In this study, two experiments were conducted to investigate the physicochemical characteristics (Exp. I) of bedding materials such as rice hulls (RH), sawdust (SD), wood shavings (WS) and sawdust+wood shavings (S+W; 1:1 in volume), and utilization of these beddings except RH (Exp. II) for rearing beef cattle. In Exp. I, the distribution of particle size (%) with
was greater (p<0.05) in SD (30.4) than RH (4.4), WS (18.8) and S+W (20.1). Bulk density (
) of bedding materials was directly proportional to the percentage of
particles, 178, 46, 112, and 88 for SD, WD, S+W and RH, respectively. Water absorption rate (%) after submersion in water for 24 h was higher (p<0.05) in WS (540.2) compared to SD (270.2), S+W (368.2). The S+W had an intermediate value of the absorption rate between SD and WS, but had an outstanding durability of water absorption capacity. Moisture evaporation rate (%) for 12 h was higher (p<0.05) in WS (75.4) than SD (70.5), S+W (72.2) and RH (57.8). Average ammonia emission (
) for 36 h was higher (p<0.05) in RH (3.15) than SD (1.70), WS (1.63), and S+W (1.73). In Exp. II, thirty six Hanwoo cows were allocated in 9 pens with one side on feed bunk side (Side A) and another side equipped with water supply (Side B) for 3 weeks with duplicated periods. Average moisture concentrations (%) of beddings were higher (p<0.05) in WS (side A, 65.7; side B, 57.9) than SD (side A, 62.5; side B, 52.2) and S+W (side A, 61.6; side B, 50.7). Regardless of types of beddings, moisture concentrations (%) of beddings within a pen were lower (p<0.05) at side B than A, implying longer period of utilization. These results suggest that using S+W would be a better choice than SD or WS alone, considering physicochemical characteristics and economics, and RH is not a suitable material as a bedding for beef cattle.