Farm DESIGN Manual

Farm DESIGN Manual
Farming Systems Ecology Group

Wageningen University & Research
The Netherlands
Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 1

Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................... 4
2. Installation and first use ................................................................................. 5
3. Concept ............................................................................................................. 6
4. Overview graphical user interface ................................................................. 8
4.1 Describe window ............................................................................................................ 8
4.2 Explain window ............................................................................................................ 11
4.3 Evaluate window .......................................................................................................... 13
4.4 Explore window ............................................................................................................ 14
4.5 Repository ..................................................................................................................... 15
4.6 Data from Excel and text files ...................................................................................... 17
4.7 Overview of keys and buttons ..................................................................................... 19
5. Parameter inputs windows (‘Magic windows’) .......................................... 20
5.1 Crop nitrogen fixation .................................................................................................. 20
5.2 Crop effective organic matter ...................................................................................... 20
5.3 Crop nitrogen fixation .................................................................................................. 20
5.4 Crop greenhouse gas emissions .................................................................................. 20
5.5 Animal whereabouts .................................................................................................... 20
5.6 Labour profiles.............................................................................................................. 20
6. Farm model calculations ............................................................................... 21
6.1 Module: Crop areas....................................................................................................... 21
6.2 Module: Product destinations ..................................................................................... 22
6.3 Module: Feed balance ................................................................................................... 22
6.4 Module: Organic matter balance ................................................................................. 28
6.5 Module: Manure production and breakdown ............................................................ 29
6.6 Module: nutrient flows and cycles .............................................................................. 36
6.6.1 Estimation of nitrogen fixation ............................................................................ 38
6.6.2 Estimation of nitrogen intake from pastures ...................................................... 38
6.7 Module: Labour ............................................................................................................. 39
6.7.1 Farm labour............................................................................................................ 39
6.7.2 Family labour ......................................................................................................... 40
6.8 Module: Greenhouse gases .......................................................................................... 41
6.9 Module: Bio-energy production .................................................................................. 42
6.10 Module: Water balance .............................................................................................. 45
6.11 Module: Human nutrition .......................................................................................... 45
6.11.1 Food diversity and sufficiency ........................................................................... 45
6.11.2 Nutritional Functional Diversity ........................................................................ 48
6.12 Module: Farm economics ........................................................................................... 50
6.13 Module: Household budget ........................................................................................ 53
6.14 Module: Flow metrics................................................................................................. 53
6.15 Checking the calculations .......................................................................................... 53
7. Multi-objective optimization ........................................................................ 55
7.1 Pareto-based optimization .......................................................................................... 55
7.2 Differential Evolution (DE) .......................................................................................... 56
7.3 Use of DE in Farm DESIGN ........................................................................................... 58
7.4 Setting decision variables in the Describe window ................................................... 59
7.5 Setting constraints in the Explain window................................................................. 60

8. Console application........................................................................................ 61
8.1 Use of console application ........................................................................................... 61
8.2 File structures ............................................................................................................... 61
9. Input data ....................................................................................................... 63
9.1 Farm (FRM) ................................................................................................................... 64
9.2 Environment (ENV) ...................................................................................................... 65
9.3 Economics (ECN) .......................................................................................................... 66
9.4 Household (HHD) ......................................................................................................... 66
9.5 Household member (HMR) .......................................................................................... 66
9.6 Crops (CRP) ................................................................................................................... 67
9.7 Crop products (PRD) .................................................................................................... 67
9.8 Rotations (ROT) ............................................................................................................ 69
9.9 Rotation crops (RCR) ................................................................................................... 69
9.10 Crop groups (GRP) ..................................................................................................... 69
9.11 Group-crop relations (GCR) ....................................................................................... 69
9.12 Animals (ANM) ........................................................................................................... 70
9.13 Animal products (APR) .............................................................................................. 70
9.14 Animal replacements (ARR) ...................................................................................... 71
9.15 Manures (MAN) .......................................................................................................... 72
9.16 Crop-manure relations (CMR) ................................................................................... 72
9.17 Fertilizers (FRT) ......................................................................................................... 73
9.18 Crop-fertilizer relations (CFR) .................................................................................. 73
9.19 Pesticides (PST) .......................................................................................................... 74
9.20 Crop-pesticide relations (CPR).................................................................................. 74
9.21 Machines (MCH) ......................................................................................................... 75
9.22 Buildings (BLD) .......................................................................................................... 75
9.23 Notes (NTE) ................................................................................................................ 75
9.24 Photos (PHO) .............................................................................................................. 75
9.25 Version (VRS).............................................................................................................. 75
References .......................................................................................................... 76
A1 - Estimation of organic matter degradation in practice ........................... 78

1. Introduction
The Farm DESIGN model is used as an interactive application, which will support you to
design mixed farming systems in an iterative learning cycle.
If you would find points for improvement, please suggest them to us. We are always
looking for ways to improve our products. For questions concerning the Farm DESIGN
model or other feedback, please contact:
A complete description of the model can be found in the following article:
Groot JCJ, Oomen GJM, Rossing WAH 2012 Multi-objective optimization and design of
farming systems. Agricultural Systems 110, 63-77.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.03.012
Applications of the model can be found here:
Cortez-Arriola J, Groot JCJ, Améndola Massiotti RD, Scholberg JMS, Mariscal Aguayo VD,
Tittonell P, Rossing WAH, 2014. Resource use efficiency and farm productivity
gaps of smallholder dairy farming in North-west Michoacán, Mexico. Agric Syst
126 15-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.11.001
Cortez-Arriola J, Groot JCJ, Rossing WAH, Scholberg JMS, Améndola RD, Tittonell P 2016
Alternative options for sustainable intensification of smallholder dairy farms in
North-West Michoacán , Mexico. Agric Syst 144 22–32.
Flores-Sánchez D, Groot JCJ, Lantinga EA, Kropff MJ, Rossing WAH, 2014. Options to
improve family income, labour input and soil organic matter balances by soil
management and maize-livestock interactions. Exploration of farm-specific
options for a region in Southwest Mexico. Renew Agric Food Syst 30(4), 373-391.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170514000106
Flores-Sanchez D, Kleine Koerkamp-Rabelista J, Navarro-Garza H, Lantinga EA, Groot JCJ,
Kropff MJ, Rossing WAH 2011 Diagnosis for ecological intensification of maize-
based smallholder farming systems in the Costa Chica, Mexico. Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems, 91(2), 185–205. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-011-9455-z
Groot JCJ, Cortez-Arriola J, Rossing WAH, Améndola Massiotti R, Tittonell P 2016
Capturing Agroecosystem Vulnerability and Resilience. Sustainability, 8(11),
1206. http://doi.org/10.3390/su8111206
Mandryk M, Reidsma P, Kanellopoulos A, Groot JCJ, van Ittersum MK, 2014. The role of
farmers’ objectives in current farm practices and adaptation preferences: a case
study in Flevoland, the Netherlands. Reg Environ Change 14(4), 1463-1478.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0589-9
Dr Jeroen C.J. Groot

Wageningen University, Farming Systems Ecology Group
Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands
Tel. +31 (0) 317-4 85924

2. Installation and first use
The model is available from a ZIP file that can be extracted; it needs no installation or
set-up under Windows. When you extract the ZIP file into a directory, a new folder Farm
DESIGN is created, which contains folders Bin, Docs, Input and Output.
In the Bin directory you can find the application FarmDESIGN.exe. For your convenience,
create a shortcut (click with right side mouse button on FarmDESIGN.exe; select Send To;
select Desktop (Create Shortcut)).
In the Docs directory you can find documentation about the model, such as the manual
and the release notes, which specify which changes were made to the model in each
version.
You can start the model by clicking on the shortcut. When you use the model for the first
time, you will be asked to select an input and output directory using a folder browser.
You are advised to select the Input and Output folders that have been created when you
extracted the ZIP file. These folders contain the necessary files.
If you select other input and output directories in a later stage, then make sure that the
input directory contains files named ‘FarmDB.mdb’ and ‘DE.mdb’.

3. Concept
The model supports iterative cycles of learning and adaptation of the structure of a
mixed farm. Learning cycles are typically divided into a number of phases (Kolb, 1983),
and the model contains different windows and calculation procedures for these
subsequent phases. In the Farm DESIGN model we largely follow the terminology of
Giller et al. (2008), who proposed the Describe – Explain – Explore – Design cycle (DEED)
for innovation in interactive processes with stakeholders. Here we introduce an extra
step and define the steps in this cycle as follows (see Figure 3.1):
- ‘Describe’: make an overview of the components of the system, in Farm DESIGN a
mixed farm.
- ‘Explain’: determine the results of the farming systems in terms of agronomic,
environmental and economic indicators.
- ‘Evaluate’: establish whether the results obtained in the explain phase are in line
with the objectives and constraints that are set for the farm.
- ‘Explore’: generate new options for farming system structure in a multi-objective
optimization procedure.
- ‘Design’: A new configuration of the farm is selected from the set of solutions
generated in the explore phase, after detailed examination of the consequences. This
is the starting point for further fine-tuning and a new learning cycle.
Figure 3.1. Adapted learning cycle from Kolb (1983), extended with the DEED concept
presented by Tittonell (2007) and Giller et al. (2008).
The learning and adaptation cycle of the user of Farm DESIGN is supported by the user
interface, which has been designed to support the consecutive steps in the iterative cycle
(Figure 3.2).

Window 1 Window 2
Describe
Explain
Design
Explore Evaluate
Window 4 Window 3
Figure 3.2. The windows of the Farm DESIGN application.
The main actions that can be executed by the user from the four windows are listed in
Figure 3.3. More explanation of these actions is provided in the next chapter.
Describe/Design: Explain:
components of the farming system outcomes of the farm configuration

and their characteristics
crop areas, feed balance, OM
animals, crops, rotations, machines, balance, profit, labor, nutrient cycles
buildings, etc
define decision variables define objectives and constraints
Explore: Evaluate:
generate, evaluate and select new determine whether decision variables

farm configurations with in the given and constraints are within the given
boundaries boundaries
select individual solutions if all OK: allow Explore (optimization)
Figure 3.3. The actions of the user in the windows of the Farm DESIGN application.

4. Overview graphical user interface
4.1 Describe window
The application starts up with the Describe window that allows data entry (Figure 3.1).
In the tree panel on the left the farm entities are listed and their details can be edited in
the edit panel on the right-hand side. From the menu in the ‘Describe’ window the other
windows of the application can be shown with the ‘Explain’, ‘Evaluate’ and ‘Explore’
buttons. From the ‘Farm’ button in the menu you can choose ‘Open’ to change farm, ‘New’
to create a new farm, ‘Save as’ to save a copy of the current farm under a new name, and
‘Remove’ to delete the farm and its components from the database. In addition, there are
menu options to ‘Export’ the farm data to a data file and to ‘Import’ data from a file into
the farm database. The repository with standard data can be opened ( ; see section 4.5).
A photo of farm components can be added ( ), as well as notes ( ). By using the
settings menu item ( ), the user can set the input and output directories and view
information about the application.

Figure 4.1. The ‘Describe’ window with data overview in the tree panel on the left-hand
side, and the edit panel on the right-hand side. Data items in the edit panel that are
candidates to act as decision variables in the optimization have a light blue background;
activated decision variables have a green background.
After selecting entities in the tree panel the details are displayed in the edit panel of the
window. These details can be edited. New entities can be added by typing Control-N, and
entities can be removed using Control-D. Please note that all editing is instantly
processed for direct updating of calculations in the ‘Explain’ and ‘Evaluate’ windows,
and therefore cannot be reversed (for deleting after confirmation). Moreover, deleting

will result in removal of all dependent entities in the tree panel, for instance, if you
remove a crop also its crop products will be removed; if you remove a farm all the
components of the farm will be deleted.
For most of the entities the window appears as shown in Figure 4.1. There are
exceptions for crop fertilizers and pesticides, rotations, animal replacements (Figure
4.2). In these cases the edit panel consists of a list of entities that can be selected (on the
left, in grey) and a list of already selected entities (on the right, in yellow). Entities can
be selected and deselected by clicking on the name in either one of the two sub-panels.
After selecting a crop into a rotation (Figure 4.2a) you can specify the crop area. After
specifying animal replacements (Figure 4.2b) the number of the animals for replacement
(e.g. calves) will be recalculated on the basis of the animal number of the main animal
type (for instance milk cow) and its replacement rate; note that the actual farm data
will be overwritten in this case!!!
Figure 4.2. The ‘Describe’ window with data overview in the tree panel on the left-hand
side, and the edit panel for animal replacements on the right-hand side.
The names of the farm entities can be edited directly in the tree in the left-hand side tree
panel. Other data can be edited in the edit panel. Most data items have a white
background, only items that can serve as decision variables in the optimization are
displayed with a light blue background. After activating a candidate decision variable
after double clicking on the data item field and specifying the upper and lower limits for
the allowed values range (Figure 4.3), the background is changed to green. Thus,
candidate (blue) and active (green) decision variables can be readily identified from the
edit panel. Moreover, a complete overview is provided in the ‘Evaluate’ window.

Figure 4.3. Window to edit decision variables. It is displayed after double clicking on a
data item in the edit panel.
The values in the ‘Describe’ window will be blocked for adjustments by the user after the
start of the explore step.
4.2 Explain window

The ‘Explain’ window is shown after clicking the ‘Explain’ button on the menu bar of the
‘Describe’ window. This window contains a number of tab pages that provide data on
the farm configuration and its performance indicators, including a feed balance, organic
matter balance, nutrient flows and gross margin and profit calculations, and a labour
balance (Figure 4.4). The data can be written to the output directory by pushing the
ToExcel button ( ).
Figure 4.4. The ‘Explain’ window. Data items or variables that are candidates to act as
objectives or constraints have a light blue background; activated variables have a green
background.

You can adjust the layout of the Explain window by choosing different tabs and
reordering the tabs in the window by selecting ‘Modules’ from the Settings menu item in
the Describe window (only when the Explain window is closed). The window displayed
in Figure 4.5 allows you to enable modules (using the checkbox) and to sort the modules
by using the ‘Up’ and ‘Down’ buttons.
Figure 4.5. Window to edit objectives and constraint variables. It is displayed after
double clicking on a light blue data item on a tab page of the ‘Explain’ window.
Most data items in the Explain window have a white background, only items that can
serve as objective or that can be constrained in the optimization are displayed with a
light blue background. After activating a candidate variable by double clicking on the
data item field and specifying the direction of optimization fore objectives and/or the
minimum and maximum allowed values for constraint variables (Figure 4.6), the
background is changed to green. Thus, candidate (blue) and active (green) constraints
and objectives can be readily identified from the edit panel. Moreover, a complete
overview is provided in the ‘Evaluate’ window.
Figure 4.6. Window to edit objectives and constraint variables. It is displayed after
double clicking on a light blue data item on a tab page of the ‘Explain’ window.

4.3 Evaluate window
The ‘Evaluate’ window is shown after clicking the ‘Evaluate’ button on the menu bar of
the ‘Describe’ window (Figure 4.7). The data can be written to a file named [Farm
name].Explain.xls or *.csv the output directory by pushing the ToExcel button ( ).
Initially, this window contains two tab pages, the first named ‘Variables’ can be used to
verify whether the value of the decision variables within the current farm set-up are
within the allowed range. The second tab page named ‘Outcomes’ lists the objectives
that have been specified in the ‘Explain’ window, and the actual value and allowed range
of the outcomes that are indicated to serve as constraints. If the value of decision
variables or constraint variables is outside the indicated range colour of the actual value
will change to green, to indicate to the user that adjustments in the input data are
needed. As long as not all values are within the allowed ranges, the user cannot start
with the exploration: after clicking on the ‘Explore’ button on the ‘Describe’ window, the
‘Explore’ window will not open and an information message will be shown to the user.
After running an optimization in the Explore window, the individual solutions can be
reviewed in detail. After clicking the solutions in the graph of the Explore window, two
new tabs will appear, named ‘View variables’ and ‘View outcomes’. In these tabs the
values of the decision variables and the outcomes (objectives/constraints) will be listed,
to be compared. The maximum number of solutions that can be compared is 10. The tabs
can be emptied by pressing the ‘Clean’ button ( ). If these tabs are active, their contents
will also be written to the Excel spreadsheet [Farm name].Evaluate.xls or comma
separated file (.csv) in the output directory.
Figure 4.7. The ‘Evaluate’ window. Values that violate constraints are highlighted in
green.

