Ahn Gyu Chul, Jang Sun Sik, Kwak Hyung Jun, Lee Sang Rak, Oh Young Kyun, Park Keun Kyu
National Institute of Animal Science, RDA, Jeonju 331-808, Korea.
Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2016 Apr;29(4):599-605. doi: 10.5713/ajas.15.0863. Epub 2016 Apr 1.
In this study, two experiments were conducted to investigate the physicochemical characteristics (Exp. I) of bedding materials such as rice hulls (RH), sawdust (SD), wood shavings (WS) and sawdust+wood shavings (S+W; 1:1 in volume), and utilization of these beddings except RH (Exp. II) for rearing beef cattle. In Exp. I, the distribution of particle size (%) with 250 μm and below 250 μm was greater (p<0.05) in SD (30.4) than RH (4.4), WS (18.8) and S+W (20.1). Bulk density (kg/m(3)) of bedding materials was directly proportional to the percentage of 250 μm and below 250 μm particles, 178, 46, 112, and 88 for SD, WD, S+W and RH, respectively. Water absorption rate (%) after submersion in water for 24 h was higher (p<0.05) in WS (540.2) compared to SD (270.2), S+W (368.2). The S+W had an intermediate value of the absorption rate between SD and WS, but had an outstanding durability of water absorption capacity. Moisture evaporation rate (%) for 12 h was higher (p<0.05) in WS (75.4) than SD (70.5), S+W (72.2) and RH (57.8). Average ammonia emission (mg/m(2)/h) for 36 h was higher (p<0.05) in RH (3.15) than SD (1.70), WS (1.63), and S+W (1.73). In Exp. II, thirty six Hanwoo cows were allocated in 9 pens with one side on feed bunk side (Side A) and another side equipped with water supply (Side B) for 3 weeks with duplicated periods. Average moisture concentrations (%) of beddings were higher (p<0.05) in WS (side A, 65.7; side B, 57.9) than SD (side A, 62.5; side B, 52.2) and S+W (side A, 61.6; side B, 50.7). Regardless of types of beddings, moisture concentrations (%) of beddings within a pen were lower (p<0.05) at side B than A, implying longer period of utilization. These results suggest that using S+W would be a better choice than SD or WS alone, considering physicochemical characteristics and economics, and RH is not a suitable material as a bedding for beef cattle.
在本研究中,进行了两项试验,以调查诸如稻壳(RH)、锯末(SD)、刨花(WS)以及锯末+刨花(S+W;体积比1:1)等垫料的理化特性(试验I),并研究除RH外这些垫料在肉牛饲养中的利用情况(试验II)。在试验I中,粒径在250μm及以下的颗粒分布百分比(%)在SD(30.4)中比RH(4.4)、WS(18.8)和S+W(20.1)更大(p<0.05)。垫料的容重(kg/m³)与粒径在250μm及以下的颗粒百分比成正比,SD、WD、S+W和RH的容重分别为178、46、112和88。在水中浸泡24小时后的吸水率(%),WS(540.2)高于SD(270.2)、S+W(368.2)(p<0.05)。S+W的吸水率介于SD和WS之间,但具有出色的吸水耐久性。12小时的水分蒸发率(%),WS(75.4)高于SD(70.5)、S+W(72.2)和RH(57.8)(p<0.05)。36小时的平均氨气排放量(mg/m²/h),RH(3.15)高于SD(1.70)、WS(1.63)和S+W(1.73)(p<0.05)。在试验II中,36头韩牛被分配到9个牛栏中,一侧为饲料槽侧(A侧),另一侧配备供水设施(B侧),为期三周,重复两个周期。垫料的平均水分浓度(%),WS(A侧为65.7;B侧为57.9)高于SD(A侧为62.5;B侧为52.2)和S+W(A侧为61.6;B侧为50.7)(p<0.05)。无论垫料类型如何,栏内垫料的水分浓度(%)在B侧均低于A侧(p<0.05),这意味着使用周期更长。这些结果表明,综合考虑理化特性和经济性,使用S+W比单独使用SD或WS是更好的选择,且RH不是适合作为肉牛垫料的材料。