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

• Published in: Asian-australasian journal of animal sciences Vol. 29; no. 3; pp. 444 - 454
• Main Authors: Ahn, Gyu Chul, Jang, Sun Sik, Lee, Kang Yeon, Kwak, Wan Sup, Oh, Young Kyun, Park, Keun Kyu
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: Korean
• Published: 2016
• Subjects: Cocopeat; Animal Welfare; Cattle; Ammonia Emission; Bedding; Sawdust
• ISSN: 1011-2367; 1976-5517

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.