4.4 Explore window
The ‘Explore’ window is shown after clicking the ‘Explore’ button on the menu bar of the
‘Describe’ window (Figure 4.8).
Figure 4.8. The ‘Explore’ window.
After activating the ‘Explore’ window the data in the ‘Description’ window are frozen to
block further changes to the data. The original ‘Description’ window is renamed to
‘Design’. It can be enabled only after saving a farm configuration (see below) or selecting
a different farm (via menu options Farm/Select in the ‘Describe’ window).
The optimization can be started by clicking on the ‘Run’ button and will proceed for the
number of iterations indicated in the adjacent text box. The progress of the optimization,
i.e. the number of iterations elapsed, is indicated in the progress bar at the bottom of the
window.
Before you start the optimization you can adjust the parameters of the evolutionary
algorithm (Differential Evolution, button: ‘DE parameters’), for explanation of this
algorithm and its parameters see Section 6. Please note that these parameters cannot be
adjusted anymore after the start of the first optimization round, i.e. the first click on the
‘Run’ button.
Before and after each optimization round you can adjust the X and Y axes to be displayed
(‘X axis’ and ‘Y axis’ buttons), and the naming and scaling of each of the axes (‘Edit axis’
button).

After clicking run a graph will appear in the ‘Explore’ window (Figure 4.7), consisting of
the select X and Y axes, a red symbol (■) representing the performance of the original
farm configuration and defined in the ‘Describe’ window, and blue symbols (■) that
indicate the performance of alternatives generated by the evolutionary algorithm.
Figure 4.9. The ‘Explore’ window with optimization results.
After each optimization round the symbols representing the generated alternatives are
transformed into buttons, the symbols will change color to green (■; Figure 4.9). These
symbols can be clicked one-by-one, and the associated input and output data will be
shown in the ‘Design’ and ‘Explain’ windows. Thus, the generated alternatives can be
evaluated for their configurations (crop areas, product destinations, animal numbers,
etc.), and the resulting outcomes. Selected new configurations can be saved to the
database using the menu option Farm/Save as… in the ‘Design’ window. Subsequently,
after selecting this farm from the database using the menu option Farm/Select,
additional adjustments can be made to the new farm configuration and a new round of
explorative design can commence.
4.5 Repository
Data can be transferred to a repository for later use for other farms. This applies to
component types: crops, animals, animal products, manures, fertilizers, buildings and
machines. Crop products can be added to the repository only as part of a crop. A
component can be added by selecting ‘Copy to repository’ (Control-C) in the context
menu of the tree view of the Describe window. The window displayed in Figure 4.10 will
be opened. Information about the location, context and other details should be entered,
these are added to the note that will be associated to the component in the repository.

This new repository information will be added to existing notes. Also the photo of the
component will be added to the repository.
Figure 4.10. Window used to add components to the repository.
The repository can be opened from the main menu, using the icon, or from the
context menu of the tree view of the Describe window by selecting ‘Add from repository’
(Control-Z). The window shown in Figure 4.11 will be opened, and components can be
searched and selected by type. After pushing the ‘Add’ button the component is instantly
added to the farm. Components can also be removed from the repository (also photos
and notes will be deleted, irreversible after confirmation has been given.
Repository data can be exchanged between databases through data files. The repository
data can be written to such a file from the main menu – File – Export – Repository option
(Control-Shift-R). The file ‘Repository.Data.dat’ containing the data is then written to the
output directory. This file can be imported into another database again from the main
menu – File – Import – Repository option (Control-Shift-Z).

Figure 4.9. Window for retrieving data from the repository, and data management
(removal).
4.6 Data from Excel and text files

Data can be entered directly from Excel or text files (comma separated, csv). The
window to start this process is shown in Figure 4.10, and can be opened from the main
menu using the Text Import icon ( ), or from the menu choosing Farm/Import/Text
data, or shortcut keys Ctrl-Shift-T.
Figure 4.10. Window for entering text data copied from Excel.

In the window (Figure 4.10) you can select the type farm entity for which you want to
enter data (crop, crop product, animal, etc.), and the farm for which these data are
entered. You can indicate whether you want to insert new data or update data that is
already present in the database.
After this selection you can enter column names, data and notes. You can use your own
preferred columns and column names, only the first column should contain the name of
the entity. For your own convenience, the names of the entities and the column names
should match the attributes present already in Farm DESIGN as much as possible,
because you will have to relate these to each other in the next windows.

4.7 Overview of keys and buttons
Buttons:
Button Action
Edit settings
Add photograph
Add note
Open repository
Text import
Writing output to an Excel spread sheet or csv-file in the output directory
Cleaning tabs with optimization results on values of decision variables
and outcomes (objectives/constraints) per solution (in Evaluate window,
only an after running the optimization)
Key (combinations) in Describe window:

Keys Action
F2 Edit farm component name (in tree view panel of the Describe window)
F3 Start Explain window (in Describe window)
F4 Start Evaluate window (in Describe window)
F5 Start Explore window (in Describe window)
Control-N Create a new farm component (in Describe window)

Control-D Delete a farm component selected in the tree (in Describe window)
Control-C Copy component to repository
Control-Z Add component from repository
Control-O Open farm

Control-F Create a new farm
Control-S Save farm as … to database
Control-R Remove farm
Control-I Import farm data from data-file
Control-E Export farm data to data-file
Control-V Change view on data from per component to overview per type

5. Parameter inputs windows (‘Magic windows’)
Parameters for the calculations are entered in the Describe window. Additional help
with estimation of parameter values is supplied by the ‘Magic Windows’ that can be
activated from the Describe window by double-clicking on the pink data entry fields. The
calculations are explained in this section.
5.1 Crop nitrogen fixation

The calculation procedure is based on the empirical model proposed by Høgh-Jensen et
al. (2004). More information about modelling of nitrogen fixation can be found in Liu et
al. (2011).
5.2 Crop effective organic matter

In t
5.3 Crop nitrogen fixation

In t
5.4 Crop greenhouse gas emissions

In t
5.5 Animal whereabouts

In t
5.6 Labour profiles

In t

6. Farm model calculations
The calculations of Farm DESIGN are divided into modules that are presented as
different outcome categories in tabs in the Explain window. The user can select the
modules that are relevant for the project as described in Section 4.2. In this chapter the
concepts and formulas of the modules are presented. Input variables of the model that
can be adjusted in the user interface are indicated in Camel writing and highlighted with
BoldAndItalic. An overview of the parameters per farm component is given in Chapter 7.
The type of component to which the InputVariable belongs is underlined, and can be
found in separate sections in chapter 7.
6.1 Module: Crop areas

In the ‘Crop areas’ tab page of the ‘Explain’ window the area of crops on the farm and
within each rotation on the farm are listed (Figure 6.1). The whole crop farm Areas are
summed over the rotation crops. If crop groups have been defined, the area and
frequency of the group are also listed. The frequency is calculated as (group area) /
(farm or rotation area).
Figure 6.1. Crop areas tab page of the ‘Explain’ window.
Following Oyarzun et al. (2013), the Margalef index (M) is computed as an indicator of
on-farm ecological “richness” species, based on the following formula:
𝑆−1
𝑀=
ln⁡(𝑁)
Where S is the number of crop species on the farm (with crop area > 0 ha) and N is the
farm area expressed in m2. The Margalef index increases when there are more species in
a determined farm area or when the same amount is maintained but the area of the farm
decreases (Oyarzun et al., 2013).

The ecological diversity and “evenness” of distribution of species in a farm (measured as
a farm’s frequency distribution) is quantified by the Shannon index (H), based on the
following equation:
𝐻 = − ∑(𝑝𝑖 ln⁡(𝑝𝑖 ))
𝑖=1
In this equation, pi is the area proportion of crop i. H = 0 if there is only one species in
the farm and maximum when each species occupies the same area in the farm. Thus, a
monoculture or situations where a few crops occupy large areas in relation to the total
size of a farm result in a low value for the Shannon index (Oyarzun et al., 2013).
The total farm or rotation cropping area, the crop group frequency and the species
richness/evenness indicators can be selected to serve as objectives or constraints.
6.2 Module: Product destinations

An overview of crop and animal products can be found in the ‘Destination’ tab page of
the ‘Explain’ window. The column in yellow indicates the balance between the amount
produced (right of the balance column; in dry matter for crop products, in fresh matter
for animal products) and used (left of the balance column); zero indicates that all DM
produced is used on the farm, negative values indicate export and positive values
indicate import. The ‘Destination’ tab also contains the bedding balance.
Figure 6.2. Screenshot of the Explain window showing an overview of the balance
between production and use of crop (kg dry matter) and animal (kg fresh matter)
products, and the bedding balance (at the bottom of the screen).
6.3 Module: Feed balance

For each farm a choice should be made of the feed evaluation system that is applied to
match animal requirements and availability of energy and protein and the dry matter
intake capacity and saturation. The information on the energy content will be used to

estimate the dry matter digestibility of the feed (DMD) using established empirical
relations, and to check consistency of data (related to crop and animal products and
animals) that are imported from the repository.
Figure 6.2. Window to specify the various aspects of the feed evaluation system used for
a particular farm.
The evaluation system and units used can be specified in the ‘Feed evaluation system’
window that can be opened from the menu through the Settings – Calculations – Feed
evaluation option in the Describe window (Figure 6.2). For each category a choice
should be made, and it is the responsibility of the user to consistently fill in the
associated data in the correct units. When data from the repository defined in another
feed evaluation system are imported into the farm, a warning message for the user is
issued, but also in this case the user has the responsibility to correct the data for energy,
protein and dry matter intake.
The table below shows the options, the related equation to calculate dry matter
digestibility of feeds, and indicates the default system (*). The abbreviations are
displayed for the farm, and the. This information will be displayed in the ‘Feed
evaluation’ tab of crop and animal products and in the ‘Requirements’ tab of animals in
one composite line, e.g. ‘SV; NE (VEM); DVE’.
Abbreviation Description Equation to estimate digestibility

(DMD, g/kg)
For intake:
SV* Saturation value
DM Dry matter intake
For energy (E):

NE (VEM)* Net energy for lactation (E + 210.0) / 1.563
(NL)

NE (kJ) Net energy (E/6.9 + 210.0) / 1.563
NE (MJ) (1000 * E/6.9 + 210.0) / 1.563
NE (kCal) (E/6.9 * 4.184 + 210.0) / 1.563
NE (MCal) (1000 * E/6.9 * 4.184 + 210.0) /
1.563
ME (kJ) Metabolisable energy E / 15

ME (MJ) 1000 * E / 15
ME (kCal) E * 4.184 / 15
ME (MCal) 1000 * E * 4.184 / 15
TDN (%) Total digestible nutrients 10 * E

TDN (g/kg) E
For protein:
DVE (g)* Intestinally degradable
protein
CP (g) Crude protein
The length of the period (days) that animals are present and are being fed and produce
manure on the farm (‘Managed by the farmer’) can be specified per animal type using
the ‘Whereabouts’ window (click the pink textbox to open). This period can be shorter
than 365 days for instance when animals are only kept for fattening during the growing
season or when animals spend part of the year off-farm on communal lands. Within this
period that the animals spend on the farm, two sub-periods are distinguished for animal
management: the grazing period and the stable (non-grazing) period. The duration of
these periods can be adjusted by the parameter DurationGrazingPeriod, which can be
specified in the ‘Animal grazing period’ window (double-click the pink textbox; see
Figure 6.3 in Section 6.5). In arid regions a distinction between wet and dry seasons is
more relevant and can be implemented using this approach. The length of the non-
grazing period is calculated as 365 – DurationGrazingPeriod.
In the feed balance calculations can be based on any feed evaluation system. In
FarmDESIGN the deviation between the requirements of the whole animal herd and the
feed available from crop production or purchase of feeds is determined for:
• Energy, requirement for animal maintenance, milk production and growth is
expressed in energy units per animal per day, and the availability in feed is
expressed in energy units per kg dry matter.
• Protein, requirement is expressed in protein amount per day. Protein is required
for animal maintenance, milk production and growth (g/animal/day) and the
availability in feed is expressed in g protein/kg dry matter.
• Structural material needed to stimulate the rumen function. Mostly abstract units
related to a given standard are used, representing a relative value set to
requirement for a ‘standard animal’. For other animal types corrections are
needed. Each feed has a different contribution to the structure value, and a

weighted average is calculated for a ration, which should be equal to or larger
than the requirement.
In addition, the total amount of dry matter that the animals can ingest is limited by the
saturation value approach in the feed evaluation system. In this approach, the actual
feed intake (kg DM per day) is estimated by dividing the feed intake capacity (kg DM per
day) by the saturation value of the ration (expressed in saturation units per kg DM).
Energy and protein is needed for body maintenance, growth, pregnancy and milk
production. The requirements are calculated with generic equations for cows, sheep and
goats but the proportionality factors in the equations differ between the animal types
(see Table 4.1). Farm DESIGN using calculations specific for the Dutch VEM/DVE
system if these two feed evaluation systems are selected in the feed evaluation
selection system (Figure 6.2). Otherwise, generic calculations are used. Both ways
of calculating animal requirements are explained below.
Animal feed requirements are calculated following the Dutch feed evaluation system,
consisting of the variables:
- VEM = voedereenheid melk, a feed unit milk (FUM) is equivalent to 6.9 kJ net energy
for lactation
- DVE = darmverteerbaar eiwit, protein digestible in the intestines (IDP)
For background information on VEM, see: Van Es (1975; 1978). Energy evaluation
systems for dairy cattle are compared in Vermorel and Coulon (1998) and Yan et al.
(2003). A detailed description of the Dutch DVE/OEB protein evaluation system can be
found in Tamminga et al (1994), and a comparison of protein evaluation systems in
Tuori et al. (1998).
The energy requirement for maintenance and growth is proportional to the weight of
metabolically active tissue in the body, which is calculated as:
MW  LW0.75
Where:
MW metabolic weight (kg)
LW live weight (kg)
The energy requirement for maintenance is also dependent on the activity of the animal.
Grazing animals require 15-20% more net energy for maintenance (CVB, 2008, p. 10, 13,
28, 32). We assume a value of 20% for the time spent grazing, which is averaged over
the year. The proportion of time spent grazing is dependent on the number of grazing
days per year and the grazing system (determined by LengthGrazingPeriod and
TimeInPasture parameters), e.g. zero grazing, day grazing or day-and-night grazing.
Total MAINTENANCE energy requirements (ERM for generic calculations and VRM for
the VEM system) are calculated as:
ER M  E M  MW  A (energy generic)

VR M  E M  MW  A  C (VEM system)
Where:
EM energy needed per kg MW (energy units/kg), parameter EnergyMaint
A activity factor (dimensionless), 0.2 (20%) extra energy needed for activity during
grazing. The value of the factor ranges from 1.0-1.2, and is calculated as: 1 +
0.2*[proportion of time spent grazing].
C correction factor for milk production, see below.
For all animal types the protein requirement for maintenance (PRM for generic
calculations and DRM for the DVE system) is calculated with the following equation (CVB,
2008, p. 9):
PR M  PM  MW (protein generic)
2.75LW 0.5  0.2LW 0.6

