Evaluation of Alternative Litter Materials for Poultry

01996Applied Poultry Science, Inc

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE LITTER MATERIALS FOR POULTRY

Primarv Audience: Poultrv Industrv. Production Managers. Producers

Previous litter research has shown that DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM litter type significantly affects bird perWithin the last several years, drastic drought conditions in Morocco have led to a shortage of straw conventionally used as poultry litter. Affordable materials for poultry litter became increasingly scarce. Low supplies, high cost, and unavailability of suitable material have encouraged the search for alternative litter materials. Wood by-products, rice hulls, and rice straw have occasionally been used as substitute bedding material with various degrees of success [l,2,3]. There is, however, little data available concerning the efficiency of some of these materials used in combination. 1 2

formance and carcass and litter quality. Factors which affect the efficiency of a type of litter include particle size, moisture content and buildup, rate of caking, and other physical characteristics of the material used [2,4, 5961.

This study sought to evaluate how alternative poultry litter materials used separately or in combinationaffected bird performance and litter characteristicswhen compared to straw. We measured the qualitative and quantitative properties of each type of litter and performed a subjective evaluation of the effects on bird environment.

To whom correspondence should be addressed Presently at Sodea Company, Agdal Rabat, Morocco

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on March 11, 2015

K. BENABDEWELIL' and A. AYACH12 Deparirnent of Animal production, Institute ofAgronomy and VeterinaryMedicine, BP 6202 Rabat-Instituts, Morocco Phone: 212-7-77-05-17 F M : 212-7-n-81-10

204

ALTERNATIVE L m E R MATERIALS

a bell waterer. During the first 3 wk, each pen MATER RIA IS AND METHODSused a flat cardboard feeder and a plastic jug waterer. In each experiment day-old Warren cockerel chicks from a commercial hatchery were placed in a curtain-sided, naturallyventilated commercial poultry facility with a photo regimen of 23 hr light:l hr dark. The experimental building in all experiments consisted of two rooms sharing a concrete wall and containing 18 floor pens altogether, each with an equal proportion of each litter treatment during each experiment. Natural gas brooders in the hallway of the building supplied heat; these were removed at 3 wk of age. The experimental design consisted of six treatments with three replicate pens of 44 birds each in Experiment 1(11 birds/m2) and three treatments with three replicate pens of 40 cockerels each in Experiments 2 and 3 (10 birds/m2). Body weight gain, feed conversion, and percentage mortality were determined for each pen at 21, 42, and 56 days for Experiment 1 and at 21 and 42 days and at the end of Experiments 2 and 3 (51 and 52 days, respectively). Each pen was equipped with a water reservoir and water consumption was determined weekly. Mortality records were maintained daily in each experiment. At the beginning and end of each experiment and at 21 and 42 days, litter samples were collected from five locations within each pen (four peripheral, equidstant from each pen comer, and one central) and thoroughly mixed to obtain material representative of the entire pen. At least 200 g of litter were placed in a plastic container and a subsample was taken for further analysis at the laboratory. Moisture determinations were performed on a 100 g sample weighed and oven-dried for 72 hr at 105°C.The pH of each litter type was measured after litter samples of nearly 5 g were suspended for 30 min in 50 mL of distilled water and stirred for 5 min. Ammonia nitrogen content of the litter was measured on the remaining litter subsample,properly conserved after extraction of the samples through distillation, fixation with MgO, and titration with HC1 [J.Moisture, pH, and ammonia nitrogen determinations were made on litter samples taken from each replicate floor pen at the start, at 21 and 42 days, and at the end of each experiment. Environmental temperature and humidity

