- Email: [email protected]
Evaluation of Rice Hull Ash as Broiler Litter12
2003 Poultry Science Association, Inc.
Evaluation of Rice Hull Ash as Broiler Litter1,2 T. N. Chamblee3 and J. B. Yeatman Poultry Science Department, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762
SUMMARY Three trials were conducted to examine the efficacy of rice hull ash as a litter material for broiler chickens. Each 42-d trial used the following litter materials: pine shavings, rice hull ash, and rice hull ash blended with pine shavings. In trial 1, pine shavings (PS), rice hull ash (RHA), and a 50/50 blend of PS and RHA were used as the 3 litter treatments. In trials 2 and 3, PS, RHA, PS/RHA (50/50), PS/RHA (70/30), and PS/RHA (70/30 layered) were used as the 5 litter treatments. Body weight, feed conversion, and NH3 production, N, phosphate, and potash in litter were determined at the end of each trial. Body weight and feed conversion were not consistently altered by any of the litter treatments among the 3 trials. Likewise, NH3, N, phosphate, and potash in litter were not consistently altered by any of the litter treatments among the 3 trials. RHA alone or in combination with PS can be used as litter material for broiler chickens with no adverse effects on broiler performance, litter NH3 production, or litter fertilizer value. Key words: broiler, litter, rice hull ash, litter ammonia, litter nitrogen, litter phosphate, litter potash 2003 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 12:424–427
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM Pine shavings have been the standard poultry litter for many years. However, due to lack of availability and cost of pine shavings (PS), various other products have been evaluated for potential use as litter. A variety of paper products [1, 2, 3, 4], gypsum [5], hardwood bark [6], kenaf [7, 8], peanut hulls [9], sand [10, 11], rice hulls [12], softwood chipping fines [13], wood chips [14], and leaves [15] have all been compared to PS for use as poultry litter. All of these litter materials were equal or superior to PS as a 1
litter material. In addition, composted municipal garbage [16] has been shown to be equivalent to or superior to wood shavings when used as broiler litter. Rice hull ash (RHA) is produced when rice hulls are burned for cogeneration of energy at the rice mill and to reduce the bulk density of rice hulls for transportation and disposal. RHA contains 60% silicon dioxide, 35% carbon, and <0.5% moisture. Particle size analysis indicates that 75% of the ash is retained on 80 mesh (0.007 in.) or larger screen, 20% is between 80 and 200 mesh (0.0029 in.), 4.5% is between 200 and 325
This is Journal Article No. J. 10339 from the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station supported by MIS-322130. 2 Use of trade names in this publication does not imply endorsement by Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station of these products, nor similar ones not mentioned. 3 To whom correspondence should be addressed: [email protected].
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Lakehead University on March 13, 2015
Primary Audience: Broiler Managers, Researchers
CHAMBLEE AND YEATMAN: RICE HULL ASH LITTER
425
TABLE 1. The effect of rice hull ash (RHA) litter on broiler performance, litter NH3 and litter fertilizer value in trial 1A,B Item
PS
Body weight (lb) Feed/gain NH3 (ppm) N (lb/ton) P2O5 (lb/ton) K2O (lb/ton) Livability (%)
4.54 1.92 22 55 20 42 99
± ± ± ± ± ± ±
PS/RHA (50/50)
RHA 0.04 0.03 5 1 1 1 1
4.55 1.94 41 46 24 41 91
± ± ± ± ± ± ±
0.05 0.01 7 1 2 2 1
4.55 1.87 29 46 21 40 96
± ± ± ± ± ± ±
0.04 0.02 9 2 1 2 1
Means ± SEM. PS = pine shavings. There were no significant differences among the treatments for any parameter measured.
