Properties and cleanability of new and traditional surface materials in cattle barns - a field study

Abstract

In this study surface properties and cleanability of new and traditional surface materials in cattle barns were examined in a field test. The concrete and plastic-coated samples were placed on a walking path on the floor and on a feeding table in a cattle barn. The surfaces were characterized using colorimetric and gloss measurements and determination of topography. In most cases, the colour of the surfaces placed on the floor darkened during the one year study period, whereas the colour changes of the samples placed on the feeding table did not show a similar trend. However, in both locations the plastic-coated surfaces were generally the easiest to clean, and the highest colour changes indicating soil residues were detected on the uncoated and silane-impregnated concrete surfaces. The difference between the locations was also seen in the gloss values, which increased in the samples placed on the floor during the one-year test period but varied considerably between the different materials on the surfaces placed on the feeding table. This field study confirmed the observation from earlier laboratory studies that plastic coatings improved the cleanability of concrete cattle barn surfaces. Silane impregnation was not functionally competitive with the plastic coatings. In general, the cleanability results were in accordance with the results of previous laboratory experiments but the field study provided practical information about the behaviour of the surface materials examined.

Assessment of cleanness of environmental surfaces in cattle barns and piggeries

“…Their study was based on colorimetric measurements. In the studies by Määt-tä et al (2008 and2009) and Kuisma et al (2008b), focusing on surface materials for use in cattle barns, similar general observations were also made. In the study by Kuisma et al (2008b), the materials were ranked in the same order of superiority according to colorimetric results in a cattle barn field study and radiochemical results from laboratory studies by Määttä et al (2008 and2009).…”

“…Some of these studies were discussed by and Kuisma et al (2008b). The aims and motivation of these studies have often been to compare surface materials, or to examine structural solutions of the animal houses or the welfare of animals (Tables 1−3).…”

“…Some of the studies using visual assessment (Table 1) and instrumental methods (Table 3) also included characterization of surfaces. Roughness (Ye et al 2007, 2009, Kuisma et al 2008b) as well as have been used for surface characterization, as well as variations in slope gradients (Ye et al 2007).…”

“…1R-79 1985, Mathiasson et al 1991, de Belie 1997, de Belie et al 1996, 2000a, 2000b, Bertron et al 2005, Nilsson 2005, Abdelmseeh et al 2008, Sánchez et al 2008. The wearing of concrete has provided motivation for material studies focusing on finding alternatives and improvements for concrete surfaces (Barbucci et al 1997, de Belie et al 2000a, Naik et al 2002, Almusallam et al 2003, Calleja Carrete 2005, Yazıcı and İnan 2006, Moon et al 2007, de Muynck et al 2008, Kuisma et al 2008b, 2009). Alternative surfaces include coatings and thin surface treatments.…”

“…For example epoxycoating has been shown to improve cleanability, and in general decreasing water-permeability of concrete has been shown to improve its microbiological hygiene (Pelletier et al 2002). Coatings also improves the cleanability of concrete , Kuisma et al 2008b. In some studies other materials than concrete were included, for example wood as a material of cattle barns has been reviewed by de Belie et al (2000b) and metal by de Belie et al (2000c).…”