Manure Nutrient Production from Commercial White Leghorn Hens

01996 Applied Poultry seicno+ I n c

MANURE NUTRIENT PRODUCTION FROM

COMMERCIAL WHITELEGHORN HENS P.H.PATIERSON' and E. S. LORENZ Department ofPoulby Science, m e Pennsylvania State Univemi@, UniversityP@ PA 16802 Phone: (814) 865-3414 F M : (814) 86.5-5691

Primary Audience: Egg Producers, Nutritionists, Nutrient Management

year MH)o. In Pennsylvania, new legislation DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM enacted in 1993 seeks to abate non-point Poultry producers nationwide are concerned with new regulations and anticipated legislation that regulates the management of poultry manure. An aggressive model to which United States lawmakers have looked is the Netherlands Policy on Manure and Ammonia [l].In three phases, the Dutch are pursuing a target of nutrient equilibrium, e.g. balancing nitrogen and phosphorus applications with crop utilization, by the 1 To whom correspondence should be addressed

sources of pollution arising from livestock enterprises [2]. Nutrient management specialists will write plans for concentrated animal operations (CAO), defined as having more than two animal equivalent units (AEU) per acre of arable land. One AEU is equal to lo00 Ib live weight averaged annually. Obviously, legislative guidelines restrict the industry more rigorously with each passing year.

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Toledo on March 15, 2015

Specialists

Research Report PA'ITERSON and LORENZ

261

production of hens (Table 1).Flocks ranged in size from 85,849to 128,193 birds at housing. Four flocks laid for a single cycle, while another four were molted and carried through a second cycle of egg production. All hens were housed in typical high-rise, side-wall inlet, negative pressure ventilation structures with fans located in the pit. Flocks were housed at nine bir4cage (53.3 in2/bird) in 24"x 20"cages equipped with nipple drinkers. Manure was allowed to accumulate in the pit for as little as 7 wk to as long as 61 wk before clean out, with an average holding time of 32.2 wk. "bo or more times during the life of each flock, manure core samples from 18 (three from each of six cage rows) representative locations were pooled into six row samples and analyzed for moisture, total N, NJ33-N, P205, K 2 0 , Ca, and Mg [E%, 141. Average manure nutrient concentration and the range of high and low values were determined on the 86 samples collected from eight flocks on both an "as is" and dry matter basis. Most often manure sampling corresponded with the time manure was removed from the pit. At these times the number of truck or

MATERIALSAND METHODS Eight commercialflocks representing five Leghorn strains were selected from independent and contract egg farms in Pennsylvania to study manure nutrient concentration and

111,371

57 wk

3.29Ib, 20wk

3.90Ib

1 5 s 18.94

103,935

56wk

3.101b, mwk

3.90Ib

2.90Ib, 19 wk 2.68 Ib, 18 wk

359 Ib

16.0018.94

2.493.03 2% 3.03

3.804.20 3.794.10

0.23-

0.490.67

0.470.72 0.470.71

95017.00 12% 19.00

1522.72 2.003.04

0.270.61 0.450.80

0.48057 05% 0.80

1.004.67 1.904.92

0.200.26 0.210.28

11.7517.81

1.88-

2.85

0.410.75

0510.73

1.495.49

0.230.36

8.3120.19

1.333.23

0570.94

0.380.93

2.W 5.85

0.160.23

0.440.76

0.34 0.230.34

DOUBLE CYCLE 113,183 (molted) 119,381 (molted)

89 wk 92wk

im,m (molted)

82 wk

95,000 (molted)

86wk

3.64Ib

2.92 Ib, 19 wk

3.71Ib

2.87Ib, 18 wk

3.76Ib

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Toledo on March 15, 2015

Unfortunately, many credible reports do not reflect the current body weight, feed consumption, manure production, nutrient concentration of manure, or management practices of todays commercial hen [3, 4, 5, 61. For instance, approximately 12 yr ago Leghorns were housed at an older age and heavier weight (3.4 vs. 3.2 lb), they ate more feed (22.4 vs. 21.3 lb/lOO/day), and feed conversion to 60 wk (3.48 vs. 3.18 lb/dz) was poorer [7, 8, 9, 10, 111. Furthermore, values in the literature often describe fresh manure, rather than the stored manure held for considerable time to coincide with fertilizer applicationsbefore and after the growing season [6, 121. Therefore, accurate manure production and concentration data are critical when developing a nutrient management plan that will sustain water quality as well as the egg farm.