A B
MATERIALS AND METHODS Three trials were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of RHA as a litter substrate for broiler chickens. Each 42-d trial was conducted in a curtain-sided broiler house. In each 5 × 10 ft experimental pen, feed was supplied in a single hanging tube feeder, and water was supplied by a single bell-type drinker. A basal diet formulated to meet or exceed NRC requirements and water were supplied ad libitum throughout each trial. All chicks used in each trial were obtained from a broiler integrator hatchery. The broiler chicks were raised using standard husbandry practices. Birds received 24 h of light per day for the duration of each trial. Body weight, feed/ gain, litter NH3 production, and livability were
determined on d 42 in each trial. In addition, litter samples were taken at the end of each trial for determination of litter fertilizer value. Litter NH3 Production Litter NH3 was determined in each experimental pen. A 3.5-gal pail fitted with a manual air-stirring device and an air-sampling port was inverted on the litter. After 5 min, the air was stirred for 10 s, and an air sample was drawn into an NH3 detector tube [17]. NH3 level was determined by reading the color change interface in the NH3 detector tube. Litter Fertilizer Value Litter samples were taken from 3 locations in each pen. These samples were then mixed together, and a representative sample was taken from the pooled samples. The litter samples were submitted to the Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory for determination of N, phosphate, and potash (N-P-K).
TABLE 2. The effect of rice hull ash (RHA) litter on broiler performance, litter NH3 and litter fertilizer value in trial 2 PSA
Item NH3 (ppm) N (lb/ton) P2O5 (lb/ton) K2O (lb/ton) Livability (%)
23 37 25 47 87
± ± ± ± ±
3ab 2a 1b 1a 5a
RHA 17 33 33 47 81
± ± ± ± ±
2b 2a 1a 1a 8a
PS/RHA (50/50) 27 37 31 48 85
± ± ± ± ±
3a 1a 1ab 2a 2a
PS/RHA (70/30) 24 36 29 48 71
Means ± SEM within rows with differing superscripts differ significantly (P ≤ 0.05). PS = pine shavings.
a,b A
± ± ± ± ±
3ab 2a 1ab 1a 1a
PS/RHA (70/30 layered) 23 33 26 49 87
± ± ± ± ±
4ab 1a 1b 1a 6a
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Lakehead University on March 13, 2015
mesh (0.0017 in.), and the remaining 0.5% is smaller than 325 mesh and has a bulk density of 19.6 lb/ft3. RHA is a GRAS (generally regarded as safe) product. The objective of this research was to determine if RHA, used alone or blended with PS, is a viable poultry litter substrate.
JAPR: Research Report
426
TABLE 3. The effect of rice hull ash (RHA) litter on broiler performance, litter NH3, and litter fertilizer value in trial 3 PSA
Item Body weight (lb) Feed/gain NH3 (ppm) N (lb/ton) P2O5 (lb/ton) K2O (lb/ton) Livability (%)
4.91 1.81 11 58 31 58 95
± ± ± ± ± ± ±
0.02a 0.02a 2a 2a 1a 1a 2a
RHA 5.10 1.72 12 39 25 49 97
± ± ± ± ± ± ±
0.05a 0.03a 1a 6b 3a 4a 1a
PS/RHA (50/50) 4.99 1.75 16 59 31 57 97
± ± ± ± ± ± ±
0.09a 0.01a 1a 2a 1a 1a 2a
PS/RHA (70/30) 4.93 1.75 7 48 25 50 95
± ± ± ± ± ± ±
0.09a 0.05a 4a 2ab 1a 2a 3a
PS/RHA (70/30 layered) 4.99 1.77 17 53 25 47 96
± ± ± ± ± ± ±
0.05a 0.04a 4a 1ab 4a 5a 2a
Means ± SEM within rows with differing superscripts differ significantly (P ≤ 0.05). PS = pine shavings.
