Journal of The Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science (한국초지조사료학회지)

The Korean Society of Grassland and Forage Science (한국초지조사료학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Studies on the Quality and Palatability of Imported Hay and Straw

수입건초의 품질 및 기호성에 관한 연구

  • Han, Sang-Cheul (College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Lee, In-Duk (College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Chungnam National University) ;
  • Lee, Hyung-Suk (Woosong Information College)
  • Published : 2009.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The experiment was carried out from January through December in 2008 at Chungnam National University and the Unbong Animal Genetic Resources Station, NIAS. The experimental animals were twelve dairy goats (female, $30{\pm}1.8kg$), twelve Korean native Boats(female, $24{\pm}2.4kg$) and five sika deer(female, $92{\pm}5.2kg$). A total of 11 different types of hay and straw were tested in this study: such straw imported from USA in 2006 as annual ryegrass, perennial ryegrass, tall fescue and Kentucky bluegrass, and such hay imported from USA in 2007 as alfatfa, bermudagrass, timothy, kleingrass, oat and orchardgrass, and such domestic hay as mixed hay There were significant differences in chemical composition and in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) among the various types of imported hay and straw (p<0.05). Besides alfalfa hay and orchardpass hay all of the imported hay contained lower crude protein (CP) and IVDMD but contained higher neutral detergent fiber(NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) than the domestic hay. According to the kinds of the imported hay, relative feed value (RFV) made the difference and the hay grades were ranged from 4 to 5, based on the RFV. According to the kinds of the imported hay, there were markedly differences in dry matte. (DM) intake and palatability ranking among dairy goats, Korean native goats, and sika deer. DM intake and palatability ranking were high in common between orchardgrass hay and bermudagrass hay, but Kentucky bluegrass straw, tall fescue straw, perennial ryegrass straw and annual ryegrass straw were proved to be very low in DM intake and palatability ranking. In conclusion, the quality and palatability among the imported hay that was tested in the study were quite variable and lower than expected. It is required to establish a better feed evaluation system for the imported hay.

본 연구는 2008년 1월부터 12월까지 충남대 학교 농업생명과학대학과 가축유전자원시험장에서 수행하였다. 공시가축은 유산양(Sannen, Capra aegagrus) 12두(female, $30{\pm}1.8kg$), 재래산양(Korean native goats, Capra hircus) 12두(female, $24{\pm}2.4kg$), 꽃사슴(sika deer, Servus nippon) 5두(female, $92{\pm}5.2kg$)를 공시하였다. 공시재료는 2006년에 미국에서 수입된 annual ryegrass straw, perennial ryegrass straw, tall fescue straw 및 Kentucky bluegrass straw 등 4종과, 2007년에 미국에서 수입된 alfalfa hay, bermudagrass hay, timothy hay, klein grass hay, oat hay 및 orchardgrass hay 등 6종 등 총 10종과 대조구로 국내산 혼합 목건초(mixed hay) 등 총 11종을 공시하였으며 얻어진 결과는 다음과 같다. 수입건초는 종류에 따라 화학적 성분과 건물소화율(in vitro digestibility, IVDMD)는 현저한 차이를 보였으며 (p<0.05), alfalfa hay와 orchard-grass hay를 제외하고는 대부분의 수입건초는 대조구에 비하여 조단백질(crude protein, CP)함량과 IVDMD가 낮은 반면에, NDF와 ADF 같은 섬유소물질의 함량은 상당히 높은 결과를 나타내었다. RFV(relative feed value)는 수입건초의 종류에 따라 차이를 보였으며, 대부분의 수입건초의 RFV는 $4{\sim}5$등급에 해당되었다. 유산양, 재래산양 및 꽃사슴에 의한 채식량과 기호성은 수입건초의 종류에 따라 현저한 차이를 나타내었으며, 공통적으로 orchardgrass hay와 bermudagrass hay가 높았던 반면에, Kentucky bluegrass straw, tall fescue straw, annual ryegrass straw 및 perennial ryegrass straw 등은 채식량과 기호성 순위가 상당히 낮은 것으로 밝혀졌다. 이상의 결과로 보아, 공시된 수입건초는 종류에 따라 품질과 기호성이 현저한 차이를 보이고 있어 수입건초의 품질평가에 대한 기준설정이 중요하다고 하겠다.