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on March 11, 2015

Six different litter materials were evaluated in three experiments: whole or ground soft wheat straw (SW, SWG, respectively), ground rice straw (RG), sawdust (SD), wood shavings (WS), and rice hulls (RH). These materials were obtained from commercial suppliers and tested separately in Experiment 1 or in specific combinations in Experiments 2 and 3. This study employed material that remained after removal of wooden pieces exceeding 5 cm from WS and SD. WS were approximately 0.5 cm to 2.0 cm in width and up to 10 cm in length. Ground straw elements were also about 10 cm in length. In Experiment 2, a layer of SW covering either WS or SD was compared to a litter of WS, simulating a situation where straw is scarce. Experiment 3 evaluated WS covering SD or RH in comparison to SW. A week prior to the start of the experiment each litter was randomly assigned to a 2 x 2 m2 concrete floor pen. When used separately it was placed 5 cm deep; whereas when two materials were used, each layer was approximately 2.5 cm deep providing a 5 cm height bedding with no premixing of its constituents. Equal amounts of each litter material were evenly distributed in replicate floor pens in Experiment 1 or used in association in Experiments 2 and 3. When the 5 cm height of the litter was reached, the amount of material left from the top layer in Experiments 2 and 3 was saved in the pen for litter management in the form of top-dressing the heavily damaged areas around feeders and waterers with fresh litter while supplies lasted. No litter was added, removed, or replaced during the course of each trial, although some stirring of litter material occurred when collecting samples and data. No litter material remained unused in the pens at the end of each experiment. Management rearing practices simulating local commercial conditions were applied. A commercial all-mash starter diet was fed at the start of each experiment, followed at 18 days for Experiment 1 and 11 days for Experiments 2 and 3 by a pelleted grower diet until market age. Feed and water were supplied ad libitum. No antibiotics or coccidiostats were administered. Each pen was equipped with a hanging tube feeder and

Research Report BENABDELJELIL and AYACHI

205

differences found between treatments in Experiment 3 (Tables 1 and 2). Numerous studies in which alternative materials were tested have reported that the type of litter material used does not affect bud performance [l, 5, 10, 11, 121; our findings agreed with those of earlier studies. In all experiments litter material did not affect water consumption and had no significant effect on mortality. Necropsy examination of all dead birds revealed no specifc litter effect. Ingestion of litter material, although expected for small size particles of RH and SD, evidently did not occur.No litter material was found in the intestinal tract, suggesting that litter consumption at an early age is not a factor in differences in body weight observed in Experiment 3 (Table 2). However, previous research [6] indicates that young chicks may consume litter material, particularly when its particles are of small size. Mean weekly temperature in the experimental house ranged from 11°C to 32°C for Experiment 1, from 20°C to 32°C for Experiment 2, and 14°C to 30°C for Experiment 3. The ambient relative humidity varied from 54% to 90% during the experiments. No substantial differences in temperature or relative humidity were detected in the various recording stations (data not presented). The moisture levels recorded during these experiments were in the range of published values and may not contribute to a dusty environment in the poultry houses. Viual scores of dustiness and litter compaction or caking did not differ among the various types of litter in Experiment 1

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Litter type had no signifcant influence on body weight or feed conversion in Experiments 1 and 2. Performance of all treatments was within expected ranges for cockerels grown to market age, with small

TABLE 1. Effect of litter material on SIday cockerel performance (Experiment 1)

Water consumed fdBird>

I

I

3572

I

3409

I

3542

I

3493

I

~~

*No differences were observed between litter types at each measurement (21,42, and 57 days).

BSEM = Standard error of the means.

3554

I 177 I

1

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on March 11, 2015

were recorded daily at various locations in the research facility. On day 43 and at the end of Experiments 2 and 3, we recorded litter temperatures at a depth of 3 cm from four random peripheral pen locations and a central point. Dust levels were subjectively evaluated throughout the experimental period. One scientist recorded visual scores of dust levels at 21 days and at the end of each experiment. The same researchers used scoring systems based on Visual observations to evaluate Litter quality, feather cleanliness, and rate of compaction or caking of the Litter at various times; these were reported at 22 or 43 days and at the end of each experiment. The incidence of breast burns and blisters, leg abnormalities, and foot pad lesions were observed on each cockerel at market age, and all birds received a subjective feathering score of the breast, flank,and back at the end of each experiment. The experimental unit for statistical analysis was the individual pen. All data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance for each period. Arcsine transformations were performed on percentage values prior to statistical analyses and corrected back to the original base following the multiple range test [8]. Significant differences among treatment means were determined (P < .05) using Duncan’s multiple range test [9].