a,b A
Pine shavings, RHA, and a 50/50 volumetric blend of PS and RHA were used as the 3 litter substrates. Each litter substrate was placed in 3 floor pens in the experimental house. The approximate litter depth in each experimental pen was 4 in. Fifty chicks were placed in each pen. Trials 2 and 3 Five litter substrates were used: (1) PS, (2) RHA, (3) a 50/50 volumetric blend of PS and RHA, (4) a 70/30 volumetric blend of PS and RHA, and (5) a 70/30 volumetric layer of PS and RHA with RHA serving as the top layer. Each litter substrate was placed in 3 floor pens in the experimental house. The approximate litter depth in each experimental pen was 4 in. Fifty chicks were placed in each pen. Caked litter was not removed from the pens nor were the pens top-dressed with fresh litter between trials 2 and 3. Statistical Analysis The experimental design was a completely randomized design. All data were analyzed using the general linear models procedure of the SAS Institute [18]. The means were compared by Student-Newman-Keuls’ Test [19]. Statements of significance were based on P < 0.05 unless otherwise indicated.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Litter type had no effect on any parameter measured in trial 1 (Table 1). In trial 2 (Table
2), when compared to PS, both RHA and PS/ RHA (70/30 layered) increased litter P2O5. In trial 3 (Table 3), RHA decreased litter N levels, when compared to PS. Litter potash was not consistently altered by any of the litter treatments among the 3 trials. Litter type had no affect on livability in any of the trials. Body weight and feed/gain were not altered by any of the litter treatments in trials 1 and 3. However, trial 2 was conducted during the summer in a conventionally ventilated open-sided house. The high ambient temperature resulted in decreased livability in all treatment groups (82 vs. 95% and 96 in trials 1 and 3, respectively). The overall decrease in livability resulted in highly variable body weight and feed/gain data among the treatments trial 2. Therefore, the body weight and feed/gain data from trial 2 are not presented in this report. RHA did cause some feather discoloration, but all feather discoloration was removed during scalding during processing. Rice hull ash may provide other benefits in the poultry house. Research has demonstrated that poultry litter can be converted into activated carbons that can be used to adsorb metal ions [20]. Would RHA increase this potential? Additionally, research has shown that ashed poultry litter could be used to provide a dietary source of P for broilers [21]. Would the P in RHA be available to chicks if they consumed RHA litter? Further research is warranted to answer these questions.
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Lakehead University on March 13, 2015
Trial 1
CHAMBLEE AND YEATMAN: RICE HULL ASH LITTER
427
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS 1. Body weight and feed conversion were not consistently altered by any of the litter treatments among the 3 trials. 2. NH3, N, P, and potash in litter were not consistently altered by any of the litter treatments among the 3 trials. 3. Rice hull ash used alone or in combination with PS can be used as a litter material for broiler chickens with no adverse effects on broiler performance, litter NH3 production, or litter fertilizer value.
1. Malone, G. W., P. H. Allen, G. W. Chaloupka, and W. F. Ritter. 1982. Recycled paper products as broiler litter. Poult. Sci. 61:2161–2165. 2. Malone, G. W., and G. W. Chaloupka. 1983. Influence of litter type and size on broiler performance. 2. Processed newspaper litter particle size and management. Poult. Sci. 62:1747–1750. 3. Lien, R. J., D. E. Conner, and S. F. Bilgili. 1992. The use of recycled paper chips as litter material for rearing broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 71:81–87. 4. Martinez, D. F., and A. G. Gernat. 1995. The effect of chopped computer and bond paper mixed with wood shavings as a litter material on broiler performance. Poult. Sci. 74:1395–1399. 5. Wyatt, C. L., and T. N. Goodman. 1992. The utilization of recycled sheetrock (refined gypsum) as a litter material for broiler houses. Poult. Sci. 71:1572–1576. 6. Brake, J. D., C. R. Boyle, T. N. Chamblee, C. D. Schultz, and E. D. Peebles. 1992. Evaluation of the chemical and physical properties of hardwood bark used as a broiler litter material. Poult. Sci. 71:467–472. 7. Malone, G. W., H. D. Tilmon, and R. W. Taylor. 1990. Evaluation of kenaf core for broiler litter. Poult. Sci. 69:2064–2067. 8. Brake, J. D., M. J. Fuller, C. R. Boyle, D. E. Link, E. D. Peebles, and M. A. Latour. 1993. Evaluation of whole chopped kenaf and kenaf core as a broiler litter material. Poult. Sci. 72:2079–2083.