DR M 
0.67 (DVE system)
The amounts of energy and protein needed for GROWTH are calculated using the
equations below, where ERG and PRG are the requirements according to generic
calculations. In the VEM/DVE system, (VRG and DRG) are dependent on the growth rate
and the MW of the animal (NRC, 2001, p. 237; CVB, 2008, p. 13):
ER G  E G  LG
(energy generic)
VR G  0.05  MW  LG
(VEM system)
PR G  PG  LG
(protein generic)
DR G  0.005 MW  LG
(DVE system)
Where:
EG energy needed for growth (VEM/g), parameter EnergyGrowth
PG protein needed for growth (DVE/g), parameter ProteinGrowth
LG live weight gain (g/day)
Both pregnancy and milk production requirements are considered on an annual basis.
As a consequence, the energy and protein needs are averaged over a whole year of 365
days, and not specified per gestation or lactation period. For pregnancy, the body
growth is calculated and energy and protein requirements are attributed to this growth.
The weight of calves is between 35 and 45 kg (on average 43 kg for dairy cattle HF)
(Handboek Melkveehouderij, 2009, p. 6-2). Thus, we can assume an average growth of

118 g per day due to pregnancy. The spreadsheet CowGrowth.xls can be used to
estimate the average live weight and growth during the life span of dairy cattle.
Animal requirements for MILK PRODUCTION are related to total milk production in the
generic system, and to the amount of fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM) and milk
protein (MP) produced in the VEM/DVE system (CVB, 2008, p. 8):
FPCM  0.337  0.116  mf  0.06  mp  M

MP  M  mp  10
ER P  M  E P
(energy generic)
VR P  FPCM E P  C
(VEM system)
PR P  M  PP
(protein generic)
DR P  1.396  MP  0.000196  MP 2
(DVE system)
Where:
mf milk fat content (%), parameter MilkFat
mp milk protein content (%), parameter MilkProtein
M actual milk production (kg/d), parameter MilkProduction
EP energy needed for milk production (VEM/kg FPCM), parameter EnergyMilkProd
PP protein needed for milk production (g DVE/kg FPCM), parameter
ProteinMilkProd
C correction factor for milk production = (1 + (FPCM-15)*0.00165)
MP milk protein production = M * mp * 10
Table 6.1. Parameter values for tshe generic equations to calculate feed requirements of
cows, sheep and goats. The names of the parameters (CamelBoldItalics) are the same as
used in the Farm DESIGN model.
Parameter Name in the model Cow Sheep Goat
EM (VEM/kg MW) EnergyMaintenance 42.4 30.0 36.4
EG (VEM/kg MW/g) EnergyGrowth 0.05 0.05 0.05

PG (DVE/kg MW/g) ProteinGrowth 0.005 0.005 0.005
EM (VEM/kg FPCM) EnergyMilkProd 443 443 443

PM (VEM/kg FPCM) ProteinMilkProd 1.5625 1.5625 1.5625

6.4 Module: Organic matter balance
The organic matter (OM) balance quantifies the difference between inputs and outputs
or losses (Figure XXX). Inputs of OM originate from crop residues such as roots and
stubble, green manures left on the field, and applied own and imported manure. Note
that additions of OM by crop residues can be specified in two ways: as Effective Organic
Matter (EOM) of the crop, or as a crop product with destination “used as green manure”;
the user should be consistent and avoid double counting of inputs. The losses occur
through degradation of soil organic matter (SOM), erosion and the breakdown on OM
supplied in manure.
Figure XXX. Screenshot of the Explain window showing the organic matter balance of the
farm.
The balance is calculated as the difference between organic matter (OM) accumulation
and loss. Organic matter accumulated on the farm is partly degraded. The rate of
degradation is affected by the environment variables of soil texture (TextureFactor),
moisture availability (MoistPeriodPf35) and the average temperature
(MeanTemperature). On the basis of these variables a correction factor f is calculated:
f  1 /(TextureFactor * MoistPeriodPf35 / 365 * 2(MeanTemperature9.5) / 10 )
The organic matter input from crop residues (OMCR) depends on the effective organic
matter input per crop (EOMc) and crop area (Ac), and is summed for all crops c:
n
OMCR   A c * EOMc * f
c 1
The organic matter input from green manures (OMGM) is calculated from the dry matter
of crop products with destination ToSoil. and the organic matter content, derived from
the AshContent in dry matter. It is assumed that 80% of organic matter is degraded
during the year after application, so that 20% (fraction 0.2) remains.
n
OMGM   ToSoilp * (100  AshContentp ) / 100 * 0.2 * f
p 1
The residual amount of organic matter from manure produced on the farm (OMMN) is
calculated as described in Section 6.5. Organic matter in imported manure (OMIM) is
derived from the Amount of manure imported and the OMContent of the manure.

Losses of OM occur due to soil OM degradation (OMSD) and erosion (OMER). The amount
of organic matter in the farmed soil is calculated on the basis of the bulk density of the
soil (1.1 kg/dm3) for a depth of 0.3 m and a given ActiveOM content given in the
environment variables. The degradation rate of soil organic matter under Dutch
conditions is on average 2% per year. A is farm area.
OM SD  A * ActiveOM * SoilDepth * BulkDensit y * OMDegradat ionRate * f
The ErosionAmount is given in millimetres and each mm corresponds to ~13 tons of

(dry) material per ha per year.
OMER  ErosionAmount *13000* ErosionOMContent / 100
Finally, the total OM balance can be calculated as:
OM balance  OM CR  OM GM  OM FL  OM MN  OM IM  OM SD  OM ER
6.5 Module: Manure production and breakdown

The amount of faeces DM produced (DMToManure) depends on the amount of dry matter
supplied to animals of the different crop and animal products (ToAnimals) corrected for
feed losses (FeedLoss), and the apparent dry matter digestibility (DMD) of these feeds:
n
DMToManure   ToAnimalsp *(1  FeedLossp / 100) * (1  DMDp / 1000)
p 1
Similarly, the amounts of OM and C in manure are calculated using the AshContent of
the crop and animal products and assuming a C content in organic matter of 45%
(fraction 0.45). The total amounts of N, P and K in manure (in both urine and feces) is
derived from the difference between intake and products of the animals, as
demonstrated only for N below.
 ToAnimalsp * NContentp * (1  FeedLossp / 100)  NAnimal Pr oducts

n
N ToManure 
p 1
In this equation, NAnimalProducts is the summed amount of N in animal products such

as milk and meat. The same calculations are made for P and K. It is assumed that for
animal products no feed losses occur during feeding. Since hardly any P is found in
ruminant urine, P-content of faeces is calculated by subtracting the quantity of P in milk
and meat from the total quantity in the fodder. Almost all K in feed is excreted again,
about 90% in urine.

Figure 6.3. Window to specify the animal Whereabouts, see text for explanation.
The manure produced on the farm can be deposited at three sites: in the pasture (P), in
the stable (S) and in the yard (Y). A yard or feedlot is an outdoors confined area, often
close to the stable, were animals are kept during a limited time of the day, for instance
before and/or after milking. The excretion at the different sites is assumed to be
proportional to the time spent at each site, which is defined per animal type with the
parameter Whereabouts that defines the time spent in stable, pasture, yard and off-
farm, the total should be 365 x 24 = 8760 hours. For instance, the string
“4000|42000|560|0” for Whereabouts implies that the animals spend 4000 hours in
stable, 4200 in pasture, 560 hours in the yard and no time off-farm. You can specify
these time allocations using the ‘magic window’ that opens when you double-click on the
pink text-box of the Whereabouts parameter, or manually directly in the pink
parameter textbox. The time spent in the barn is calculated as: 24 – time in pasture –
time in yard – time off-farm, per day. The proportions of the time spent at each site
during the year are used to estimate the amount of manure produced at the different
sites.
The site were the manure is produced is indicated the field ProducedAtSite with a letter
P, Y or S. Per site one or more types of manure can be produced, depending on storage
and treatment of the manure. The most apparent example is the production of both
slurry and farm-yard-manure in a stable. The proportions will differ depending on
housing type etc., and can be specified in the variable ProportionAtSite of manures. Per
site the cumulative value of ProportionAtSite for the manures should be 1.
An overview of the complete sequence of calculations used to determine the amounts of

different types of manures produced on different sites on the farm is presented in Figure
6.4.

Figure 6.4. Overview of calculations for manure production within Farm DESIGN.
The total amounts of faeces N and urine N produced are calculated with the following
equations. The degradability of crude protein (DCP, expressed in g/100 g, crude protein
content CP = 6.25 N in %) in the ration is derived from an empirical regression equation
derived by Holter and Reid (1959, p. 1345, Fig. 1).
DCP  0.929  3.48/ CP
NFaeces  (1  DCP ) * NIntake
NUrine  NIntake  N Pr oducts  NFaeces
Note that these calculations take the animal intake of DM and N of the whole herd, and
no distinction is made per animal type, production level or age group!
The produced manure can be distributed to different destinations:

- To application to the field.
- To fermentation for biogas production.
- To firewood for cooking and heating after drying.
- To export from the farm, which is calculated by difference.
In the ‘Manure’ tab of the Explain window a checksum is calculated, which can be
constrained during the optimization to avoid unrealistic allocations; the value of the
checksum should always be zero, negative values indicate an undesirable deviation.
Note that the allocation of the manures is done on the basis of the freshly produced
manure, so the effective availability of dry matter and nitrogen for the different
destinations can be considerably lower, in particular for manure applied to the field.

Excretion - From the time spent at each site and the proportion of different type of
manure produced at each site, the amounts of the various excreted manures are
calculated in terms of DM, OM, N, P and K. The distribution of bedding material among
manure types is determined by the parameter ‘Fraction of bedding’; make sure that the
sum of fractions for the various manures equals 1. Moreover, amounts of mineral and
organic N are quantified for each type of manure as:
NMineral  0.03 * NFaeces  NUrine
NOrganic  0.97 * NFaeces  NBedding
Using the equation below mineral N is lost with a given fraction, as defined by the value
of ExcretionLoss of the manure.
NLossExcretion  NMineral * ExcretionLoss
The mineral N amount remaining after excretion can then be derived by integration:
NMineral  NMineral  NLossExcretion
During grazing, about 5 -10 % of urine does not reach the soil surface, but adheres to
grass leaves. All nitrogen in this part is lost by volatilisation. Most urine (90 – 95%) is
absorbed by soil and after microbial decomposition of urea into ammonium the latter is
adsorbed by soil and slowly transformed to nitrate by bacteria. If excreted in early
spring nearly all urine-N will be re-used in the same year and if excreted in autumn
nearly all urine-N will be lost after nitrification during winter, by leaching and
denitrification. In the model these losses by leaching plus denitrification from soil are
included in the balancing item (as soil losses, flow 13 in Figure 6.2 and Table 6.1). The
high nitrogen availability in the form of nitrate in urine affected patches will result in
reduced nitrogen fixation by clover in these patches. Only a minor part of all nitrogen in
faeces excreted during grazing is lost by volatilisation (about 5%). The remaining
organic nitrogen is mineralised slowly and efficiently used by grasses.
In the stable, in deep litter stables total manure is usually separated in a liquid (slurry:
urine with faeces) and a solid (straw with faeces and urine) fraction. In the current deep
litter stables with a closed or slatted concrete floor behind the feeding rack, 30-40% of
faeces and urine are excreted on the concrete floor (ProportionAtSite=0.3-0.4) and are
collected as slurry while 60-70% is deposited in the deep litter part and collected as
deep litter manure (also called farm yard manure; ProportionAtSite=0.6-0.7) (Oenema
et al., 2000). In a similar way the contents of organic matter, P, K, organic N and
inorganic N (urea) are calculated. In tying stables and stables with cubicles where straw
is added before the liquid and solid parts are separated, the percentage of urine
absorbed by straw depends on urine production per animal (litres), straw application
per animal and how much urine is drained before it can be absorbed by straw. We do
not go into details about how to estimate and to check these values. During the first day
after excretion about 5% of urea-N is lost from FYM (ExcretionLoss=0.05) and about
10% from slurry (ExcretionLoss=0.10). In the deep litter part most of the urine is
absorbed by the underlying FYM, but a small parts adheres to the straw at the surface.

The loss from concrete floors can be reduced by draining the urine more quickly (floor
slightly sloping towards a drain, slats) and by removing the mixture of faeces and urine
on the floor several times a day.
Storage - During storage of manure part of the organic matter is degraded, nitrogen can
be immobilized or mineralized and partly lost. The loss of organic matter depends on
temperature and duration of storage. As most of slurry is stored during the cold season
(in temperate regions), loss of organic matter is usually moderate: about 10%. The
composition of slurry hardly changes during storage. A part of organic matter is lost as
CO2 and another part as CH4, a strong greenhouse gas. Slurry can also be used to
produce methane in digesters (higher temperature, stirring and mixing) and in that case
more organic matter is lost (about 40%) and nearly all nitrogen is preserved.
Nitrogen losses remain low, if slurry is stored in a really closed tank like a digester
(about 1%) In practical agriculture, slurry is stored for about 4 months in a nearly
closed tank. During winter, loss of nitrogen is a 1 to 15% of inorganic nitrogen in slurry:
0.2 % per month in a closely sealed tank, 1% per month in a rather well closed tank, 2%
in case of a pit under a slatted floor and 4% per month in a open pit, where wind has
access to. In spring, summer and autumn losses are higher, but during that period less
manure is stored. In the model calculations you have to give one figure (as %) for
inorganic/mineral nitrogen that will be lost during storage and you can start with 10%
of mineral nitrogen in case of a rather well closed tank, with 20% in case of a pit under a
slatted floor and with 40% in case of an open pit (manure covered by a crust). If
measurements are available you can improve your estimate.
The loss of organic matter during storage of farm yard manure (FYM) depends on the
amount of straw used for bedding, compaction / aeration of manure and duration of
storage. As a first step you have to estimate the percentage of manure that is
decomposed aerobically (in a small heap nearly 100%, FractionOxic=1.0) and/or
anaerobically (in a compacted big heap about 80%, FractionOxic=0.2). During
decomposition temperature rises (it peaks at 75 ºC in aerobic decomposing deep litter
manure) and most of produced heat is lost by evaporation of water (about 7 kg water
per kg of lost organic matter). If this loss of water exceeds the initial water content per
kg organic matter manure will dry out and become mouldy (as often happens in a loose
heap of horse manure). A part of the inorganic nitrogen in FYM is lost by volatilisation of
NH3 and another part by denitrification. Loss by NH3 volatilisation occurs during the
first weeks of storage and denitrification during the remaining period. Total loss of
nitrogen depends on the size and form of the heap, its exposition to wind and rain and
initial C to N ratio of manure (including inorganic forms).
The degradation and mineralization processes take place in aerobic (oxic, OX) or
anaerobic (anoxic, AN) conditions, and the proportional division between these
conditions is specified per manure by the value of FractionOxic of the manure. For both
conditions four process parameters should be specified:
- Organic matter degradation rate (fraction per whole storage period), i.e.
DegradationRateOxic and DegradationRateAnoxic. These values are the apparent
degradation rate, because from simultaneously organic matter in microbial biomass
is produced with a given efficiency (MicrobialEffOxic and MicrobialEffAnoxic), so
that a correction with 1/(1-MicrobialEff) is needed to derive the true organic matter

degradation. These efficiencies represent the assimilation/dissimilation ratios. The
microbial efficiency for single microorganisms varies between 0.5 (bacteria) and 1.0
(fungi), but since also microorganisms are eaten by protozoa, the overall values are
lower. We have set the default values to 0.30 and 0.25 for aerobic (oxic) and
anaerobic (anoxic) conditions.
- Fraction of mineral nitrogen lost through volatilization (or total N lost during
storage), i.e. MineralNLossOxic and MineralNLossAnoxic.
- The carbon to nitrogen ration of the micro-organisms that can incorporate the
carbohydrates and nitrogen into the microbial biomass: MicrobialCNOxic and
MicrobialCNAnoxic. This C:N ratio varies between 5 (some bacteria) to 10 (some
fungi). We have set the default values on MicrobialCN = 8 for oxic decomposition
(more fungi) and MicrobialCN = 6 for anoxic decomposition (more bacteria).
Carbon content of manure organic matter is assumed to be 50% (fraction 0.5) to

calculate carbon in manure. The OM degradation (OMDegr) and N mineralization
(Nrelease) are calculated separately for oxic and anoxic conditions as follows:
OMDegr  Degradatio nRate * OMManure
0.5 * OMDegr  NManure MicrobialEff 