NUTRIENTS FROM LEGHORN HENS

262

dicated that phase feeding was practiced for

all flocks with most diet formulations changing weekly. Lower dietary protein and calcium formulations reported in Table 1 were fed to all the molted flocks, while other nutrient variation was the choice of the formulating nutritionist based on hen age, feed intake, and level of egg production. The nutrients of interest to farmers appear in 'hble 2 and are expressed on a percentage "as is" basis and Ib/ton nutrient concentration. Manure moisture ranged from 75.40 to 38.80% with an average of 59.27%. The hen manure NPK ratio, often utilized as a descriptive comparison of fertilizer value, averaged 1.8:2.7:1.6, respectively on an "as is" basis. Other manure nutrients including total N, P2O5, K20, and Mg varied more than three fold from the highest to lowest value. Calcium and NH3-N levels varied the most with a seven-fold range. Average nutrient concentration reported in Tables 2 and 3 closely conforms with literature values [4, 21, 221 for total N, Ca, and Mg on an "as is" and dry matter basis, while others [4, s] have noticed lower PzOs (45-32%) andK20 (5249%) levels. Lower concentrations for P2O5 and K20 may reflect the method of sampling (fresh vs. stored hen manure, differences in feed formulation, or management practices). Simple correlation of manure storage time with nutrient concentration suggested that the longer the manure was stored in the pit, the greater the concentration of P2O5, K20, or Mg (~2.68). The reverse relationship was suggested for volatile nutrients such as total N. In other words, the longer the storage time, the lower the total N concentration (r = -.65) in the manure (data not shown). Other correlated responses were observed for the dry matter concentration of the manure. For example, increasing average monthly temperature during storage positively

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A further description of the eight study flocks appears in Table 1. The first flock housed and the last flock depopulatedwere on March 29,1992and July 10,1994, respectively. Single-cycle flocks averaged 55.75 wk in production, while two-cycle flocks were housed an average of 8 7 Z wk. Pullet body weight at housing closely conformed to breed standards (weight for age), and reflected modem light body Leghorn strains (mean = 2.94 lb). Final hen weight averaged 3.72 Ib. The range of dietary nutrients received by each flock in-

TABLE 2. Average manure nutrient concentration on a percentage "asis' basisA

VALUE HighB LowB

TOTALN 3.76 (75.2)

1.08 (21.6) Mean2SDB 1.852055 (37.4k11.0)

NH3-N PZOS 1.62 (32.4) 5.38 (107.6) 0.23 (4.6) 0.89kO.35

(17.8k7.0)

1.48 (29.6)

27420.92 (54.8218.4).

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Toledo on March 15, 2015

spreader loads were counted and the average load weight determined using nearby grain elevator scales or portable scales. Total manure production was calculated from the average load weight multiplied by the total number of loads hauled from the house. Manure production and nutrients produced per 100 hens and per 100 Ib live weight were calculated and adjusted to an annual 52-wk cycle. For example, feed or manure quautity was adjusted by multiplying by 52/60 in the case of a flock kept for 60wk. Nutrients entering the hen house were determined from feed formula concentrations of nitrogen determined from crude protein (N x 6.23, total phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium multiplied by the feed tonnage from delivery records. Nutrients leaving the hen house as manure, mortalities, body weight gain, or eggs were calculated from weekly production records including egg number, egg weight, mortality, body weight, and feed consumption and from literature values for eggs and carcasscompositions [Is, 16, 17,18,19,20].From these data, calculations were made on a percentage basis to partition nutrients entering the hen house as feed (100%) and leaving the house as manure, eggs, mortalities, and live weight gain.

