4.1 Article

The Effect of Steaming and Soaking on the Respirable Particle, Bacteria, Mould, and Nutrient Content in Hay for Horses

期刊

JOURNAL OF EQUINE VETERINARY SCIENCE
卷 39, 期 -, 页码 62-68

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jevs.2015.09.006

关键词

Hay; Dust; Soaking; Steaming; Nutrient

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Forage is crucial for stabled horses, promoting gut health, supplying valuable nutrients, and maintaining normal feeding behaviors. Forage can contain high levels of respirable dust predisposing horses to respiratory disorders. This study examined the effect of different treatments on the airborne respirable particles (ARPs), microbial and nutrient content of hay for horses in three experiments. Experiment la eight bales of meadow hay were subjected to five treatments n = 40: dry (D), 10-minute soak in water (W), steamed in a wheelie bin (TWB), steamed in a Haygain (HG) 600, and steamed with a kettle of boiling water (K) on ARP content. Experiment 1b microbial contamination was measured in five bales of meadow hay after treatments D, TWB, and HG in cold conditions (0-7 degrees C) (n = 15). Experiment 2 measured the nutrient content of 30 different hays after D and HG treatments, n = 60. Data in experiments la and 1b were analyzed using analysis of variance and least significant difference test: hay and treatment as factors. Experiment 2 was analyzed using paired t-test with significance levels accepted P < .05. Results showed steaming in the HG reduced ARP and microbial contamination by 99%. TWB or K reduced ARP in hay by 88%. W, TWB, or K did not reduce microbial contamination. HG treatment preserved mineral and protein contents but reduced water-soluble carbohydrate by 18.3%. Steaming using an HG steamer is a feasible long-term strategy for reducing ARP and microbial contamination, while conserving mineral and protein content in hay and is thus suitable for providing hygienically clean forage to stabled horses. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据