N Re lease  *  
1  MicrobialEff  CManure MicrobialCN 
The last equation represents the balance between nitrogen release from degradation
and the incorporation of N into organic matter of microbial biomass. The resulting net N
release can take negative (mineralization) and positive (immobilization) values.
This last equation can be understood as follows: micro-organisms break down the
organic matter with a certain ('observable' or apparent) rate k. However, because micro-
organisms grow due to this degradation process with growth efficiency, this results in
an addition to the organic matter, so the observed degradation rate should be corrected
for their growth efficiency, and the true degradation rate is 0.5*OMDegr /(1-
MicrobialEfficiency).
The degradation of the organic matter is associated with release of nitrogen, determined
by the C:N ratio of the substrate (CManure/NManure). The micro-organisms will
incorporate part or all of this nitrogen, dependent on their C:N ratio (MicrobialCN). In
fact, when the C:N ratio of the substrate is high, the release of nitrogen from organic
matter is lower than the incorporation into microbial biomass, and as a consequence
mineral N from the soil solution may be incorporated. This results in negative values for
N release in the equation above, indicating net immobilization. This applies to both the
two processes of aerobic and anaerobic breakdown of manures, whereas different
parameter values can be used.
From manure both in aerobic and anaerobic conditions N can be lost, governed by
MineralNLossOxic and MineralNLossAnoxic:
NLossStorage  NMineral * StorageLos s
The amounts of DM, OM, total N, mineral N and organic N, P and K remaining after
storage are calculated by integration:

DM = DM - DMDegrOX, AN
OM = OM - OMDegrOX, AN
NTotal = NTotal - NLossStorageOX, AN
NOrganic = organic N - NReleaseOX, AN
NMineral = total N - organic N
Application - When manure is applied to the field again a fraction of mineral N can be
lost as determined by the ApplicationLoss:
NLossAppli cation  NMineral * Applicatio nLoss
Again, the mineral N amount remaining after application and thus actually available for
plant uptake can be derived by integration:
NMineral  NMineral  NLossAppli cation
The following table is based on Mulder & Huijsmans (1994) and gives estimates for
losses during application without loss-reducing measures (Table 6.2).
Table 6.2. Loss of ammonia in manure during above-ground application without loss-
reducing measures.
Manure type Grassland Arable land
Slurry 76 % (43 % - 100 %) 71 % (37 % - 100 %)
Urine 60 % 60 %
Farm Yard Manure 70 % 71 %
Volatilisation of ammonia during the first day after above-ground application (without
loss reducing measures) depends very much on the weather (no wind, cool
temperatures, rainy conditions reduce losses; strong wind, high temperatures and dry
conditions increase losses). The quicker and the more completely manure is worked into
the soil, the lower application losses. This phenomenon is accounted for by using the
reduction factors as shown in Table 6.3.
Table 6.3. Fraction of loss compared to aboveground application without loss reducing
manures (here used as reference).
Loss reducing measure Fraction loss compared to reference
Slit injection 0.05
Ploughing <10 min after application 0.1
Harrowing or cultivating (weather and soil 0.1-0.5
structure dependent)
Dilution with water (at least 1:3) or by rain / 0.3-0.5
irrigation
Total losses and degradation - The accumulated losses of mineral N can be derived
from adding the losses during excretion, storage and application for each manure type:

Total N volatilization = NLossExcretion + NLossStorageOX, AN + NLossApplication
After application to the field the manure organic matter will be further degraded. The
fraction of OM remaining after one year is given by the HumificationCoeff of the manure,
which is affected by environmental conditions (factor f, see Section 6.3). The total
degradation of organic matter during storage and after application can thus be
calculated for each manure type as follows:
Total OM degradation = OMManure * (1.0 – HumificationCoeff * f)
6.6 Module: nutrient flows and cycles

The carbon and nutrient flows that are quantified and presented in the ‘Nutrients’ and
nutrient cycle tabs of the ‘Explain’ window are presented in Figure 6.5, and further
explained in Table 6.2.
a. b.
Figure 6.5. Overview of nutrient flows quantified for C (a.) and nutrients N, P and K (b.).
Explanation of the numbered flows in Table 6.1.
Table 6.2. Nutrient flows for carbon (C) and nutrients nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium
(NPK) in the model. The flow numbers refer to Figure 6.2. The existence of the flows is
indicated (x=yes, o=no) for individual nutrients in the CNPK column.
Flow CNPK Description
1 x x x x Inputs of carbon and nutrients in crop products from outside the farm,
calculated from the difference of use and on-farm production
2 x x x x Net assimilation (harvested or in effective organic matter) for C and
nutrient uptake in harvested crop products for NPK
3 o x o o Symbiotic nitrogen fixation from NFixation of crops
4 o x x x Atmospheric deposition of nutrients from NDeposition, PDeposition
and KDeposition in environment
5 o x o o Non-symbiotic nitrogen fixation by free living soil microorganisms from

Flow CNPK Description
NonSymbFixation in environment
6 xxxx Green manure application to the soil, originating from destination
ToSoil of crop products and the EffOrganicMatter of crops
7 xxxx Supply of nutrients to animals, including bedding material, determined
by destination ToAnimals and ToBedding of crop products
8 xxxx Nutrients fed to animals, corrected for FeedLoss of crop products,
including animal products fed ToAnimals (e.g. milk for calves)
9 xooo Carbon respiration by farm animals, calculated as the difference
between intake and excretion in the manure, a determined by the DMD
of crop products
10 xxxx Nutrients to manure, including bedding material and feed losses
11 xxxx Supply of nutrients in manures and fertilizers to the soil after
calculation of organic matter degradation and nutrient losses during
storage, see Section 6.4
12 xxxx Inputs of nutrients in imported fertilizers and manures, determined by
the Amounts and nutrient-contents of the manures applied. The
amounts of on-farm produced manures are calculated by the model, so
Amount should not be specified
13 xxxx Carbon losses due to organic matter degradation of SOM and applied
manures; soil losses of nutrients NPK (leaching etc.), see Section 6.5
14 xxoo Carbon dissimilation due to breakdown on manure in storage; nitrogen
losses by ammonia volatilization during storage, see Section 6.5
15 xxxx Losses of carbon and nutrients in eroded soil, determined by the
erosion-parameters in environment data
16 xxxx Outputs of carbon and nutrients in crop products to outside the farm,
calculated from the difference of use and on-farm production
17 xxxx Carbon and nutrients in animal products exported from the farm
18 xxxx Accumulation of carbon and nutrients in the soil, for instance due to
immobilization
Calculation of nutrient use efficiencies
The (farm) balance is calculated as: Input – Output, and the efficiencies are calculated as:
Output/Input. Below the flows that are included in the calculations of input and output
for the whole farm/household and per component are listed.
Farm/household
Input: crop product import + animal product import for HH + fertilizer import +
symbiotic fixation + non-symbiotic fixation + deposition
Output: crop product export + animal product export + manure export + household
manure export
Crops
Input: manure and fertilizer application + symbiotic fixation + non-symbiotic fixation +
deposition
Output: crop products export + crop products to household + crop products to animals +
crop products to manure – crop products import

Animals
Input: crop products to animals + animal products to animals
Output: animals products to animals + animal products to household + animal products
export
Manure
Input: animal manure production + fertilizer import + crop products to manure
Output: manure applied to soil + manure export
6.6.1 Estimation of nitrogen fixation

Leguminous crops have a high potential to fix nitrogen, e.g. white clover may fix up to
650 kg N ha-1. In Dutch conditions the amount they fix depends mainly on the
availability of mineral soil nitrogen and the biomass. Leguminous biomass depends on
growing conditions and crop health and occasionally on availability of mineral nitrogen
in the beginning of the growing season or in the ripening phase. The more nitrogen is
available in the soil, the less nitrogen is fixed. A rough estimate of the actual N fixation
by pure stands of legumes is:
Nitrogen fixation by legumes ≈ total N content * 0.75
In grass clover mixtures actual nitrogen fixation by clover is close to potential N fixation
(i.e. 6 kg N per 100 kg DM of harvested clover) if manure application is moderate. In
urine patches clover will not fix nitrogen. The clover dry matter yield can be estimated
visually based on the estimated soil coverage: (% clover in dry matter = % clover visual
* 0.7 ) and
Nitrogen fixation by clover in a sward (kg/ha)

= dry matter production (kg/ha) * % clover visual * 0.7 * 0.06.
The dry matter yield of a sward can be estimated using the feed balance. Based on the
estimated feeding quality of the grass-clover mixture and taking into account the
amount and quality of additionally supplemented feed, the feed balance in terms of VEM
should be 0. The only item missing then is the amount of grass-clover taken up in the
pasture.
6.6.2 Estimation of nitrogen intake from pastures

In heterogeneous pastures resulting from a moderate fertilizer regime and uneven
clover distribution over the field animals will strongly select their feed. They prefer
young leaves, patches with a low clover content, grass with a low nitrogen and high
sugar content and in a permanent pasture they eat relatively more from the upper part
of the sward. Grass production may differ from spot to spot depending on clover content
and how and when urine and manure was excreted. Therefore it is difficult to measure
the nitrogen intake from a permanent pasture by sampling the sward and measuring
nitrogen content in the sample. When the amount of delivered milk and its protein and
urea content are measured (as is the case in many west European countries) nitrogen

intake and nitrogen excretion can be calculated for the lactating part of the herd (PhD
thesis Hoekstra):
N in manure (kg day-1) = 38 * urea production + 0.17* number of cows
Urea production of the lactating herd (kg day-1) can be calculated from total milk
production and urea content of milk.
6.7 Module: Labour

6.7.1 Farm labour
For the farm labour calculations a distinction is made between regular and casual labour.
Regular labour is provided by the members of the farm family and by hired skilled
employees. Casual labour concerns temporary hired personnel, used in particular during
labour peaks, for instance for weeding and harvesting. But also unskilled labour
provided by household members can be classified as casual labour, for instance herding
of small animal groups. Different prices for the two types of labour can be specified (see
Section 6.12 Farm economics).
The time available to provide (regular or casual) family labour can be specified for each
household member. In addition, contract work can be performed, which is calculated at
crop level (ContractWorkCosts) and included in the calculations of the gross margin.
Contract work is not included in the labour balance (see Section 6.12 Farm economics).
At the farm level, for both regular and casual labour, we consider that the labour
requirement (L) should be provided by family (F) and hired (H) labour, i.e. the
relationship L = F + H. The family labour input should be smaller or equal to their total
available working hours (T). The combination of these relationships can be formalized
as:
⁡𝐿 = 𝐹 + 𝐻
{
𝑇≥𝐹
→ T⁡ ≥ (L⁡ − ⁡H)⁡
⁡→ T⁡⁡– (L − H) ≥ ⁡0
L is calculated as the sum of farm labour (LF), crop labour (LC) and animal labour (LA).
A fixed amount of labour LF is needed for general management of the farm
(LabourFarmConstant, in economics variables). This labour requirement will be only
partly dependent on the farm set-up, but cannot be attributed directly to work on crops
or animals.
Labour requirement related to crop cultivation (LC) is determined by the labour

requirement per ha of the crop (RegularLabour and CasualLabour) and crop area:
n
LCregular   A c * Re gularLabourc
c 1

n
LCcasual   A c * CasualLabourc
c 1
Labour requirement related to animal husbandry (LA) can also comprise both regular
and casual labour. A fixed amount of regular labour is required for herd and stable
management (LabourHerdConstant, in economics variables) and a part of the labour is
dependent on the animal type and the number of animals, using the animal variable
RegularLabour.
n
LAregular = LabourHerdConstant + å Numbera * Re gularLaboura
a=1
n
LAcasual = å Numbera *CasualLaboura
a=1
Total required family labour input is calculated as the difference between total required
labour and hired labour:
Fregular = Lregular - Hregular
Fcasual = Lcasual - Hcasual
Total available family labour is calculated as:
n
Tregular = å Re gularLabourInput p
p=1
n
Tcasual = åCasualLabourInput p
p=1
The labour surplus (S) can be calculated as:
Sregular = Tregular - Fregular
Scasual = Tcasual - Fcasual
Constraints should be added that the value of S≥0.
6.7.2 Family labour

At the household level, we use the relationship T’=F’+O+X, where T’ is total available
work time from the household (T’ = Tregular + Tcasual), F’ is total time allocated to farm
labour (F’ = Fregular + Fcasual), O is off-farm labour and X is leisure time. There are two

potential objectives either to minimize working hours (MIN (G+O)) or to maximize the
leisure time (MAX(X)). In general, there is no difference between the two objectives with
a fixed amount of available time (T). The objective to maximize X (=R – G – O) and the
constraint that X≥0 can be added in the Labor tab of the Explain window.
6.8 Module: Greenhouse gases

In the ‘GHG’ tab page of the ‘Explain’ window the greenhouse gas emissions of the farm
are calculated in total (CO2 equivalents) and per unit of area (CO2 equivalents per ha),
see Figure XXX. The GHG emissions are related to:
- Symbiotic fixation (NFixation x EFNFixation)
- Deposition (NDeposition x EFNDeposition)
- Residue application (NAppliedResidue x EFResidues)
The values of the emission factors for fixation, deposition and residue application
(EFNFixation, EFNDeposition and EFResidues) can be set from the main menu in the Describe
window, under Settings / Calculations / Greenhouse gases. For the crops, animals,
manures and fertilizers the emission factors can be found with each of the components
in the Describe window.
- Crop management (from soils under anaerobic conditions, in particular paddy rice)
o Crop CH4 emission: Area * EFCH4Enteric (for each crop type)
- Animals
o Enteric CH4 emission: Number * EFCH4Enteric (for each animal type)
o Manure CH4 emission: Number * EFCH4Manure (for each animal type)
- Manures
o Direct (prod): N produced x N2O emission factor * 44/28 (for each manure)
o Direct (appl): N applied x N2O emission factor * 44/28 (for each manure)
o Volatilization: N volatilized x N2O emission factor * 44/28 (for each manure)
- Fertilizers
o Direct: N applied x N2O emission factor * 44/28 (for each fertilizer)
Figure XXX. Screenshot of the Explain window of FarmDESIGN showing greenhouse gas
emissions.

