杭州规模化猪场两种通风模式下育肥舍内环境因子的比较分析

doi:10.16431/j.cnki.1671-7236.2023.01.042

中国畜牧兽医 ›› 2023, Vol. 50 ›› Issue (1): 421-428.doi: 10.16431/j.cnki.1671-7236.2023.01.042

• 环境安全 • 上一篇

杭州规模化猪场两种通风模式下育肥舍内环境因子的比较分析

董婉玉¹, 张聚民², 卞苏舒², 周莹珊¹, 杜静¹, 于浩然¹, 仲伟¹, 宋厚辉¹, 王晓杜¹

1. 浙江农林大学动物科技学院/动物医学院, 浙江省畜禽绿色生态健康养殖应用技术研究重点实验室, 动物健康互联网检测技术浙江省工程实验室, 杭州 311300;
2. 杭州市临安区畜牧农机发展中心, 杭州 311300

收稿日期:2022-06-27 出版日期:2023-01-05 发布日期:2023-01-04
通讯作者: 王晓杜 E-mail:xdwang@zafu.edu.cn
作者简介:董婉玉,E-mail:wanyudong@zafu.edu.cn;张聚民,E-mail:lasxmsyjzjm@163.com。
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金（31972656）；杭州市临安区畜牧业转型发展项目（2021-197-04）；浙江省农业重大技术协同推广项目（2021XTTGXM02-05）；国家级大学生创新创业训练计划（202010341038）

Comparative Analysis of Environmental Factors in Fattening House Under Two Ventilation Modes in Hangzhou Large-scale Pig Farm

DONG Wanyu¹, ZHANG Jumin², BIAN Sushu², ZHOU Yingshan¹, DU Jing¹, YU Haoran¹, ZHONG Wei¹, SONG Houhui¹, WANG Xiaodu¹

1. Key Laboratory of Applied Technology on Green-Eco-Healthy Animal Husbandry of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang Provincial Engineering Laboratory for Animal Health Inspection and Internet Technology, College of Animal Science and Technology/College of Veterinary Medicine, Zhejiang A&F University, Hangzhou 311300, China;
2. Development Center of Animal Husbandry and Agricultural Machinery in Hangzhou Lin'an District, Hangzhou 311300, China

Received:2022-06-27 Online:2023-01-05 Published:2023-01-04

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 【目的】研究两种通风模式下杭州地区规模化猪场舍内环境参数及其分布规律，筛选出适合本地区推广的通风模式。【方法】选取杭州地区具有代表性的横向通风和纵向通风两种通风模式下育肥舍为研究对象，开展了早、中、晚3个不同时间点，进风口、舍中央和排风口3个不同位置的热环境参数、有害气体浓度的监测，持续监测1周。分析不同时间点和舍内不同位置对热环境参数（温度、相对湿度、风速）以及有害气体（氨气（NH₃）和硫化氢（H₂S））浓度的影响，并对两种模式下的热环境参数及有害气体浓度进行比较分析；采用空气沉淀法收集舍内环境中的细菌，并对细菌进行培养及统计分析，比较两种模式下育肥舍中细菌数量差异。【结果】两种通风模式下育肥舍相对湿度均低于国家标准，位置和各时间点对相对湿度影响不大，其中纵向通风舍内的相对湿度显著高于横向通风模式（P<0.05）。两种通风模式舍内平均温度没有显著性差异（P>0.05），舍内中午温度显著高于早、晚（P<0.05），位置对纵向通风舍内温度影响较大。纵向通风舍内平均风速为（1.09±0.42） m/s，符合国家标准且极显著高于横向通风模式（P<0.01），风速受舍内位置的影响，各时间点对其影响不大。两种通风模式下猪舍空气环境中有害气体浓度均在国家标准范围内，但纵向通风舍内NH₃和H₂S浓度均显著低于横向通风模式（P<0.05），各时间点H₂S、NH₃浓度差异均不显著（P>0.05），舍内不同位置对有害气体浓度分布影响较大，进风口位置有害气体浓度显著低于舍中央位置和排风口位置（P<0.05）。纵向通风舍内空气中细菌总数符合国家标准且显著低于横向通风模式（P<0.05）。【结论】纵向通风模式下育肥舍内的总体环境优于横向通风模式，在本区域生产应用中，育肥舍的设计倾向于推广纵向通风模式。