11. Bilgili, S. F., G. I. Montenegro, J. B. Hess, and M. K. Eckman. 1999. Live performance, carcass quality, and deboning yields of broilers reared on sand as a litter source. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 8:352–361. 12. Veltman, J. R., F. A. Gardner, and S. S. Linton. 1984. Comparison of rice hull products as litter material and dietary fat levels on turkey poult performance. Poult. Sci. 63:2345–2351. 13. Parsons, A. H., and S. L. Baker. 1985. Softwood chipping fines: Efficacy as poultry litter. Poult. Sci. 64:2292–2295. 14. Carter, T. A., R. C. Allison, and J. R. West. 1979. Wood chips for poultry litter. Poult. Sci. 58:994–997. 15. Willis, W. L., C. Murray, and C. Talbot. 1997. Evaluation of leaves as a litter material. Poult. Sci. 76:1138–1140. 16. Malone, G. W., G. W. Chaloupka, and R. J. Eckroade. 1983. Composted municipal garbage for broiler litter. Poult. Sci. 62:414–418. 17. Gastec Corporation, Ayase-City, Japan. 18. SAS Institute Inc. 1988. SAS User’s Guide: Basics. Version 6 ed. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC. 19. Steel, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. McGraw Hill, New York.
9. Lien, R. J., J. B. Hess, D. E. Conner, C. W. Wood, and R. A. Shelby. 1998. Peanut hulls and a litter source for broiler breeder replacement pullets. Poult. Sci. 77:41–46.
20. Lima, Isabel M., W. E. Marshall, and K. B. Fitzmorris. 2003. Poultry biosolids as granular activated carbons for metal ion adsorption. Proc. 2003 Water Environ. Fed., Am. Water Works Assoc., and Chesapeake Water Environ. Assoc. Joint Residuals, and Biosolids Manage., Baltimore.
10. Bilgili, S. F., G. I. Montenegro, J. B. Hess, and M. K. Eckman. 1999. Sand as litter for rearing broiler chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 8:345–351.
21. Muir, F., R. M. Leach, Jr., and B. S. Heinrichs. 1990. Bioavailability of phosphorus from broiler litter ash for chicks. Poult. Sci. 69:1845–1850.
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Lakehead University on March 13, 2015
REFERENCES AND NOTES
Evaluation of Rice Hull Ash as Broiler Litter1,2 T. N. Chamblee3 and J. B. Yeatman Poultry Science Department, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi 39762
SUMMARY Three trials were conducted to examine the efficacy of rice hull ash as a litter material for broiler chickens. Each 42-d trial used the following litter materials: pine shavings, rice hull ash, and rice hull ash blended with pine shavings. In trial 1, pine shavings (PS), rice hull ash (RHA), and a 50/50 blend of PS and RHA were used as the 3 litter treatments. In trials 2 and 3, PS, RHA, PS/RHA (50/50), PS/RHA (70/30), and PS/RHA (70/30 layered) were used as the 5 litter treatments. Body weight, feed conversion, and NH3 production, N, phosphate, and potash in litter were determined at the end of each trial. Body weight and feed conversion were not consistently altered by any of the litter treatments among the 3 trials. Likewise, NH3, N, phosphate, and potash in litter were not consistently altered by any of the litter treatments among the 3 trials. RHA alone or in combination with PS can be used as litter material for broiler chickens with no adverse effects on broiler performance, litter NH3 production, or litter fertilizer value. Key words: broiler, litter, rice hull ash, litter ammonia, litter nitrogen, litter phosphate, litter potash 2003 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 12:424–427
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM Pine shavings have been the standard poultry litter for many years. However, due to lack of availability and cost of pine shavings (PS), various other products have been evaluated for potential use as litter. A variety of paper products [1, 2, 3, 4], gypsum [5], hardwood bark [6], kenaf [7, 8], peanut hulls [9], sand [10, 11], rice hulls [12], softwood chipping fines [13], wood chips [14], and leaves [15] have all been compared to PS for use as poultry litter. All of these litter materials were equal or superior to PS as a 1
litter material. In addition, composted municipal garbage [16] has been shown to be equivalent to or superior to wood shavings when used as broiler litter. Rice hull ash (RHA) is produced when rice hulls are burned for cogeneration of energy at the rice mill and to reduce the bulk density of rice hulls for transportation and disposal. RHA contains 60% silicon dioxide, 35% carbon, and <0.5% moisture. Particle size analysis indicates that 75% of the ash is retained on 80 mesh (0.007 in.) or larger screen, 20% is between 80 and 200 mesh (0.0029 in.), 4.5% is between 200 and 325
This is Journal Article No. J. 10339 from the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station supported by MIS-322130. 2 Use of trade names in this publication does not imply endorsement by Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station of these products, nor similar ones not mentioned. 3 To whom correspondence should be addressed: [email protected].
