Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences

Asian Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies (아세아태평양축산학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Characteristics of Sawdust and Cocopeat Beddings, and Their Usefulness According to the Fan and Pen Location for Rearing Hanwoo Cattle

  • Ahn, Gyu Chul (Department of Animal Science and Technology, College of Animal Bioscience and Technology, Konkuk University) ;
  • Jang, Sun Sik (National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Lee, Kang Yeon (Semi Feed Tech. Co. Ltd.) ;
  • Kwak, Wan Sup (Division of Food Bioscience, College of Health and Medical Life Sciences, Konkuk University) ;
  • Oh, Young Kyun (National Institute of Animal Science, RDA) ;
  • Park, Keun Kyu (Department of Animal Science and Technology, College of Animal Bioscience and Technology, Konkuk University)
  • Received : 2015.08.13
  • Accepted : 2015.11.04
  • Published : 2016.03.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was designed to examine the characteristics of sawdust and cocopeat bedding materials, including physicochemical properties (Exp. I) and on-farm trial (Exp. II). In Exp. I, the proportion of particle size was in the order of sawdust>cocopeat India>cocopeat Vietnam (p<0.05), and cocopeat contained higher proportion of small particles ($250{\mu}m$+below $250{\mu}m$) than sawdust, causing a dust production problem. Bulk density was cocopeat India>cocopeat Vietnam>sawdust (p<0.05), thus cocopeat treatments showed 4.4 times higher bedding cost than sawdust. The water absorption rates were 702.0% in cocopeat India, 678.3% in cocopeat Vietnam, and 444.0% in sawdust, showing cocopeat had approximately 1.5 times higher water absorption rate than sawdust. Moisture evaporation rates after 12 h of air blowing (2.00 m/s) were higher (p<0.05) in cocopeat Vietnam (80.4%) than sawdust (71.2%) and cocopeat India (72.8%). In vitro ammonia emissions were higher (p<0.05) in sawdust ($2.71mg/m^2/h$) than cocopeat India ($1.59mg/m^2/h$) and Vietnam ($1.22mg/m^2/h$), and total ammonia emissions were higher (p<0.05) in sawdust ($37.02mg/m^2$) than cocopeat India ($22.51mg/m^2$) and Vietnam ($13.60mg/m^2$). In Exp. II, an on-farm trial was conducted with 48 Hanwoo cattle in 16 pens using the same bedding materials as in Exp. I, with fan (blowing 2.00 m/s) and no fan treatments, and feed bunk side (FB) and water supply side (WS) within a pen (4.5 m, $width{\times}9.0m$, length). Beddings were replaced with fresh bedding materials when moisture concentrations were over 65%. No interactions among treatments were detected for moisture concentration and increment rates, and ammonia concentrations, but a significant effect was observed (p<0.01) for each of the treatments. Both concentrations and increment rate of moisture were higher (p<0.01) in the beddings without fan than with fan. Moisture concentrations and increment rate within a pen were also higher (p<0.01) in FB than WS. Thus, the whole no-fan-FB and sawdust-fan-FB were replaced with fresh bedding material between 4 to 5 experimental weeks. The ammonia concentrations and pH of beddings were not significantly different among treatments. Therefore, using cocopeat bedding with a blowing fan can extend twice the bedding utilization period, and WS within a pen showed twice the bedding-life compared to FB. Despite the outstanding characteristics of cocopeat compared with sawdust, using cocopeat as an alternative for sawdust bedding is not recommended for cattle management, considering it has 4.4 times higher bedding cost and a dust production problem.