The GHG losses from burning of crop residues in the field follow the IPCC Tier 1
calculations. A combustion factor of 0.8 is assumed, and fixed emission factors for the
various gasses are used: CO2 1515, CO 92, CH4 2.7, N2O 0.07, NOx 2.5, all expressed in
g/kg DM burnt. Note that these factors are fixed and cannot be adjusted within the GUI.
CH4 and N2O represent 21 and 310 CO2-equivalents, respectively.
6.9 Module: Bio-energy production

In the ‘Energy’ tab page of the ‘Explain’ window.
The interest in energy production from renewable sources has increased over the years,
and anaerobic digestion from crop and animal residues and by-products could be an
attractive technology for economic and environmental reasons. Different energy
technologies are available to generate energy from these products: combustion,
gasification, pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion. Among them anaerobic digestion
(fermentation) is the main common technology used on-farm, in particular for
smallholders in the tropics. However, the use of organic resources for energy production
is potentially in conflict with other uses such as feed, mulch, green manure, firewood or
building material.
The model offers the opportunity to calculate on-farm energy production, methane
yields, carbon amount and carbon in residue (digestate). Crop residues and livestock
manures can be used for anaerobic fermentation to produce CH4, while the digestate can
be applied as soil amendment. Figure 6.6 gives a schematic representation of the flows
of crop residues and livestock manures on farm.
Figure 6.6. Crop residues and livestock manures on farm. Components in blue boxes are

manures or mixes of manures and crop products; substrates in green boxes are crop
products; gaseous losses of carbon and nitrogen compounds are indicated in red boxes; the
grey area indicates the farm boundaries. Part of the gas that is released during
fermentation is captured and converted into bio-energy.
The on-farm produced energy from anaerobic digestion can be calculated as:
𝐸𝑃𝑓 = 𝑀𝑌𝑦 ∙ 𝐿𝐻𝑉𝐶𝐻4
Where:
EPf = Energy produced on farm from the biogas yield (MJ year-1)
MYy = Annual CH4 yield from fermentation (m3 CH4 year-1)
LHVCH4 = Lower heating value of CH4 (MJ m-3)
To calculate methane yield, digestate production and its chemical characteristics, the
mass balance approach is used. Biogas production (CH4+CO2) is calculated from organic
matter degradation, relative to total carbon in dry matter. The amount of CH4 obtained
can be derived using equation 2d.
𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝐶 = 𝐷𝑀𝑡𝑜𝐸𝑛𝑒𝑟𝑔𝑦𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ∙ (1 − 𝐴𝑠ℎ𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡) ∗ 𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡
𝐷𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑑𝐶 = ⁡𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝐶 ∗ 𝐷𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒𝐸𝑃
𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑒𝐶 = 𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝐶 − 𝐷𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑑𝐶

16.0 22.4
𝑀𝑌𝑦 = 𝐷𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑑𝐶 ∙ 𝑝𝐶𝐻4 ∙ ∙
22.0 16.0
Where:
MYy = Annual CH4 yield (m3 CH4 year-1)
SubstrateC = Total mass of carbon in substrate (kg)
ResidueC = Mass of carbon in digestate (kg)
DegradedC = Degraded carbon from substrate (kg)
pCH4 = Proportion of CH4 in the biogas (kg/kg).
16/12 = Molecular weight of CH4 (g mol-1)
22.4/16 = Conversion factor: as 1 mol gas at Standard Temperature and Pressure
(STP), i.e. 22.4 L and 16 g CH4 = 22.4 L. MYy divided 16 will yield the moles
of CH4 produced annually which can be multiplied by 22.4 to obtain the
MYy in litres and then converted in m3.
Degradation and mineralization take place in anaerobic conditions. Whether nitrogen is

mineralized or immobilized during the fermentation process depends on the difference
in C:N ratio between the substrate and the microbial biomass.
𝐷𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑑𝐶 𝐷𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑑𝑁 𝑀𝑖𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑙𝐸𝑓𝑓

𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑁 = 1−𝑀𝑖𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑙𝐸𝑓𝑓 ∙ ( 𝐷𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑑𝐶 − )
𝑀𝑖𝑐𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑙𝐶𝑁
𝐷𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑁 = ⁡𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝐼𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑁 ∙ 𝑁𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠𝐷𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑁 = ⁡ (𝑆𝑢𝑏𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝐼𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑔𝑁 − 𝐷𝑖𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠𝑁 + 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑁) ∙
⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡⁡𝑁𝐿𝑜𝑠𝑠𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
Where:
ReleaseN = Release of nitrogen, either positive (mineralization) or negative
(immobilization) (kg)
SubstrateInorgN = Inorganic nitrogen in the substrate (kg)
DegradedN = Nitrogen in degraded substrate (kg)
MicrobialEff = Efficiency of microbial biomass synthesis (kg/kg)
MicrobialCN = C:N ratio of microbial biomass (kg/kg)
DigestionLossN = Loss of inorganic nitrogen during anaerobic digestion (kg)
NLossDigestion = Fraction of inorganic nitrogen lost during the digestion process
(kg/kg)
ApplicationLossN = Loss of inorganic nitrogen after application of the digestate to the
field (kg)
NLossApplication = Fraction of inorganic nitrogen lost from the digestate after
application to the field (kg/kg)
Equation 3 represents the balance between nitrogen release from degradation and the
incorporation of N into organic matter of microbial biomass. The resulting net N release
can take negative (mineralization) and positive (immobilization) values.
This last equation can be understood as follows: microorganisms break down the
organic carbon with a certain ('observable' or apparent) rate (DegradationRateEP)
leading to breakdown DegradedC. However, because micro-organisms grow due to this
degradation process with a given growth efficiency (MicrobialEff), this results in an
addition to the organic matter, so the observed degradation rate should be corrected for
their growth efficiency, and the true degradation rate is DegradedC /(1-
MicrobialEfficiency).
The degradation of the organic matter is associated with release of nitrogen, determined
by the C:N ratio (DegradedC/DegradedN). The micro-organisms will incorporate part or
all of this nitrogen, dependent on their C:N ratio (MicrobialCN). In fact, when the C:N
ratio of the substrate is high, the release of nitrogen from organic matter is lower than
the incorporation into microbial biomass, and as a consequence mineral N from the soil
solution may be incorporated. This results in negative values for N release in the
equation above, indicating net immobilization.
The nitrogen in crop residues is assumed to be completely in organic form and not
prone to losses during digestion. The nitrogen in manures is partly in inorganic form,
dependent on the ratio of nitrogen excreted in urine (inorganic) and in dung (organic).
During the fermentation process and after application of the digestate to the field, a part
of the inorganic nitrogen will be lost, as defined by parameters NLossDigestion and
NLossFermentation.
We assume that no conversions or losses of other nutrients than nitrogen occur during
anaerobic fermentation. The flows of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are
quantified in accordance with nutrient flow calculations (see Section 6.6).

Figure XXX. Screenshot of the Explain window showing energy production from biogas, and
the digestate that remains as a residue after fermentation and can be used as an organic
soil amendment.
6.10 Module: Water balance

In the ‘Water’ tab page of the ‘Explain’ window.
6.11 Module: Human nutrition
Nutrition indicators are displayed in the ‘Nutrition’ tab page of the ‘Explain’ window.
Four nutrition related indicators have been implemented:

a. Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS and WDDS; Kennedy et al., 2010)
b. Food group sufficiency (related to food group intake pattern)
c. Nutrient sufficiency
d. Nutritional Functional Diversity (NFD; Remans et al., 2011 Petchey & Gaston,
2002)
6.11.1 Food diversity and sufficiency

Two categories of indicators can be used: production- and consumption-oriented
metrics. The production-oriented indicators are production diversity (diversity of food
groups and nutritional functional diversity) and nutritional system yield; these
indicators only consider produced nutrients and do not or only partly account for losses
of nutrients during processing and cooking (Remans et al., 2011; Defries et al., 2015).
The consumption-oriented indicators include the modelling estimations of dietary
diversity scores (diversity of food groups produced and nutritional functional diversity),
food patterns and nutrient adequacy. Although the two types of nutrition indicators are
linked, they are not necessarily tightly correlated due to effects of storage, processing,
packaging and preparing of food materials as well as the purchasing of foods from
markets.

Nutritional functional diversity (NFD; Remans et al., 2011) quantifies the fraction of
diversity in nutrients that is produced relative to the potential diversity that is present
in a landscape or region (Figure XXX). The potential diversity is captured in a
dendrogram wherein available food items are clustered in the basis of their nutritional
traits. The NFD metric then assesses which part of the dendrogram, i.e. fraction of
potential diversity, is produced in the production system or consumed by individuals or
households. The metric can be up-scaled to national and global levels (Remans et al.,
2014). Although the metric is usually applied to the production situation, it is generic
and can also be used to determine the diversity of supplied and consumed nutrients.
Figure XXX. Screenshot of the Explain window of FarmDESIGN showing the food group
diversity and nutritional functional diversity of produced and consumed foods.
Dietary diversity scores are proxy indicators that provide qualitative measures of food
consumption reflecting micronutrient adequacy of the diet (Kennedy et al., 2010;
Kennedy et al. in this volume). Individual dietary diversity indicators often focus
particularly on women and young children as these groups are among the most
vulnerable to malnutrition. The minimum dietary diversity score for women (MDD-W;
FANTA, 2014) is the most recent indicator (Figure XXX). This indicator classifies foods
into ten food groups of which at least five should be consumed by women to increase the
likelihood of meeting their micronutrient needs compared to women consuming foods
from fewer food groups (FANTA, 2014). Food groups listed in Table 6.3 have been
defined to allow calculations for dietary diversity indicators. The group indicated with
‘None’ is used for crop or animal products that do not serve as food, such as animal feeds,
crop residues or wool.
Table 6.3. Food groups defined within the dietary diversity questionnaire and aggregation
of groups for HDDS and WDDS calculations. Copied from tables on pages 8 (FAO food
groups) and 24 of Kennedy et al. (2010)’; FAO+1 indicates splitting the original ‘Legumes,
nuts and seeds’ group. Examples for food groups can be found in the Annex 2, page 37, of
Ibid.
FOOD GROUPS (FAO+1) HOUSEHOLD DIETARY DIVERSITY SCORE

Nr Food group Nr Grou HDDS food groups
ps
1 Cereals 1 1 Cereals
2 White roots and tubers 2 2 White tubers and roots
3 Vit. A rich vegetables and tubers 3 3, 4, 5 Vegetables
4 Dark green leafy vegetables
5 Other vegetables
6 Vitamin A rich fruits 4 6, 7 Fruits
7 Other fruits

8 Organ meat 5 8, 9 Meat
9 Flesh meats
10 Eggs 6 10 Eggs
11 Fish and other seafood 7 11 Fish and other seafood
12 Beans and peas 8 12, 13 Legumes, nuts and seeds
13 Nuts and seeds
14 Milk and milk products 9 14 Milk and milk products
15 Oils and fats 10 15 Oils and fats
16 Sweets 11 16 Sweets
17 Spices, condiments, beverages 12 17 Spices, condiments,
beverages
WOMEN DIETARY DIVERSITY SCORE MINIMUM DIET. DIVERSITY – WOMEN

Nr Groups WDDS food groups Nr Group MDD-W food groups
s
1 1,2 Starchy staples 1 1,2 Starchy staples
2 4 Dark green leafy 2 12 Beans and peas
vegetables
3 3, 6* Other vitamin A rich fruits 3 13 Nuts and seeds
and vegetables, and red
palm oil if applicable
4 5, 7 Other fruits and 4 14 Dairy
vegetables
5 8 Organ meat 5 8,9,11
Flesh foods
6 9, 11 Meat and fish 6 10 Eggs
7 10 Eggs 7 4 Vitamin A-rich dark green
leafy vegetables
8 12 Legumes, nuts and seeds 8 3,6 Other vitamin A-rich
vegetables and fruits
9 13 Milk and milk products 9 5 Other vegetables
10 7 Other fruits
The HDDS and WDDS are calculated as the number of food groups that are included in
the diet with values ranging from 0-12 and 0-9, respectively. The sufficiency per food
group is calculated by comparing the supply per food group with the demand. The
demand can be specified for a consumer unit as the amount of food (g DM/day) from a
particular food group, as indicated in Figure 6.7a. Similarly, the sufficiency per nutrient
can be calculated by comparing the supply per food group with the requirements, which
are specified in the window presented in Figure 6.7b. Note that the consumer unit
used in both windows should be the same, and that it should be consistent with
the consumer units specified for the individual household members in the
Describe window.

a. b.
Figure 6.7. Window for entering dietary demands in terms of food groups (a.) or
nutrients (b.). The window can be opened from the menu in the Describe window, by
choosing ‘Settings/Calculations/Human nutrition’. Only the nutrients that are ticked are
considered and displayed in the ‘Nutrition’ tab of the Explain window.
6.11.2 Nutritional Functional Diversity
Nutritional Functional Diversity (Remans et al., 2011 Petchey & Gaston, 2002) can be
determined at the level of the farm and household (for produced and consumed foods,
respectively), whereas a similar landscape-related indicator has been implemented in
the Landscape IMAGES model.
The nutritional functional diversity (NFD) indicator is calculated as the fraction of the
available diversity that is actually either produced on the farm or consumed by the
household. This fraction is derived from a dendrogram that represents the diversity
present in the ‘landscape’ in terms of relevant traits, which are the nutrient
concentrations of foods for the calculation of NFD, see Figure 6.7a for an example. The
landscape can include the farm itself, the surrounding landscape and the markets from
which the foods are sourced. The dendrogram has to be mapped to the crop and animal
products that have been defined in FarmDESIGN. The algorithm requires three input
files that should be located in the input folder:
[farm name].FD.dendrogram.txt contains the dendrogram. The file contains a matrix of

size (S+1)*L, wherein (S+1) is the number of rows, one for the dissimilarities of the links
in the dendrogram with S species, and L is the number of links between species. Values
can be derived from $h2.prime (dissimilarities) and $H1 (links) data elements of the
xtree entity in R.
[farm name].FD.products contains a list of products that are included in the dendrogram.
Mote that the order of the species should be the same as in the dendrogram file.

[farm name].FD.mapping contains the mapping between the dendrogram and available
crop and animal products in the farm. The mapping can be made in the Functional
Diversity window (Figure 6.7b) that can be activated from the menu: Settings –
Calculations.
a. b.
Figure 6.7. (a.) An example dendrogram for calculation of the Nutritional Functional
Diversity. (b.) Window for entering the mapping between foods in the dendrogam and
the crop and animal products that have been defined for the farm. The window can be
opened from the menu in the Describe window, by choosing
‘Settings/Calculations/Functional Diversity’.
Nutritional system yield (NSY; Figure YYY) is an adjustment of the ‘nutritional yield’
metric proposed by Defries et al. (2015) and uses system productivity in terms of
balanced nutrient supply (for human consumption based on nutrient requirements)
rather than food item yield expressed in dry matter amount. NSY quantifies the number
of consumer units that can obtain their complete daily dietary reference intake (DRI),
particularly the recommended dietary allowance that accounts for the quantities
required by 97-98% of healthy people (Otten et al., 2006) of different micro and macro
nutrients for a year per unit of area of a production system. The production system can
be a field, a farm or a broader landscape where one or more crops are cultivated,
animals are kept and/or ‘wild’ foods grow. The consumer unit can be a reference adult
female or male. The inverse of NSY is the area required of a production system to feed a
consumer unit with energy or individual nutrients during a year.
Figure YYY. Screenshot of the Explain window of FarmDESIGN showing the nutritional
system yield for various nutrients.
A direct indicator for food consumption is the assessment of nutritional adequacy

(Figure ZZZ), which quantifies the deviations between the consumption of nutrients and
the daily DRI, as used in linear programming models for diet composition (e.g., Maillot et

al., 2010; Frega et al., 2012). Recommendations for improvements of human nutrition
based on the nutrition adequacy assessments should allow for factors such as cultural
food consumption patterns, acceptable foods (available, affordable, and regularly
consumed), realistic food portion sizes, and the impact of recommendations on other
nutrient intake (such as through displacement of nutrients) and the environment
(Ferguson et al., 2006). Food patterns can be quantified by calculating the amounts and
proportions of the different foods and food groups that are consumed, as an indicator of
the suitability of the proposed nutrition interventions for the food habits of the target
group.
Figure ZZZ. Screenshot of the Explain window of FarmDESIGN showing the demand and
supply of nutrients in food, and the deviations (%) between demand and supply.
6.12 Module: Farm economics

The returns of the farm originate from the crop and animal gross margins that include
revenues and variables costs, and there are various sources of additional costs, both
variable costs (for manure and labour) and fixed costs (for land, buildings, machinery
and general), see Figure 6.8.