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Lakehead University on March 13, 2015
Primary Audience: Broiler Managers, Researchers
CHAMBLEE AND YEATMAN: RICE HULL ASH LITTER
425
TABLE 1. The effect of rice hull ash (RHA) litter on broiler performance, litter NH3 and litter fertilizer value in trial 1A,B Item
PS
Body weight (lb) Feed/gain NH3 (ppm) N (lb/ton) P2O5 (lb/ton) K2O (lb/ton) Livability (%)
4.54 1.92 22 55 20 42 99
± ± ± ± ± ± ±
PS/RHA (50/50)
RHA 0.04 0.03 5 1 1 1 1
4.55 1.94 41 46 24 41 91
± ± ± ± ± ± ±
0.05 0.01 7 1 2 2 1
4.55 1.87 29 46 21 40 96
± ± ± ± ± ± ±
0.04 0.02 9 2 1 2 1
Means ± SEM. PS = pine shavings. There were no significant differences among the treatments for any parameter measured.
A B
MATERIALS AND METHODS Three trials were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of RHA as a litter substrate for broiler chickens. Each 42-d trial was conducted in a curtain-sided broiler house. In each 5 × 10 ft experimental pen, feed was supplied in a single hanging tube feeder, and water was supplied by a single bell-type drinker. A basal diet formulated to meet or exceed NRC requirements and water were supplied ad libitum throughout each trial. All chicks used in each trial were obtained from a broiler integrator hatchery. The broiler chicks were raised using standard husbandry practices. Birds received 24 h of light per day for the duration of each trial. Body weight, feed/ gain, litter NH3 production, and livability were
determined on d 42 in each trial. In addition, litter samples were taken at the end of each trial for determination of litter fertilizer value. Litter NH3 Production Litter NH3 was determined in each experimental pen. A 3.5-gal pail fitted with a manual air-stirring device and an air-sampling port was inverted on the litter. After 5 min, the air was stirred for 10 s, and an air sample was drawn into an NH3 detector tube [17]. NH3 level was determined by reading the color change interface in the NH3 detector tube. Litter Fertilizer Value Litter samples were taken from 3 locations in each pen. These samples were then mixed together, and a representative sample was taken from the pooled samples. The litter samples were submitted to the Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory for determination of N, phosphate, and potash (N-P-K).
TABLE 2. The effect of rice hull ash (RHA) litter on broiler performance, litter NH3 and litter fertilizer value in trial 2 PSA
Item NH3 (ppm) N (lb/ton) P2O5 (lb/ton) K2O (lb/ton) Livability (%)
23 37 25 47 87
± ± ± ± ±
3ab 2a 1b 1a 5a
RHA 17 33 33 47 81
± ± ± ± ±
2b 2a 1a 1a 8a
PS/RHA (50/50) 27 37 31 48 85
± ± ± ± ±
3a 1a 1ab 2a 2a
PS/RHA (70/30) 24 36 29 48 71
Means ± SEM within rows with differing superscripts differ significantly (P ≤ 0.05). PS = pine shavings.
a,b A
± ± ± ± ±
3ab 2a 1ab 1a 1a
PS/RHA (70/30 layered) 23 33 26 49 87
± ± ± ± ±
4ab 1a 1b 1a 6a
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Lakehead University on March 13, 2015
mesh (0.0017 in.), and the remaining 0.5% is smaller than 325 mesh and has a bulk density of 19.6 lb/ft3. RHA is a GRAS (generally regarded as safe) product. The objective of this research was to determine if RHA, used alone or blended with PS, is a viable poultry litter substrate.