Keywords

References

  1. 이인덕, 이형석. 2007a. 여러 가지 조사료를 급여한 유산양(Saannen)의 채식습성에 관한 연구. 한초지. 27(4):313-322 https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2007.27.4.313
  2. 이인덕, 이형석. 2007b. 여러 가지 조사료를 급여한 재래산양의 채식습성에 관한 연구. 한초지. 28(2):119-128 https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2008.28.2.119
  3. 이인덕, 이형석. 2008. 여러 가지 조사료를 급여한 꽃사슴(Servus nippon)의 채식습성에 관한 연구. 초지조사료지. 28(1):61-70 https://doi.org/10.5333/KGFS.2008.28.1.061
  4. 이형석, 이인덕, 박덕섭, 박연진, 김선균, 금종수. 2001. 국내 유통 조사료의 사료가치에 관한 연구. 한초지. 21(3):109-114
  5. 이형석, 이인덕. 2000. 수이봊사료의 사료가치 비교 연구. 한초지. 20(4):303-308
  6. 임상훈. 2000. 조사료의 수입현황과 전망. 한국초지학회 제38회 학술발표 및 특별강연초록. pp.57-93
  7. 최 정. 2004. 수입 조사료에 대한 이해와 이용방안. 한국낙농육우협회지. 24(7):128-132
  8. 축산과학원. 2007. 한국표준사료성분표. 축산과학원 농촌진흥청. 수원
  9. AOAC. 1999. Official methods of analysis (16th ed.). Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, DC
  10. Arthun, D. 1981. Size number and chemical composition of defecation from steer fed four different roughage diets. M. S. Thesis, New Maxico State Univ. Las Cruces. 103
  11. Crampton, F.W. and L.A. Maynard. 1938. The relation of cellulose and lignin content to the nutritive value of animal feeds. J. Nut. 15:383-395
  12. Dulphy, J.P. 1979. The intake of conserved forage. Forage conservation in the 80'S. Occasional Symposium No.11, British Grassl. Soci. pp. 107-121
  13. Frame, J. and R.D. Harkess. 1987. The productivity of farm forage legumes sown alone and with each of five companion grasses. Grass and Forage Sci. 42:213-223 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1987.tb02109.x
  14. Givens, D.I., A.R. Moss and A.H. Adamson. 1993. Influence of growth stage and season on the energy value of fresh herbage. I. Changes in metabolizable energy content. Grass and Forage Sci. 48:166-174 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1993.tb01849.x
  15. Goring, H.K. and PJ. Van Soest. 1991. Forage fiber analysis. Agr. Handbook. No. 379. ARS. USDA. Washington, DC
  16. Greenhalgh, J.F.D. and F.W. Wainman. 1979. The utilization of energy in conserved forage. Forage conservation in the 80's Occasional Symposium. No. II. Brit. Grassland Sci. pp. 121-129
  17. Henry, BAM. 1978. Diet of roe deer in English conifer forest. J. Wildl. Managt. 42:937-940 https://doi.org/10.2307/3800792
  18. Hodgson, J., J.M. Rodrigeuz Capriles and J.S. Fenlon. 1977. The influence of herbage characteristics on the herbage intake of grazing calves. J. Agri. Sci. Cambridge. 89:743-750 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600061542
  19. Hofmann, R.R. 1983. Digestive physiology of the deer - their morphophysiological specialization and adaptation. In Biology of deer production. The Royal Society of New Zealand. pp. 393-407
  20. Holecheck. J.L. and M. Vavra. 1982. Forage intake by cattle on forest and grassland ranges. J. Range Managt. 35(6):737-740 https://doi.org/10.2307/3898252
  21. Holecheck. J.L., R.D. Pieper and C.H. Herbel. 1989. Range management; Principles and practices. Prentice-Hall, Inc. NJ. pp. 283-293
  22. Jarrige. R., G. Demarquilly and J.P. Dulphy. 1974. The voluntary intake of forage. Proceedings of the fifth general meeting European Grassland Federation. Upsala. Plant husbandry. 28:98-106
  23. Kirby, D.R and l.W. Stuth. 1982. Seasonal diurnal variation in composition of cow diets. J. Range Managt. 35(1):7-8 https://doi.org/10.2307/3898506
  24. Osoro, K. and M. Cebrian. 1989. Digestibility of energy and gross energy intake in fresh pasture. Grass and Forage Sci. 44:41-46 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1989.tb01908.x
  25. Peel, S. and Green, J.O. 1984. Sward composition and output on grassland fanns. Grass and Forage Sci. 39:107-110 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1984.tb01671.x
  26. SAS. 2002. User's guide : Statistics, Version 9th ed. SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC
  27. Tayler, R.W. 1995. Hay sampling and grading. Agronomy facts series, AF-16. University of Delaware. USA
  28. Tilley, J.A.M. and RA. Terry. 1963. A two stage technique for in vitro digestibility of forage crops. J. Brit. Grassl. Sci. 18:104-111 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1963.tb00335.x
  29. Ulyatt, MJ. 1981. The feeding value of temperate pasture factors affecting forage intake by range ruminants. J. Range Managt. 38:305-312
  30. Van Dyne, G.M., J.D. Hanson and RC. Jump. 1981. Seasonal changes in botanical and chemical composition and digestibility of Diets of large herbivores on short grass prairie. X N. International grassland congress. pp. 684-690
  31. Wood, J.M. and G.W. Tanner. 1985. Browse quality response to forest fertilization and soils in florida. J. Range Managt. 38(5):432-435 https://doi.org/10.2307/3899716