Keywords

References

  1. Archibeque, S. L., H. C. Freetly, N. A. Cole, and C. L. Ferrell. 2007. The influence of oscillating dietary protein concentrations on finishing cattle. II. Nutrient retention and ammonia emissions. J. Anim. Sci. 85:1496-1503. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-208
  2. Burgess, D. and W. G. Hutchinson. 2005. Do people value the welfare of farm animals? Euro Choices. 4:36-43.
  3. Burkholder, K. M., A. D. Guyton, J. M. McKinney, and K. F. Knowlton. 2004. The effect of steam flaked or dry ground corn and supplemental phytic acid on nitrogen partitioning in lactating cows and ammonia emission from manure. J. Dairy Sci. 87:2546-2553. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(04)73379-2
  4. Chambers, B. J., J. R. Williams, S. D. Cooke, R. M. Kay, D. R. Chadwick, and S. L. Balsdon. 2003. Ammonia losses from contrasting cattle and pig manure management systems. In Agriculture, Waste and the Environment (Eds. I. McTaggart and L. Gairns). Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 19-25.
  5. Chaney, A. L. and E. P. Marbach. 1962. Modified reagents for determination of urea and ammonia. Clin. Biochem. 8:130-132.
  6. Cole, N. A., R. N. Clark, R. W. Todd, C. R. Richardson, A. Gueye, L. W. Greene, and K. McBride. 2005. Influence of dietary crude protein concentration and source on potential ammonia emissions from beef cattle manure. J. Anim. Sci. 83:722-731. https://doi.org/10.2527/2005.833722x
  7. Corti, C., L. Crippa, P. L. Genevini, and M. Centemero. 1998. Compost use in plant nurseries: Hydrological and physicochemical characteristics. Compost Sci. Util. 6:35-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.1998.10701907
  8. Hillman, P., K. Gebremedhin, and R. Warner. 1992, Ventilation system to minimize airborne bacteria, dust, humidity, and ammonia in calf nurseries. J. Dairy Sci. 75:1305-1312. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(92)77881-3
  9. Hogan, J. S., K. L. Smith, K. H. Hoblet, D. A. Todhunter, P. S. Schoenberger, W. D. Hueston, D. E. Pritchard, G. L. Bowman, L. E. Heider, B. L. Brockett, and H. R. Conrad. 1989. Bacterial counts in bedding materials used on nine commercial dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 72:250-258. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(89)79103-7
  10. Jeppsson, K. H. 1999. Volatilization of ammonia in deep-litter systems with different bedding materials for young cattle. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 73:49-57. https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1998.0387
  11. Kang, H. S., S. K. Hong, W. M. Cho, B. H. Paek, C. H. Park, and D. S. Lee. 1995. Effects of sawdust and rice hulls litter on the waste management of Hanwoo (Korean native cattle). Korean Soc. Livest. Hous. Environ. 1:1-8.
  12. Kim, Y. S., B. T. Kim, and C. H. Lee. 2007. Variations of physical properties depending on the height of reactor in vertical composting process. J. KORRA 15:115-124.
  13. Kweon, D. J., U. G. Kweon, S. G. Jeong, J. D. Han, S. C. Jung, S. W. Kang, S. L. Kang, H. S. Jung, and H. J. Chang. 1995. Study on the utilization of sawdust bedding barn for dairy cows. Korean Soc. Livest. Hous. Environ. 1:117-124.
  14. Misselbrook, T. H. and J. M. Powell. 2005. Influence of bedding material on ammonia emissions from cattle excreta. J. Dairy Sci. 88:4304-4312. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)73116-7
  15. Misselbrook, T. H., J. M. Powell, G. A., Broderick, and J. H. Grabber. 2005. Dietary manipulation in dairy cattle: Laboratory experiments to assess the influence on ammonia emissions. J. Dairy Sci. 88:1765-1777. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72851-4
  16. National Institute of Animal Science. 2012. Korean Feeding Standard for Hanwoo. 3rd Ed. Rural Development Administration, Jeonju, Korea.
  17. Olson, T. M. 1940. Absorptive capacity of different materials ordinarily used for bedding. J. Dairy Sci. 23:355-360. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(40)95534-5
  18. Potgieter, F. J. and P. I. Wilke. 1996. The dust content, dust generation, ammonia production, and absorption properties of three different rodent bedding types. Lab. Anim. 30:79-87. https://doi.org/10.1258/002367796780744893
  19. RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). 2015. The five freedoms. https://www.rspca.org.uk/servlet/Satellite?blobcol=urlblob&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=RSPCABlob&blobwhere=1210683196122&ssbinary=true. Accessed September 30, 2015.
  20. SAS User's guide. 2002. Statistics, Version 9.01 Edition. SAS Inst., Inc., Cary. NC, USA.
  21. Scholtens, R. 1990. Measurements of ammonia emission in mechanically ventilated animal houses. VDI/KTBLSymposium, Ammoniak in der Umwelt. Kreislaufe, Wirkungen, Minderung. 20.1-20.9.
  22. Swierstra, D., M. C. J. Smits, and W. Kroodsma. 1995. Ammonia emission from cubicle houses for cattle with slatted and solid floors. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 62:127-132. https://doi.org/10.1006/jaer.1995.1071
  23. Tucker, C. B., D. M. Weary, and D. Fraser. 2003. Effects of three types of free-stall surfaces on preferences and stall usage by dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 86:521-529. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(03)73630-3
  24. Ward, P. L., J. E. Wohlt, P. K. Zajac, and K. R. Cooper. 2000. Chemical and physical properties of processed newspaper compared to wheat straw and wood shavings as animal bedding. J. Dairy Sci. 83:359-367. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(00)74887-9
  25. Webster, A. J. F. 1993. Understanding the Dairy Cow. 2nd ed., Blackwell, Oxford, UK.
  26. Wikipidea. 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coco_peat, Accessed 1 July, 2015.

Cited by

  1. Rearing characteristics of fattening Hanwoo steers managed in different stocking densities vol.31, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.17.0451
  2. Characteristics of sawdust, wood shavings and their mixture from different pine species as bedding materials for Hanwoo cattle vol.33, pp.5, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.19.0519
  3. Modeling methane potential yield and chemical composition of bedded pack barn cattle manure: Influence of cattle, season, growth stage, its retention time and particle distribution vol.22, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-00993-9