JAPR: Research Report
426
TABLE 3. The effect of rice hull ash (RHA) litter on broiler performance, litter NH3, and litter fertilizer value in trial 3 PSA
Item Body weight (lb) Feed/gain NH3 (ppm) N (lb/ton) P2O5 (lb/ton) K2O (lb/ton) Livability (%)
4.91 1.81 11 58 31 58 95
± ± ± ± ± ± ±
0.02a 0.02a 2a 2a 1a 1a 2a
RHA 5.10 1.72 12 39 25 49 97
± ± ± ± ± ± ±
0.05a 0.03a 1a 6b 3a 4a 1a
PS/RHA (50/50) 4.99 1.75 16 59 31 57 97
± ± ± ± ± ± ±
0.09a 0.01a 1a 2a 1a 1a 2a
PS/RHA (70/30) 4.93 1.75 7 48 25 50 95
± ± ± ± ± ± ±
0.09a 0.05a 4a 2ab 1a 2a 3a
PS/RHA (70/30 layered) 4.99 1.77 17 53 25 47 96
± ± ± ± ± ± ±
0.05a 0.04a 4a 1ab 4a 5a 2a
Means ± SEM within rows with differing superscripts differ significantly (P ≤ 0.05). PS = pine shavings.
a,b A
Pine shavings, RHA, and a 50/50 volumetric blend of PS and RHA were used as the 3 litter substrates. Each litter substrate was placed in 3 floor pens in the experimental house. The approximate litter depth in each experimental pen was 4 in. Fifty chicks were placed in each pen. Trials 2 and 3 Five litter substrates were used: (1) PS, (2) RHA, (3) a 50/50 volumetric blend of PS and RHA, (4) a 70/30 volumetric blend of PS and RHA, and (5) a 70/30 volumetric layer of PS and RHA with RHA serving as the top layer. Each litter substrate was placed in 3 floor pens in the experimental house. The approximate litter depth in each experimental pen was 4 in. Fifty chicks were placed in each pen. Caked litter was not removed from the pens nor were the pens top-dressed with fresh litter between trials 2 and 3. Statistical Analysis The experimental design was a completely randomized design. All data were analyzed using the general linear models procedure of the SAS Institute [18]. The means were compared by Student-Newman-Keuls’ Test [19]. Statements of significance were based on P < 0.05 unless otherwise indicated.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Litter type had no effect on any parameter measured in trial 1 (Table 1). In trial 2 (Table
2), when compared to PS, both RHA and PS/ RHA (70/30 layered) increased litter P2O5. In trial 3 (Table 3), RHA decreased litter N levels, when compared to PS. Litter potash was not consistently altered by any of the litter treatments among the 3 trials. Litter type had no affect on livability in any of the trials. Body weight and feed/gain were not altered by any of the litter treatments in trials 1 and 3. However, trial 2 was conducted during the summer in a conventionally ventilated open-sided house. The high ambient temperature resulted in decreased livability in all treatment groups (82 vs. 95% and 96 in trials 1 and 3, respectively). The overall decrease in livability resulted in highly variable body weight and feed/gain data among the treatments trial 2. Therefore, the body weight and feed/gain data from trial 2 are not presented in this report. RHA did cause some feather discoloration, but all feather discoloration was removed during scalding during processing. Rice hull ash may provide other benefits in the poultry house. Research has demonstrated that poultry litter can be converted into activated carbons that can be used to adsorb metal ions [20]. Would RHA increase this potential? Additionally, research has shown that ashed poultry litter could be used to provide a dietary source of P for broilers [21]. Would the P in RHA be available to chicks if they consumed RHA litter? Further research is warranted to answer these questions.
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Lakehead University on March 13, 2015
Trial 1
CHAMBLEE AND YEATMAN: RICE HULL ASH LITTER
427
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS 1. Body weight and feed conversion were not consistently altered by any of the litter treatments among the 3 trials. 2. NH3, N, P, and potash in litter were not consistently altered by any of the litter treatments among the 3 trials. 3. Rice hull ash used alone or in combination with PS can be used as a litter material for broiler chickens with no adverse effects on broiler performance, litter NH3 production, or litter fertilizer value.