Research Report PAlTERSON and LORENZ

263

TABLE 3. Averaae manure nutrient concentration on a percentam drv matter basisA

VALUE

High

Low Mean2SD

TOTALN

NH3-N

p205

KzO

CA

MG

9.42 1.98

5.98 0.41

11.73

3.32

650 2.16

4.80k1.81

2.42k1.41

6.8321.9

3.9220.96

34.66 6.02 155925.06

1.98 056 1.1020.35

bird and per lb live weight basis is that state and local nutrient management plans usually require one estimate of nutrient production on an annualized basis. Feed consumption averaged 7961 lb/100 hendyr, or 21.8 lb/100 hens/day. Hen weight averaged 3.27 lb for the 52-wk adjusted cycle. Manure was generated at the rate of 2777 lb/100 hens, 854 lb/100 lb live weight annually, or 7.6 lb/lOO hendday on an "as is" basis with an average of 59.27% moisture. Others have reported that hens produce manure at 2280 and 1750-2200 lb/100 lb live weighvyr at 82% and 75% moisture respectively [4,24]. Even if the results reported herein were expressed on a similar moisture basis, the tonnage is approximately half the results cited above. This difference can be attributed to the loss of moisture, carbon dioxide, ammonia, and other volatiles during the composting process of long term storage. In fact, egg producers and other investigators have documented more than a 50% loss in manure volume with long term storage [4]. Other mineral nutrients and NH3-N produced per 100 hens and per 100 lb live weight also appear in Table 4. Nutrients delivered in the feed (100%) were partitioned among the manure, eggs, mortalities, and live weight gain in Table 5. In the case of P, K, Ca, and Mg the majority of the feed nutrients consumed by the hens was lost to the manure at the rate of 69.94, 74.47, 53.43, and 58.54%, respectively. Eggs retained the next largest portion of the feed nutrients, with nitrogen deposited as protein accounting for approximately9% more N than that measured in the manure. Approximately 50% of feed Ca was transferred to the egg. At slightly more than l5%, similar percentages of P and K were deposited in eggs, while Mg retention was 9.71%. On the average, pullets housed at 2.94 lb completed their cycles at 3.72 lb, with a net carcass gain of 0.78 lb added in the hen house. The quantity of nutrients accumulated as carcass gain or mortalities was very small. Carcass N and P

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Toledo on March 15, 2015

influenced the percentage dry matter of the sample (r = .72). The warmer the storage months, the drier the sample. Hen age also influenced the moisture content of the manure with older hens generating drier manure than younger hens (r = .74). Manure concentrations of non-volatile nutrients such as Ca increased as the manure dried and the moisture level was reduced (r = .71), while NH3-N occurred at lower levels in drier manure (r = -.77). Although manure moisture can influence the concentration of many nutrients simply from the standpoint of water dilution, the range in NH3-N and Ca concentration (seven fold) cannot be entirely explained by the variation in moisture level encountered in this study (approximately two fold). It is likely that other losses in weight and volume associated with composting manure are partly responsible for concentrating nonvolatile nutrients (P2O5, K20, Ca, and Mg) with greater storage time. While many of the conclusions stated above may be obvious, it is worthwhile to document the relationshipswith the 86 samples and analyses conducted. The range of manure nutrient concentration reported herein has been reported by other investigators and should not discourage anyone from using manure nutrients for crop production [22]. Rather, based on these findings, one should expect manure nutrient concentrations to vary. However, with consistent manure management and feeding practices, manure nutrients can remain relatively consistent. Some of the factors that may influence variability include 1)composition and form of the diet, 2) hen age, feed intake, and productivity, 3) manure collection and storage practices, and 4) the digestive health, physiology, and environment of the hen [23]. Based on the nutrient analysis of the manure and the quantity removed from the eight houses, nutrient production per 100hens and per 100Ib body weight was calculated and adjusted to a52-wk annual cycle (Table 4). The reason results are presented both on a per

NUTRIENTS FROM LEGHORN HENS

264

JAPR

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Toledo on March 15, 2015

Research Report PATTERSON and LORENZ

Because of the considerable quantity of feed as a multiplicative factor, recovery of fecal, egg, and carcass Mg appears to be low compared with the results of other nutrients. The amount of feed consumed, as well as the mass and number of eggs produced undoubtedly influence the quantity of manure nutrients generated by Leghorn flocks. Based on the premise that most producers keep good records of the quantity and nutrient concentration of feed consumed, egg numbers, and case weights produced, a relationship can be calculated with fecal nutrients excreted. Table 6 presents the correlation and regression coefficients of feed and manure nutrients as well as feed, manure, and egg mass. All parameters correlated have a positive relationship. Specitically, as feed N increases, so does manure N. However, the relationship of manure N to feed N is not a highly correlated relationship or significant regression, perhaps because of the volatile nature of manure N. Pound for pound, manure P, K, Ca, and total manure production were all highly correlated with feed nutrients, feed consumption, and egg production. Signifcant regression relationships (either linear or quadratic) resulted in situations with the same variables that were highly correlated above. The R2 value suggestswhich line best fits the data set. For predicting flock manure production, a quadratic regression of either manure x feed or manure x egg mass is best (R2 = 0.7976 and 0.7800, respectively). If one needs to predict manure P, K,or Ca, one could use either the significant linear or quadratic regression equation. For P and K predictions, the higher quadratic R2 values suggest a better fit, while Ca was significant only for linear regression. The equations for significant regression lines appear in 'hble 6 for nutrient management specialists and others wishing to project these nutrient relationships.

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Toledo on March 15, 2015

accounted for only 0.84, and 0.80% of the feed nutrients, respectively. Carcass K and Ca averaged 0.25% and Mg only 0.01%. The sum of the estimated nutrients in the manure, eggs, and carcasses never equaled 100% of the nutrients in the feed. The residual reported in Table 5 represents the difference between the feed nutrients entering the hen house and the sum of manure, egg, and carcass nutrients leaving the house. Unfortunately, the errors associated with manure analysis, estimating tonnage, flock records, and literature values for carcass and egg nutrients do not allow for complete accountability. While one would anticipate P, K,Ca, and Mg to be stable in the manure, N can be lost to the atmosphere under actual conditions. Based on the sum of N determined from manure, eggs, and carcasses, approximately 40% of feed N was most likely lost to the atmosphere as ammonia N. Approximately 14% of feed P and K could not be accounted for, while the majority rested in the manure. Calcium partitioning appeared to be the most accurate with a similar percentage recovered in the egg and manure, over estimating only 3.86% more than in the feed. Magnesium was the least accountable nutrient at just 74.32% with the majority partitioned to the manure (58.54%) and eggs (15.68%). However, the average manure Mg concentration reported in Tables 2 and 3 closely conforms with literature values for hen manure. At Penn State University, historical feed analysis of layer diets for Mg concentration shows considerable variation, yet has the same range as reported in Table 1. Very little research has been conducted on Mg as a nutrient for hens or as a component of feed ingredients compared to the large emphasis placed on dietary protein, amino acids, calcium, and phosphorus and on their concentration in poultry feed ingredients. It is not unlikely that feed sources of Mg may have been slightly over estimated.

265

JMR

NUTRENTS FROM LEGHORN HENS

266

+

I

- 1a 1a

&

R z

! VI

P

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Toledo on March 15, 2015

1

Research Report 267

PA'ITERSON and LOREN2

CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS 1. Modern Leghorn hens are smaller at housing and produce less manure under commercial high-rise conditions than literature values would suggest. 2. Manure total N, Ca,and Mg concentrations are similar to previously reported values, while P 2 0 5 and K 2 0 are more concentrated than some have reported. 3. Approximately 40% of feed N is lost to the atmosphere as ammonia N. 4. Manure production under the conditions of this study is best estimated with a manure x feed or manure x egg quadratic regression equation. The best estimates of manure P, K, and Ca were determined with equations for quadratic regression as well. An example calculation of manure P production using the regression equation provided in Table 6 appears in the References and Notes section [q.

1. Anonymoly 1993. The Netherlands Policy on Manure and Ammonia. Minis? of Agnculture Nature Management and Fisheries, In ormation and External Relations Department, The Hague, The Netherlands.

2. Pennsylvania Legislature, 1993.Nutrient Management Act, No. 1993-6. Harrisbuq, PA. 3. Graves,RE,1986. Poultry Manure Management. Pennsyfvania Department of Environmental Resources, Hamsburg, PA. 4. North, M.O. and D.D. Bell, 1990. Waste management. Pages 879-88.5 in: Commercial Chicken Production Manual. 4th Edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY. 5. Sbipp, RF., H.C. Jordan, W.W. HLnish, and D.B. Beeglej 1981. Profitable and sensible use of poultry manure. Special Circular 274. The Pennsyhania State University, University Park, PA.

6. American Society olAgrIcultoral Englnecrs, 1995. Manure roduction and characteristics. P a p S46-548 in: ASAI! Standards, 42nd Edition. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.

7. Bell D., 19%. Performance im mements and trendsin layeyrformance. Pages &din: watt Poultry Yearbook. U A Edition. R Tuten, ed. Watt Publishing Co., Mount Morris, IL.

8.Vinl,L,DelCalbPoultryResearch,Inc., DeKalb,IL. Personal communication.

9. Towner, RH, H&N International, Redmond, WA. Personal communication. 10. O'Slrllivpn, N., Hy-Line International, West Des Moines, IA.Personal communication. 11. Kdenlmmp, A,Shaver Poultry Breeding Farms, Ltd., Cambridge, ON, Canada. Personal communication. 12. Papanos, S. and B.A. Brown, 1950. Poultry manure: Its nature, care, and use. Bull. 272. Connecticut Agr. Exp. Sta.,Stom, CT. 13.Doty, W.T., M.C.Amacber, and D.E Baker, 1982. Manual of Methods. The Pennsyhania State University Information Report 121. Soil and Environmental Chemistry hboratory, The Pennsylvania State University, Unwersity Park, PA.

14. Total N was determined by micro-Kjeldahl digestionand aTechnicon auto analyzer;NI-b-Nwas measured with a gas electrode and potentiometer. For Ca, P, and Mg determinations, samples were dly ashed, digested with HN03-Ha, and measured by inductively coupled plasma analysi. IS. Cwmhgbm, D.C. and W.D. Morrison, 1977. Dietaryenergy and fat content as factors in the nutrition of developingegg strain pullets and young hens. 2. Effects on subsequent productive performance and body chemical composition of present day e strain layers at termination of lay. Poultry Sci. 56:121416. 16. Scott, ML,M.C. Nesheim, and RJ. Young,1982. Page 279, Table 5.2 in: Nutrition of the Chicken. 3rd mtion. M. L.Scott & Assoc., Ithaca, NY. 17. V.ndep~puLkwJ.M., JJ. LYO~S, and D.D. FuIasPe, 1992. Recyclin cage layer mortalities by composting. Poultry Digest, kptember, pp. 24-30. 18. Hester, P.Y., 1986.Shell mineral content of momingvs. afternoon eggs. Poultly Sci. 65:1821-1823. Its physical and 19. Gilbert, AB., 1971. The e 137%1398%: Physiology and chemical aspects. Pa Biochemist of the Emestic Fowl. DJ.Bell and B.M. Freeman, Academic Press, New York, NY. 20.Romanoff, A L and AJ. Romanoff, 1963. Chemical composition. Pages 311-366 in: The Avian Egg,2nd printing. John Wdey & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.

2

21. MWPS-l8,1985. Livestock Waste Facilities Handbook. 2nd Edition. Midwest Plan Service, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 22. Jordan, J., 1992.Manure Ana is Avera es from January 1989 to November 1992. Z t e r Quaky Lab, Virginia Pol echnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, 23. Fonbwt,J.P.,LW. Smith, and kL Sutton, 1983. Alternative utilization of animal wastes. J. Anim. Sci. 57(S~p~l):221-233.

A.

24. Mitchell, CC, Jr., J.O. Do11914 and J. Martin, 1990.The Value and Use of Poultly Manure as a Fertilizer. Alabama cO0p;rative Ektension Senice Circular ANR-244, Auburn niversity, AL.

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Toledo on March 15, 2015

REFERENCESAND NOTES

JAPR NUTRIENTS FROM LEGHORN HENS

268

Note: This estimate of manure P produced is 70.75% of dietary P consumed.

25. One can ro'ect the annual manure P produced from a flock of I&,& hens by first calculatingtotal feed P consumed in a year. Assume feed consumption is 21.8 lb/100 h e d d a y and dicta total P averaged 055% for the year. Then total dietalyr6 equals X

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank the Pennsylvania Poultry Federation for the financial assistance to ca out this field study as well as the cooperating e P J u c e r s and companies that allowed access to theirgcilities and records. The authors also offer a reciation to N. Acar for conducting the regression an$=.

X = 21.8 lb feed x lo00 (groups of 100 hens) x 365 days x O.rn5P X = 437635 Ib.

Solve for annual manure P produced (Y) from the equation in Table 6 Y = -37039 + 2.0346850[) Y

- O.ooo01o9aS(x~) = -37039 + 2.034685(437635) -

Y = 30961.2 lb.

I

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Toledo on March 15, 2015

O.ooo0losSs(4376352)