Figure 6.8. Overview of returns (gross margins), costs and operating profit in the ‘Profit’
tab of the ‘Explain’ window.
Gross margin crops – The gross margin of the crops (MC) depends on the revenue from
crop products as affected by their production (FreshYield) and price (FreshPrice), and
the costs for cultivation and subsidies of the crop (Costs, ContractWork and Subsidy).
nc np
MC   Area c * (  FreshYieldp * Fresh Pr ice p  Costsc  ContractWork c  Subsidyc )
c 1 p 1
Gross margin animals – The amount of animal products is determined by the Number
of animals and their production of milk (MilkProduction) and meat (resulting from
Growth and Carcass percentage). Produced milk and meat are thus calculated as follows:
na
Pr oducedmilk   365 * Numbera * Milk Pr oductiona
a 1
na
Pr oducedmeat   365 * Numbera * Growtha * Carcassa
a 1

The costs for animal production are related to feeding, bedding, interest and other costs.
Both crop products and animal products (milk) can be fed to animals, and feed costs (CF)
is calculated as:
ncp nap
CF   (ToAnimalscp /(DMContentcp / 100)) * Fresh Pr ice cp   ToAnimalsap * Fresh Pr ice ap
cp 1 ap 1
Similarly, the costs of bedding as calculated as:
ncp
CB   (ToBeddingcp /(DMContentcp / 100)) * Fresh Pr ice cp
cp 1
The animal herd kept on the farm represents capital, for which interest should be
calculated:
n
CI   Numbera * Weight a * Carcassa * Fresh Pr ice meat * InterestRate / 100
a 1
From the results of the equations above the gross margin for animal husbandry (MA)
can be derived as:
n
MA   Pr oducedp * Fresh Pr ice p  CF  CB  CI  OtherAnimalCosts
p 1
Costs – The additional costs can be variable and related to inputs such as manure and
labour, and fixed for land, buildings, machinery and some general costs. The costs for
manures (CM) depend on the Amount and Price of externally purchased manures, with
ProducedAtSite = ‘E’.
n
CM   Amountm * Pr ice m
m 1
The costs for assets (CA) such as buildings and machines (equipment) are resulting from
depreciation, operation costs and interest over the investment. The Depreciation and
OperationalCosts of buildings and machines are expressed as a percentage of the
capital invested. A correction factor of f=0.5 and f=0.6 for the InterestRate is used for
interest costs for buildings and machines, respectively:
n
CA   Numbera * Pr ice a * Depreciation a  OperationalCostsa  f * InterestRate / 100
a 1
The costs for regular and casual labour (CR and CC) depend on the RegularLabourPrice
and the CasualLabourPrice are calculated separately. The amount of labour spent can
be derived from the equations in Section 6.6.


CR  Re gularLabou r Pr ice * LabourFarm Cons tan t  LC regular  LA regular 
CC  CasualLabo ur Pr ice * LC casual
The general costs (CG) are represented by a fixed variable from the input
(GeneralCosts), whereas the land costs (CL) are calculated by multiplying the farm area
with the LandCostsPerHa. The operating profit (OP) is calculated as:
OP  MC  MA  CM  CA  CR  CC  CL  CG
6.13 Module: Household budget
The household budget can be analysed in the ‘Budget’ tab of the Explain window.
Income:
BO: off-farm income (summed for all household members)
BF: income from farming
Expenditures:
BN: expenditures on nutrition
BR: re-investment in farm
FE: free expenditures
6.14 Module: Flow metrics
Flow metrics are being calculated for the C, N, P and K cycles on the farm. The algorithms
include the Ulanowicz and Finn indicator calculations.
Note that these are only conducted in the ‘Explain’ mode of the model and cannot be
included in the optimization due to the demanding calculations.
6.15 Checking the calculations
The main checkpoints for correct calculations in the Explain window are:
✓ In the Feed balance tab: is the feed balanced and are deviations within the
predefined ranges?
✓ In the nutrient cycles (N, P and K) tabs: the sums of inputs and outputs for each
component should be exactly balanced.
✓ In the Nutrients and N cycle tabs: animal N efficiency should be between
approximately 10% and 25%, the lower range (10-15%) for meat-producing
ruminants, the higher range (15-25%) for high-productive dairy cattle and
animal stocks containing mono-gastric animals with high feed conversion
efficiency.

✓ In the N cycle tab: soil N losses should be positive, since nitrogen losses through
leaching and/or denitrification are unavoidable. Generally, we assume losses of
at least 10-20 kg N/ha/year.
✓ In the OM balance tab: the organic matter balance should generally be around
zero. The calculations of OM degradation within FarmDESIGN are very simplified,
and the parameters are hard to quantify. Therefore, for an initial assessment we
assume that we are dealing with an equilibrium situation, where inputs equal
outputs and thus the balance is zero.
✓ Checks and rules-of-thumb for the settings of the parameters for the optimization
(decision variables, constraints and objectives) can be found in Sections 7.4 and
7.5.

7. Multi-objective optimization
7.1 Pareto-based optimization
Farm DESIGN can serve as an exploratory tool to generate alternative management
options in search of improved farm performance. Several recent research efforts have
demonstrated the usefulness of integrated simulation models to aid the (re)design of
sustainable farming systems by means exploratory studies that look for ways of
balancing crop-livestock interactions to improve resource use efficiencies at farm scale
(Dogliotti et al., 2005, Groot et al., 2007, Rossing et al., 2007 and Tittonell et al., 2007).
The aim of the explorations is to find alternative solutions for the farm set-up as defined
in the Describe phase that perform better with respect to a selected set of outcomes. The
inputs and outputs of Farm DESIGN are used in three ways in the exploratory procedure,
namely as:
a. Decision variables: the inputs that are adjusted in the exploration procedure, for
example crop areas, feed inputs, herd composition and other management
parameters.
b. Objectives that are either minimized or maximized: selected outputs such as
productivity and profitability (= economic result), erosion, organic matter and N, P
and K balances (= aspects of environmental sustainability) and labour input and
seasonality (= aspects of social sustainability).
c. Constraints: limitations to combinations of inputs that are infeasible (e.g. summed
area of crops should not exceed the total farm area, labour requirement should be
lower than or equal to availability) and to outputs that are undesirable, for instance
unacceptable nutrient losses, unbalanced feed rations (= aspects of animal welfare)
and violation of regulations (=adhering to organic farming principles).
In the exploratory methodology we try to simultaneously minimize or maximize the

selected objectives (i.e. multi-objective optimization) with an iterative procedure on a
large population of alternative solutions. The procedure comprises the following
consecutive steps:
1. Generating alternatives that consist of a set of decision variables that represent
combinations of inputs. The values of the decision variables are constructed in an
automated way, by recombining of existing sets derived from the original situation
on the farm, randomly generated sets or sets resulting from previous iterations.
2. Evaluating the performance of the alternative solutions. In this step, farm model
calculations (in the Explain phase) are used to assess the objectives, i.e. the
indicators for the economical, productivity and environmental performance of the
farm.
3. Selection of the most promising alternatives, taking into account all the objectives
without weighing, on the basis of the Pareto-principle (see below). The selected
alternative solutions serve as input for another iteration of the exploration
procedure.
As a result of this approach we obtain insight in the interrelations between the

objectives. Moreover, a subset of alternatives can be selected and used to inform
discussions with farmers. Discussing with a farmer the associated decision variables
demonstrates whether constraints have been overlooked in defining the model, or
whether the model has produced new ideas that may be considered by the farmer. Thus,

the explorations serve as an extra source of inspiration for considering innovations on
organic farms.
7.2 Differential Evolution (DE)

The trade-offs between the objectives were explored with a multi-objective
implementation of the evolutionary strategy of Differential Evolution (DE) developed by
(Storn and Price, 1995, 1997). Currently, DE is widely used in the research community
due to its simplicity efficiency and robustness (Bergey and Ragsdale, 2005; Mayer et al.,
2005). DE involves the iterative improvement of a set of solutions or genotypes,
consisting of alleles. In our application the genotypes represent alternative farming
system configurations and the alleles are decision variables in which the allocation of
farm inputs (crop areas, animal numbers, manure amounts, etc.) are encoded as a real
number. A genotype is a multi-dimensional vector p=(p1,...,pz)T of z alleles. Each allele pi
is initialized as pi,0 by assigning a random number within the allowed range:
pi,0 = L(pi) + ri (U(pi) – L(pi) )
Where ri denotes a uniformly distributed random value within the range [0,1] and L and
U are the lower and upper values of the allowed range. A new generation t+1 is created
by applying mutation and selection operators on the individuals in the population P of
the current generation t. The first step of the reproduction process is generation of a
trial population P’ that contains a counterpart for each individual in P, produced by
parameterized uniform crossover of a target vector and a mutation vector. The mutation
vector is derived from three mutually different competitors c1, c2 and c3 that are
randomly selected from the population P in the current generation t. The allele values
are taken from the mutation vector with probability CR:
c 3,i  F  (c1,i  c 2,i ) if ri  C R

p'i,t 1  
p i,t otherwise
Where ri is a uniformly distributed random variable. The parameter F[0,2] is a

parameter that controls the amplification of differential variations. After a mutation, the
value of p’i,t+1 can extend outside of the allowed range of the search space. For allele
values that violate the boundary constraints the repair rule presented in the equation
below is applied. This rule implements a mechanism that can be denoted as ‘back
folding’: the adjustment for the allele is calculated by interpolation into the allowed
range from the boundary by a value that is proportional to the difference between the
boundary and violation values:

 p'i, t 1 L(p i )
L(p i )  if p'i, t 1  L(p i )
 F
 p'i, t 1  U(p i )

p'i, t 1  U(p i )  if p'i, t 1  U(p i )
 F
p'
 i, t 1 otherwise

A trial genotype p’t+1 replaces pt if it outperforms the parent genotype. Here, better
performance is interpreted as a better Pareto ranking or located in a less crowded area
of the search space than the parent genotype. These performance criteria are explained
below. Population size N is determined by the number of alleles in the genotype z and a
multiplication factor M. The last parameter in the DE algorithm is the number of
generations G, which serves as the stopping criterion. The default parameter values for F,
CR, M and G as employed in this study were derived from factorial analysis in
preliminary optimization runs, where G can be chosen such that the volume of the
solution space no longer expands (see also Section 7.3).
The concept of Pareto optimality was used to assess the performance of solutions, since
it avoids the need of normalization and a priori weighing of objectives as is the case with
common multi-criteria methods. As such it fits very well the aim of supporting
negotiation by providing insight in objectives without undue a priori restriction of the
search space.
Figure 7.1. Pareto Optimality: symbol ■ indicates solutions which are not dominated by
any other alternative solutions: setting level f1 for objective function F1 as a minimum
level, there will be no alternative solution in the dataset with a higher value for objective
F2. The arrows indicate the selection pressure exerted by Pareto ranking (solid) and the

crowding metric (dashed).
The first criterion for the performance of a solution is its Pareto rank as proposed by
Goldberg (1989). Individuals in the population are Pareto-optimal when they do not
perform worse than any other individual for all the objectives, i.e. when they perform
equal to or better than any other individual in at least one objective. In such case, there
is no objective basis to discard the individual. These individuals are called non-
dominated and receive rank 1 (Figure 6.1). This set of solutions is called the trade-off
frontier. The next step in Pareto-ranking the entire population of solutions is to remove
the individuals of rank 1 from the population and identify a new set of non-dominated
individuals, which is assigned rank 2. This process is continued until all individuals in
the population are assigned a Pareto rank.
If two solutions have the same rank, a second selection criterion, the crowding distance,
is taken into account. The metric Θ represents the within-rank solution density and is
calculated from the normalized distance from solution p to the nearest solution in the
search space, as follows (Deb et al. 2002):
k di  d
 j 1 Bj
where Bj is the range of objective j, which is calculated as the difference between the
minimum and maximum values of objective j. Variable di denotes the Euclidian distance
between genotype p and the nearest neighbouring solution within the Pareto front of a
given rank and the parameter d is the average of these distances. An individual is
replaced by a trial solution of the same rank and efficiency if the latter is located in a less
densely populated part of the solution space. Pareto ranking exerts a pressure
orthogonal to the surface of the trade-off frontier, whereas the crowding metric
stimulates spread of solutions over the surface and within the solution space (see
arrows in Figure 6.1). Together these metrics ensure progress of the entire frontier to
better solutions.
7.3 Use of DE in Farm DESIGN

Parameterization of the DE algorithm in FarmDESIGN can be largely performed from the
Describe and Explain windows, where the decision variables, constraints and objectives
can be specified, as described in Sections 4.1 and 4.2. In the Evaluate window the user
can check if the decision variables and constraints are within the specified ranges
(Section 4.3). When all these settings are correct the Explore window can be opened,
and the optimization can be started (Section 4.4).
In the Explore window the parameters for the evolutionary algorithm can be modified
(DE Parameters in the menu bar). These parameters include the amplitude (F in section
7.2) and the crossover probability CR. Moreover, the multiplication factor is used to
determine the number of solutions that will be generated, by multiplication with the
number of decision variables. Finally, the users can specify that the algorithm should
concentrate on generating solutions that are better than the original farm configuration
for all objectives (by ticking ‘Relative’ [to original farm]), or that the algorithm performs
a full search of the solution space (in this case ‘Relative’ remains not ticked).

The user can start the optimization by clicking the ‘Run’ button in the Explore window.
The specified number of iterations will be performed. Typically, depending on the
complexity of the farm, at least 500-1,000 iterations are needed to get a good impression
of the relations among the objectives. The optimization can be stopped if the
replacement of solutions (see Log File in the output directory) stabilizes at a low
number.
7.4 Setting decision variables in the Describe window

The user can define many types of decision variables for the various farm components,
which define the minimum and maximum values for management related choices. The
settings will depend on the anticipated possibilities for adjustments in the farm, and can
be informed by discussions with the farmer. Here an overview of main considerations
and rules-of-thumb for some of the parameterisation of decision variables is presented.
a. Crop areas: in most cases the crop areas have to fit within the farm surface area, or
the area allocated to a rotation. If a rotation scheme is applied and the field sizes are
similar then the maximum crop areas can be estimated as: A*C/L, where A is farm or
rotation area (ha), C is the crop duration (years; has value of 1 for most crops) and L
is rotation length (years). Individual crops can have additional considerations, for
instance:
- Areas of permanent pastures could be fixed, so no decision variables have to be
added.
- The area of temporary pastures or other semi-permanent feed or green manure
crops (e.g. alfalfa) can often be larger than those of arable crops that are
cultivated within 1 year, thus C=1 year, because of their positive effect on soil
quality. Therefore, in that case C>1 year.
- For some crops other considerations are important, for instance the demand of
labour. If it is clear in advance that the area of a crop has to be limited for such a
reason, then the decision variables can be adjusted accordingly.
b. Destinations of crop and animal products: in principle the use of the products can
be specified independent of the production (for crops: area * product DM yield per
ha; for animals: number * product FW yield per animal), since the model will assume
that when use exceeds on-farm production then the product will be imported, and
when the use is lower than production the remainder is quantified as exported
product. Therefore, decision variables can be specified for crop area, animal number
and the various uses independently. However, there are often situations wherein the
user should deviate from this approach:
- Use only on the farm (use tick-box in the Destinations tab), the model
automatically adjusts the product use to the production level. Two additional
possibilities:
o Multiple uses in fixed proportions: the proportions between different
destinations can be specified in fractions or any number system, since
they will always be adjusted proportionally.
o Multiple uses in variable proportions.
- Use on the farm or export, no import allowed. This occurs in cases of different
prices between import and export of the same product; the imported product
should be defined separately.
c. Animal replacement rate: animal types can be linked for replacement to allow
harmonized updating of the animal numbers. This is only applicable for well-

structured livestock groups and herds, for instance dairy cattle herds. It should be
realised that the replacement rate reflects the animal management by the farmer and
the resulting health status and longevity. Therefore, strong changes are not expected
in the short term, so the range of replacement rate should not be too wide. Moreover,
the replacement rate observed on the farm can be temporarily enhanced when the
farmer has decided to replace a large part of the herd, for instance during a switch of
cattle breed.
7.5 Setting constraints in the Explain window

