(stage II). Various manufacturers are intensively engaged in developing these systems further.
The mobile systems represent a special application. It is possible to distinguish between two
variants: the mobile self-propelled feed distribution cart with an upstream stationary mixer and
 -8-
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

the mobile self-propelled feed mixer cart. An example of the former is the Multifeeder V4 of the
Cormall-CCC-Robot system. This is a self-propelled feed distribution cart that not only distributes
feed, but also automatically unloads the feed mixes from stock containers known as “mixing
tables” (Wendl, 2011b). The cart is steered via induction loops in the ground and sensors. Accord-
ing to the manufacturer, this unit can supply up to 800 cows. The Multifeeder V4 is powered via a
diesel engine. This variant can also be steered manually by the farmer (Figure 5). The Innovado
system from Schuitemaker operates on a similar principle. This method can fill its mixing con-
tainer automatically at the bunker silo (Heber, 2011; Wendl, 2011a), but is not yet available com-
mercially.

Figure 5: Self-propelled distribution cart (Multifeeder V4) (Source: works photo Cormall)

In spring 2012 the manufacturer Lely also presented an autonomous system (Vector). This
selfpropelled,battery-operated mixing cart is filled by a grab in the feed store, mixes the compo-
nents while docked onto the power grid, then proceeds using battery power via metal loops in the
ground to the barn. It then scans its way along the feed fence with the aid of ultrasonic sensors and
distributes the respective rations there (N. N., 2012). A further special feature of the Lely Vector is
its ability to record feed residue quantities at the feed alley via a sensor and add fresh feed in
­accordance with requirements. In addition this unit also pushes up the feed (Figure 6).
 -9-
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

Horizontal silo
Feed stock area
Animal housing (dairy cattle)
Animal housing (young cattle and dry cows)
Feed concentrate and minerals
Mixing and feeding robot (Lely Vector)

Figure 6: Feeding concept of the Vector system from Lely (Source: works photo Lely)

2.2 Machinery and equipment

2.2.1 Links in the process chain

The individual links in the possible process chains of automatic feeding systems in Figure 1 are
described in more detail below.

Unloading and transport

The following aspects must be taken into account for swift unloading and smooth transport of the
components:

•• Unloading equipment with a high capacity (grab buckets, shear buckets, block cutter ➝ equip-
ment mounted at the front or rear of tractor or wheeled loader)
•• Short distances from the feed store to the supply and mixing area
•• Concreted areas or hard standing

Stocking/Intermediate store
The components can be stored in containers or a covered stock area with unloading by crane. This
latter concept is pursued by Lely.Where possible, a separate storage area that can be equipped
with three different variants of crane mounting with a grab is recommended for this type of system
(fixed rail, overhead crane, gantry crane).
 - 10 -
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

Table 1: Operation and dimensions of the stock containers of various manufacturers of automatic
feeding systems

Features Stock forms Floor design Dosing system Dimensions (m)

Blocks Bales Loose Chain Pusher Open Closed Cutting Cutter Dosing Length Width Height (total)
floor device roller roller
Manufacturer

DeLaval x x x x x 4.6 – 9.6 2.1 3.7 (variable leg

supports)

GEA/Mullerup x x x x x x 3.5; 6.0; 3.0 max. 4.5

9.0

Hetwin x x x x x x x 6.1; 7.1 2.1; 2.4 1.8; 2.7 (variable

leg supports)

One2Feed x x x x x

Pellon x x x x x x 5.1; 7.1; 2.3 3.2 – 5.4

9.1

Schauer/ x x x x x 5.4 2.7 3.7

Rovibec

Trioliet

T30 x x x x 6.6 3.0 3.5

T40 x x x x 6.0; 7.4; 1.96 2.5

8.7

Wasserbauer x x x x x x 6.0 2.5 2.1 (variable leg

supports)

However, feedstuffs are most frequently stored in stock containers. The equipment varies from
manufacturer to manufacturer. Table 1 provides an overview of different variants.
The silages can be stored loose or in bales or blocks in the stock container, depending on the
manufacturer. It is recommended that silages be stored in blocks or bales, however, in order to
minimise the influence of air and thus any microbial changes. The necessary container sizes for the
individual feed components in the ration have to be calculated.
The following formula can help here:

VB = TZ * QuantityK * (1/ρ) * (1/n) * (1/Vnutz) * 100

VB: Volume of stock container (m3)

TZ: Number of animals
QuantityK: Quantity of the component per animal and day (kg/animal/day)
ρ: Density of the component (kg/m3)
n: Stock container filling frequency per day
Vnutz: Volume of the stock container utilised

Table 2 shows the required storage volume for grass and maize silage (unloading with grab bucket)
depending on different animal numbers. The grass silage here is forage wagon silage, while the
maize silage is chopped silage.
 - 11 -
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

Table 2: Storage volume required in stock containers for grass and maize silage (grab shovel un-
loading) as a function of different cow numbers

Components Storage volume required (m3)

Feed quan- Density Useful Filling Number of cows
tity (kg FM/ (kg FM/m³) volume frequency/
cow/day) (%) day 50 100 150 200 250 300

Grass silage 22 350 70 1 4.5 9.0 13.5 18.0 22.4 26.9

Maize silage 18 400 70 1 3.2 6.4 9.6 12.9 16.1 19.3

Mixing
Depending on the feeding system, the rations can be mixed with the aid of a stationary mixer, a
rail-mounted feed mixer or a mobile mixer. These work in accordance with the systems known
from feed mixer carts (vertical, horizontal, free-fall). Depending on the equipment of the feeding
system, the mixer can be filled with feedstuffs via belts from the stock containers. However, feed
residues can accumulate beneath the belts – especially if very fine material is being used such as,
for example, lucerne hay – and lead to the conveyor belt stopping. In order to reduce any impreci-
sion of the component dosing in the mixer, the belts can be equipped with a weighing facility, but
weaknesses can occur here too.
The selection of the mixing system should be guided by existing components and the com-
ponents used (important: note the length of straw, hay, grass silage!). Chop lengths of 3 – 4 cm are
recommended for good mixing quality of the rations. However, as the forage wagon and bale
materials frequently display chop lengths of approx. 15 cm, it is necessary to shorten the compo-
nents. To meet this demand, additional cutting facilities are necessary at the feeding installation, or
else only chopped material should be used. This can help to achieve lower wear of the machinery
and equipment. Flexible speed settings can ensure better emptying of the mixing container when
discharging the ration, leaving smaller residual quantities. Many systems now possess features for
compensating deviations in a feed ingredient quantity in the ration in the next ration produced.

Transport and distribution

The following transport and distribution facilities are used (see Figure 1):

•• Conveyor belt
•• Stationary distribution cart
•• Stationary mixing and distribution cart
•• Mobile distribution cart
•• Mobile mixing and distribution cart

Depending on the distribution system selected (see Figure 2), different demands are made of feed
alley widths (table 3).
 - 12 -
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

Table 3: Requirements of feed alley widths depending on the distribution system

Distribution system Recommended feed alley width (m)

one-sided dispensing two-sided dispensing

Conveyor belt 1.50 – 2.00 2.0

Rail-mounted 2.0 – 2.5 2.5 – 3.0
Mobile 2.5 – 3.5 3.5 – 5.0

These are functional dimensions that have proved efficient. Despite this, it should be taken into
consideration that if a feeding system fails, it should be possible to drive through the feed alley with
a yard loader. Moreover, if feed alleys are too narrow, there is a risk of mixing the different rations
of different performance groups that may be standing opposite each other. Some manufacturers
offer the option of dispensing on both sides of narrow feed alleys, which is why only one central
rail positioned in the middle over the feed alley is necessary, and where appropriate the opposite
trough rows can be supplied.
Depending on the distribution facility, a different support structure with the necessary struc-
tural requirements is necessary. A rail-mounted mixing and distribution cart, for example, requires
a stronger support structure than a pure distribution unit. Furthermore, the rail structure on which
the distribution facilities are mounted may be galvanized, among other finishes. However, galva-
nised parts can be subject to material abrasion. Such shavings should not be able to make their
way into the feed. Appropriate rectification measures are to be undertaken.

2.2.2 Drive systems for mixing and distribution methods

Depending on the farm situation, manufacturers of automatic feeding systems offer different drive
systems to suit the power supply. The greatest diversity is found among rail-mounted, automatic
feeding systems. However, the drives involve a number of requirements as well as advantages and
disadvantages (table 4). Mobile feeding robots can be powered by a diesel engine or a battery-
supplied electric motor. Facilities with conveyor belts are also supplied with electricity via electric
motors.
 - 13 -
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

Table 4: Demands made of the different drive variants of rail-mounted automatic feeding systems
with assessment

Power supply Drive ratings Demands made of Advantages Disadvantages

equipment
Current rail 48 and 400 V Splash-water Safe power supply; More expensive
­protected can easily be expan- technology (running
ded; gradients can and power rail);
be overcome point settings
­restricted
Towing cable 400 V Safe energy supply Travel round bends
possible to limited
extent; cannot be
expanded at will;
no point settings
Accumulator 12 V High performance Flexible use, simple Only slight gradients;
­battery batteries (charging technology (running long charging times
duration approx. rail)
6 h/day)

2.3 Structural requirements

The design of the feed kitchen represents a key factor for successful operation of an automatic
feeding system. Depending on the feeding resources and the operational situation, various ar-
rangements of the kitchen beside or in the barn are possible (Figure 8). However, fire protection
regulation aspects, options for expanding the animal housing and access to the building as well as
connection between feeding and the animal housing should be taken into account.

external feed kitchen mounting variant, developed mounting variant, developed

on the gable side on the eaves sidea

Figure 7: Arrangement variants of the feed kitchen on the animal housing building with possibilities
of expansion (indicated by arrows, Source: Oberschätzl)
 - 14 -
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

The following further aspects are to be considered during planning:

Dimensions
•• Number of components stored in stock containers and their manufacturer-specific size influ-
ence the space requirement (table 1) – a 6 m grid is recommended
•• The feeding system resources influence the space requirement (stationary mixer and distribu-
tion facility require additional space)
•• Eaves height: influences the position and height of the stock containers depending on the
equipment used (include sufficient space for filling in your plans!) (table 5)

Table 5: Arrangement variants of the stock containers and the resulting recommended eaves
heights of the kitchen

Sloping arrangement Horizontal arrangement

Container position

Recommended eaves height (m) 4.1 – 4.5 3.5 – 4.0

Figure 8 shows two examples of arrangement variants of the stock containers.

Climate control and weather protection

•• Protection against thermal radiation (sandwich panels, solutions with roof boards)
•• Protection against rain, snow, wind and birds (pusher gates, roller gates, nets)
➝ Take access routes into account!
•• Ensure ventilation in summer

Figure 8: Left: sloping arrangement of stock containers;

Right: horizontal position of stock containers (Source: Oberschätzl)
 - 15 -
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

Floor design
•• Smooth, flat paved base (facilitates cleaning)
•• Drainage of silage effluent and cleaning water (drainage channel to silage effluent tank; floor
gradient) (figure 9)

Automatic feeding systems are characterised by lower space requirement in the animal housing,
which is why old buildings with low ceiling heights and narrow feed alleys can generally use them
more easily than they can cope with standard mechanisation and a feed mixer cart. Flexible con-
version and new building solutions are consequently possible. As already shown in table 3, narrow
feed alleys and corresponding structural savings can be achieved. If a number of different buildings
are to be connected, outdoor rails and belts are to be covered over in order to ensure undisturbed
winter operation.

2.4 Performance and system limits

2.4.1 Capacity
Depending on the resources of the feeding system – whether the mixer has to be filled mechani-
cally, stock containers are available, or silage components can be unloaded from tower or deep
silos – different results regarding the number of feed mixes and the frequency of feed dispensing
are to be expected. Feeding methods using a stationary mixer and a separate distribution unit have
a higher capacity as regards the number of animals to be fed and the formation of performance
groups than a system with a combined mixing and distribution cart. This is because while one ra-
tion is being delivered, the stationary mixer can already be producing the next feed mix. The fol-
lowing further factors determine the capacity of the system:

•• Drive system (take the required charging times into account for accumulator-powered systems)
•• Distance between feed kitchen and the groups to be fed as well as individual animal housing
buildings
•• Number of groups to be fed
•• Frequency of feed dispensing per day
•• System-related settings

According to the information supplied by manufacturers, up to 300 cows can be supplied with a
stage II feeding system – if a maximum of about 15 groups and approx. 10 components are to be
fed in one ration. These statements are to be viewed critically and the conditions on the individual
farm should be examined. For example, on large farms with over 1,000 cows feeding systems with
a stationary mixer and belt distribution are more likely to be used. Here, however, the combination
of a number of rail-mounted or mobile mixing and distribution carts would be conceivable.

2.4.2 Hygiene
As with the feed mixing carts, in the case of automatic feeding systems attention must be paid to
strict hygiene conditions in the plant. The duration of feed storage should be adapted to the stabil-
 - 16 -
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

Figure 9: Left: discharge opportunities for cleaning water and silage effluent
Right: feed residues at the cleaning flap (Source: Oberschätzl)

ity of the silages and the prevailing outdoor temperatures. For example at high temperatures in
summer daily stocking of the silages in the containers is to be recommended, or in the case of
inadequate silage quality even stocking twice a day. In winter the silage components can be placed
in intermediate storage for at least 24 hours, however (Maier et al., 2013). Furthermore, the contain-
ers should only be topped up with fresh silage when they have been largely completely emptied.
Feed residues remaining in the stock containers should also be removed regularly (two to three
times a week) in order to avoid any strains on the feed hygiene. Poor quality silage can lead to
impairment of animal health and represents an avoidable source of emissions. In order to minimise
the food base for rodent pests, the feed kitchen should be cleaned weekly (brushed clean, stock
containers to be cleaned with high pressure cleaners). For this reason the floor should be designed
as described under point 2.3 (Figure 9).
Furthermore, the design and position of the stock containers is crucial for cleaning. If the
containers are arranged at an angle, sufficient height must be included in the calculations to enable
feed residues to be removed below the container. Horizontal positions of the stock containers es-
pecially require high tightness of the containers in order to avoid crumbling losses. Individual
manufacturers offer a technical option for removing feed residues carried along on the scraper
floor. A flap at the front end of the stock container and a scraper integrated there aim to allow re-
moval of the residues (Figure 9). However, it should be pointed out that cleaning of the stock con-
tainers takes up some time for the farmer and there is a need for manufacturers to optimise facili-
ties in this respect.

2.4.3 Software (Management)

Depending on the system, the manufacturers offer a range of software solutions. However, the call
for ISOagriNET-compatible systems is increasing. This should make cross-manufacturer data trans-
fer and cross-system documentation of all technologies available in the animal housing (e.g. auto-
matic milking system, automatic feeding system, slat cleaning robot, ventilation equipment, …).
Most of the input displays on the distribution unit make it possible to enter rations, feeding
frequencies and times, and group divisions. Furthermore, manufacturers offer coupling with feed
 - 17 -
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

management software and animal housing computers as well as access to systems via smart-
phones. A standard feature of all systems is an alert to the farmer via text message or telephone call
in the event of malfunctions. The information about malfunctions occurring and feeding data can
be viewed and secured in separate lists (log-files).

2.4.4 Safety at work

Automatic feeding systems are characterised by great variability of the possible combinations of
individual components. The systems can either be procured completely from one manufacturer, or
individual system components can be purchased from different suppliers. In the latter case the
question of areas of responsibility and liability in the event of loss or damage arise. Although the
manufacturers issue declarations of conformity for each component of the system, in the event of
a claim it must be clarified who is now liable – the operator (farmer), the manufacturer, or the firm
of electricians that connected the system to the power supply. This should be clarified at a joint
meeting with the responsible employer’s liability insurance association and the manufacturers and
installation firms involved in operation prior to installation and commissioning of the system. The
various consultants can point out safety risks in the system in advance and enable construction to
be adapted. The following potential sources of danger can be avoided by appropriate planning:

•• Conveyor belts should be closed on the bottom side by sheet metal panels and prevent easy
access.
•• Stock containers should be closed at the bottom so that there can be no danger for individuals
due to circulating chains.
•• Stock containers should be closed at the front side to such an extent that persons standing up-
right cannot reach into them easily.
•• Appropriate safeguards must be provided for the mixing device (e. g. stationary mixer) and if
possible these should not be installed at ground level in order to prevent the risk of individuals
stumbling.
•• A number of “emergency off switches” should be placed at important positions on the installa-
tion and in the feed kitchen so that in the event of an emergency the feeding system can be
stopped as quickly as possible.
•• The distribution facility must be equipped with a safety device that triggers stopping of the unit
in the event of defined resistances. Otherwise the distance between unit and floor must be
large enough (> 0.5 m) for the distribution cart to be able to run over e. g. a person lying on the
ground without any harm.
 - 18 -
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

3. Important planning tips

The most important aspects for planning an automatic feeding system are summarised below.

Feeding system
•• Select a feeding system to match the farm
•• Enable the creation of any number of performance groups
•• Allow for the possibility of feeding all animals on the farm
•• Ensure that suitable unloading equipment is available
•• Plan the number of stock containers and sufficient storage capacity
•• Select the mixing system to match the feed components
•• Provide an alternative method of feeding in the event of failure of the equipment
•• Take measures to prevent accidents

Feed shed
•• Select an arrangement to match farm work cycles (external, eaves side or gable side develop-
ment)
•• Select dimensions (space requirement for equipment, building and eaves height)
•• Arrange for climate control and weather protection
•• Design the floor appropriately (smooth, solid base with the possibility of draining silage efflu-
ent and cleaning water)

Other structural aspects

•• Consider the possibilities of expanding the animal housing and the feed shed
•• Select the feed alley width (depending on the system)
•• Comply with structural requirements (load bearing capacity of the structure, separate load-
bearing system)
 - 19 -
DLG Expert Knowledge Series 398: Automatic Feeding Systems for Cattle

4. References and further reading (in German)

LfL-Information “Automatisches Füttern im rinderhaltenden Betrieb”. Informationstag. Ed. Bayeri-

sche Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft. 18 February 2014, Grub. Available at: http://www.lfl.
bayern.de/publikationen/informationen/062327/index.php

LfL-Information “Automatisches Füttern im Milchkuhbetrieb”. Informationstag. Ed. Bayerische Lan-

desanstalt für Landwirtschaft. 06. Februar 2014, Grub. Available at: http://www.lfl.bayern.de/
publikationen/informationen/040285/index.php

LfL-Schriftenreihe “Tierhaltung in Bayern – Quo vadis?” Landtechnisch-bauliche Jahrestagung und

Eröffnung der Lehrschau. Ed. Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft. 25. Oktober 2011,
Grub. Available at: http://www.lfl.bayern.de/publikationen/schriftenreihe/041013/index.php

Tagungsband der 11. Tagung Bau, Technik und Umwelt in der landwirtschaftlichen Nutztierhal-
tung, 24. – 26. September 2013, Vechta.

55 Antworten zur Automatischen Futtervorlage beim Rind (2012). Ed. DLG-Verlag GmbH, Frank-
furt am Main.

DLG Membership

DLG – because business success

is a matter of mindset!
DLG members enjoy • Regular DLG newsletter
the following advantages
• Test reports of agricultural
• Free admission to all DLG trade machinery tested by DLG
fairs on two days: www.DLG.org/dlgtestreports
AGRITECHNICA, EuroTier,
EnergyDecentral, PotatoEurope, • The magazine ‘agrifuture’,
DLG-Feldtage, DLG-Waldtage magazine for international
agribusiness published four
• A copy of each trade fair catalogue times a year

www.DLG.org/membership
 Other DLG Expert Knowledge Series

• DLG Expert • DLG Expert

Knowledge Series 403 Knowledge Series 369
Notes on operating waste air Sustainable Arable Farming
cleaning facilities for pig farming
• DLG Expert
• DLG Expert Knowledge Series 357
Knowledge Series 386 Problem Weeds in Grassland
Biogas from Grass

• DLG Expert
Knowledge Series 384
Managing staff on dairy farms

DLG Expert
Kn owledge Se
rie s 369
Series 386 SSuustainab
Knowledge able
l Arable Fa
DLG Expert
Boo
ost
osstin rming
Grass
ingg efficie
ncy, main
intainin

Biogas from
g the image,
conserving
resources
energy
to producing
can contribute
nd growths
How grassla

www.DLG.
org org
www.DLG.

Download www.DLG.org/Knowledge

DLG e. V.
Mitgliederservice
Eschborner Landstr. 122
60489 Frankfurt am Main
GERMANY
Tel.: +49 69 24788-205
Fax: +49 69 24788-124
[email protected]
www.DLG.org