JAPR ALTERNATIVE LITTER MATERIALS TABLE 2. Effect of litter material on bird oerformance and featherina score (Exmriments 2 and 3)

MEASUREMEMT

1.1

2792

2813

1.1

1.2

62

2760

0.12

1.1

2683

2734

1.1

1.1

78

0.09

i used in both experiments.

%EM = Standarderror of the means. 'Subjective score: 1 = good feathering to 3 = no feathers on breast. "heanswithin rowsand trial with no common superscriptsare significantIy different (P c .05).

(Table3) or with the combinationsof materials tested in Experiments 2 and3 (Table 4). These results show very little effect of the type of materials tested. In comparison to broilers, cockerels experienced a lower deterioration of bedding materials, possibly because of their slower growth rate. Litter overall cleanliness index, however, showed significant differences among litter treatments during and at the end of the experiments. When litter consisted partly or entirely of straw, lower index values were obtained (Tables 3 and 4), perhaps due to a lower moisture-absorbing capacity in straw itself and high water retention in straw-based litters. Moisture content, however, was higher for ground straw litter than for whole straw at the start and end of Experiment 1,but inexplicably lower at 22 and 43 days (Table 3). No litter treatment affected feathering scores, and no differences were found amonglitter types with regard to the incidence of breast blisters, leg abnormalities, and foot pad lesions. Since the birds were not affected, the data are not presented. The low incidence of leg abnormalities and breast blisters may be due to the growth rate and phase of the birds during these experiments and to the relatively low litter moisture contents recorded, which are lower than previously reported values [lo, 131. However these values are within the range of other

studies (1,111.Increased litter moisture levels, generally accepted as a causal factor of leg abnormalities [14, 151, had no apparent relationship to leg abnormalities in these studies. Although various litter materials may contain different moisture levels and experience diEferent degrees of caking, several other factors are involved in the occurrence of leg defects. Moisture has been identified as an indicator of a suitable litter material [5],but the present study did not include moisture release. Moisture content of the materials tested was higher in Experiment 1 than in Experiments 2 and 3, a difference we attributed to the cooler season in which Experiment 1 occurred. As previously reported [13, 161 litter moisture increased significantly from initial values in all experiments as a result of increased deposition of waste and accumulation of moisture from bird respiration. As time progressed a concomitant decrease in brooder temperature and increase in fecal deposition occurred, increasing moisture content of the litters. At the end of Experiments 2 and 3, litter moisture content decreased from that recorded at 43 days. This change was difficult to explain since room temperature did not increase. Andrews and McPherson [2] reported RH moisture contents to be low in the beginning weeks but increased by the end of the eighth week; we observed a similar trend in Experiment 1

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on March 11, 2015

2843

Research Report BENABDELJELIL and AYACHI

207

MEASUREMENT

LITERMATERIAL Ground Wood

Whole Ground Wheat Straw Wheat Straw (sw) (WG)

Rice Straw

Shavings

(W

12.P

14.1b

10.8d

22Dv

35.4'

U.Sb

U.lb

OKs) 9.6d

RiceHulls

(W

16.8'

15.1'

9.9d

1.9

13.y

16.5'

3.9

43 Days

29.3

27.6

27.0

20.9

19.3

25.2

6.3

57 Days

31.2

36.4

31.6

25.9

25.9

33.0

7.2

Start

6.3b

6Sb

7.0'

5.4'

5.Y

6.4b

0.189

22 Days

7.0b

7.0b

8.4'

5.9'

5.8'

6Ak

0.706

43 Days

7.8

7.6

7.8

7.6

75

7.8

0.406

57 Days

85'

8.0b

85'

7.9b

8.0b

7.9b

0.164

0.238'

I 0.3360

57 Days

0.214ab

I

0.2278

I

0.238a

[

0.212ab

[

*SEM = Standard error of the means. BSubjectivescore: 1 = best to 5 = worst. 'Scored on the basis 1 = clean litter to 4 = dirty litter with caking.

w e a n swithin rowswith no common superscripts are significantlydifferent (P -= .OS).