The user can define many constraints for farm performance, which represent the
minimum and maximum values for selected indicators. The settings will depend on
biophysical relations, logical and conceptual limits and desirable farm performance
levels in productive, socio-economic and environmental dimensions. Here an overview
of main considerations and rules-of-thumb for some of the parameterisation of
constraints is presented.
a. Crop areas: usually the farm area is constrained an there are no options to expand
the farm to increase the surface area. In this case an constraint for the farm area is
with a range around the original area, allowing a deviation of ca. 5%, which is
required to allow some room to manoeuvre for the optimization algorithm to adjust
the crop areas.
b. Feed balance: the animal production is target-oriented, which implies that a
sufficient amount of feed should be supplied to allow the production level that is
specified for the animals. For each of the two seasons in the feed balance the
following constraints should be set:
- DM intake ≤ 100% of saturation, the deviation should be ≤ 0%, the values of the
minimum and maximum are (-99999, 0).
- VEM availability 95-105% of requirement, the deviation should be between -5 and
+5%, the constraint range is (minimum: -5, maximum: 5).
- DVE availability 100-130% of requirement, the deviation should be between 0 and
+30%, the constraint range is (minimum: 0, maximum: 30).
- STR availability > 100 % of requirement, the deviation should be larger than 0
without upper limit, the constraint range is (minimum: 0, maximum: 99999).
c. Nutrient losses: both excessive losses and nutrient mining should be avoided, so
limits apply for the nutrient balance. Nitrogen losses are unavoidable due to the
reactant nature of the N atom, and therefore the soil losses should be larger than 15
kg N/ha. The soil losses of P and K should be larger than 0 kg/ha to avoid mining.
Dependent on the prevailing policies and aims for losses, additional upper limits for
N volatilization and soil losses can be added.
d. Labour balance: two constraints apply in all situations. For both regular and casual
labour the sum of labour available from the household (on-farm plus off-farm) and
hired labour should be sufficient to cover the labour requirements of the farm.
Therefore the labour surplus at farm level should be ≥0 h. Similarly, the off-farm
labour should not exceed available labour (minus farm labour) so also the available
leisure time should be ≥0 h.

8. Console application
8.1 Use of console application
Farm DESIGN can be used as a console application using FarmDESIGNConsole.exe. This
application can be used in three ways, determined by the number of arguments that are
given. The three options are:
1. No arguments: a list of ID’s and names of the farms in the database is written
(Console.AllFarms.txt).
2. One argument: when a farm ID is passed (selected from the list written to the
Console.AllFarms.txt file), the Reporter file and files with the decision variables and
constraints are written for the indicated farm (Console.Reporter.txt,
Console.DecisionVariables.txt and Console.Constraints.txt).
3. Two arguments: when a farm ID and a name of file with adjusted parameter values is
passed, the farm parameters are changed in accordance with the values in the input
file, and the Reporter file and file with violated constraints are written for the
indicated farm (Console.Reporter.txt and Console.Constraints.txt).
Examples of calls corresponding to the three options mentioned above:

FarmDESIGNConsole.exe
FarmDESIGNConsole.exe 35
FarmDESIGNConsole.exe 35 "dvrs.txt"
8.2 File structures

Output files are written to the selected output folder, and the input file with adjusted
decision variables should be placed in the input folder. The fields in the files should be
separated with tabs. Each line in the file represents one variable or indicator. The output
file with decision variables contains an overview of the decision variables that have been
selected in the Describe window of the FarmDESIGN GUI application. The output file
with constraints contains an overview of the constraints that have been specified in the
Explain window of the FarmDESIGN GUI application. The input file required for options
3 contains adjusted values for decision variables that have been indicated in the GUI.
File name: Console.AllFarms.txt (output file, under option 1). The values of the field
indicated in green can be used for calls for farms under options 2 and 3.
Field Description Data type
ID Identification of the farm Integer
Name Name of the farm String
File name: Console.DecisionVariables.txt (output file, under option 2). The values
indicated in the green field can be used in the input file for option 3.
Name Name of the farm component String
Parameter Parameter String
Identifier string Internal identifier of the decision variable String
Minimum Lowest allowed value Double
Maximum Highest allowed value Double
Current value Current parameter value Double

File name: Console.Constraints.txt (output file, under options 2 and 3). Note that under
option 3 the file only constraints the constraints that are violated.
Name Name of the farm component String
Parameter Parameter String
Description Description of the constraint indicator String
Minimum Lowest allowed value Double
Maximum Highest allowed value Double
Current value Current indicator value Double
File name: <user-selected name> (input file, under option 3).

Identifier string Internal identifier of the decision variable String
Current value Current parameter value Double

9. Input data
Parameters characterizing the Farm system components are stored in a database, which
can be directly accessed and manipulated from the application. In this chapter an
overview of the data in the database is given. Each entity has a unique identification (ID,
named: XxxID). These ID’s and the variable names listed in this section are for internal
use only and will not be displayed to the user. The names of the variables are replaced in
the application by more descriptive names and units. When the mouse is moved over
this descriptive name then a more detailed explanation of the variable is displayed.

9.1 Farm (FRM)
Name Description Unit Type(Range)
FrmID Unique identification - Integer
Name Name of the farm - String
Description Description of the farm - String
IntakeSystem Method of calculating intake capacity of - String
animals
EnergySystem Method of calculating energy requirements - String
EnergyUnit Unit in which energy in feed is expressed - String
CalculateDMD Indication whether dry matter digestibility - String
is calculated from energy content or
provided as input parameter
ProteinSystem Method of calculating protein requirements - String
ProportionCH4 Proportion of CH4 in biogas produced - Double(0-1)
LowerHeatingValue Lower heating value of CH4 for energy MJ/mol Double
production
BioEnergyMicrobialEff Microbial conversion efficiency - Double
BioEnergyMicrobialCtoN Microbial C:N ratio - Double
NLossDigestionEP Mineral N loss during fermentation for - Double
biogas
NLossDigestateAppl Mineral N loss during application of - Double
digestate
DigestateHumifCoeff Humification coefficient of digestate - Double
AppliedResidue_N2O_EF Emission factor for N2O production after - Double
residue application, for GHG calculations
Fixation_N2O_EF Emission factor for N2O production during - Double
nitrogen fixation, for GHG calculations
Deposition_N2O_EF Emission factor for N2O production from - Double
nitrogen deposition, for GHG calculations

9.2 Environment (ENV)
Name Description Unit Type(range)
EnvID Unique identification - Integer
FrmID Unique identification of the farm (foreign key) - Integer
SoilType Type of soil - String
ActiveOM Active organic matter content % Double
OMDegradationRate Fraction of OM degraded % per year Double
SoilDepth Depth of the soil profile for SOM decay M Double
BulkDensity Bulk density of the soil kg/m3 Double
TextureFactor Texture factor. The texture of the soil - Double
influences the rate of mineralisation of organic
matter in the soil. Take a value of 1.2 for sandy
soils, 1.0 for loam and 0.8 for clay.
SoilpH Soil pH - Double
Pw Water extractable phosphorus content kg/ha Double
KValue Potassium content kg/ha Double
Lime Lime content % Double
NonSymbFixation Non-symbiotic nitrogen fixation kg/ha/year Double
MoistPeriodPf35 Moist period with pF 3.5 days Integer
IrrigationWater Amount of water available on the farm m3 Double
NDeposition Nitrogen deposition kg/ha/year Double
PDeposition Phosphorus deposition kg/ha/year Double
KDeposition Potassium deposition kg/ha/year Double
MeanTemperature Average temperature ºC Double
ErosionAmount Amount of soil eroded per year mm Double
ErosionOMContent Percentage of organic matter in eroded soil % Double
ErosionNContent Percentage of nitrogen in eroded soil % Double
ErosionPContent Percentage of potassium in eroded soil % Double
ErosionKContent Percentage of potassium in eroded soil % Double

9.3 Economics (ECN)
EcnID Unique identification - Integer
Currency Currency for economic calculations - String
InterestRate Interest rate %/year Double
LandCostsPerHa Costs of land Curr/ha Double
GeneralCosts General costs related to the farm enterprise Curr Double
OtherAnimalCosts Other animal herd related costs Curr Double
CasualLabourPrice Costs of casually hired labour Curr/hour Double
RegularLabourPrice Costs of skilled hired labour Curr/hour Double
LabourFarmConstant Constant labour required for farm hours/year Double
maintenance
LabourHerdConstant Constant labour required for keeping animals hours/year Double
OwnLabourInput Regular labour input by the farmer’s family hours/year Double
9.4 Household (HHD)

HhdID Unique identification - Integer
Name Household name - String
Expenditures Household expenditures Curr/year Double
Pension Pension that household members receive Curr/year Double
Remittances Remittances that household members receive Curr/year Double
9.5 Household member (HMR)

HmrID Unique identification - Integer
HhdID Unique identification of household (foreign - Integer
key)
Name Household member name - String
Age Age of the household member years Double
Gender Sex of the person (male, female or unknown) - String
Bodyweight Body weight of the person kg Double
Length Length of the person cm Double
ConsumerUnits Consumer units in comparison with a reference - Double
household member
Status Physiological status of the person (normal, - String
pregnant or lactating)
RegularLaborInput Availability to provide regular (skilled) labour h/year Double
to the farm
CasualLaborInput Availability to provide casual (unskilled) labour h/year Double
to the farm
OffFarmLaborInput Number of hours working off-farm h/year Double

9.6 Crops (CRP)
CrpID Unique identification - Integer
Name Crop name - String
NFixation Symbiotic nitrogen fixation (legumes) kg/ha/year Double
EffOrganicMatter Effective organic matter input by crop kg/ha/year Double
Costs Cost for production of the crop Curr/ha Double
ContractWorkCosts Costs for contract work Curr/ha Double
Subsidies Subsidies for production of the crop Curr/ha Double
RegularLabour Regular (skilled) labour requirements hours/ha Double
CasualLabour Casual labour requirement hours/ha Double
WaterDemand Amount of water needed to reach the indicated m3/ha Double
yield level
CropCH4Emission Crop methane (CH4) emission coefficient kg/ha Double
9.7 Crop products (PRD)

Note: grey area contains information about the destination of the product, the pink area
relates to characteristics relevant for human nutrition. The content of N, P and K is
expressed per kg dry matter, while all other constituents are per kg of fresh matter.
PrdID Unique identification - Integer
CrpID Unique identification of the crop (foreign - Integer
key)
Name Crop product name - String
ToSoil Use as green manure, applied to the soil kg DM Double
ToAnimals Use as feed for animals kg DM Double
FractionNonGrazPeriod Fraction of the amount fed to animals that is - Double(0-1)
supplied during the non-grazing period
ToBedding Use for bedding of animals in the stable kg DM Double
ToHomeUse Use for home consumption by the farm kg DM Double
family
ToBurning Amount of dry matter burned on the field kg DM Double
ToFireWood Amount of dry matter used as fire wood kg DM Double
ToEnergyProduction Amount of dry matter used for biogas kg DM Double
production by fermentation in a digester
FullSelfSupply Indicates if the crop is fully produced and - Boolean
used on farm (no import or export)
FreshPrice Price of the fresh material Curr/kg Double
FreshYield Yield of fresh material kg/ha Double
DMContent Dry matter content % Double
FeedLoss Losses during feeding to animals % Double
NContent Nitrogen content in dry matter % Double
PContent Phosphorus content in dry matter % Double
KContent Potassium content in dry matter % Double
AshContent Ash content in dry matter % Double
HumificationCoeff Humification coefficient, fraction of organic - Double
matter remaining after one year
SaturationValue Feed saturation value - Double
StructureValue Feed structure value - Double
DMD Dry matter digestibility g/kg DM Double
FeedEnergy Energy contents for animal feeding per kg DM Double
FeedProtein Protein contents for animal feeding g/kg DM Double
EnergyFireWood Energy contents when used as fire wood MJ/kg DM Double
LowerHeatingValue

DegradationRateEP Degradation rate during anaerobic - Double
fermentation in digester for biogas
FoodGroup Food group for human nutrition - String
Carbohydrates Content of carbohydrates in fresh matter g/100 g Double
DietaryEnergy Energy content in fresh matter kcal/100 g Double
DietaryFiber Dietary fiber content in fresh matter g/100 g Double
ProteinContent Protein content in fresh matter g/100 g Double
FatContent Fat content in fresh matter g/100 g Double
Magnesium Mg content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Manganese Mn content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Calcium Ca content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Sodium Na content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Iron Fe content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Zinc Zn content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Sulfur S content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
VitaminA Vitamin A content in fresh matter µg/100 g Double
VitaminC Vitamin C content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Tiamin Tiamin content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Riboflavin Riboflavin content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Folate Folate content in fresh matter µg/100 g Double
Niacin Niacin content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
VitaminB6 Vitamin B6 content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
VitaminB12 Vitamin B12 content in fresh matter µg/100 g Double
Copper Cu content in fresh matter µg/100 g Double
VitaminD Vitamin D content in fresh matter µg/100 g Double
VitaminE Vitamin E content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
RetentionFactor Fraction of the nutrients that is retained in - Double
the food after processing and cooking

9.8 Rotations (ROT)
RotID Unique identification - Integer
Name Rotation name - String
9.9 Rotation crops (RCR)

RcrID Unique identification - Integer
Name Rotation crop name - String
RotID Unique identification of the rotation (foreign - Integer
key)
CrpID Unique identification of the crop (foreign key) - Integer
Area Area of the crop in the rotation ha Double
9.10 Crop groups (GRP)

GrpID Unique identification - Integer
Name Rotation name - String
9.11 Group-crop relations (GCR)

GcrID Unique identification - Integer
GrpID Unique identification of the group (foreign key) - Integer

9.12 Animals (ANM)
AnmID Unique identification - Integer
Name Animal name - String
LengthOnFarmPeriod Duration of the period that the animals are on days Integer
farm
LengthGrazingPeriod Duration of the grazing period days Integer
AnmNumber Number of animals of this type - Integer
ReplacementRate Replacement rate of adult animals per year Double(0-1)
Breed Breed - String
Age Average age of the animals years Double
LivestockUnits Livestock units for this animal type LU Double
Weight Body weight (BW) kg Double
Carcass Carcass percentage (as a fraction) - Double(0-1)
CarcassPrice Price of the carcass Curr/kg Double
BeddingSupplied Amount of straw supplied per animal kg/day Double
SaturationFactor Saturation value, expressed per kg body per kg BW Double
weight
StructureFactor Structure value, expressed per kg dry matter per kg DMI Double
intake
EnergyMaintenance Energy requirement for maintenance per kg of units/kg Double
metabolic weight (MW=BW0.75) MW/day
ProteinMaintenance Protein requirement for maintenance per kg of g/kg Double
metabolic weight (MW=BW0.75) MW/day
TimeInPasture Time per day in pasture during grazing season hours Double(0-24)
TimeInYard Time per day in yard during grazing season hours Double(0-24)
RegularLabour Regular labour required per animal hours/year Double
CasualLabour Casual labour required per animal hours/year Double
EntericCH4Emission Enteric methane (CH4) emission factor kg/year Double
ManureCH4Emission Manure methane (CH4) emission factor kg/year Double
9.13 Animal products (APR)