1. Malone, G. W., P. H. Allen, G. W. Chaloupka, and W. F. Ritter. 1982. Recycled paper products as broiler litter. Poult. Sci. 61:2161–2165. 2. Malone, G. W., and G. W. Chaloupka. 1983. Influence of litter type and size on broiler performance. 2. Processed newspaper litter particle size and management. Poult. Sci. 62:1747–1750. 3. Lien, R. J., D. E. Conner, and S. F. Bilgili. 1992. The use of recycled paper chips as litter material for rearing broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 71:81–87. 4. Martinez, D. F., and A. G. Gernat. 1995. The effect of chopped computer and bond paper mixed with wood shavings as a litter material on broiler performance. Poult. Sci. 74:1395–1399. 5. Wyatt, C. L., and T. N. Goodman. 1992. The utilization of recycled sheetrock (refined gypsum) as a litter material for broiler houses. Poult. Sci. 71:1572–1576. 6. Brake, J. D., C. R. Boyle, T. N. Chamblee, C. D. Schultz, and E. D. Peebles. 1992. Evaluation of the chemical and physical properties of hardwood bark used as a broiler litter material. Poult. Sci. 71:467–472. 7. Malone, G. W., H. D. Tilmon, and R. W. Taylor. 1990. Evaluation of kenaf core for broiler litter. Poult. Sci. 69:2064–2067. 8. Brake, J. D., M. J. Fuller, C. R. Boyle, D. E. Link, E. D. Peebles, and M. A. Latour. 1993. Evaluation of whole chopped kenaf and kenaf core as a broiler litter material. Poult. Sci. 72:2079–2083.
11. Bilgili, S. F., G. I. Montenegro, J. B. Hess, and M. K. Eckman. 1999. Live performance, carcass quality, and deboning yields of broilers reared on sand as a litter source. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 8:352–361. 12. Veltman, J. R., F. A. Gardner, and S. S. Linton. 1984. Comparison of rice hull products as litter material and dietary fat levels on turkey poult performance. Poult. Sci. 63:2345–2351. 13. Parsons, A. H., and S. L. Baker. 1985. Softwood chipping fines: Efficacy as poultry litter. Poult. Sci. 64:2292–2295. 14. Carter, T. A., R. C. Allison, and J. R. West. 1979. Wood chips for poultry litter. Poult. Sci. 58:994–997. 15. Willis, W. L., C. Murray, and C. Talbot. 1997. Evaluation of leaves as a litter material. Poult. Sci. 76:1138–1140. 16. Malone, G. W., G. W. Chaloupka, and R. J. Eckroade. 1983. Composted municipal garbage for broiler litter. Poult. Sci. 62:414–418. 17. Gastec Corporation, Ayase-City, Japan. 18. SAS Institute Inc. 1988. SAS User’s Guide: Basics. Version 6 ed. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC. 19. Steel, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. McGraw Hill, New York.
9. Lien, R. J., J. B. Hess, D. E. Conner, C. W. Wood, and R. A. Shelby. 1998. Peanut hulls and a litter source for broiler breeder replacement pullets. Poult. Sci. 77:41–46.
20. Lima, Isabel M., W. E. Marshall, and K. B. Fitzmorris. 2003. Poultry biosolids as granular activated carbons for metal ion adsorption. Proc. 2003 Water Environ. Fed., Am. Water Works Assoc., and Chesapeake Water Environ. Assoc. Joint Residuals, and Biosolids Manage., Baltimore.
10. Bilgili, S. F., G. I. Montenegro, J. B. Hess, and M. K. Eckman. 1999. Sand as litter for rearing broiler chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 8:345–351.
21. Muir, F., R. M. Leach, Jr., and B. S. Heinrichs. 1990. Bioavailability of phosphorus from broiler litter ash for chicks. Poult. Sci. 69:1845–1850.
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at Lakehead University on March 13, 2015
REFERENCES AND NOTES