关键词: 通风模式; 猪舍热环境; 有害气体; 微生物; 差异分析

Abstract: 【Objective】 This study was aimed to explore the environmental parameters and their distribution pattern under two ventilation modes in large-scale piggery farms of Hangzhou, and screen out the suitable ventilation modes for promotion in this region.【Method】 The fattening houses in Hangzhou with two representative ventilation modes, transverse ventilation and longitudinal ventilation, were selected as the research objects, and the thermal environmental parameters, concentrations of harmful gases at different time points in the morning, noon and evening and at three different locations of the wind inlet, the center of the piggery and the wind outlet were monitored for a week.The effects of different time points and different positions on the thermal environment parameters such as temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and the concentrations of harmful gases ammonia (NH₃) and hydrogen sulfide (H₂S) were analyzed, and the thermal environment parameters and harmful gases concentrations under the two modes were compared and analyzed.The air precipitation method was used to collect the bacteria in the environment of fattening house, and the bacteria were cultured and statistically analyzed to compare the difference in the number of bacteria in fattening house under the two modes.【Result】 The relative humidity in fattening house under the two ventilation modes were lower than those of the national standard and were less affected by location and time points.The relative humidity of fattening house under longitudinal ventilation mode was significantly higher than that of the transverse ventilation mode (P<0.05).There was no significant difference in the average temperature between the two ventilation modes (P>0.05), and the temperatures of fattening house in the noon were significantly higher than those in the morning and evening (P<0.05).The temperatures in piggery were affected by the location under the longitudinal ventilation mode.The average wind speed of fattening house under the longitudinal ventilation mode was (1.09±0.42) m/s, which was in line with the national standard and extremely significantly higher than that of the transverse ventilation mode (P<0.01).The wind speed in piggery was affected by the location under the ventilation mode, and the time points had little effect on it.The concentrations of harmful gases in the air environment of the pigpen under the two ventilation modes were within the national standard range, but the concentrations of NH₃ and H₂S in the longitudinal ventilation mode were significantly lower than those of the transverse ventilation mode (P<0.05).There were no significant differences in H₂S and NH₃ concentrations at each time points (P>0.05).The distribution of harmful gas concentration was significantly affected by different positions in fattening house, and the concentrations of harmful gases at the wind inlet were significantly lower than those at the center of the piggery and the wind outlet(P<0.05).The total number of bacteria in the air under the longitudinal ventilation mode met the national standard and were significantly lower than those of the transverse ventilation mode (P<0.05).【Conclusion】 The overall environment of fattening house under longitudinal ventilation mode was better than that under transverse ventilation mode.The design of fattening pig house tended to promote the longitudinal ventilation mode.

Key words: ventilation modes; thermal environment of piggery; harmful gas; microbes; difference analysis

中图分类号:

S828

董婉玉, 张聚民, 卞苏舒, 周莹珊, 杜静, 于浩然, 仲伟, 宋厚辉, 王晓杜. 杭州规模化猪场两种通风模式下育肥舍内环境因子的比较分析[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2023, 50(1): 421-428.

DONG Wanyu, ZHANG Jumin, BIAN Sushu, ZHOU Yingshan, DU Jing, YU Haoran, ZHONG Wei, SONG Houhui, WANG Xiaodu. Comparative Analysis of Environmental Factors in Fattening House Under Two Ventilation Modes in Hangzhou Large-scale Pig Farm[J]. China Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2023, 50(1): 421-428.