Note: grey area contains information about the destination of the product, the pink area
relates to characteristics relevant for human nutrition. The content of N, P and K is
expressed per kg dry matter, while all other constituents are per kg of fresh matter.
AprID Unique identification - Integer
AnmID Unique identification of the animal (foreign - Integer
key)
FrmID Unique identification of the farm (foreign - Integer
key)
Name Animal product name - String
ToAnimals Use as feed for animals kg Double
FractionNonGrazPeriod Fraction of the amount fed to animals that is - Double(0-1)
supplied during the non-grazing period
ToHomeUse Use for home consumption by the farm family kg Double
FullSelfSupply Indicates if the crop is fully produced and - Boolean
used on farm (no import or export)
ProductType Type of product, either “Milk” or “Meat” or - String
“Other”. Used for feed requirement
calculations in VEM/DVE system
Production Amount of fresh matter produced per day kg/day Double

AshContent Ash content in dry matter % Double
FeedEnergy Energy contents per kg DM Double
FeedProtein Protein contents g/kg DM Double
FreshPrice Price of the fresh material Curr/kg Double
EnergyRequirement Energy requirement for production units/kg Double
ProteinRequirement Protein requirement for productin g/kg Double
FoodGroup Food group for human nutrition - String
Carbohydrates Content of carbohydrates in fresh matter g/100 g Double
DietaryEnergy Energy content in fresh matter kJ/100 g Double
DietaryFiber Dietary fiber content in fresh matter g/100 g Double
ProteinContent Protein content in fresh matter g/100 g Double
FatContent Fat content in fresh matter g/100 g Double
Magnesium Mg content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Manganese Mn content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Calcium Ca content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Sodium Na content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Iron Fe content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Zinc Zn content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Sulfur S content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
VitaminA Vitamin A content in fresh matter µg/100 g Double
VitaminC Vitamin C content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Tiamin Tiamin content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Riboflavin Riboflavin content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
Folate Folate content in fresh matter µg/100 g Double
Niacin Niacin content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
VitaminB6 Vitamin B6 content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
VitaminB12 Vitamin B12 content in fresh matter µg/100 g Double
Copper Cu content in fresh matter µg/100 g Double
VitaminD Vitamin D content in fresh matter µg/100 g Double
VitaminE Vitamin E content in fresh matter mg/100 g Double
RetentionFactor Fraction of the nutrients that is retained in - Double
the food after processing and cooking
9.14 Animal replacements (ARR)

ArrID Unique identification - Integer
AnmID Unique identification of the replaced animal - Integer
(foreign key)
RepID Unique identification of the replacing - Integer
animal (foreign key)

9.15 Manures (MAN)
ManID Unique identification - Integer
FrmID Unique identification of the farm (foreign - Integer
key)
Name Manure name - String
ProducedAtSite Manure produced at which site on the farm - String
(P=pasture, Y=yard, S=stable or E=external)
ProportionAtSite Proportion of the total manure produced at - Double(0-1)
a site (pasture, yard or stable)
OMContent Organic matter content in dry matter % Double
Price Price of the product Curr/tonne Double
ExcretionLoss Fraction of mineral nitrogen lost from - Double(0-1)
excreted manure
ApplicationLoss Fraction of mineral nitrogen lost from - Double(0-1)
applied manure
FractionOxic Proportion degraded in aerobic conditions - Double(0-1)
MineralNLossOxic Fraction of mineral N lost during storage in - Double(0-1)
oxic conditions
DegradationRateOxic Fractional organic matter degradation rate - Double(0-1)
in oxic conditions
MicrocialEffOxic Efficiency of substrate utilization by g/g Double(0-1)
microbes in oxic conditions
MicrobialCNOxic C:N ratio of microbes in oxic conditions - Double
MineralNLossAnoxic Fraction of mineral N lost during storage in - Double(0-1)
anoxic conditions
DegradationRateAnoxic Fractional organic matter degradation rate - Double(0-1)
in anoxic conditions
MicrocialEffAnoxic Efficiency of substrate utilization by g/g Double(0-1)
microbes in anoxic conditions
MicrobialCNAnoxic C:N ratio of microbes in anoxic conditions - Double
HumificationCoeff Humification coefficient, the proportion of - Double
organic matter remaining after one year
9.16 Crop-manure relations (CMR)

CmrID Unique identification - Integer
ManID Unique identification of the manure that is - Integer
linked to the crop (foreign key)
Amount Amount of manure applied per ha kg/ha Double

9.17 Fertilizers (FRT)
FrtID Unique identification - Integer
Name Fertilizer name - String
Amount Amount imported into the farm (calculated by kg Double
the model for on-farm produced manures)
OMContent Organic matter content in dry matter % Double
FractionMinN Fraction of mineral nitrogen in total N - Double
ApplicationLoss Fraction of mineral nitrogen lost from applied - Double(0-1)
manure
HumificationCoeff Humification coefficient, the proportion of - Double
organic matter remaining after one year
AppliedN_N2O_EF Emission factor for N2O production after - Double
application to the field, for GHG calculations
9.18 Crop-fertilizer relations (CFR)

CfrID Unique identification - Integer
FrtID Unique identification of the fertilizer that is - Integer
Amount Amount of fertilizer applied per ha kg/ha Double

9.19 Pesticides (PST)
PstID Unique identification - Integer
Name Pesticide name - String
Amount Amount imported into the farm (calculated by Kg or L Double
the model for on-farm produced manures)
ActiveIngredients Amount of active ingredients per unit g/kg or g/L Double
9.20 Crop-pesticide relations (CPR)

CprID Unique identification - Integer
PstID Unique identification of the pesticide that is - Integer
Amount Amount of pesticide applied per ha kg/ha or Double
L/ha

9.21 Machines (MCH)
MchID Unique identification - Integer
Name Machine name - String
MchNumber Number of machines of this type on the farm - Integer
Price Price of the machine Curr Double
Depreciation Annual depreciation costs %/year Double
OperationalCosts Costs of operation, maintenance and insurance %/year Double
9.22 Buildings (BLD)

BldID Unique identification - Integer
Name Building name - String
MchNumber Number of buildings of this type on the farm - Integer
Price Price of the building Curr Double
Depreciation Annual depreciation costs %/year Double
OperationalCosts Costs of operation, maintenance and insurance %/year Double
9.23 Notes (NTE)

Name Unique identification, composed of entity-type - String
and unique identifier
NoteText Text of the note - Memo
9.24 Photos (PHO)

Name Unique identification, composed of entity-type - String
and unique identifier
FileName File names and path where the photo is located - String
9.25 Version (VRS)

VrsID Unique identification - Integer
Major Major version number - Integer
Minor Minor version number - Integer
DateText Date and time of last update - String

References
Bergey, P.K., Ragsdale, C., 2005. Modified differential evolution: a greedy random
strategy for genetic recombination. Omega-Int. J. Manage. Sci. 33: 255–265.
CVB, 2008. Tabellenboek Veevoeding 2008 - Voedernormen landbouwhuisdieren en
voederwaarden veevoeders. Centraal Voederbureau, Lelystad, 120 p. CVB reeks
nr 46.
Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., Meyarivan, T., 2002. A fast and elitist multiobjective
genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE T. Evol. Comput. 6: 182–197.
Giller, K.E. et al., 2008. Competing Claims on Natural Resources: What Role for Science?
Ecol. Soc. 13(2): 34. URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art34/.
Kirchmann, H., 1985, Losses, plant uptake and utilisation of manure nitrogen during a
production cycle, Acta Agric. Scand. Suppl 24, 9-17, 28-39 and 66-71.
Kolb, D., 1983. Problem management. In S. Srivastva, & R. Fry (Eds.). The executive mind.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Kolenbrander, G.J. & L.C.N. de la Lande Cremer, 1967, Stalmest en gier, H.Veenman en
zonen n.v. Wageningen.
Tittonell, P., 2007. Msimu wa Kupanda – Targeting resources for integrated soil fertility
management within diverse, heterogeneous and dynamic farming systems of East
Africa. Wageningen University, the Netherlands.
Dogliotti, S., M.K. van Ittersum & W.A.H. Rossing, 2005. A method for exploring
sustainable development options at farm scale: A case study for vegetable farms
in South Uruguay. Agricultural Systems 86:29-51.
Goldberg, D.E., 1989. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning.
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 412 pp.
Groot, J.C.J., G.J.M. Oomen, W.A.H. Rossing, 2012. Multi-objective optimization and design
of farming systems. Agricultural Systems 110, 63-77.
Groot J.C.J., Rossing W.A.H., Stobbelaar D.J., Renting H., Van Ittersum M.K., 2007. Towards
design instruments for discussion support in land-use allocation – integrating
nature conservation, economic performance and landscape quality in agricultural
areas. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 120:58-69.
Høgh-Jensen, H., Loges, R., Jørgensen, F. V, Vinther, F. P., & Jensen, E. S. (2004). An
empirical model for quantification of symbiotic nitrogen fixation in grass-clover
mixtures. Agricultural Systems, 82(2), 181–194. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2003.12.003
Holter, J.A., Reid, J.T., 1959. Relationship between the concentrations of crude protein
and apparent digestible protein in forages. J. Anim. Sci. 18: 1339-1349.
Liu, Y., Wu, L., Baddeley, J. A., & Watson, C. A. (2011). Models of biological nitrogen
fixation of legumes. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 31(1),
155–172. doi:10.1051/agro/2010008
Mayer, D.G., Kinghorn, B.P., Archer, A.A., 2005. Differential Evolution – an easy and
efficient evolutionary algorithm for model optimization. Agric. Syst. 83, 315–328.
Oenema O., G.L. Velthof, N.Verdoes, P.W.G. Groot Koerkamp, G.J.Monteny,A.Bannink,
H.G.van der Meer, K.W.van der Hoek, 2000, Forfaitaire waarden voor gasvormige
stikstofverliezen uit stallen en mestopslagen, Alterra-rapport 107,Wageningen,
185 p.

Oyarzun, P.J., R.M. Borja, S. Sherwood, V. Parra (2013) Making Sense of Agrobiodiversity,
Diet, and Intensification of Smallholder Family Farming in the Highland Andes of
Ecuador. Ecol. Food Nutr. 52(6) 515-541. DOI:10.1080/03670244.2013.769099
Rossing, W.A.H., P. Zander, E. Josien, J.C.J. Groot, B.C. Meyer, A. Knierim, 2007. Integrative
modelling approaches for analysis of impact of multifunctional agriculture: a
review for France, Germany and the Netherlands. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 120:
41-57.
Storn, R., Price, K., 1995. Differential evolution - a simple and efficient adaptive scheme
for global optimization over continuous spaces. International Computer Science
Institute, Berkeley USA, 12 pp. Technical Report TR-95-012.
Storn, R., Price, K., 1997. Differential Evolution - A Simple and Efficient Heuristic for
Global Optimization over Continuous Spaces. J. Global Optim. 11: 341-359.
Tamminga, S., Van Straalen, W.M., Subnel, A.P.J., Meijer, R.G.M., Steg, A., Wever, C.J.G.,
Blok, M.C., 1994. The Dutch protein evaluation system: the DVE/OEB-system.
Livestock Production Science 40, 139-155.
Tittonell, P., M.T. van Wijk, M.C. Rufino, J.A. Vrugt & K.E. Giller, 2007. Analysing trade-offs
in resource and labour allocation by smallholder farmers using inverse modelling
techniques: A case-study from Kakamega district, western Kenya. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 123: 137-150.
Van Es, A.J.H., 1975. Feed evaluation for dairy cows. Livestock Production Science 2: 95–
107.
Van Es, A.J.H., 1978. Feed evaluation for ruminants. I. The systems in use from May 1977
onwards in The Netherlands. Livestock Production Science 5: 331–345.

A1 - Estimation of organic matter degradation in practice
In succeeding graphs you will find an indication of the loss of organic under aerobical
and anaerobical conditions in dependence of duration of storage and of the amount of
straw used in a deep litter stable conditions, where 60% of manure is collected as FYM.
These indications are derived from Kolenbrander G.J. & L.C.N. De La Lande Cremer
(1967).
Loss of nitrogen during storage of FYM
50
% of total nitrogen
40
30
20
10
0
0 5 10 15 20
months of storage
initial C/N manure = 16 initial C/N manure = 24
initial C/N manure = 33 initial C/N manure = 41
Based on the estimated loss of organic matter mineralisation of initial organic nitrogen
and assimilation (=immobilisation) of initial inorganic nitrogen is calculated according
to the same equation as presented above.
During decomposition temperature rises (it peaks at 75 oC in aerobic decomposing deep

litter manure) and most of produced heat is lost by evaporation of water (about 7 kg
water per kg of lost organic matter). If this loss of water exceeds the initial water
content per kg organic matter manure will dry out and become mouldy (as often
happens in a loose heap of horse manure)
A part of inorganic nitrogen in FYM is lost by volatilisation of NH3 and another part by
denitrification. Loss by NH3 volatilisation occurs during the first weeks of storage and
denitrification during the remaining period. Total loss of nitrogen depends on the size
and form of the heap, its exposition to wind and rain and initial C to N ratio of manure
(including inorganic forms). The figures below are based on Kirchmann (1985) and can
help you to estimate the percentage of initial nitrogen that is lost during storage.

Loss of OM during aerobical storage Loss of OM during anaerobical storage
60 40
35
50
30
%OM decomposted
%OM decomposted
40 0 kg straw per animal

25 per day
3 kg /day
30 20
15 6 kg /day
20
10 9 kg/day
10 15 kg/day
5
0
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 5 10
Months of storage Months of storage
Figure. The proportion of organic matter lost during storage by aerobic (a) or anaerobic
(b) degradation in dependence of the amount of straw added.
If manure is stored during 5 months you can use
Nitrogen loss during storage (as % of initial N) = 55.9 -1.11*CNinitial
Note that a high initial C to N ratio reduces loss of nitrogen only during a few months,
but cannot prevent nitrogen will be lost if storage is continued for a long period. If
measurements are available of the amount of manure, organic matter, organic nitrogen
and inorganic nitrogen you can adapt the chosen percentages to come to a better fit
between measured and calculated composition of manure.

Farm DESIGN Manual - Optimize farm systems

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Farm DESIGN Manual - Optimize farm systems

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Farming Systems Ecology Group

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 1

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 2

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 3

A complete description of the model can be found in the following article:

Applications of the model can be found here:

Dr Jeroen C.J. Groot

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 4

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 5

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 6

components of the farming system outcomes of the farm configuration

define decision variables define objectives and constraints

generate, evaluate and select new determine whether decision variables

select individual solutions if all OK: allow Explore (optimization)

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 7

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 8

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 9

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 10

4.2 Explain window

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 11

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 12

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 13

Figure 4.8. The ‘Explore’ window.

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 14

Figure 4.9. The ‘Explore’ window with optimization results.

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 15

Figure 4.10. Window used to add components to the repository.

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 16

4.6 Data from Excel and text files

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 17

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 18

Key (combinations) in Describe window:

Control-N Create a new farm component (in Describe window)

Control-O Open farm

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 19

5.1 Crop nitrogen fixation

5.2 Crop effective organic matter

5.3 Crop nitrogen fixation

5.4 Crop greenhouse gas emissions

5.5 Animal whereabouts

5.6 Labour profiles

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 20

6.1 Module: Crop areas

Figure 6.1. Crop areas tab page of the ‘Explain’ window.

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 21

6.2 Module: Product destinations

6.3 Module: Feed balance

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 22

Abbreviation Description Equation to estimate digestibility

For energy (E):

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 23

ME (kJ) Metabolisable energy E / 15

TDN (%) Total digestible nutrients 10 * E

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 24

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 25

2.75LW 0.5  0.2LW 0.6

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 26

FPCM  0.337  0.116  mf  0.06  mp  M

EG (VEM/kg MW/g) EnergyGrowth 0.05 0.05 0.05

EM (VEM/kg FPCM) EnergyMilkProd 443 443 443

Farm DESIGN Manual – Version 4.21.0, 19 January 2018 27

OMER  ErosionAmount 13000 ErosionOMContent / 100