贺腾飞, 刘天旭, 龙沈飞, 张校军, 刘芮兵, 凌小凡, 刘继军, 陈昭辉. 冬季肉牛加热饮水围栏育肥模式适用性分析[J]. 农业工程学报, 2022, 38(3): 182-188. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2022.03.021
    引用本文: 贺腾飞, 刘天旭, 龙沈飞, 张校军, 刘芮兵, 凌小凡, 刘继军, 陈昭辉. 冬季肉牛加热饮水围栏育肥模式适用性分析[J]. 农业工程学报, 2022, 38(3): 182-188. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2022.03.021
    He Tengfei, Liu Tianxu, Long Shenfei, Zhang Xiaojun, Liu Ruibing, Ling Xiaofan, Liu Jijun, Chen Zhaohui. Feasibility analysis of the drinking heated water under fencing fattening mode of beef cattle in winter[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2022, 38(3): 182-188. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2022.03.021
    Citation: He Tengfei, Liu Tianxu, Long Shenfei, Zhang Xiaojun, Liu Ruibing, Ling Xiaofan, Liu Jijun, Chen Zhaohui. Feasibility analysis of the drinking heated water under fencing fattening mode of beef cattle in winter[J]. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering (Transactions of the CSAE), 2022, 38(3): 182-188. DOI: 10.11975/j.issn.1002-6819.2022.03.021

    冬季肉牛加热饮水围栏育肥模式适用性分析

    Feasibility analysis of the drinking heated water under fencing fattening mode of beef cattle in winter

    • 摘要: 为研究冬季中国西北地区肉牛加热饮水条件下围栏育肥模式的适用性,该研究实测了加热水围栏育肥(平均饮水温度:(20.58±0.91)℃)和常温水舍内育肥(平均饮水温度:(7.20±1.70)℃)2种模式下的相关环境指标,并计算环境温湿指数(Temperature Humidity Index, THI)、风冷指数(Wind Chill Index, WCI)、综合气候指数(Comprehensive Climate Index, CCI)和冷应激指数(Cold Stress Index, CSI),探究两种育肥模式对肉牛生长性能的影响。结果表明:与常温水舍内育肥相比,加热水围栏育肥的环境温度、湿度和有害气体浓度均显著降低(P<0.05),风速显著升高(P<0.05)、THI、WCI和CCI显著降低(P<0.05),CSI显著升高(P<0.05)。此外,加热水围栏育肥肉牛的平均日增质量为(1.40±0.39)kg/d,显著高于常温水舍内育肥组的(1.14±0.47)kg/d(P<0.05),加热水围栏育肥肉牛的日采食质量与日增质量比为8.83±3.63,显著低于常温水舍内育肥组的12.11±6.34(P<0.05),且建筑成本较常温水舍内育肥降低37.78%。综上所述,冬季采用加热水围栏育肥模式能够显著提高肉牛生长性能,并节约建筑成本。

       

      Abstract: This study aims to clarify the effects of drinking warm water under fencing fattening modes on the growth performance of beef cattle in winter. A field experiment was carried out in the Zhangye area under the two modes: fencing fattening with warm water (average drinking water temperature: (20.58±0.91)℃), and house-fattening with cold water (average drinking water temperature: (7.20±1.70)℃). Some thermal parameters were measured, including the temperature- humidity index (THI), wind chill index (WCI), comprehensive climate index (CCI), and cold stress index (CSI). 140 fattening cattle were collected to divide into two groups, including a fence fattening with warm water group, and a house-fattening with cold water group. In the warm water group, 118 fattening cattle (average body weight at (513.23±39.78) kg) were divided into 6 repetitions with 15 to 20 fattening cattle each repetition, and the area of each repetition (fence) was 18 m × 18 m. In the cold water group, 22 fattening cattle (average body weight at (515.93±53.42) kg) were divided into 6 replicates with 3 to 4 fattening cattle in each replicate, and the area of each replicate (fence) was 20 m×4 m. The period of this experiment was last for 35 days. The total mixed ration (TMR) was mechanically fed at 8:30 and 14:30 every day, and the water was taken freely for each fattening cattle. Some parameters were measured and recorded at 8:30, 14:30, and 20:30 each day, including the air temperature, humidity, wind speed, carbon dioxide concentration, ammonia concentration, and the drinking water temperature. The fattening cattle were weighed in the morning before feeding on the 1st and 35th day of the experiment, where the feed was weighed and recorded each day. As such, the average daily gain, average daily feed intake, and feed conversion rate were calculated, according to the feed. The results showed that there were significantly lower air temperature, humidity, pollutant gas concentration, THI, WCI, and CCI of fencing-fattening with warm water (P<0.05), whereas, the wind speed and CSI index was significantly higher (P<0.05), compared with the cold water group. The average daily gain of the fencing fattening with warm water beef cattle was (1.40±0.39) kg/d, which was significantly higher than the (1.14±0.47) kg/d of the house-fattening with cold water beef cattle (P<0.05). The feed conversion ratio of the fencing fattening with warm water beef cattle was significantly lower (P<0.05) than that of house-fattening with cold water beef cattle. The construction cost of fencing fattening with warm water was 37.78% lower than that of in-house fattening with cold water. In conclusion, the fencing fattening with warm water mode in winter presented a lower environmental humidity and less harmful gas concentration, such as carbon dioxide and ammonia for fattening cattle, which was more conducive to the growth of beef cattle.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回