参考文献

[1] WEI F X, HU X F, SA R N, et al.Antioxidant capacity and meat quality of broilers exposed to different ambient humidity and ammonia concentrations[J].Genetics and Molecular Research, 2014, 13(2):3117-3127.
[2] TANG S, ZHONG R, YIN C, et al.Exposure to high aerial ammonia causes hindgut dysbiotic microbiota and alterations of microbiota-derived metabolites in growing pigs[J].Frontiers in Nutrition, 2021, 8:689818.
[3] WANG Q, WANG M, LIU C, et al.Ammonia exposure induced cilia dysfunction of nasal mucosa in the piglets[J].Biomed Research International, 2020, 2020:1705387.
[4] 北京市农林科学院畜牧兽医研究所.规模猪场环境参数及环境管理:GB/T 17824.3-2008[S].北京:中国标准出版社, 2008. ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND VETERINARY RESEARCH INSTITUTE, BEIJING ACADEMY OF AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY.Environmental parameters and environmental management for intensive pig farms:GB/T 17824.3-2008[S].Beijing:Standards Press of China, 2008.(in Chinese)
[5] DAY D L, HANSEN E L, ANDERSON S.Gases and odors in confinement swine buildings[J].American Society of Agricultural Engineers (Transactions of the ASAE), 1965, 8:118-121.
[6] KLIEBENSTEIN J.Iowa concentrated animal feeding operation air quality study[R].Iowa:Iowa State University and the University of Iowa Study Group, 2002.
[7] HE R W, BRAAKHUIS H M, VANDEBRIEL R J, et al.Optimization of an air-liquid interface in vitro cell co-culture model to estimate the hazard of aerosol exposures[J].Journal of Aerosol Science, 2021, 153:105703.
[8] MACKIEWICZ B.Study on exposure of pig farm workers to bioaerosols, immunologic reactivity and health effects[J].Annals Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, 1998, 5(2):169-175.
[9] ROSS M A, CURTIS L, SCHEFF P A, et al.Association of asthma symptoms and severity with indoor bioaerosols[J].Allergy, 2000, 55(8):705-711.
[10] 阚海东, 宋伟民, 蒋蓉芳, 等.大气微生物污染对居民呼吸系统疾病影响的研究[J].中国公共卫生, 1999, 15(9):817-818. KAN H D, SONG W M, JIANG R F, et al.The influence of atmospheric microbial pollution on respiratory diseases of residents[J]. China Public Health, 1999, 15(9):817-818.(in Chinese)
[11] RENAUDEAU D, GOURDINE J L, ST-PIERRE N R.A meta-analysis of the effects of high ambient temperature on growth performance of growing-finishing pigs[J].Journal of Animal Science, 2011, 89:2220-2230.
[12] RENAUDEAU D, ANAIS C, TEL L, et al.Effect of temperature on thermal acclimation in growing pigs estimated using a nonlinear function[J].Journal of Animal Science, 2010, 88(11):3715-3724.
[13] 陈剑波, 韩一超, 王树华, 等.规模化猪场封闭舍内细菌气溶胶粒度分布研究[J].黑龙江畜牧兽医, 2016, 5(9):128-133. CHEN J B, HAN Y C, WANG S H, et al.Study on particle size distribution of indoor bacterial aerosol of the closed house in large-scale pig farms[J]. Heilongjiang Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, 2016, 5(9):128-133.(in Chinese)
[14] 柴薇薇, 王浩, 冯玉兰.黄土高原地区绿色环保型育肥猪场设计思路探讨[J].现代畜牧兽医, 2021, 2:79-84. CHAI W W, WANG H, FENG Y L.Design ideas of fattening pig farm with green and environmental protection advantages in loess plateau region of China[J]. Modern Journal of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2021, 2:79-84.(in Chinese)
[15] 张倩玉.猪舍内不同的通风模式对猪生产性能的影响——以安徽亳州温氏畜牧有限公司为例[D].广州:华南农业大学, 2019. ZHANG Q Y.Effects of different ventilation methods on pig performance——Taking Anhui Bozhou Wenshi Animal Husbandry Co., Ltd.as an example[D].Guangzhou:South China Agricultural University, 2019.(in Chinese)
[16] 刘卓.长沙地区的生态育肥猪舍设计优化研究[D].长沙:湖南农业大学, 2020. LIU Z.Study on design optimization of ecological fattening piggy in Changsha area[D].Changsha:Hunan Agricultural University, 2020.(in Chinese)
[17] SHI Z, LI B, ZHANG X, et al.Using floor cooling as an approach to improve the thermal environment in the sleeping area in an open pig house[J]. Biosystems Engineering, 2006, 93(3):359-364.
[18] 贺城, 牛智有, 齐德生.基于CFX的猪舍内温度和气流场模拟研究[J].畜牧与兽医, 2009, 11:22-25. HE C, NIU Z Y, QI D S, Air temperature and airflow simulation in the weanling barn based on CFX[J]. Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Medicine, 2009, 11:22-25.(in Chinese)
[19] 王校帅.基于CFD的畜禽舍热环境模拟及优化研究[D].杭州:浙江大学, 2014. WANG X S.Study on the indoor thermal environmental simulation and optimal design of livestock building based on CFD[D].Hangzhou:Zhejiang University, 2014.(in Chinese)
[20] CORTUS E L, LEMAY S P, BARBER E M, et al. A dynamic model of ammonia emission from urine puddles[J].Biosystems Engineering, 2008, 99(3):390-402.
[21] 柴同杰, 赵云玲, 刘辉, 等.禽舍微生物气溶胶含量及其空气动力学研究[J].中国兽医杂志, 2001, 37(3):9-11. CHAI T J, ZHAO Y L, LIU H, et al.Studies on the concentration and aerodynamic diameters of microbiological aerosol in the poultry house[J].Chinese Journal of Veterinary Medicine, 2001, 37(3):9-11.(in Chinese)
[22] FERGUSON D D, SMITH T C, HANSON B M, et al.Detection of airborne methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus inside and downwind of a swine building, and in animal feed:Potential occupational, animal health, and environmental implications[J].Journal of Agromedicine, 2016, 21(2):149-153.
[23] PEDERSEN S, NONNENMANN M, RAUTIAINEN R, et al.Dust in pig buildings[J].Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 2000, 6:261-274.

杭州规模化猪场两种通风模式下育肥舍内环境因子的比较分析

Comparative Analysis of Environmental Factors in Fattening House Under Two Ventilation Modes in Hangzhou Large-scale Pig Farm

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	崔双, 乌日力嘎, 阿拉达尔, 晓敏, 王剑秋, 弓剑. 放牧条件下补充酵母硒对绵羊胃肠道微生物区系的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2023, 50(3): 952-965.
[2]	刘珍妮, 雷小文, 李建军, 曾庆远, 谭东海, 钟云平, 张强, 谢华亮. 发酵脐橙粕对番鸭肠道形态结构、肠黏膜免疫功能和微生物多样性的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2023, 50(2): 573-585.
[3]	邱菲, 韩依辛, 魏琦麟, 唐兴刚, 袁明贵, 董博, 向蓉, 徐志宏. 培养组学在动物肠道微生物应用的研究进展[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2023, 50(2): 598-605.
[4]	杨敏, 高雨, 许子豪, 张九龙, 得力努尔·拜山别克, 任万平. 饲喂蒸汽压片玉米对新疆褐牛增重、瘤胃发酵及微生物多样性的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2022, 49(8): 2961-2970.
[5]	李卓君, 陈春香, 钟小菊, 高军. 猪肠道微生物组成、影响因素及其对重要经济性状的影响研究进展[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2022, 49(7): 2557-2566.
[6]	李红英, 贺琴, 黄恩福, 梁琦. 植物精油对山麻鸭免疫功能、抗氧化能力和肠道微生物的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2022, 49(7): 2586-2592.
[7]	李畅洋, 高炳南, 任雨龙, 张昊, 孙瑜, 魏笑, 王秋菊. 牛瘤胃微生物的分离鉴定与生化特性分析[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2022, 49(5): 1757-1764.
[8]	罗世琪, 张秀文, 苏健宇, 陈龙海, 杨琳, 王文策. 水禽肠道微生物及其研究进展[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2022, 49(3): 845-856.
[9]	姜长津, 陈云, 潘鹏丞, 陈宝剑, 关志惠, 卢慧林, 谢炳坤, 覃兆鲜. 育肥猪粪便菌群结构及其与生长速度的相关性分析[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2022, 49(3): 924-931.
[10]	张利环, 贾浩, 张若男, 王燕飞, 刘璇. 复合益生菌对肉鸡肠道微生物区系的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2022, 49(2): 488-500.
[11]	刘石, 刘静, 陈庄, 俞婷, 贝锦龙, 王蕾, 李拯民, 王志林. 饮水中添加复合益生菌对岭南黄羽肉鸡生长性能和肠道微生物菌群结构的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2022, 49(1): 98-108.
[12]	杨新波, 张晓轩, 蔡亚南, 倪宏波, 赵权, 马赫. 微生物发酵中药的研究现状及其在养殖业中的应用[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2022, 49(1): 169-178.
[13]	田全华, 赵旭, 刘勇, 魏凌云, 谭支良, 贺志雄. 饲粮添加黄芪和葡聚糖硫酸钠盐刺激对羔羊后肠道发酵和微生物组成的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2021, 48(9): 3242-3253.
[14]	潘梦, 叶健强, 康润敏, 肖璐, 叶勇刚, 于吉锋, 谢晶, 曹冶, 李兴玉, 林毅, 魏甬. 宏基因组法研究不同堆肥处理下猪粪微生物动态结构特征[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2021, 48(7): 2671-2684.
[15]	李文菁, 魏凯敏, 张少秋, 陈勇. 核桃青皮及其提取物对黄羽肉仔鸡肠道形态、黏膜抗氧化性能及微生物多样性的影响[J]. 中国畜牧兽医, 2021, 48(6): 2056-2065.