(Table 3). Straw litter was consistently high in moisture, as in previous studies. No consistent pattern or trend emerged, however, in moisture fluctuations for straw-based litter in our studies. Sigoifcant differences occurred in litter temperature of the various materials measured at a depth of 3 cm in Experiments 2 and 3. Straw-based litters tended to have a higher temperature at 43 days and at the end of Experiments 2 and 3. The larger width of W S particles may have contributed to the cooling of their litter, which had lower temperature and moisture fluctuations comparable to those of straw-based litter. WS temperature measurements, however, did not correspond as expected to ammonia nitrogen values (Tables 3 and 4). Increased litter mois-

ture accumulation has been generally associated with increased ammoniaproduction [5]. Ammonia nitrogen content of the litter was measured as an indicator of litter quality and waste microbial degradation during the experiments. As each trial progressed, ammonia nitrogen concentration increased, resulting in an increase in pH values. Straw litter in Experiment 1 had the lowest values in spite of its high moisture content. Litter nitrogen concentration also increased as broilers grew in previous studies [5, 12, 13, 171 to reach values comparable to those recorded at the end of our experiments. These data also indicate that litter ammonia nitrogen as nitrogen content is fairly stable at the end of the growing period, suggesting a relatively small contribution of waste deposition from a single

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on March 11, 2015

Start

SEM* Sawdust (SD)

JAPR ALTERNATIVE LITTER MATERIALS

208

TABLE 4. Effect of litter material on litter parameters and quality (Experiments 2 and 3) EXPERIMENT 3 (52 DAYS) LllTERh4ATF%IAL II SEM*

Wood

Wood

Start

6.3b

6.3b

10.la

0.95

7.0

65

6.2

ll.lb 20.9

10Xb

22 Days

17.3

16.2

15.0

2.14

14.ga

43 Days

2o.a

275

255

4.61

22.0

End

18.1

24.6

22.4

3.33

19.9

Start

5.2b

5Sb

6.2'

0.128

6.78

5 .ac

6.1b

O.OS0

22 Days

6.3b

6.78

6.78

0.015

6.78

6.4b

6.6a

0.107

I

19.6

22.9

I

22.6

I

5.40

43 Days

7.3b

7.78

6.8b

0.190

7.8

7.7

75

0.136

End

7.7

7.9

7.4

0.210

7.4

7.7

7.6

0.133

43 Days

2.0

2.7

2.7

0.47

3.78

2.Ob

2.3b

0.47

End

3.0"

3.3*

4.0b

0.33

3.7

3.0

3.0

0.33

43 Days

25.Sb

27.8'

%Ab

4.67

27.0

25.7

25.7

6.29

End

mb

n.4a

%.ob

4.67

26.78

25.ab

25.9b

3.80

22 Days

1.0

1.7

1.7

0.47

1.7

1.o

1.0

0.33

End

2.3

2.3

2.3

058

2.0

2.7

2.7

0.47

ZDays

3.7

3.7

2.7

058

3.7

3.7

3.0

0.47

End

3.0

2.7

2.3

0.47

3.0

3.0

2.3

0.33

flock to the total nitrogen content in used litters. The pH of all litter types increased significantly during the experiments, at the end of which all litter material had similar pH values (Table 4). These data were in agreement with the findings of Huff et d. [13], who reported a maximum litter pH value of approximately 8.0 after a 7 wk broiler experiment. Litter pH values noted during Experiments 2 and 3 were slightiy lower than those observed at the end of Experiment 1 where the birds were reared for an additional

I

week. These data indicate as previously reported by Brake et al. [12]that litter attained a maximum pH value and that additional fecal buildup had little effect on pH. Furthermore, in Experiment 1litter for slow-growing cockerels achieved maximum pH value 2 wk later than did broiler litter. The maintenance of litter pH below 7 is important in ammonia control in the house because ammonia release increases above pH 7 and is highest at pH 8 [181. There were minor differences in body weight gain and feed efficiency in

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on March 11, 2015

1 1 1 i!:

Research Report 209

BENABDELJELIL and AYACHI Experiment 3. The overall performance obtained, however, tends to indicate that the alternative materials tested are suitable for litter. They may act as a base and can be t o p dressed with less-available materials such as sawdust or wood shavings, which will reduce

the need for more expensive materials. We suggest that future studies involve field trials on broilers grown to market age, with the assessment of litter microbiological parameters and an evaluation of carcass sideeffects.

1. Wheat and rice straws, sawdust, wood shavings, and rice hulls can serve as alternative litter

material for growing birds. 2. All litter materials testedin Experiment 1individuallyor in combination did not statistically

affect bird performance, water consumption, or mortality rates, and their use did not contribute to a higher incidence of defects in live animals. 3. Litter moisture content, pH, temperature, overall quality score, and ammonia nitrogen content did not show any consistent effect associated with a specific material except for straw-based litters, which received the lowest quality scores.

REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Carter, T.A., RC AuLson, W.C. MUS, and J.R Wesf, 1979. Wood chips for poultry litter. Poultry Sci. 58:994-997.

2. Andrews, LD. andB.N. McPherson, 1963.Comparison of different types of materials for broiler litter. Poultry Sci. 42249-254. 3. Veltmann, J.R, Jr., F.A Ganlner, and S.S. Linton, 1984.Comparison of rice hull products as litter material and dietary fat levels on turkey poult performance. Poultry Sci. 63:2345-2351. 4. Ruszler, P.L and J.R CprSon, 1974. Methods of evaluating the potential usefulness of selected litter materials. Poultry Sci. 53142b1427. 5. Brake, J.D., C.R. Boyle, T.N. Chamblee, C.D. Schultz, andED. Peebles, 1992.Evaluation of the chemical and physical properties of hardwood bark used as broiler litter material. Poultry Sci. 7k467-472. 6. Malone, G.W., G.W. Chaloupka, and W.W. Saylor, 1983. Influence of litter type and size on broiler mance. 1. Factors affecting litter consumption. Sci. 621741-1746. 7. Bnmner, J.M. and D.R Keeney, 1%5. Steam distillation methods for determination of ammonium nitrate and nitrite. Analytica Chimica Acta 32485-495. 8. Sncdecor, G.W.andW.G.Cochran, 1980.Statistical Methods. 7th Edition. The Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, IA. 9. Duncan,D.B., 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 1k1-6. 10. Lleo, RJ.,D . E Conner, and S.F. Bllgull992. The use of recycled pa r chi as litter material for rearing broiler chickens. g u l t r y 7k81-87. 11.Wyatt, CL and T.N. Goodman, 1992. The utilization of recycled sheetrock material for broiler houses.

g.

12. Brake, J.D., M.J. FuUer, C.R Boyle, D.E L e ED. Peebles, and M.A. Latour, 1993. Evaluations of whole chopped kenaf and kenaf core used as a broiler litter matenal. Poultry Sci. m2079-2083. 13. Huff, W.E, G.W. Malone, and G.W. Chaloupka, 1984. Effect of litter treatment on broiler performance andcertain litterqualityparameters. Poultry Sci. 63:21672171. 14. Hester, P.Y., A L Sutton, RG. Elkin, and P.M. Klingensmllh, 1985.The effect of lighting, dietaryamino acids, and litter on the incidence of leg abnormalities and performance of turkey toms. Poultry Sci. 64:20622075. 15. Hester, P.Y., A.L Sutton, and RG. Elkin,1987. Effect of light intensity, litter source, and litter management on the incidence of abnormalities and performance of male turkeys. Poultry Sci. 66:66&675.

16. Scbcideler, SW., 1988. A comparison of litter treatments to control litterintegrityand relatedeffects on broiler production. Poultry Sci. 67(Suppl):151(Abs). 17. Parker, M.B.,H.F. Perkios, and H.L Fuller, 1959. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium content of poultry manure and some factors influencing its composition. Poultry Sci. 38:1154-1158. 18. R m e , F.N., B.C. Ldt, and J.W. Deaton, 1980. Ammonia in the atmosphere during brooding affects erformance of broiler chickens. Poultry Sci. 59:486-488:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors acknowledge the kind assistance of Skikima Station Director Mr. A. Barkok and his personnel during the various phases of this study. The secretarial expertise of Mrs. Eleanor M. Lease in the pre aration of the manuscript is also greatly appreciated:

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library and Center for Knowledge Management on March 11, 2015

CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS