Littertreat litter2 feed
Download as DOCX, PDF7 likes2,357 views
This document discusses the use of poultry litter as a feed ingredient for livestock. It provides a history of regulations around using poultry litter in animal feed in the US, beginning with an FDA ban in 1967 over safety concerns, which was later reversed. In the mid-2000s, the FDA again considered banning litter use due to mad cow disease risks but ultimately decided a ban was unnecessary. The document also provides several citations and studies on using litter in poultry and cattle feed and the effects on animal growth and performance.
![5.2 Factors Influencing Volatilization
The concentration and type of N in livestock slurry varies according to animal species,
diet, and age.
Typically, livestock use less than 30% of N contained in their feed, with 50 to 80% of the
remainder excreted in the urine and 20 to 50% excreted in the feces. Urea is the major
nitrogenous component in urine, accounting for up to 97% of urinary N.
The exception is poultry manure, where uric acid is excreted instead of urea.
Urea is hydrolyzed by the enzyme urease, found in the feces, to ammonium (NH+
4) and
bicarbonate ions.
Hydrolysis occurs rapidly, with complete conversion of urea N to NH+
4 possible within a
matter of hours, depending on environmental conditions
(Muck and Richards, 1980; Beline et al., 1998).
Fecal N typically consists of 50% protein N and 50% NH+
4. Mineralization of fecal protein
N mainly occurs through the activity of proteolytic and deaminative bacteria, initially
hydrolyzing proteins to peptides and amino acids and finally by deamination to NH+
4.
This process occurs at a far slower rate than the hydrolysis of urea and is thought to be a
relatively unimportant source of NH+
4 where livestock slurry is stored for a short period of
time
(Muck and Steenhuis, 1982).
However, where livestock slurry is stored for long periods, especially at higher
temperatures, it becomes the dominant pathway for NH+
4 production
(Patni and Jui, 1991).
Reactions that govern NH3 volatilization may be represented by the following
summarized equation
(Freney et al., 1981):
[1]
The driving force for NH3 volatilization is considered to be the difference in NH3 partial
pressure between that in equilibrium with the liquid phase and that in the ambient
atmosphere. In the absence of other ionic species, this is predominately influenced by
the NH+
4 concentration, pH, and temperature, although any displacement of the
equilibrium will affect NH3 emission.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/littertreatlitter2feed-130523055853-phpapp01/85/Littertreat-litter2-feed-28-320.jpg)
![15. REFERENCES:
1. Berry, I. L. 1997. Litter production at the Broiler Energy Project. Pages 9-10 In:
Progress Report: Broiler Energy Project 1995-97. Center of Excellence for
Poultry Science, Coop. Ext. Ser., Agri. Exp. Sta., University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville.
2. Bhattacharya, A N & Taylor J C, Journal of Animal Science, 1975
Doye, D. G., J. G. Berry, P. R. Green, and P. E. Norris. 1992. Broiler production:
Considerations for potential growers. Okla. Coop. Ext. Ser. Fact Sheet 202.
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater.
3. Tabler, T. 2000. How much litter do broilers produce? Avian Advice 2(1):6-8.
VanDevender, K., J. Langston, and M. Daniels. 2000. Utilizing dry poultry litter –
An overview. Arkansas Coop Ext. Ser. FSA8000-2.5M-12-00RV. University of
Arkansas, Fayetteville
4. Virk, R S Sethi R P & Langar P N, Agricultural Wastes, 1986.
Wimberly, J. 2002. The status of on-farm litter-to-energy systems in the United
States. Proc. National Poultry Waste Management Symposium pp. 53-57.
5. Al-Kanani, T., E. Akochi, A.F. MacKenzie, I. Alli, and S. Barrington. 1992.
Organic and inorganic amendments to reduce ammonia losses from liquid hog
manure. J. Environ. Qual. 21:709–715.[ISI]
6. Amon, M., M. Dobeic, V.R. Phillips, R.W. Sneath, T.M. Misselbrook, and B.F.
Pain. 1997. A farm scale study on the use of clinoptilolite zeolite and De-Odorase
for reducing odour and ammonia emissions from broiler houses. Bioresour.
Technol. 61:229–237.[ISI]
7. ApSimon, H., M.M. Kruse, and J.N.B. Bell. 1987. Ammonia emissions and their
role in acid deposition. Atmos. Environ. 21:1939–1946.[ISI]
8. Beck, D.W. 1974. Molecular sieves structure. Chemistry and use. John Wiley &
Sons, London.
9. Beline, F., J. Martinez, C. Marol, and G. Guiraud. 1998. Nitrogen transformations
during anaerobically stored 15
N-labelled pig slurry. Bioresour. Technol. 64:83–
88.[ISI]
10. Berg, W., and G. Hornig. 1997. Emission reduction by acidification of slurry—
Investigations and assessment. p. 459–466. In Proc. of the Int. Symp. on
Ammonia and Odour Emissions from Animal Production, Vinkeloord, the
Netherlands. 6–10 Oct. 1997. NVTL, Rosmalen, the Netherlands.
11. Buchgraber, K. 1983. Vergleich der Wirksamkeit konventioneller und alternativer
Dugungssyssteme auf dem. Gruland hinsichtlich Etrag, Futterqualitat und Gute
des Pflanzenbestandes. Diss., Vienna.
12. Buijsman, E., H.F.M. Mass, and W.A.H. Asman. 1987. Anthropogenic NH3
emissions in Europe. Atmos. Environ. 21:1009–1022.[ISI]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/littertreatlitter2feed-130523055853-phpapp01/85/Littertreat-litter2-feed-57-320.jpg)
![13. Burnett, W.E., and N.C. Dondero. 1970. Control of odours from animal wastes.
Trans. ASAE 13:221–231.
14. Burton, B.H. 1996. Processing strategies for farm livestock slurries to minimise
pollution and to maximise nutrient utilisation—An EU collaboration. p. 5–10. In G.
Parafait et al. (ed.) Ingenieries EAT—Animal Manures and Environment in
Europe. Dec. 1996. Antony, Cemagfef, France.
15. Daigle, J.Y., A. Arseneau, and A. Robichaud. 1987. Sphagnum peat: A tool for
liquid hog manure management. p. 173–176. In Wetlands/Peatlands Symp.
1987, Edmonton, AB, Canada. Wetlands/Peatlands `87 Publ., Ottawa, ON,
Canada.
16. Dewes, T. 1987. Chemical and microbial changes during the fermentation of
liquid Poultry Litter treated with Agriben and its ingredients. p. 323–329. In Proc.
from Agric. Waste Manage. and Environ. Protection. 4th Int. Symp. of CIEC,
Braunschweig Federal Republic of Germany. 11–14 May 1987. Vol. 2. Goltze-
Druck, Gottingen, Germany.
17. Donham, K.J. 1990. Relationships of air quality and productivity in intensive
swine housing. J. Agric. Practice 10:15–18.
18. Donham, K.J., and K.E. Gustafason. 1982. Human occupational hazards from
swine confinement. Ann. Am. Conf. Gov. Hyg. 2:137–142.
19. Donham, K.J., M.J. Rubino, T.D. Thedell, and J. Kammermeyer. 1977. Potential
health hazards to agricultural workers in swine confinement buildings. J. Occup.
Med. 19:383–387.[ISI][Medline]
20. Emanuel, A.G. 1965. Potassium permanganate offers new solutions to air
pollution control. Air Engineering. September 1965.
21. Faith, W.L. 1964. Odour control in cattle feed yards. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc.
1411:459–460.
22. Grubbs, R.B. 1979. Bacteria supplimentation what it can and can't do. Paper
presented at the 9th Eng. Foundation Conf. in Environ. Eng. in the Food
Processing Ind., Pacific Grove, CA. 27 Feb. 1979. ASCE, Reston, VA.
23. Hammond, W.C., D.L. Day, and E.L. Hansen. 1968. Can lime and chlorine
suppress odours in liquid hog manure? Agric. Eng. 49:340–343.[ISI]
24. Hartung, J. 1992. Emissions and control of gases and odorous substances from
animal housing and manure stores. Zentralbl. Hyg. Umweltmed. 192:389–
418.[ISI][Medline]
25. Hartung, J., and V.R. Phillips. 1994. Control of gaseous emissions from livestock
buildings and manure stores. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 57:173–189.[ISI]
26. Headon, D.R., K. Buggle, A. Nelson, and G. Killeen. 1991. Glycofractions of the
yucca plant and their role in ammonia control. p. 95–108. In T.P. Lyons (ed.)
Biotechnology in the feed industry. Allttech, Nichoasville, KY.
27. Headon, D.R., and G. Walsh. 1993. Yucca schidigera extracts and ammonia
control. p. 686–693. In E. Collins and C. Boon (ed.) Livestock Environment IV,
4th Int. Symp., Univ. of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 6–9 July 1993. Am. Soc. Agric.
Eng., St. Joseph, MI.
28. Heck, A.F. 1931. Conservation and availability of nitrogen in farm manures. Soil
Sci. 31:335–363.
29. Hendriks, J.G.L., D. Berckmansand, and C. Vincker. 1997. Field tests of bio-
additives to reduce ammonia emission from pig houses. p. 707–714. In Proc. of
the Int. Symp. on Ammonia and Odour Emissions from Animal Production,
Vinkeloord, the Netherlands. 6–10 Oct. 1997. NVTL, Rosmalen, the Netherlands.
30. Hendriks, J.G.L, and M.G.M. Vrielink. 1996. Anzuren van varkensmest via het
voer. Praktijk-oderzoek varkenshoulderij. June 1996. Rosmalen, the Netherlands.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/littertreatlitter2feed-130523055853-phpapp01/85/Littertreat-litter2-feed-58-320.jpg)
![31. Hendriks, J.G.L., and M.G.M. Vrielink. 1997. Reducing the emission from pig
houses by adding or producing organic acids in pig slurry. p. 493–501. In Proc. of
the Int. Symp. on Ammonia and Odour Emissions from Animal Production,
Vinkeloord, the Netherlands. 6–10 Oct. 1997. NVTL, Rosmalen, the Netherlands.
32. Hoeskma, P., N. Verdoes, and G.J. Monteny. 1993. Two options for manure
treatment to reduce ammonia volatilisation from pig housing. p. 301–306. In
European Assoc. for Animal Prod. Publ. 69. EAAP, Wageningen, the
Netherlands.
33. Hollenback, R.C. 1971. Manure odour abatement using hydrogen peroxide. Rep.
no. 5638-R. Food Machinery Corp., Princeton, NJ.
34. Husted, S., L.S. Jensen, and S.S. Jorgensen. 1991. Reducing ammonia loss
from cattle slurry by the use of acidifying additives: The role of the buffer system.
J. Sci. Food Agric. 57:335–349.[ISI]
35. Johnston, N.L., C.L. Quarles, D.J. Fagerberg, and D.D. Caveny. 1981.
Evaluation of yucca saponin on performance and ammonia suppression. Poul.
Sci. 60:2289–2295.[ISI]
36. Jutras, P.J., C. Weil, D. Martin, and R.D. Richard. 1980. Progress in the control
of swine odours with ozone. Paper no. 80-412. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph,
MI.
37. Kemme, P.A., A.W. Jongloed, B.M. Dellaert, and F. Krol-Kramer. 1993. The use
of Yucca schidigera extract as a `urease inhibitor' in pig slurry. p. 330–335. In
Proc. of the 1st Int. Symp. on Nitrogen Flow in Pig Production and Environ.
Consequenses, Wageningen, the Netherlands. 8–11 June 1993. EAAP Publ. no.
69. PUDOC, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
38. Kibble, W.H., C.W. Raleigh, and J.A. Sheperd. 1972. Hydrogen peroxide for
industrial pollution control. In Proc. of the 27th Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue
Univ., Lafayette, IN. Purdue Univ. Publ., Lafayette, IN.
39. Krieger, R., J. Hartung, and A. Pfeiffer. 1993. Experiments with feed additives to
reduce ammonia emmisions from pig fattening houses—Preliminary results. p.
295–300. In Proc. of the 1st Int. Symp. on Nitrogen Flow in Pig Production and
Environ. Consequenses, Wageningen, the Netherlands. 8–11 June 1993. EAAP
Publ. no. 69. PUDOC, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
40. Kroodsma, W., and N.W.M. Ogink. 1997. Volatile emissions from cow cubicle
houses and its reduction by immersion of the slats with acidified slurry. p. 475–
483. In Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Ammonia and Odour Emissions from Animal
Production, Vinkeloord, the Netherlands. 6–10 Oct. 1997. NVTL, Rosmalen, the
Netherlands.
41. Lauer, D.A., D.R. Bouldin, and S.D. Klaususner. 1976. Ammonia volatilization
from dairy manure spread on the soil surface. J. Environ. Qual. 5:131–141.[ISI]
42. Liao, C.M., and D.S. Bundy. 1994. Bacteria additives to the changes in gaseous
mass-transfer from stored swine manure. J. Environ. Sci. Health. 296:1219–
1249.
43. MacKenzie, A.F., and J.S. Tomar. 1987. Effect of added monocalcium phosphate
monohydrate and aeration on nitrogen retention by liquid hog manure. Can. J.
Soil. Sci. 67:687–692.[ISI]
44. Mackie, R.I. 1994. Microbial production of odor components. p. 18–19. In Proc. of
Int. Round Table on Swine Odor Control, Ames, IA. 13–15 June 1994. Iowa State
Univ. Publ., Ames.
45. Mackie, R.T., P.G. Stroot, and V.H. Varel. 1998. Biochemical identification and
biological origin of key odor components in livestock waste. J. Anim. Sci.
76:1331–1342.[Abstract/Free Full Text]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/littertreatlitter2feed-130523055853-phpapp01/85/Littertreat-litter2-feed-59-320.jpg)
![46. Mader, J.R., and M.C. Brumm. 1987. Effect of feeding sarsaponin in cattle and
swine diets. J. Anim. Sci. 65:9–15.[ISI][Medline]
47. Martinez, J., J. Jolivent, F. Guiziou, and G. Langeoire. 1997. Ammonia emissions
from pig slurries. Evaluation of acidification and the use of additives to reduce
losses. p. 475–483. In Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Ammonia and Odour Emissions
from Animal Production, Vinkeloord, the Netherlands. 6–10 Oct. 1997. NVTL,
Rosmalen, the Netherlands.
48. Miner, J.R., and R.S. Stroh. 1976. Controlling feedlot surface emmision rates by
application of commercial products. Trans. ASAE 19:533–538.[ISI]
49. Misselbrook, T.H., C.R. Clarkson, and B.F. Pain. 1993. Relationship between
concentration and intensity of odours for pig slurry and broiler houses. J. Agric.
Eng. Res. 55:163–169.[ISI]
50. Moore, P.A., Jr., T.C. Daniel, D.R. Edwards, and D.M. Miller. 1995. Effects of
chemical amendments on ammonia volatilization from poultry litter. J. Environ.
Qual. 24:293–300.[ISI]
51. Muck, R.E., and T.S. Steenhuis. 1982. Nitrogen losses from manure storage.
Agric. Manure 4:41–54.
52. Ogink, N.W.M., and W. Kroodsma. 1996. Reduction of ammonia emissions from
a cow cubical house by flushing with water or a formalin solution. J. Agric. Eng.
Res. 53:23–50.
53. O'Halloran, L.P., and A. Sigrest. 1993. Influence of incubating monocalcium
phosphate with liquid hog manure on inorganic phosphorous and phosphourous
availability in two Quebec soils. Can. J. Soil. Sci. 73:371–379.[ISI]
54. O'Neill, D.H., and V.R. Phillips. 1991. A review of the control of odour nuisance
from livestock buildings. Part 1: Influence of the techniques for managing waste
within the building. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 50:1–10.[ISI]
55. Pain, B.F., R.B. Thompson, L.C.N. De La Cremer, and L. Ten Holte. 1987. The
use of additives in livestock slurries to improve their flow properties, conserve
nitrogen and reduce odours. p. 229–246. In Van Der Meer et al. (ed.)
Development in plant soil sciences. Animal manure on grassland and fodder
crops. Fertiliser or waste? Martius Nijhoff Publ., Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
56. Patni, N.K. 1992. Effectiveness of manure additives. Report for Ontario pork
producers. The Centre for Food and Animal Res., Research Branch, Agriculture
Canada, Central Exp. Farm, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
57. Ritter, W.F. 1981. Chemical and biochemical odour control of livestock wastes: A
review. Can. Agric. Eng. 23:1–4.[ISI]
58. Ritter, W.F., N.E. Collins, and R.P. Eastburn. 1975. Chemical treatment of liquid
dairy manure to reduce malodours. p. 381–384. In Managing Livestock Manure,
Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Livestock Manure. Publ. PROC-275. Am. Soc. Agric.
Eng., St. Joseph, MI.
59. Safley, L.M., D.W. Nelson, and P.W. Westerman. 1983. Conserving manurial
nitrogen. Trans. ASAE 26:1166–1170.[ISI]
60. Schaefer, J. 1977. Sampling, characterisation and analysis of malodours. Agric.
Eng. Res. 3:121–127.
61. Smith, K., A. Drysdale, and D. Saville. 1980. An investigation into the
effectiveness of some odour control treatments in stored pig manure. Project
Rep. 24. New Zealand Agric. Eng. Inst., Lincon College, Canterbury, New
Zealand.
62. Spoelstra, S.F. 1980. Origin of objectionable odorous compounds in piggery
manure and the possibility of applying indicator components for studying odour
development. Agric. Environ. 5:241–260.[ISI]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/littertreatlitter2feed-130523055853-phpapp01/85/Littertreat-litter2-feed-60-320.jpg)
![63. Stevens, R.J., R.J. Laughlin, and J.P. Frost. 1989. Effect of acidification with
sulphuric acid on the volatilisation of ammonia from cow and pig slurries. J. Agric.
Sci. 113:389–395.[ISI]
64. Turner, C., and C.H. Burton. 1997. The inactivation of viruses in pig slurries: A
review. Bioresour. Technol. 61:9–20.[ISI]
65. Varel, V., H. Nieenaber, and B. Byrnes. 1997. Urease Inhibitors reduce ammonia
emmssion from Poultry Litter. p. 721–728. In Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Ammonia
and Odour Emissions from Animal Production, Vinkeloord, the Netherlands. 6–10
Oct. 1997. NVTL, Rosmalen, the Netherlands.
66. Warburton, D.J., J.N. Scarborough, D.L. Day, A.J. Muehling, S.E. Curtis, and
A.H. Jensen. 1980. Evaluation of commercial products for odour control and
solids reduction of liquid swine manure. p. 309–313. In Livestock waste: A
renewable resource. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.
67. Watkins, B.D., S.M. Hengemuehle, H.L. Person, M. Yokoyama, and S.J. Masten.
1997. Ozonation of swine manure wastes to control odors and reduce the
concentrations of pathogens and toxic fermentation metabolites. Ozone Sci. Eng.
19:425–437.[ISI]
68. Williams, A.G. 1983. Organic acids, biochemical oxygen demand and chemical
oxygen demand in the soluble fraction of piggery slurry. J. Sci. Food. Agric.
34:212–220.[ISI][Medline]
69. Williams, A.G. 1984. Indicators of piggery slurry odour offensiveness. Agric.
Manure 10:15–36.
70. Witter, E. 1991. Use of ClCa2 to decrease ammonia volatilisation after application
of fresh and anaerobic chicken slurry to soil. J. Soil Sci. 423:369–380.
71. Woestyne, M.V., and W. Verstraete. 1995. Biotechnology in the treatment of
animal manure. p. 311–327. In Biotechnology in animal feeds and animal
feeding. VCH Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Weinhiem, Germany.
72. Zhu, J., D.S. Bundy, L. Xiwei, and N. Rashid. 1997a. The hindrance in the
development of pit additive products for swine manure odor control—A review. J.
Environ. Sci. Health. A 32:2429–2448.[ISI]
73. Zhu, J., D.S. Bundy, L. Xiwei, and N. Rashid. 1997c. A procedure and its
application in evaluating pit additives for odor control. Can. Agric. Eng. 39:207–
214.[ISI]
74. Zhu, J., and L.D. Jacobson. 1999. Correlating microbes to major odorous
compounds in swine manure. J. Environ. Qual. 28:737–744.[ISI]
75. Zhu, J., G.L. Riskowski, and M. Torremorell. 1999. Volatile fatty acids as odour
indicators in swine manure—A critical review. Trans. ASAE 42:175–182.[ISI]
76. Bagley, C.P. 1991. Alternative feed sources for beef cattle. MS Cattle Bus.
37(10):55.
77. Bagley, C.P., W.B. Burdine, Jr., and R.R. Evans. 1994. Intake and performance
of beef
78. heifers feed broiler litter and soybean hull supplements. J. Anim. Sci. 77(Suppl.
l):381.
79. Beede, D.K. 1992. Preventing milk fever. Feed Mgmt. 43(6):28.
80. Brosh, A., Z. Holzer, Y. Aharoni, and D. Levy. 1993. Intake, rumen volume,
retention time, and digestibility of diets based on poultry litter and wheat straw in
beef cows before and after calving. J. Agric. Sci. 121:103.
81. Burdine, W.B., Jr., C.P. Bagley, and R.R. Evans. 1993. Weanling heifer
performance on
82. chicken litter supplements. Livestock Day Rep. MAFES Bull. 243:24.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/littertreatlitter2feed-130523055853-phpapp01/85/Littertreat-litter2-feed-61-320.jpg)
Littertreat litter2 feed
- 1. LITTERTREAT PLT (POULTRY LITTER TREATMENT) 1. ETHICS AND STATUTORY REGULATIONS Using adequately processed animal waste in animal feed may not be esthetically pleasing but it is safe, nutritionally valid, and environmentally sound. Recycled animal waste, such as processed chicken manure and litter, has been used as a feed ingredient for almost 40 years. This animal waste contains large amounts of protein, fiber, and minerals, and has been deliberately mixed into animal feed for these nutrients. Prior to 1967, the use of poultry litter as cattle feed was unregulated but that year the FDA issued a policy statement that poultry litter offered in interstate commerce as animal feed was adulterated effectively banning the practice. In 1980, FDA reversed this policy and passed regulation of litter to the states. In December 2003, in response to a the detection of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease)in a cow in the state of Washington, the FDA announced plans to put in place a poultry litter ban. Because poultry litter can contain recycled cattle proteins as either spilled feed or feed that has passed through the avian gut, the FDA was concerned that feeding litter would be a pathway for spreading mad cow disease. In 2004, FDA decided to take a more comprehensive approach to BSE that would remove the most infectious proteins from all animal feeds. The FDA decided at this point that a litter ban was unnecessary in part based on comments by the North American Rendering Industry (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Feb03/020603/8004e16b.html). In 2005, the FDA published a proposed rule that did not include a litter ban and in 2008 the final rule did not include the ban either.
- 2. 2. CITATIONS: 1. Poultry litter has been extensively used as a feed ingredient for ruminant animals and a number of studies pertaining to its feed use were reviewed by Bhattacharya and Taylor (1975). 2. Broiler litter substituted in high-grain diets resulted in a reduction in daily gains and a lower feed conversion ratio. Using a lower-energy-based diet, Cross and Jenny found gains of feedlot steers were similar between cattle fed diets containing corn silage with either 0, 10, or 30 percent broiler litter substituted for corn silage. Several other recent studies have demonstrated the potential use of broiler litter in livestock diets. In 1994 McCaskey et al. reported that beef steer gains were 2.53 pounds per day on a concentrate diet as compared with 2.12 pounds per day on a diet of 50 percent broiler litter and 50 percent corn. Based on animal performance and current feed prices, a producer could afford to pay up to $123 per ton for the 50 percent broiler litter-50 percent corn diet. Diets containing broiler litter can produce acceptable levels of performance by beef cattle. However, raw broiler litter needs to be processed to ensure its safety from potentially harmful pathogens. Processing can be achieved by moderate heat, either during the ensiling process or by deep stacking or pelleting the broiler litter. (http://poultry.msstate.edu/extension/pdf/broiler_litter_feed_operations.pdf) 3. Example of how to mix a high yielder home-made concentrate Nutrient % Maize germ 66 Cotton seed cake 20 Poultry litter 8 Fish meal 4 Maclick super 2 Total 100 (http://www.infonet-biovision.org/default/ct/287/animalKeeping) 4. Elam et al. (1954) reported that chick growth increased when 17.6 ml of a filtered suspension of their litter (autoclaved for 15 min at 15 psi and 121–
- 3. 125°C) was added per kg of their conventional feed. This effect was equivalent to the addition of fish solubles. In the most recent report of the CAST (1978) it is stated that already in 1908, Henry reported on manure refeeding experiments of the late 1800s and that Henry and Morris in 1920 recommended feeding cattle manure to pigs. (http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/X6518E/X6518E02.htm) 5. Based on the results of several other experiments, the industrial production of pelleted cattle ration, using 40% dried broiler litter of standard quality (from a three-million broiler farm), was established by the author (Müller et al., 1968) in 1967. The composition of the pelleted formula was as follows: Ingredients % Broiler litter 40.0 Cereal grain and milling by-products 50.0 Molasses 8.8 Mineral/vitamin supplement 1.2 A large-scale application of this formula on the one hand and directly-fed dehydrated broiler litter on the other, was carried out as a part of a comprehensive extension programme of the Czechoslovak Ministry of Agriculture and Nutrition on 204 farms holding 21,065 head of cattle in 12 districts. Daily live weight gains ranged from 0.95 to 1.25 kg according to the farm, with a farm average of 1.12 kg (Anon., 1968). (http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/X6518E/X6518E02.htm) 6. Quisenberry and Bradley (1969) found that the overall performance of laying hens on diets containing 10 and 20% of untreated litter and manure was generally better than that of the controls when the diets were properly balanced in protein and energy.
- 4. DRIED LAYER MANURE IN POULTRY FEEDS Michigan scientists Flegal and collaborators (1969, 1971a, 1971b, 1972) fed laying hens rations containing 10, 20, 30 and 40% dried layer manure (DLM) and balanced in protein, calcium and phosphorus. Egg production (with the exception of layers fed 10% DLM), feed efficiency, and weight gain fell as the proportion of DLM in the ration increased. Feed costs declined with increased proportions of DLM. Nesheim (1972) compared four least-cost rations, two of them using 22.5% DLM; their composition and results are given in Table 58. No significant differences in egg production and egg weight were observed. Some variations in feed consumption were apparently attributable to a lower energy content in the wheat-bran and DLM diets. The amount of faecal dry matter excreted per hen per day was considerably greater for birds fed DLM than for those of the control group. Apparently only a small portion of DLM was utilized by the hen. In a completely closed, continuous-recycling experiment on a large number of laying hens, pullets 20 weeks old were fed either 0, 12.5 or 25% dehydrated layer manure (DLM) for 412 consecutive days. Manure was thus returned to the same birds 31 times. The results are given in Table 59. The incorporation of 12.5 or 25% DLM affected neither the production parameters, nor the quality, flavour or taste of eggs or of meat produced by hens fed on any of the tested diets. The chemical composition of DPW monitored from DLM-fed groups for 31 cycles showed no substantial changes (see Table 60). However, some accumulation of mineral matter and fibre took place during later cycles. (http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/X6518E/X6518E03.htm)
- 5. EXPERIMENTS WITH FEEDING POULTRY LITTER TO BEEF CATTLE Reference Class of cattle Treatment/nature of poultry litter, feeding, etc. Litter in total ration % Mean daily gain (g) Feed/ gain Remarks Noland et al., 1955 Yearling steers Control - 970 10.8 Treatments equated for N Broiler litter (cane bagasse) 18 .8 820 13.0 Control - 840 14.0 Broiler litter (cane bagasse) 18.8 600 19.6 Control - 940 15.3 Treatments equated for N and energy Broiler litter (cane bagasse) 18.8 870 19.5 Southwell et al., 1958 Yearling steers (140 days) Control - 970 11.3 50% supplemental protein Broiler litter (ground maize cobs) 9.9 940 12.1 Broiler litter 19.8 930 12.2 Southwell et al., 1958 Steers (18– 20 months) Control (maize) - All similar Better than 30% litter Broiler litter 15.0 " " Broiler litter 30.0 " " Fontenot et al., 1964 Steers (382 kg) Control - 1300 11.2 Carcass grades for wood shaving litter slightly lower Broiler litter (groundnuts) 25.0 1280 10.1 Broiler litter (wood shavings) 25.0 1200 10.8 Drake et al., 1965 Steers (375 kg) Control - 1070 9.8 No significantarcass differences Broiler litter (maize, molasses, soybean) 40.0 910 13.0 " " Broiler litter (ground hulls) 40.0 960 12.4 " " Broiler litter 40.0 1020 12.0 " "
- 6. (maize cobs) Broiler litter (grass, hay) 40.0 920 12.2 " " Broiler litter (soybean hulls) 40.0 950 12.4 " " Mixture of above Drake et al., 1965 Steers (375 kg) Control - 1210 8.4 No significant carcass differences Broiler litter (maize, molasses, soybean) 25.0 1000 11.0 " " Broiler litter (ground hulls) 25.0 1010 10.5 " " Broiler litter (maize cobs) 25.0 1060 10.7 " " Broiler litter (grass, hay) 25.0 940 10.0 " " Broiler litter (soybean hulls) 25.0 1000 10.6 " " Stonestreet, et al., 1966 Crossbred steers (334 kg) Control (50% N from SBM) - 840 litter/ kg/gain Dressing % 58.3 Broiler litter (50% dig. N from litter) 2.8 kg/ day 850 1.5 58.8 Broiler litter (50% dig. N from) litter + energy) 2.8 kg/day 968 1.3 60.2 Broiler litter 5.0 kg/day 850 2.7 58.2 Fontenot et al., 1966 Yearling steers (123 days) Control - 1300 11.2 Carcass % 5 Broiler litter (peanut hulls) 23.1 1280 10.1 5 Broiler litter (wood shavings) 23.1 1200 10.8 Fontenot et al., 1966 Yearling steers (123 days) Control - 1210 8.4 All rations equated for N and fibre Broiler litter (peanut hulls) 22.7 1000 11.0 Broiler litter (corn cobs) 22.6 1010 10.5 Broiler litter (chopped hay) 22.8 1060 10.7 Broiler litter (soybean hulls) 22.3 940 10.0 Control - 1070 9.8 All steers fed 1.0kg
- 7. Broiler litter (peanut hulls) 36.6 910 13.0 hay/hd/day Broiler litter (corn cobs) 36.6 960 12.4 " " Broiler litter (chopped hay) 36.7 1020 12.0 " " Broiler litter (soybean hulls) 36.5 920 12.2 " " Ray and Cate, 1966 Yearling Steers Control 25.0 932 8.84 Broiler litter (cottonseed hulls) 25.0 1477 7.39 Müller et al., 1968 Steers (247 kg) Broiler litter + minerals + Vitamins A, D 4.5 kg/head/day 1330 8.7 Energy balance by maize grain and potato flakes Steers (235 kg) Broiler litter + minerals + Vitamins A, D 5.5 kg/head/day 980 11.9 Steers (220 kg) Broiler litter (no mineral balance) 6.0 kg/head/day 730 13.9 Broiler litter + minerals + Vitamins A, D 6.0 kg/headday 1140 12.3 Müller et al., 1968 Steers (185 kg) Broiler litter (no mineral balance) 3.5 kg/head/day 620 12.7 Energy balance by maize grain and potato flakes Broiler litter + minerals + Vitamins A, D 3.5 kg/head/day 860 9.2 Müller et al., 1968 Steers (221 kg) Broiler litter(wood shavings) 40.0 1460 7.52 Complete pelleted formula: Steers (189 kg) Broiler litter (wood shavings) 40.0 1420 7.14 50% grain 8.8% molasses Steers (216 kg) Broiler litter (wood shavings) 40.0 1380 7.63 40% litter 1.2% supplement Müller and Dřevjaný, 1968 Holstein steers (283 kg) (154 days) Control forage + 1.5 kg concentrate - 1120 n.a. Litter analysis (% DM): Broiler litter (wood shavings) 30.0 1200 7.8 crude protein 22.4; Broiler litter (wood shavings) 40.0 1220 8.1 ether extract 2.7; Broiler litter (wood shavings) 50.0 1210 9.7 crude fibre 18.9; Broiler litter 60.0 1080 9.8 ash 12.7; Ca 1.82;
- 8. (wood shavings) Broiler litter (wood shavings) 70.0 830 10.2 P 1.57. Moisture of litter was 16.9%; Balancing ingredients: wheat flour, feed grain; dry potato flakes; sugar, sugar beet molasses; urea in 30, 40, and 50% litter. Kumanov et al., 1969 Steers (215 kg) Control 40.0 1260 - Dig. N. 74.91% Dig. DM 78.11% Broiler litter (meal) 40.0 980 - Dig. N. 64.75% OMD's 75.63% Muftidet al., 1969 b Blackpied cattle (130– 140 kg) Broiler litter (wood shavings) 72.4 888 - Saved 30–40% in feed costs over 135 days Szelényinéet al., 1969 Young bulls Broiler litter (chopped straw base) 25.0 1220 - Borgioli and Tocchini, 1969 Chianina cattle (320 kg) Control - 1315 Better No significant Broiler litter (wood shavings) 25.0 1239 - carcass differences Lízal and Braun, 1969 Bulls Control - - - (250-300 kg) Broiler litter (sawdust) 40.0 - - Retained 11.15 g Broiler litter (wood shavings) 40.0 - - N more than control Retained 6.30 g N more than control Borgioli and Tocchini, 1969a, b Steers (320 kg) Control - 1239 7.55 No difference in Poultry litter 25.0 1315 6.35 carcass El-Sabban et al., 1970 SBM control - 1220 10.3 Autoclaved layer excreta 4.85 1220 10.0 Dried layer excreta 4.89 1150 10.8 Urea control - 1430 8.2 Bucholtz et al., 1971 Yearling steers (134 days) SBM control - 1520 7.0 Urea control - 1410 7.2 All supplemental protein from 32.0 1250 10.4
- 9. dried layer excreta (DPW) Supplemental protein from 1/2 DPW - 1/2 urea 10.5 1310 8.1 Supplemental protein from 1/2 DPW - 1/2 urea 9.3 1370 7.3 Yankov et al., 1971 Steers (209 kg) Broiler litter (maize cobs) 45.0 1467 5.08 Broiler litter (sunflower bushes) 45.0 1161 5.84 Paliev et al., 1971 Steers Broiler litter (sawdust) 49.0 1087 6.24 Broiler litter (sawdust) 44.0 1152 6.01 Meregalliet al., 1971 Steers (260 kg) Control - 1238 7.26 Carcass % 58.6 Poultry litter (dried) 25.0 1250 7.83 58.7 Szelényiné et al., 1971 Young bulls Control - 1250 - Broiler litter (chopped straw base) 25.0 920 - Fontenot and Webb, 1971 Yearling Steers (121 days) Control - 730 13.1 Broiler litter 25.0 670 13.4 Broiler litter 50.0 370 19.4 Velloso et al., 1971 Crossbred bullocks (287 kg) Control - 903 - Broiler litter (maize silage + ears) 35.0 720 - Broiler litter (ground maize cob base) 45.0 814 - Sommer and Pelech, 1971 Male cattle (306-328 kg) Control - 1142 4.08 No significant carcass differencesBroiler litter (sawdust + straw bases) n.a. 936 4.00 Rossi and Cosseddu, 1972 Crossbred bulls (224 kg) Broiler litter 38.0 1430 6.51 Felkl et al., 1972 Male and female Large number of experiments with 60.0 From 879 to n.a. Energy was balanced by maize
- 10. cattle (160- 417 kg) broiler litter including carcass evaluations, etc. 1092 silage, sugar beet pulp and cereal grain meal Webb et al., 1973 Yearling steers (134 days) Control - 1270 8.30 10% molasses Treatments equated for TDN 25% broiler manure 25.0 1040 9.23 25% broiler manure 25.0 1030 9.65 Batsman, 1973 Simmental bulls (16 months) Control - 865 - No significant Broiler litter n.a. 896 - carcass differences Broiler litter n.a. 870 - " " Bosman, 1973 Calves (7 months) Control - 1161 6.48 Cattle on 40% litter had carcasses of lower grade with less fat covering than other groups Broiler litter (maize meal) 20.0 1117 6.89 Broiler litter (lucerne meal) 40.0 900 7.71 Denisov et al., 1973 Bull calves (6 months) Control - 892 9.1 25.0 822 8.9 Broiler litter (straw and chaff) 40.0 757 9.7 Broiler litter (wood shavings base) 25.0 600 12.3 Batsman, 1973 Bull calves (7 months) Control - 708 - No significant Broiler litter n.a. 745 - carcass differences Broiler litter n.a. 710 - " " Broiler litter n.a. 721 - " " Müller, 1969 (cit. 1974) Malaysian cross-bred Bostaurus +indicus (87.8 and 65.0 kg respectively) Dehydrated broiler litter (wood shavings) 45.0 760 - (Estim. 50-75% Bostaurus) Dehydrated broiler litter (wood shavings) 45.0 600 - (Estim. less than 50% Bostaurus) 464 and 362 kg final weight respectively Müller, 1974 Malaysia cross-bred Bostaurus and indicus (54–61 kg) Poultry litter (ensiled) 35–40 740 7.2 Dressing 58-61% Poultry litter (ensiled) 35–40 630 6.5 Aranjó and Perez- Buriel, 1976 Native Zebu Pasture (Digitaria decumbens) - 388 - Carcass hot (kg) % 152 49.9
- 11. bulls Pasture + litter (maize cobs) 20.0 573 - 192 53.6 (273 kg) Pasture + litter (groundnut hulls) 20.0 614 - 175 55.6 (180 days) Pasture + litter (rice hulls) 20.0 510 - 167 53.0 Cullison et al., 1976a Steer calves (152.5 days) Control - 1200 7.3 Supplemental N from broiler excreta 50% supplemental N 5.8 1180 7.5 100% supplemental N 13.0 1110 7.9 Cullison et al., 1976b Steer calves (145 days) Dressing Abscessed liver % Positive control - 1130 7.1 60.9 70.0 Broiler litter (wood shavings) 20.0 1160 7.5 60.8 55.0 Broiler litter (peanut hulls) 19.5 1080 8.0 61.2 35.0 Dried layer excreta 12.7 900 9.3 60.8 35.0 Negative control - 1070 7.5 60.3 21.1 McClure et al., 1978 Cross-bred heifers (251–256 kg) Maize silage - 809 - Dressing % 58.1 Maize silage + SBM - 941 - 60.0 Maize silage + litter about 50% 1014 - 60.7 Maize silage + litter + SBM 30% litter in silage about 50 % 1032 - 59.9
- 12. EFFECT OF FEEDING BROILER LITTER ON PERFORMANCE OF FINISHING STEERS Broiler litter in ration 1 (% DM) Critical nutrients in complete ration (%) Performance over 154 days Crude protein TDN Ash Crude fibre Average LWG/day (kg) Feed/gain (kg) 0 3 66 10.3 21.0 1.12 n.a. 30 15.0 76 7.8 10.0 1.20 7.8 40 15.0 74 7.9 11.3 1.22 8.1 50 15.0 73 7.9 12.6 1.21 9.7 60 15.5 71 8.7 13.7 1.08 9.8 70 17.3 65 9.7 15.1 0.83 10.2 Source: Müller and Dřevjaný, 1968. 1 Broiler litter analysis (% DM): crude protein = 22.4; true protein 12.2; ether extract = 2.7; crude fibre = 18.9; ash = 12.7;Ca = 1.82; P = 1.57; Moisture of litter = 16.9%‰. All broiler—litter—based rations were pelleted (8 mm pellets). 2 Balancing ingredients: wheat flour, feed grade; dry potato flakes; sugar, sugarbeet molasses. Urea was used to make up crude protein to 15% in rations with 30, 40 and 50%. Barley straw was used as a source of “long fibre” as libitum. 3 Control was fed green forage ad libitum and 1.5 kg of conventional feed concentrate with limited access to pasture; feed efficiency data for the control were therefore not established. CATTLE FED ON POULTRY WASTES: CARCASS QUALITY Parameters Positive control Broiler litter (wood shavings) 22.5% CP 2 Broiler litter (peanut hulls) 24.9 % CP 2 Dried layer manure 40.4% CP 2 Negative control Crude protein of diets (%) 11.5 11.0 11.6 11.9 8.9 Daily gain/head (kg) 1.13 1.16 1.08 0.90 1.07 Feed/gain (kg) 7.07 7.49 7.97 9.33 7.49 Dressing (%) 60.9 60.8 61.2 60.8 60.3 Abscessed liver (%) 70.0 55.0 35.0 35.0 21.1 Flavour intensity 1 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 Flavour desirability 1 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 Tenderness 1 3.6 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.9 Juiciness 1 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 Composite grade 1 3.4 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.5 1 Range 1 (minimum desirability) through 5 (maximum desirability). 2 Crude protein content in poultry waste. Source: Cullision et al., 1976.
- 13. MILK PRODUCTION OF COWS FED RATIONS CONTAINING DPE (DRIED POULTRY EXCRETA) Reference Item Diets Control 1 DPE Bull and Reid, 1971 Milk (kg/day) Mean 21.19 17.81 Thomas et al., 1972 19.60 20.60 Kneale and Garstang, 1975 14.80 15.90 17.10 15.40 18.17 17.42 Bull and Reid, 1971 Milk fat(%) 3.68 3.92 Thomas et al., 1972 3.30 3.87 Kneale and Garstang, 1975 3.58 3.47 Smith et al., 1976 3.70 3.60 Mean 3.57 3.72 Bull and Reid, 1971 Milk, total solids (%) 12.40 12.56 11.80 11.85 Mean 12.10 12.21 Smith et al., 1976 Fluid milk/kg dry feed 0.83 0.81 Fat-corrected milk/kg TDN 1.46 1.55 1 Supplemented with conventional feeds. Source: Smith, 1977.
- 14. PERFORMANCE OF LAYERS ON VARIOUS RATIONS Parameter Unit Formula Control Bran DLM DLM Composition of rations: Maize % 64.5 49.6 52.5 48.0 Dried layer manure % - - 22.5 22.5 Wheat bran % - 19.8 - - Fat % 1.5 3.7 3.7 1.5 Soybean meal (49%) % 17.0 11.5 11.5 17.0 Other ingredients % 17.0 15.4 9.8 11.0 Nutrient content: Crude protein % 15.3 13.9 13.9 15.4 Metabolizable energy Mcal/kg 2.86 2.64 2.64 2.44 Performance: Egg production % 92.5 91.5 91.7 89.0 Egg weight g 57.7 57.6 57.7 58.1 Feed/hen/day g 103.8 112.2 114.3 118.1 Feed/dozen eggs kg 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 Body weight gain g 170 158 126 145 Faecal dry matter: Feed consumed % 25.7 32.6 34.6 38.3 Feed DM consumed % 28.4 35.2 37.7 42.0 Amount/hen/day % 26.6 36.5 39.5 45.2 Metabolizable energy: Hen/day intake Kcal/kg 297 296 302 289 Source: Nesheim, 1972. RECYCLED DLM: INFLUENCE ON EGG PRODUCTION, FEED EFFICIENCY AND TOTAL MORTALITY Diet Hen housed (%) Production Hen day (%) Feed/bird/day (g) Feed/doz eggs (kg) Mortality (%) Control 59.6 64.4 96.4 2.41 7.9 12.5% DIM 62.4 67.8 95.1 2.22 6.9 25.0% DIM 59.2 65.0 107.8 3.00 7.7 Source: Flegal et al., 1972.
- 15. PROXIMATE ANALYSES OF MANURE FROM HENS FED THEIR OWN MANURE (on DM) Level of DLM fed 12.5% 25% Cycles (average values) 1–10 11–20 21–31 1–10 11–20 21–31 CP 32.8 24.8 26.6 32.9 24.2 25.0 Corrected CP 12.6 11.9 13.3 12.3 11.5 12.4 Ether extract 1.5 2.2 2.4 1.8 1.8 2.0 Crude fibre 11.3 12.6 13.2 11.8 12.4 12.1 Ash 28.6 31.0 29.3 29.3 33.0 34.5 Ca 8.9 10.3 8.5 8.7 11.5 10.5 P 2.5 3.4 3.2 2.6 3.4 3.4 Source: Flegal et al., 1972. UTILIZATION OF DPM TO FEED GROWING CHICKS AND BROILERS DPM in diet (%) 0 5 10 15 20 20 (+ Fat) Data at 4 weeks (Leghorns) Avg. body weight (g) 269 270 273 278 262 Feed efficiency 2.39 2.47 2.51 2.62 2.72 Data at 4 weeks (Broilers) Avg. body weight (g) 606 607 569 571 623 Feed efficiency 1.82 1.85 1.94 2.05 1.92 Source: Flegal and Zindel (1970).
- 16. 3. PREAMBLE Poultry litter may include excreta, bedding, wasted feed and feathers. Bedding may consist of rice husk, wood shavings, sawdust, straw, peanut hulls or other fibrous materials. While most of the poultry litter is from broiler production, Layer in cages and Chicks grown in deep litter are also sources of litter. The litter may be from one crop of layers/broilers or accumulated over several crops of birds. The litter usually contains 20 to 25% moisture. In the last few decades livestock practices have evolved considerably. Highly integrated farms, notably in cattle, pig, and poultry production, have largely disappeared, replaced by intensive systems using confined rearing methods. The creation of large farms at the commercial level for raising domestic animals in large numbers such as cows, chickens, pigs and swine, has created an increased environmental concern over the animals' waste products created by such a large domestic production of animals. Typical environmental concerns, which are each related but different in results, include, among others, ground water and stream contamination from runoff at the waste sites and soil contamination, particularly for agricultural purposes, resulting from the large volume of waste. Therefore, animal manure has become a tremendous environmental problem throughout the world. Management of the large volumes of excreta produced from these systems has meant bedding is minimized and slatted floors are employed, allowing feces and urine to collect as slurry containing approximately 3 to 12% solids. As intensive farming methods have proven economically effective, many adverse effects of handling livestock wastes, particularly as slurry, have becomeevident. The main problems were summarized by Pain et al. (1987): (i)Ammonia volatilization. (ii) Offensive odor release. (iii)Handling problems due to the formation of crusts and sediments during storage. In addition, other issues, such as the pollution of watercourses via surface runoff and the spread of pathogens, are becoming ever-increasing concerns. The importance of all these problemsvaries according to the nature of the waste, concerns of the farmer, distance of neighbors, vulnerability of the surrounding environment, and current legislation.
- 17. LLiitttteerr ccoonnttaaiinnss eesssseennttiiaall nnuuttrriieennttss ffoorr aanniimmaall ggrroowwtthh aanndd ppeerrffoorrmmaannccee.. IItt aallssoo ccoonnttaaiinnss oorrggaanniicc mmaatttteerr tthhaatt iimmpprroovveess ffeeeedd cchhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss.. FFoorr bbootthh ooff tthhee aabboovvee nnaammeedd rreeaassoonnss,, tthhiiss ccaann bbee uusseedd aass aann aanniimmaall ffeeeeddiinngg ssttuuffff.. OOnnee ooff tthhee mmoosstt pprroommiissiinngg mmeetthhooddss ooff ddiissppoossaall ooff PPoouullttrryy LLiitttteerr,, iiss rreeccyycclliinngg aass aa lliivveessttoocckk ffeeeedd iinnggrreeddiieenntt oorr aass aann aaqquuaa ccuullttuurree ppoonndd wwaatteerr mmeeddiiuumm aaddddiittiivvee ffoorr pprroommoottiinngg tthhee ppllaannkkttoonn ggrroowwtthh aanndd ffoorr bbiiooggaass pprroodduuccttiioonn.. AAnniimmaall mmaannuurreess hhaavvee bbeeeenn aann iimmppoorrttaanntt oorrggaanniicc mmaannuurree ssoouurrccee ooff ffrreesshh wwaatteerr aaqquuaaccuullttuurree ffoorr ddeevveellooppiinngg aanndd mmaaiinnttaaiinniinngg PPllaannkkttoonn aanndd aass tthhee pprriinncciippaall mmaatteerriiaall ooff bbiiooggaass ffeerrmmeennttaattiioonn iinn rruurraall aarreeaass aanndd aallssoo aass aa mmaannuurree iinn aaggrriiccuullttuurraall ffaarrmmss ffoorr ssooiill eennrriicchhmmeenntt..
- 18. RRaabbbbiittss,, rraattss,, ppoouullttrryy aanndd ppiiggss aarree tthhee mmoosstt ttyyppiiccaall eexxaammpplleess bbeeccaauussee iinn ssppeecciiffiicc nnuuttrriittiioonnaall ssiittuuaattiioonnss tthheeyy ccoonnssuummee tthheeiirr oowwnn eexxccrreettaa iinn ssuubbssttaannttiiaall qquuaannttiittiieess ttoo mmeeeett tthheeiirr rreeqquuiirreemmeennttss ooff nnuuttrriieennttss mmiissssiinngg ffrroomm tthheeiirr ddiieettss.. PPiiggss ffrreeeellyy rrooaammiinngg iinn vviillllaaggeess lleeaavvee hhaarrddllyy aannyy ppoouullttrryy oorr ccaattttllee mmaannuurree uunnuuttiilliizzeedd,, eevveenn wwhheenn tthheeyy aarree ffuullllyy ffeedd oonn tthhee ““bbeesstt bbaallaanncceedd”” ddiieettss aaccccoorrddiinngg ttoo mmaann''ss vviieeww.. TThhiiss pphheennoommeennoonn iiss aattttrriibbuuttaabbllee ttoo tthhee aanniimmaallss iinnssttiinncctt ttoo sseeaarrcchh ffoorr nnuuttrriieennttss ccrreeaatteedd bbyy tthhee eennddooggeennoouuss ssyynntthheessiiss ooff tthhee eenntteerriicc mmiiccrroofflloorraa.. RReesseeaarrcchh oonn ffeeeeddiinngg ppoouullttrryy lliitttteerr hhaass bbeeeenn ccoonndduucctteedd ssiinnccee tthhee 11995500’’ss.. FFoolllloowwiinngg aa tthhoorroouugghh rreevviieeww ooff tthhee aavvaaiillaabbllee lliitteerraattuurree ccoonncceerrnniinngg tthhee uussee ooff ppoouullttrryy lliitttteerr iinn bbootthh bbeeeeff aanndd ddaaiirryy ccaattttllee ddiieettss,, tthheerree aappppeeaarrss ttoo bbee nnoo mmoorree hheeaalltthh rriisskkss ttoo aanniimmaallss oorr iinnddiirreeccttllyy ttoo hhuummaannss ffrroomm pprrooppeerrllyy pprroocceesssseedd bbrrooiilleerr lliitttteerr tthhaann ffrroomm aannyy ootthheerr ssoouurrccee ooff ccaattttllee ffeeeedd.. TThhee rruummeenn ((ssttoommaacchh)) ooff aa bbeeeeff aanniimmaall ddooeess aann eexxcceelllleenntt jjoobb ooff bbrreeaakkiinngg ddoowwnn aanndd ccoonnvveerrttiinngg bbrrooiilleerr lliitttteerr iinnttoo nnuuttrriieennttss,, wwhhiicchh ccaann tthheenn bbee aabbssoorrbbeedd aanndd uusseedd bbyy tthhee aanniimmaall..
- 19. Table 1: Typical Range of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium Values for Broiler Litter Adapted from VanDevender et al., 2000. Values are for 2,054 broiler litter samples analyzed by University of Arkansas Agricultural Diagnostics Lab from 1993 to 2000. Table 2: Litter nutrient analysis at Applied Broiler Research Unit during 9-flock growout Initial bedding material was 50/50 mix of rice hulls and pine shavings/sawdust. 2 Caked litter was removed after each flock, but samples were taken before cake removal. 3 Figures are averages of four 40 x 400' houses on the farm. Table 3 Composition of Poultry Manure %ge on DM Basis Nutrient Deep Litter Cage System Nitrogen %ge 1.22 1.63 P2O5 %ge 2.04 4.65 K20 %ge 1.65 2.10 S %ge 0.95 1.15 Zn ppm 164 433 Cu ppm 34 41 Fe ppm 2405 5200 Mn ppm 275 490
- 20. Table 4 Chemical composition of poultry waste from different sources on Dry Matter Basis Broiler Layer Deep Litter Cage droppings Deep Litter Cage Droppings CP 24 to 31 20 to 23 15 to 19 23 to 28 True Protein 15 to 17 10 to 12 NA 11.3 Crude Fibre 16 to 24 17 to 28 20 to 26 12 to 28 Ether Extract 03.3 1.21 to 1.66 0.73 0.9 to 2.0 Nitrogen Free Extract 29.5 30 to 37 38 28 to 38 Total Ash 15 21 to 29 28 to 29 21 to 28 ME Cattle Kcal/KgDM 2180 NA NA NA ME Poultry Kcal/KgDM NA 1150 NA NA Table 5 Mineral content of Poultry Waste on Dry Matter Basis Broiler Layer Deep Litter Cage droppings Ca 2.3 1.65 8.8 P 1.70 1.45 2.50 Mg 0.48 0.66 0.67 Na 0.54 0.40 0.94 K 2.04 1.40 2.33 Fe ppm 1414 3480 0.20 Cu ppm 267 20.50 150 Mn ppm 286 245 406 Zn ppm 275 47.50 463 Amino acid profile of the poultry litter is almost equal to that of Barley. Table 6 Composition of Poultry Manures compared to FYM Nutrient FYM Broiler Litter Layer Cage Droppings N 1.1 3.84-4.96 3.68-4.48 P as P2O5 1.33 4.25 6.25 Potassium as K2O 1.30 2.45 2.80 Sulfur 0.60 0.95 1.15 Zinc as Zn in ppm 58 275 463 Copper as Cu in ppm 10 267 150 Fe in ppm 2600 1414 2000 Mn in ppm 130 286 406
- 21. Table 7 pH, organic carbon content, and nutrient composition of poultry litter. Sample type Parameter Egg layer litter Broiler litter Organic C (%) 15.3(4.7) + 32.5 pH 8.1 6.4 Salts (dS/m) 7.2 7.0 Macronutrients (%) Nitrogen 3.3 4.1 Phosphorus 2.9 2.1 Potassium 3.6 2.7 Sulfur 1.0 0.73 Calcium 17.9 4.0 Magnesium 0.8 0.7 Micronutrients (ppm) Boron 42.7 33.5 Copper 163 163 Iron 2,040 3,254 Manganese 647 444 Molybdenum 10.7 6.2 Zn 403 383 + Value in parenthesis is inorganic C as calcium carbonate. Table 8 ESTIMATED PRODUCTION OF POULTRY WASTE (g DM/bird/day) Class of poultry Kind of waste Production Broiler manure 11.0 Broiler litter 18.6 Replacement bird manure 13.7 Replacement bird litter 27.3 Layer manure 32.9 Layer litter 65.8 Turkey litter 87.7
- 22. 444... CCCOOONNNCCCEEEPPPTTT OOOFFF LLLIIITTTTTTEEERRRTTTRRREEEAAATTT TTThhheee nnnooovvveeelll cccooonnnccceeepppttt iiisss tttooo tttrrreeeaaattt ttthhheee pppooouuullltttrrryyy llliiitttttteeerrr iiinnn sssiiitttuuu wwwiiittthhh BBBIIIOOOOOODDDOOONNNIIILLL tttooo eeellliiimmmiiinnnaaattteee ttthhheee ppprrrooobbbllleeemmmsss llliiikkkeee AAAmmmmmmooonnniiiaaa eeemmmiiissssssiiiooonnnsss,,, ffflllyyy aaannnddd mmmaaaggggggoootttsss,,, aaannnddd ttthhheeennn SSSuuubbbssseeeqqquuueeennntttlllyyy fffuuurrrttthhheeerrr tttrrreeeaaattt ttthhheee aaabbbooovvveee llliiitttttteeerrr tttrrreeeaaattteeeddd wwwiiittthhh BBBIIIOOOOOODDDOOONNNIIILLL aaattt ttthhheee FFFeeeeeeddd fffaaaccctttooorrryyy tttooo eeellliiimmmiiinnnaaattteee PPPaaattthhhooogggeeennnsss aaannnddd tttooo iiimmmppprrrooovvveee TTTDDDNNN aaannnddd tttooo rrreeeddduuuccceee AAANNNFFFsss sssooo aaasss ttthhheee rrreeesssuuullltttaaannnttt tttrrreeeaaattteeeddd llliiitttttteeerrr bbbeeecccooommmeeesss fffiiittt fffooorrr uuussseee iiinnn AAAnnniiimmmaaalll fffeeeeeedddsss aaasss fffeeeeeedddiiinnnggg ssstttuuuffffff rrreeeppplllaaaccciiinnnggg DDDOOORRRBBB aaannnddd RRRiiiccceee PPPooollliiissshhh pppaaarrrtttiiiaaallllllyyy
- 23. 5.1 AMMONIA EMISSIONS Livestock slurry is a valuable fertilizer source for crop production but its value is reduced over time by significant losses of nitrogen (N), attributed mainly to the volatilization of NH3 (Lauer et al., 1976; Pain et al., 1987; Hartung and Phillips, 1994). In addition to the economic loss, NH3 emission and subsequent deposition can be a major source of pollution, causing N enrichment, acidification of soils and surface waters, and the pollution of ground and surface waters with nitrates (Hartung, 1992; Sutton et al., 1995; Pain et al., 1998). In the housed environment, NH3 emissions can also adversely affect the health, performance, and welfare of both animals (Donham, 1990) and human attendants (Donham et al., 1977; Donham and Gustafason, 1982). During the last 30 years NH3 emissions in Europe have increased by more than 50% (ApSimon et al., 1987; Sutton et al., 1995). Intensification in livestock production has been identified as the primary contributor to this increase and is estimated to account for 80% of yearly emissions (Buijsman et al., 1987; Pain et al., 1998). Consequently, many European countries have implemented legal constraints on the spreading of livestock slurry (Burton, 1996), necessitating an increase in storage capacity. Storage of livestock slurry has been recognized as a major source of NH3 emissions (Hartung and Phillips, 1994), with reported N losses ranging from 3 to 60% of initial total N
- 24. (Muck and Steenhuis, 1982; Dewes et al., 1990). The concentration and type of N in livestock slurry varies according to animal species, diet, and age. Typically, livestock use less than 30% of N contained in their feed, with 50 to 80% of the remainder excreted in the urine and 20 to 50% excreted in the feces. Urea is the major nitrogenous component in urine, accounting for up to 97% of urinary N. The exception is poultry manure, where uric acid is excreted instead of urea. Urea is hydrolyzed by the enzyme urease, found in the feces, to ammonium (NH+ 4) and bicarbonate ions. Hydrolysis occurs rapidly, with complete conversion of urea N to NH+ 4 possible within a matter of hours, depending on environmental conditions (Muck and Richards, 1980; Beline et al., 1998). This ammonium equilibrates with ammonia (NH 3 ) which can be readily lost to air in a gaseous form. The urea (mammals) and uric acid (birds) in urine is rapidly hydrolyzed by enzymes present in the animal’s feces (Oenema et al., 2001). Fecal N typically consists of 50% protein N and 50% NH+ 4. Mineralization of fecal protein N mainly occurs through the activity of proteolytic and deaminative bacteria, initially hydrolyzing proteins to peptides and amino acids and finally by deamination to NH+ 4. This process occurs at a far slower rate than the hydrolysis of urea and is thought to be a relatively unimportant source of NH+ 4 where livestock slurry is stored for a short period of time (Muck and Steenhuis, 1982). However, where livestock slurry is stored for long periods, especially at higher temperatures, it becomes the dominant pathway for NH+ 4 production (Patni and Jui, 1991) In the housed environment, NH3emissions can also adversely affect the health, performance, and welfare of both animals (Donham, 1990) and human attendants (Donham et al., 1977; Donham and Gustafason, 1982). Thus, a substantial amount of ammonium can be formed within hours of urination, and this can be readily emitted to air from animal housing. Nitrous oxide (N 2 O) is formed from microbial processes of nitrification and denitrification that may occur when manure is stored or applied to land for crop production. Nitric oxide (NO) is released during nitrification in aerobic soils when manure or other fertilizer is applied. Once emitted, the NH 3 can be converted back to NH 4 + in the atmosphere, and this NH 4 + reacts with acids (e.g. nitric acid, sulfuric acid) to form aerosols with a diameter of less than 2.5 micometers (PM 2.5). These small particles are considered a health concern for humans and a contributor to smog formation. Removal of ammonium by deposition contributes to soil and water acidity and ecosystem overfertilization or eutrophication. Nitric oxide and N2 O are rapidly interconvereted in the atmosphere and are referred to jointly as NO x . Nitrous oxide diffuses from the troposphere into the stratosphere, where it can remain for hundreds of years contributing to global warming and stratospheric ozone depletion. A molecule of nitrous oxide has a global warming potential that is 296 times that of a molecule of CO2 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001).
- 25. A single molecule of ammonia or nitrous oxide once emitted to the environment can alter a wide array of biogeochemical processes as it is passed through various environmental reservoirs in a process known as the nitrogen cascade (Galloway et al., 2003). A single molecule of nitric oxide can continue regenerating in the stratosphere while sequentially destroying one ozone molecule after another. Likewise, as reactive nitrogen is passed through various environmental reservoirs a single atom can participate in a number of destructive processes before being converted back to N2 . For example, a single molecule of reactive nitrogen can contribute sequentially to decrease atmospheric visibility (increase smog), increase global warming, decrease stratospheric ozone, contribute to soil and water acidity, and increase hypoxia in fresh and subsequently coastal waters. World wide, more than half of the anthropogenic losses of reactive nitrogen to the air, and more than 70% of the ammonia losses, are estimated to derive from agricultural production (van Aardenne et al., 2001). About 50% of the anthropogenic ammonia losses to the environment derive directly from animal feedlots, manure storage, or grazing systems, with additional losses occurring indirectly from cropping systems used to feed domestic animals as well as feed humans directly. In addition, animals contribute 25% of the anthropogenic N 2 O production with an additional 25% coming from cropping systems. Only about 10% of the anthropogenic NO production derives from agriculture, most of it coming from crop-soil systems. The environmental problems caused by reactive nitrogen release into the environment are profound and ever increasing, and agriculture is the biggest source of reactive nitrogen losses to air and water (van Aardenne et al., 2001). (Dr. Rick Kohn; Use Of Animal Nutrition To Manage Nitrogen Emissions; Animal Agriculture)
- 26. Properties of the gases produced from poultry manures and their physiological responses on adult human (source: CAMMG, 1979) .
- 27. Summary of NH3 emission rates (ER, g of NH3·AU−1 ·d−1 )1 of laying hen houses with different housing and management schemes in different countries (Liang et al., 2005) Country House type (season) Manure removal NH3 ER Reference (year) England Deep pit (winter) Information not available 192 Wathes et al. (1997) England Deep pit (summer) Information not available 290 Wathes et al. (1997) England Deep pit (NA 2 ) Information not available 239 Nicholsen et al. (2004) United States (Ohio) High-rise (March) Annual 523 Keener et al. (2002) United States (Ohio) High-rise (July) Annual 417 Keener et al. (2002) United States (Iowa) High-rise (all year) Annual 299 Yang et al. (2002) United States (Iowa and Pennsylvania) High-rise (all year)— standard diet Annual 298 Liang et al. (2005) United States (Iowa) High-rise (all year)—1% lower CP diet Annual 268 Liang et al. (2005) The Netherlands Manure belt (NA) Twice a week with no manure drying 31 Kroodsma et al. (1988) The Netherlands Manure belt (NA) Once a week with manure drying 28 Kroodsma et al. (1988) Denmark Manure belt (all year) Information not available 52 Groot Koerkamp et al. (1998) Germany Manure belt (all year) Information not available 14 Groot Koerkamp et al. (1998) The Netherlands Manure belt (all year) Information not available 39 Groot Koerkamp et al. (1998) England Manure belt (all year) Weekly 96 Nicholsen et al. (2004) England Manure belt (all year) Daily 38 Nicholsen et al. (2004) United States (Iowa) Manure belt (all year) Daily with no manure drying 17.5 Liang et al. (2005) United States (Pennsylvania) Manure belt (all year) Twice a week with manure drying 30.8 Liang et al. (2005) 1 AU = animal units (1 animal unit = 500 kg of live weight). 2 NA = not available.
- 28. 5.2 Factors Influencing Volatilization The concentration and type of N in livestock slurry varies according to animal species, diet, and age. Typically, livestock use less than 30% of N contained in their feed, with 50 to 80% of the remainder excreted in the urine and 20 to 50% excreted in the feces. Urea is the major nitrogenous component in urine, accounting for up to 97% of urinary N. The exception is poultry manure, where uric acid is excreted instead of urea. Urea is hydrolyzed by the enzyme urease, found in the feces, to ammonium (NH+ 4) and bicarbonate ions. Hydrolysis occurs rapidly, with complete conversion of urea N to NH+ 4 possible within a matter of hours, depending on environmental conditions (Muck and Richards, 1980; Beline et al., 1998). Fecal N typically consists of 50% protein N and 50% NH+ 4. Mineralization of fecal protein N mainly occurs through the activity of proteolytic and deaminative bacteria, initially hydrolyzing proteins to peptides and amino acids and finally by deamination to NH+ 4. This process occurs at a far slower rate than the hydrolysis of urea and is thought to be a relatively unimportant source of NH+ 4 where livestock slurry is stored for a short period of time (Muck and Steenhuis, 1982). However, where livestock slurry is stored for long periods, especially at higher temperatures, it becomes the dominant pathway for NH+ 4 production (Patni and Jui, 1991). Reactions that govern NH3 volatilization may be represented by the following summarized equation (Freney et al., 1981): [1] The driving force for NH3 volatilization is considered to be the difference in NH3 partial pressure between that in equilibrium with the liquid phase and that in the ambient atmosphere. In the absence of other ionic species, this is predominately influenced by the NH+ 4 concentration, pH, and temperature, although any displacement of the equilibrium will affect NH3 emission.
- 29. 5.3 OFFENSIVE ODORS Offensive odor emanating from livestock production is of concern for intensive systems and confined operations as the number of complaints continue to rise (Jongebreur, 1977; O'Neill and Phillips, 1991; Misselbrook et al., 1993). Odors from livestock slurry are due to a complex mixture of volatile compounds arising from anaerobic degradation of plant fiber and protein (Spoelstra, 1980; Hammond, 1989). Chemical analysis has identified approximately 170 volatile compounds (Spoelstra, 1980; Yasuhura et al., 1984; O'Neill and Phillips, 1992). According to O'Neill and Phillips (1992), the most important odorous components emitted from livestock slurry appear to be the volatile fatty acids (VFAs: p-cresol, indole, skatole, hydrogen sulfide, and NH3), by virtue of either their high concentrations or their low odor thresholds. Odor can be assessed by two criteria: strength, which is measured as concentration or intensity, and offensiveness (i.e., the perceived quality). Relationships between the known volatile compounds and perceived olfactory responses have also been sought by many researchers (e.g., Schaefer, 1977; Williams, 1984; Pain et al., 1990; Mackie, 1994; Zhu et al., 1997b). At present, though, no compound has been found suitable as a marker to predict olfactory response. Based on olfactory measurements, the problem of odor nuisance can be tackled by reducing either the perceived strength or offensiveness (O'Neill and Phillips, 1991). Reducing odor strength implies destroying or diluting odorants, whereas reducing odor offensiveness implies modifying odorants emitted from livestock slurry.
- 30. 5.4 Handling Properties Where livestock waste is handled as a slurry, handling problems are often encountered due to the formation of crusts and sediments during storage that make removal for timely and accurate applications to land difficult (Pain et al., 1987). The rheological properties of a livestock slurry are dependant on its total solids content (Chen, 1986). Reducing total solids reduces viscosity and so reduces power and cost when pumping. The composition of solids varies considerably among animal species, age, physiological state, and diet, but generally consist of undigested plant fiber and protein. Stimulating the microbial degradation of total solids would appear to be a more feasible application than either control of NH3 or odor emissions, as the targeted organic compounds are readily identified. Work is needed to discover the microbial decay patterns of theses organic compounds in livestock slurries and identify the responsible enzymes and bacterial genera.
- 31. 5.5 Pollution to Surface Watercourses Today there is considerable pressure on farmers to avoid water pollution. On entry to a watercourse, livestock wastes exert a high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and cause eutrophication due to high levels of nutrients, particularly N and phosphorous (P). Williams (1983) found that the volatile fatty acid (VFA) fraction of livestock slurry accounted for up to 70% of its BOD. The VFA fraction of livestock wastes has also been identified as a primary contributor to odor (Zhu et al., 1997c; Mackie et al., 1998; Zhu and Jacobson, 1999; Zhu et al., 1999). Enhancing the degradation of this fraction reduction may well also lower the BOD. However, further understanding of the microbiology pathways in livestock wastes is required before this can be achieved. Phosphorus runoff from land receiving slurry is another major environmental problem, particularly from sites receiving poultry manure. The majority of P runoff is from the dissolved reactive P fraction.
- 32. 666... PPPOOOIIINNNTTTSSS TTTOOO PPPOOONNNDDDEEERRR FFFOOORRR BBBEEETTTTTTEEERRR UUUNNNDDDEEERRRSSSTTTAAANNNDDDIIINNNGGG BBBEEEFFFOOORRREEE AAATTTTTTEEEMMMPPPTTTIIINNNGGG TTTHHHEEE CCCOOONNNVVVEEERRRTTTIIIOOONNN OOOFFF PPPOOOUUULLLTTTRRRYYY LLLIIITTTTTTEEERRR IIINNNTTTOOO AAANNNIIIMMMAAALLL FFFEEEEEEDDDIIINNNGGG SSSTTTUUUFFFFFF
- 33. 6.1 Waste Disposal Disposal of untreated Poultry litter is posing a big concern, in view of the pollutions involved. 6.2 Economics Usually, it is economical to feed poultry litter. Using present prices for conventional feeds, poultry litter is worth about Rs 5000 per ton, based on its nutritional value. Usually, the price of poultry litter is about Rs 250-500 per ton. Even after transporting the litter hundreds of miles, the total price of the litter, including transportation, is about Rs 1000 per ton. 6.3 Effect of feeding animal wastes on quality of animal products In different experiments it has been found that feeding broiler litter did not adversely affect carcass quality. Furthermore, feeding the litter did not affect taste of the meat. (UTILIZATION OF POULTRY LITTER AS FEED FOR BEEF CATTLEa ; Joseph P. Fontenot; John W. Hancock Jr. Professor; Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Blacksburg, Virginia 24061) Eden (1940) found that rabbits produce two types of faeces: the familiar dry pellets during the day, and a soft, mucous type “rarely observed because the animal collects them directly from the anus and swallows them again” at night. A rabbit may eat from 54 to 82% of its own faecal production.
- 34. Southern (1940) conjectured that rabbits, by eating their faeces, have the ability to nourish themselves in feed scarcity, cold or danger for several days. NUTRIENTS REQUIREMENTS OF BROILERS AND CATFISH, AND NUTRIENTS IN ANIMAL WASTES Constituent Unit Nutrient requirements Composition of animal wastes (range) Catfish 1 Broiler 2 Crude Protein % 25 23–18 18 – 42 Calcium % 1.4–1.5 0.9 0.6 – 8.0 Phosphorus % 0.9–1.0 0.7 0.5 – 3.0 Methionine % 0.52 0.52–0.32 0.2 – 0.6 Methionine+Cystine % 0.85 0.93–0.60 0.6 – 1.0 Lysine % 1.33 1.20–0.85 0.7 – 1.3 Arginine % 1.48 1.44–1.00 0.8 – 1.9 Tryptophan % 0.3 0.23–0.17 - Threonine % 0.5 0.75–0.56 0.6 – 0.9 Valine % 0.5 0.82–0.62 - Vitamin A IU/kg 22,000 1,500 2,000–15,000 Riboflavin ppm 9 3.6 4 – 12 Pantothenic acid ppm 28 10 12 – 28 Niacin ppm 124 27 40 –120 Choline ppm 1,537 1,300 - Vitamin B12 ppm 23 9 100 – 1,000 Folic Acid ppm 0.64 0.55 - Sources: 1 Deyoe and Tiemeier, 1968; 2 NRC, 1977.
- 35. 6.4 Crude Protein: Litter can be low in crude protein because of either very high ash content or because of excess volatilization of N in the poultry house. High temperatures and excess moisture in the poultry house leads to N volatilization. Microbes present in Bioodonil will convert ammonia into Nitrite and Nitrite to Nitrate and thus preserves the Protein. Furthermore microbes present in LITTERTREAT fixes atmospheric Nitrogen into the litter. Also other microbes present in LITTERTREAT produce single cell proteins which are novel and supplies quality amino acids.
- 36. 6.5 Pathogens Many of the bacteria in Poultry Litter are pathogenic and pose a health risk. Some of the potential pathogens in poultry litter were identified by Alexander et al. (1968). Clostridium, Corynebacterium, Salmonella, Bacillus, Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, Enterobacteriaceae, Salmonella and E coli are the predominant pathogens found in the poultry litter. There are more than 100 zoonoses (Decker and Steele, 1966; Joint WHO/FAO Committee on Zoonoses, 1959; Diesch, 1971), some of which are commonly found in animal waste. Recycling animal waste qithout treatment as a feed ingredient represents a departure from normal feeding practices and may result in an increased incidence of these pathogens. Incidents of botulism caused by Clostridium botulinium have been reported in cattle fed poultry litter in some countries. This problem, in all cases, was caused by the presence of poultry carcasses in the litter. (UTILIZATION OF POULTRY LITTER AS FEED FOR BEEF CATTLEa ; Joseph P. Fontenot; John W. Hancock Jr. Professor; Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences; Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Blacksburg, Virginia 24061) Alexander et al. (1968) reports presence of the following Clostridium perfringens Clostridium chauvoei Clostridium novyi Clostridium sordellii Clostridium butyricum Clostridium cochlearium Closrridium multifermentans Clostridium carnis Clostridium tetanomorphum Clostridium histolyticum Corynebaeterium pyogenes Corynebacterium equi Salmonella blockley Salmonella saint-paul Salmonella typhimurium vat. copenhagen Actinobacillus sp. Yeast Myocobacterium spp. Enterobacteriaceae (other than Salmonella) Bacillus spp. Staphylococcus spp. Streptococcus spp. Good exercise is needed to eliminate the pathogens present in the litter before incorporating it as feed.
- 37. 6.6 DISEASE TRANSMISSION There are many unanswered questions with regard to animal wastes as agents of disease transmission, and information on basic research is still lacking. There are enormous differences of opinion between the epidemiologist on the one hand and the animal grower on the other. While the epidemiologist treats animal wastes as a reservoir of pathogenic and non-pathogenic organisms dangerous to animals and/or man (Strauch, 1977), the view of the animal production community is that interspecies or monospecies coprophagy always existed in nature, that animals are always in close contact with their own wastes, and that conventional feed ingredients (meat and bone meal from condemned carcasses, fish meal, blood meal and many others) are not always free of pathogens. Exposure of poultry waste to 30 and 37°C for one week eliminated yeasts and sharply reduced moulds. Similarly, Botts et al. (1952) reported that the survival time of Salmonella spp. was 15 to 20 days in old litter but 70 and 63 days in new litter. Carriere et al. (1968) reported that Mycobacterium avium survival was shorter in autoclaved litter than under normal litter conditions. Messer et al. (1971) reported that S. typhimurium, S. pullorum, Arizona sp. and E. coli were destroyed at different temperatures and time exposures, but that 68.3°C for 60 minutes was effective in destroying all potentially dangerous pathogens. The most resistant was S. typhimurium. Fontenot et al. (1971) reported that drying at 150°C for a minimum of 3 hours sterilized litter. Shorter exposure (1 or 2 hours),
- 38. lower temperature (100°C for up to 48 hours) autoclaving or fumigation (with beta- propiolactone or ethylene oxide) were ineffective. S. staphylococcus and coliform tests were negative when broiler litter was ensiled (Creger et al., 1973). Similarly, Caswell et al. (1974, 1977 and 1978), Harmon et al. (1975), and Duque et al. (1978) found ensiling of poultry litter to be the most effective means of total elimination of coliform Salmonella-type organisms (Wilkinson, 1978) and that it also resulted in a substantial reduction of the total bacterial count. Temperatures and exposure times generally considered (Müller, 1975) sufficient for the destruction of certain pathogens and parasites are as follows: Salmonella spp. stop development above 46°C and are dead within 30 min. at 55- 60° or within 20 min. at 60°C. Shigella spp. are dead within 1 hour of exposure to 55°C. Entamoeba histolytica (cysts) are dead within a few minutes at 45°C and within a few seconds at 55°C. Taenia saginata is dead within a few minutes at 55°C. Trichinella spiralis is killed quickly at 55°C and instantaneously at 66°C. Brucella abortus Bang is dead within 3 min. at 62–63°C and within 1 hr. at 55°C. Micrococcus pyogenes (var. aureus) is dead within 10 min. at 50°C. Streptococcus pyogenes is dead within 10 min. at 54°C. Mycobacterium tuberculosis is dead within 15 to 20 min. at 66°C or within a few instants at 67°C. Corynebacterium diphteriose is dead within 45 min. at 55°C. Necator americanus is dead within 50 min. at 45°C. Ascaris lumbricoides (eggs) is dead within less than 1 hr. at temperatures above 50°C. These well established facts show that animal wastes treated by heat, ensiling or other processes are safe. The CAST report (1978) reaches the following conclusions regarding the danger of disease transmission through feeding animal wastes: “The animal body is protected in various ways from the pathogens it might encounter in consuming animal wastes. These mechanisms include:” 1. Lining of the digestive tract with contiguous cell layers that prevent the entrance of the pathogens into body tissue unless injury to the cell layer occurs. 2. Digestive enzymes and marked variations in pH within the digestive tract are lethal to many potential pathogens. 3. The high microfloral population of the first three stomach compartments of ruminants, which inhibits the multiplication of pathogens. 4. The immune system of the body. This system recognizes pathogens after the first encounter and then effectively neutralizes those pathogens when the body is exposed to them on subsequent encounters. This mechanism is especially important for pathogens from animal wastes fed to the same
- 39. species because many of these pathogens are so common that animals acquire an early immunity to them. Ruminants in feedlots commonly ingest their own waste by licking the packed waste in pens, by licking their coat to which waste has adhered, and by feed from feed bunks that have been contaminated by waste blcwn into the bunks. “An additional protective mechanism is the requirement for ingestion of a “minimum infective dose” before an infection can become established. If waste from a group of animals is fed to the animals, and if one of the animals is shedding a pathogen, it is unlikely that any one animal will obtain the minimum infective dose of this particular pathogen.” (http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/X6518E/X6518E04.htm) LITTERTREAT contains reuterin producing microbes which inhibits growth of pathogenic microbes such as Salmonella, Listeria, Escherichia. E. coli, Salmonella spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Clostridium difficile,Clostridium perfringens are eliminated by the secretion of organic acids produced by microbes present in LITTERTREAT. Bacitracin produced by microbes present in LITTERTREAT suppress the growth of pathogenic microbes. POLYMIXIN produced by microbes present in LITTERTREAT inhibits the growth of pathogenic microbes. Microbes present in LITTERTREAT are able to help lessen the proliferation of hostile yeasts such as candida albicans. Microbes present in LITTERTREAT are going to eliminate the pathogens by competition and by inhibition successfully, relating to Moulds, Yeasts, Fungi, Gram positive Bacteria and Gram Negative Bacteria.
- 40. 6.7 TOXINS Toxins produced by Aspergillus fumigates, Scopulariopsis sp. etc that are present in the poultry litter are to be bound/detoxified/degraded. This will be achieved by the microbes present in LITTERTREAT. No documented toxic effect of cattle fed poultry litter has been reported. (UTILIZATION OF POULTRY LITTER AS FEED FOR BEEF CATTLEa ; Joseph P. Fontenot; John W. Hancock Jr. Professor; Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Blacksburg, Virginia 24061) Hendrickson and Grant (1971) detected more aflatoxin in fresh feedlot manure than in partially decayed or stockpiled manure. No residues of aflatoxin were found in composted manure. Aflatoxin levels found in samples of poultry litter, collected in several Southeast Asian countries, varied between 50 and 500 ppm (Müller, 1975). Drying and other processing of waste stops the microbial growth, but the inactivation of the actual toxin can be partially eliminated by microbial processes, although the mode of action is unknown. Nevertheless, even samples of broiler litter high in aflatoxin (360 ppm), when fed to steers for an entire finishing period (172 days), produced no noticeable symptoms of aflatoxicity (Müller, 1967).
- 41. Bell (1975) studied fungi profiles in feedlot waste and found that a large number of thermophilic and mesophilic fungi which are pathogenic or toxigenic to animals and plants are normally present in feedlot surface manure. Thermophilic fungi (Mucor pusillus, lanuginosa, Talaromyces thermophilius, and Chaetomium thermophile) were found, and their population remained practically unchanged over a two-month period during which samples were collected seven times. Mesophilic fungi of the genera Mucor, Rhizopus, Absidia and Mortierella were mostly present at lower temperatures and in fresh faeces. The moisture content appears to be a factor responsible for the degree of infestation: it was observed that A. flavus and Fusarium solani were found in increased numbers when moisture of the feedlot waste increased. The magnitude of the problem of mycotoxins in animal waste is similar to that of mycotoxins in feed. Aflatoxin AFB1 and Ochratoxin OA can be degraded by Enzymes like REDUCTASE and DEHYDROGENASE. Trichothecenes T2 is degraded by EPOXIDASE Zearalenone is degraded by LACTONASE LLIITTTTEERRTTRREEAATT CCOONNTTAAIINNSS MMIICCRROOBBEESS TTHHAATT PPRROODDUUCCEE SSUUCCHH EENNZZYYMMEESS WWHHIICCHH CCAANN DDEEGGRRAADDEE TTHHEE TTOOXXIINNSS PPRREESSEENNTT IINN TTHHEE PPOOUULLTTRRYY LLIITTTTEERR TTOO BBEE TTRREEAATTEEDD.. IITT CCOONNTTAAIINNSS PPRROOMMIISSIINNGG BBIIOOCCOONNTTRROOLL AAGGEENNTTSS FFOORR TTHHEE PPAATTHHOOGGEENNSS LLIIKKEE AASSPPEERRGGIILLLLUUSS OOCCHHRRAACCEEUUSS.. ,, AA.. ppaarraassiittiiccuuss,, AAssppeerrggiilllluuss ffllaavvuuss,, CCllaavviicceeppss SSpppp..,, FFuussaarriiuumm sseemmiitteeccttuumm,, FF.. ttrriicciinnccttuumm,, FF.. ooxxyyssppoorruumm,, FF.. ssoollaannii,, FF.. rriiggiiddiiuussccuulluumm,, FF.. ccuullmmoorruumm,, PP..CCiittrriinnuumm,, SSAAPPRROOLLEEGGNNIIAA SSPP.. EETTCC..
- 42. 6.8 Ligno-cellulosic constituents Microbes and Enzymes present in LITTERTREAT appear to degrade macromolecule components (0.3–10.98% lignin, 16.55– 32.3% cellulose and 7–30% hemi-cellulose)
- 43. 6.9 Mineral Contents of Litter and Imbalances: To combat these imbalances anionic mineral salts (which are negatively charged) are to be added if litter is to be used as feed to make this acidic. Copper toxicity has been documented in sheep fed broiler litter. However, the problem would not be severe in cattle since they are not as sensitive to high dietary copper. In fact, we conducted an experiment in beef females fed diets containing high levels of litter with high copper levels during the winter feeding period for 7 years. No signs of copper toxicity were seen. Liver copper was increased in the spring in cows fed poultry litter, but the levels decreased in the fall after the grazing season. (UTILIZATION OF POULTRY LITTER AS FEED FOR BEEF CATTLEa ; Joseph P. Fontenot; John W. Hancock Jr. Professor; Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences; Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Blacksburg, Virginia 24061)
- 44. 6.10 TRACE MINERALS AND VITAMINS: Many trace elements, vitamin K2, most of the vitamins of the B group and other vitamins or provitamins are found in fresh animal wastes in larger quantities than in the original feed (Müller et al., 1968). Lamoreux and Schumacher (1940) detected more riboflavin in chicken faeces than in their feed. Kennard et al. (1948) observed that the content of riboflavin in chicken faeces increased by 100% when the faeces were kept at room temperature for 24 hours, and by 300% in a week, as a result of bacterial synthesis of the vitamin. CRITICAL MINERALS: DIETARY AND FAECAL LEVELS (on DM) Element Unit Dietary level Faecal Broiler Copper ppm 150 330 Manganese ppm 60 142 Zinc ppm 68 151 Layer Calcium % 3.25–4.00 5.00–8.00 Manganese ppm 90 180 Zinc ppm 120 288
- 45. 6.11 UGF Faecal wastes contain many unidentified nutritive (growth) factors (UGF) awaiting discovery and identification, as indicated by a wealth of literature. 6.12 pH of Litter If litter is to be added as feed its pH should be acidic. 6.13 Pesticide residues No evidence has been obtained of pesticide residues in animal tissues from animals fed poultry litter. Data indicate that the level of pesticides is often higher in cattle fed conventional feed ingredients than in cattle fed poultry litter or other animal wastes. This is because the use of pesticides in agriculture is widespread, and high levels may often occur in forage, feed and crop residues (straw). The latter, when used for bedding, may contribute to the quantity of pesticides found in the litter or in the tissues of livestock fed animal wastes. In summary, however, pesticides in livestock waste feeding apparently represent no serious threat to humans. Pesticides are commonly used in agriculture and often occur in higher levels in conventional feeds and forages than in animal wastes. (http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/X6518E/X6518E04.htm) 6.14 Heavy metals No residues of heavy metals were detected in the meat and liver from cattle fed poultry litter after a 1-day withdrawal Roxarsone, or 3-nitro-4-hydroxyphenylarsonic acid, was the most commonly used arsenical compound in poultry feed hitherto, with a usage of 23 to 45 grams of chemical per ton of feed for broiler chickens for increased weight gain, feed efficiency, improved pigmentation, and prevention of parasites. By design, most of the chemical is excreted in the manure. Studies have shown arsenic concentrations in poultry litter to be between 15 and 35 ppm (parts per million). But since now it is not used in feeds there is no threat of arsenic in litter.
- 46. 6.15 Chemical Residues in Poultry Litter A potential problem of using animal excreta as a feed source is the possible contamination of the animals with the more than 20 feed additives currently used in animal production (Calvert, 1973; USDA, 1971). Bhattacharya and Taylor (1975) and Fontenot and Webb (1975a) have reviewed the literature pertaining to drug residues in animal excreta and their potential of appearing in the tissues and products produced by animals fed waste-formulated rations. DRUG RESIDUES IN BROILER LITTER a Antibiotics and other antimicrobial drugs (sulfa drugs, coccidiostatics, etc.) have been used for the past 30 years, mainly for poultry and pigs. They are excreted via the intestinal and urinary route. Their activity (depending upon their chemical structure) changes during digestion and other metabolic processes and after excretion. Processing, temperature, humidity and pH of the excreted faecal waste are the most significant exogenous factors responsible for the level of drugs found. Many drugs form chemical complexes (e.g. with Ca) which render them insoluble, so that their absorption by the body is either low or nil. Some drugs analytically detected in wastes are physiologically inactive. Brugman et al. (1964), in an experiment with laying hens, fed rations containing various drugs (arsanilic acid, zoalene, unistat, nicarbazin, furan and sulfaquinoxaline) but did not detect any residues of these drugs except arsanilic acid, in the litter. Morrison (1969) studied the fate of organo-arsenicals as a feed additive to broiler rations. Although they were found in the litter, the quantities detected were so low as to create no arsenic hazard. Messer et al. (1971) detected furan derivatives in poultry litter from various farms. The furazolidone level ranged from 10.2 to 21.5 ppm, and nitrofurazone from 4.5 to 26.7 ppm. Donoho (1975) reported that 75% of the monensine incorporated as a rumen stimulant into steers' rations was found in the faeces. In dehydrated wastes from poultry fed monensin, a concentration of 10–15 ppm, was found, but Caswell et al. (1978) reported that monensin sodium fed to broilers was detected neither in the litter nor in the litter silage. Brugman et al. (1967) reported that no residual amprolium or arsenic was found in the heart, spleen, 12-rib, kidney, kidney fat, liver or brain of lambs fed rations containing poultry litter from birds whose diet contained these drugs. Chlortetracycline (CTC) balance and its fate was studied by Müller et al. (1967). Broilers fed a starter and finisher containing 60 and 50 ppm CTC respectively, produced litter with an average of 8 ppm CTC. The litter was incorporated at 40% level into a completed beef cattle feed which thus contained 3.2 ppm CTC. The antibiotic was not found in blood, liver, kidney, muscles and other tissues, but traces were detected in the faecal excreta. Elmund et al. (1971) reported that 75% of CTC in the steer ration was excreted. Webb and Fontenot (1975) investigated the content of several antimicrobial drugs in broiler litter collected from poultry farms in Virginia. Their findings are presented in Table 77. The wide range of concentrations of individual drugs could
- 47. be attributable to the level of drug fed and perhaps other factors (litter age, litter treatment, bedding, medication, etc.). Zinc bacitracin activity was also detected in the litter from farms where this drug was not supplemented. Most researchers agree that residues of antimicrobial drugs in animal wastes pose little danger because their retention by animal tissues is much below the safety level, or even nil. The only problem may arise when broiler waste is fed at higher levels to dairy cows, where regulations establish a zero tolerance of drugs in milk. Drug Level b NO. Average Range samples Oxytetracycline, ppm 10.9 5.5- 29.1 12 Chlortetracycline, ppm c 12.5 0.8- 26.3 26 Chlortetracycline, ppm d . 75 0 .1- 2.8 19 Penicillin, units/g 12.5 0 -25.0 2 Neomycin, ppm 0 0 12 Zinc bacitracin, units/ge 7.2 0.8- 36.0 6 Zinc bacitracin, units/g f 12.3 0 .16-36.0 5 Amprolium, ppm 27.3 0 -77.0 29 Nicarbazin, ppm 81.2 35.1-152.1 25 Arsenic, ppm 40.4 1.1- 59.7 41 Copper, ppmg 254.7 132.1-329.3 46 Copper, ppm h 50.8 37.3- 99.4 35 a Webb and Fontenot, 1975. bDry matter basis. CChlortetracycline used continuously in broiler diets. dChlortetracycline used intermittently in broiler diets. ezinc bacitracin used in broiler diets. fZinc bacitracin not used in broiler diets. gcopper sulfate used continuously in broiler diets. hNo copper added to broiler diets. LITTERTREAT IS NOT ADDRESSING THIS SUBJECT
- 48. 6.16 TDN Microbes present in Littertreat produce Enzymes like Keratinase which degrade waste and convert the same into TDN
- 49. 7. ABOUT LITTERTREAT Present novel method is to treat and biodegrade the Poultry Litter so as odor is controlled, pathogens are eliminated by competition and the material is biodegraded to form bioavailability of the nutrients for use in plants and animals in the first phase. In the first phase usage of BIOODONIL @ 1.5 Kg/Ton of Poultry litter once uniformly spread over layers of each not exceeding 12.5 cm height and total heap not exceeding 45 cm height. Moisture is to be maintained @50% level upto 40 days. Treatment completes in about 45 days. In the second phases, usage of LITTERTREAT @ 1.5 Kg/ Ton of Bioodonil treated Poultry litter to convert this biodegraded material fit for animal consumption as a feeding stuff in the concentrate feeds @ 7.5%-15 replacing 50% of the de oiled rice or wheat brans and polishes to that extent without any adverse effects on odour, palatability, nutrition, contamination etc. For better results and to reduce the operation time involved one may go for use of Fomenters where the parameters like Moisture, pH, Temperature, Oxygen etc can be closely monitored.
- 50. 8. MODE OF ACTION OF LITTERTREAT According to Brown (1972), anaerobic processes are generally easier and cheaper, but yield less profit and are hampered by the discharge of effluent, or even solid waste, which is incapable of anaerobic conversion. On the other hand, aerobic processes are necessary when manures (cattle manure for example) are rich in ligno-cellulosic constituents digestible only by aerobic action. Based on mesophilic fermentation, bacteria offer a wider range of micro- organisms and require less controlled conditions. Thermophilic fermentation, however, offers a higher degree of safety through prolonged exposure of the biomass to higher temperatures, eliminating pathogens and pasteurizing the product. In addition, the thermophilic process yields more biomass, as it also utilizes the ligno-cellulosic constituents. For this reason, most scientists turn to thermophilic organisms that offer high protein substrate (50 to 60%) and are rich in nutritionally important amino acids (lysine, methionine, cystine and tryptophane) (Brown, 1972), usually limiting in livestock rations. The degradation of organic matter can be accomplished by psychrophilic, mesophilic and thermophilic micro-organisms. Coulthard and Townsley (1973) prefer the following temperatures: Type of bacteria Temperature°C Greatest activity °C Min. Max. Psychrophilic -4 25 – 30 15 – 20 Mesophilic + 10 40 – 45 30 – 37 Thermophilic + 45 75 55 – 65
- 51. 9. SUGGESTED LEVEL AND METHOD OF USING LITTERTREAT ON LITTER TREATED WITH BIOODONIL AT FEED FACTORY In the static process the semi-dry manure, alone or together with other organic material, is spread in layers and turned over once or several times during the process as done with BIOODONIL. The moisture content should be within the range of 35–45%. In the dynamic process the material is constantly revolved in a digester. The organic matter content of the litter treated is a decisive factor in establishing the quantity that can be used in ruminant diets. It is felt that the safe level of inclusion of treated litter in ruminant rations could be in the range of 50% of the Brans and Polishes. Feeding recommendations cannot however be firm until the exact individual composition of the treated manure is known. Aeration of the litter is not necessary since TREATLITTER Contains Oxygen Liberators in itself.
- 52. 10. CONTENTS OF LITTERTREAT Anionic salts Enzymes, Humic and fulvic substances, Microbes that bind/destroy/degrade toxins, Microbes that convert Ammonia into Nitrite and Nitrie into Nitrate, Microbes that convert Cellulase and Cellulose into TDN Microbes that fix Ammonical Nitrogen, Microbes that help in degrading the Chemicals, Hormones and Pesticides present in the Poultry Litter Microbes that help in predigestion Microbes that help in pregelatinisation of the Starch present in the Poultry Litter Microbes that inhibit and kill pathogens, Microbes that produce essential Amino acids like L Lysine, DL Methionine Microbes that produce novel Enzymes which improve the bioavailability of nutrients available in the litter, Microbes that produce novel unicellular proteins, Microbes that produce organic acids, Microbes that solubilise otherwise insoluble P, Ca, Mn, Cu, Zn, Si, K etc Organic acids, Propreitory additives Sea Weed Extract ,
- 53. 11. EXPECTED RESULTS: 11.. IInnccrreeaasseedd TTDDNN 22.. IInnccrreeaasseedd bbiiooaavvaaiillaabbiilliittyy 33.. IInnccrreeaasseedd ppaallaattaabbiilliittyy 44.. BBeetttteerr NNuuttrriittiioonnaall PPrrooffiillee 55.. RReedduucceedd OOddoorr 66.. RReedduucceedd PPaatthhooggeenniicc LLooaadd
- 54. 12. WHEN POULTRY LITTER TREATED WITH BIOODONIL AND TREATLITTER is to be used as an animal feeding stuff following changes are to be made in the Animal feed formula: 1. Replacement of Brans and Polishes: By 50% 2. Safe Usable Limits: Total 7.5% in the Poultry ration and 15% in Cattle feeds. 3. Safe Reduction in TRACEMINERALS like Copper, Manganese when used @ 7.5% level in the Feed: 10-12% 4. Safe Reduction in MINERALS like Calcium, Phosphorous, Zinc when used @ 7.5% level in the Feed : 3-6% 5. Safe Reduction in AMINOACID ADDITIVES like L Lysine, D L Methionine, Arginine, Threonine when used @ 7.5% level in the Feed: 1-3% 6. Safe Reduction in VITAMINS like Riboflavin, Pantothenic acid, Niacin, Vit B12 when used @ 7.5% level in the Feed : 15-30% 7. Care may be taken to maintain the proven dietary levels of the following, considering that contribution from Litter treated with LITTERTREAT contributes zero values of these components: Tryptophan, Valine, Choline and Folic acid
- 55. 13. FOR BETTER RESULTS: Litter treated with BIOODONIL and LITTERTREAT, may be pelletized. An examination of feeds by Zindel and Bennett (1968) failed to reveal salmonellae in pelleted or extruded feeds. Edel et al. (1973) reported that the spread of salmonellae may be prevented by the pelleting of feeds. Apparently, heating and subsequent drying during pelleting destroy salmonellae. Pelleting would also appear to be an effective method of eliminating potentially pathogenic organisms in waste blended rations.
- 56. 14. SUGGESTED LEVEL AND METHOD OF USAGE OF TREATED POULTRY LITTER INTO ANIMAL FEEDS BROILER LITTER CONTRIBUTION TO PROTEIN REQUIREMENTS OF BEEF CATTLE Broiler litter fed at level (%) Protein contribution Crude protein level of broiler litter (%) 20 25 30 20 g/kg of diet 40 50 60 % of requirements 1 33 42 50 30 g/kg of diet 60 75 90 % of requirements 1 50 63 75 40 g/kg of diet 80 100 120 % of requirements 1 67 83 100 1 At 12% crude requirement in beef ration (i.e. 120 g/kg of diet). A rough guide for the level of litter incorporation into ruminant diets is as follows: Ash content (%) in litter Suggested feeding level (%) Use 40 20 all ruminants 35 23 all ruminants 30 26 all ruminants 25 32 excluding dairy cattle 20 40 excluding dairy cattle 15 53 excluding dairy cattle and intensive beef cattle production 10 80 only in feed emergency situations, for maintenance and wintering of cattle and sheep
- 57. 15. REFERENCES: 1. Berry, I. L. 1997. Litter production at the Broiler Energy Project. Pages 9-10 In: Progress Report: Broiler Energy Project 1995-97. Center of Excellence for Poultry Science, Coop. Ext. Ser., Agri. Exp. Sta., University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. 2. Bhattacharya, A N & Taylor J C, Journal of Animal Science, 1975 Doye, D. G., J. G. Berry, P. R. Green, and P. E. Norris. 1992. Broiler production: Considerations for potential growers. Okla. Coop. Ext. Ser. Fact Sheet 202. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater. 3. Tabler, T. 2000. How much litter do broilers produce? Avian Advice 2(1):6-8. VanDevender, K., J. Langston, and M. Daniels. 2000. Utilizing dry poultry litter – An overview. Arkansas Coop Ext. Ser. FSA8000-2.5M-12-00RV. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville 4. Virk, R S Sethi R P & Langar P N, Agricultural Wastes, 1986. Wimberly, J. 2002. The status of on-farm litter-to-energy systems in the United States. Proc. National Poultry Waste Management Symposium pp. 53-57. 5. Al-Kanani, T., E. Akochi, A.F. MacKenzie, I. Alli, and S. Barrington. 1992. Organic and inorganic amendments to reduce ammonia losses from liquid hog manure. J. Environ. Qual. 21:709–715.[ISI] 6. Amon, M., M. Dobeic, V.R. Phillips, R.W. Sneath, T.M. Misselbrook, and B.F. Pain. 1997. A farm scale study on the use of clinoptilolite zeolite and De-Odorase for reducing odour and ammonia emissions from broiler houses. Bioresour. Technol. 61:229–237.[ISI] 7. ApSimon, H., M.M. Kruse, and J.N.B. Bell. 1987. Ammonia emissions and their role in acid deposition. Atmos. Environ. 21:1939–1946.[ISI] 8. Beck, D.W. 1974. Molecular sieves structure. Chemistry and use. John Wiley & Sons, London. 9. Beline, F., J. Martinez, C. Marol, and G. Guiraud. 1998. Nitrogen transformations during anaerobically stored 15 N-labelled pig slurry. Bioresour. Technol. 64:83– 88.[ISI] 10. Berg, W., and G. Hornig. 1997. Emission reduction by acidification of slurry— Investigations and assessment. p. 459–466. In Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Ammonia and Odour Emissions from Animal Production, Vinkeloord, the Netherlands. 6–10 Oct. 1997. NVTL, Rosmalen, the Netherlands. 11. Buchgraber, K. 1983. Vergleich der Wirksamkeit konventioneller und alternativer Dugungssyssteme auf dem. Gruland hinsichtlich Etrag, Futterqualitat und Gute des Pflanzenbestandes. Diss., Vienna. 12. Buijsman, E., H.F.M. Mass, and W.A.H. Asman. 1987. Anthropogenic NH3 emissions in Europe. Atmos. Environ. 21:1009–1022.[ISI]
- 58. 13. Burnett, W.E., and N.C. Dondero. 1970. Control of odours from animal wastes. Trans. ASAE 13:221–231. 14. Burton, B.H. 1996. Processing strategies for farm livestock slurries to minimise pollution and to maximise nutrient utilisation—An EU collaboration. p. 5–10. In G. Parafait et al. (ed.) Ingenieries EAT—Animal Manures and Environment in Europe. Dec. 1996. Antony, Cemagfef, France. 15. Daigle, J.Y., A. Arseneau, and A. Robichaud. 1987. Sphagnum peat: A tool for liquid hog manure management. p. 173–176. In Wetlands/Peatlands Symp. 1987, Edmonton, AB, Canada. Wetlands/Peatlands `87 Publ., Ottawa, ON, Canada. 16. Dewes, T. 1987. Chemical and microbial changes during the fermentation of liquid Poultry Litter treated with Agriben and its ingredients. p. 323–329. In Proc. from Agric. Waste Manage. and Environ. Protection. 4th Int. Symp. of CIEC, Braunschweig Federal Republic of Germany. 11–14 May 1987. Vol. 2. Goltze- Druck, Gottingen, Germany. 17. Donham, K.J. 1990. Relationships of air quality and productivity in intensive swine housing. J. Agric. Practice 10:15–18. 18. Donham, K.J., and K.E. Gustafason. 1982. Human occupational hazards from swine confinement. Ann. Am. Conf. Gov. Hyg. 2:137–142. 19. Donham, K.J., M.J. Rubino, T.D. Thedell, and J. Kammermeyer. 1977. Potential health hazards to agricultural workers in swine confinement buildings. J. Occup. Med. 19:383–387.[ISI][Medline] 20. Emanuel, A.G. 1965. Potassium permanganate offers new solutions to air pollution control. Air Engineering. September 1965. 21. Faith, W.L. 1964. Odour control in cattle feed yards. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 1411:459–460. 22. Grubbs, R.B. 1979. Bacteria supplimentation what it can and can't do. Paper presented at the 9th Eng. Foundation Conf. in Environ. Eng. in the Food Processing Ind., Pacific Grove, CA. 27 Feb. 1979. ASCE, Reston, VA. 23. Hammond, W.C., D.L. Day, and E.L. Hansen. 1968. Can lime and chlorine suppress odours in liquid hog manure? Agric. Eng. 49:340–343.[ISI] 24. Hartung, J. 1992. Emissions and control of gases and odorous substances from animal housing and manure stores. Zentralbl. Hyg. Umweltmed. 192:389– 418.[ISI][Medline] 25. Hartung, J., and V.R. Phillips. 1994. Control of gaseous emissions from livestock buildings and manure stores. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 57:173–189.[ISI] 26. Headon, D.R., K. Buggle, A. Nelson, and G. Killeen. 1991. Glycofractions of the yucca plant and their role in ammonia control. p. 95–108. In T.P. Lyons (ed.) Biotechnology in the feed industry. Allttech, Nichoasville, KY. 27. Headon, D.R., and G. Walsh. 1993. Yucca schidigera extracts and ammonia control. p. 686–693. In E. Collins and C. Boon (ed.) Livestock Environment IV, 4th Int. Symp., Univ. of Warwick, Coventry, UK. 6–9 July 1993. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI. 28. Heck, A.F. 1931. Conservation and availability of nitrogen in farm manures. Soil Sci. 31:335–363. 29. Hendriks, J.G.L., D. Berckmansand, and C. Vincker. 1997. Field tests of bio- additives to reduce ammonia emission from pig houses. p. 707–714. In Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Ammonia and Odour Emissions from Animal Production, Vinkeloord, the Netherlands. 6–10 Oct. 1997. NVTL, Rosmalen, the Netherlands. 30. Hendriks, J.G.L, and M.G.M. Vrielink. 1996. Anzuren van varkensmest via het voer. Praktijk-oderzoek varkenshoulderij. June 1996. Rosmalen, the Netherlands.
- 59. 31. Hendriks, J.G.L., and M.G.M. Vrielink. 1997. Reducing the emission from pig houses by adding or producing organic acids in pig slurry. p. 493–501. In Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Ammonia and Odour Emissions from Animal Production, Vinkeloord, the Netherlands. 6–10 Oct. 1997. NVTL, Rosmalen, the Netherlands. 32. Hoeskma, P., N. Verdoes, and G.J. Monteny. 1993. Two options for manure treatment to reduce ammonia volatilisation from pig housing. p. 301–306. In European Assoc. for Animal Prod. Publ. 69. EAAP, Wageningen, the Netherlands. 33. Hollenback, R.C. 1971. Manure odour abatement using hydrogen peroxide. Rep. no. 5638-R. Food Machinery Corp., Princeton, NJ. 34. Husted, S., L.S. Jensen, and S.S. Jorgensen. 1991. Reducing ammonia loss from cattle slurry by the use of acidifying additives: The role of the buffer system. J. Sci. Food Agric. 57:335–349.[ISI] 35. Johnston, N.L., C.L. Quarles, D.J. Fagerberg, and D.D. Caveny. 1981. Evaluation of yucca saponin on performance and ammonia suppression. Poul. Sci. 60:2289–2295.[ISI] 36. Jutras, P.J., C. Weil, D. Martin, and R.D. Richard. 1980. Progress in the control of swine odours with ozone. Paper no. 80-412. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI. 37. Kemme, P.A., A.W. Jongloed, B.M. Dellaert, and F. Krol-Kramer. 1993. The use of Yucca schidigera extract as a `urease inhibitor' in pig slurry. p. 330–335. In Proc. of the 1st Int. Symp. on Nitrogen Flow in Pig Production and Environ. Consequenses, Wageningen, the Netherlands. 8–11 June 1993. EAAP Publ. no. 69. PUDOC, Wageningen, the Netherlands. 38. Kibble, W.H., C.W. Raleigh, and J.A. Sheperd. 1972. Hydrogen peroxide for industrial pollution control. In Proc. of the 27th Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., Purdue Univ., Lafayette, IN. Purdue Univ. Publ., Lafayette, IN. 39. Krieger, R., J. Hartung, and A. Pfeiffer. 1993. Experiments with feed additives to reduce ammonia emmisions from pig fattening houses—Preliminary results. p. 295–300. In Proc. of the 1st Int. Symp. on Nitrogen Flow in Pig Production and Environ. Consequenses, Wageningen, the Netherlands. 8–11 June 1993. EAAP Publ. no. 69. PUDOC, Wageningen, the Netherlands. 40. Kroodsma, W., and N.W.M. Ogink. 1997. Volatile emissions from cow cubicle houses and its reduction by immersion of the slats with acidified slurry. p. 475– 483. In Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Ammonia and Odour Emissions from Animal Production, Vinkeloord, the Netherlands. 6–10 Oct. 1997. NVTL, Rosmalen, the Netherlands. 41. Lauer, D.A., D.R. Bouldin, and S.D. Klaususner. 1976. Ammonia volatilization from dairy manure spread on the soil surface. J. Environ. Qual. 5:131–141.[ISI] 42. Liao, C.M., and D.S. Bundy. 1994. Bacteria additives to the changes in gaseous mass-transfer from stored swine manure. J. Environ. Sci. Health. 296:1219– 1249. 43. MacKenzie, A.F., and J.S. Tomar. 1987. Effect of added monocalcium phosphate monohydrate and aeration on nitrogen retention by liquid hog manure. Can. J. Soil. Sci. 67:687–692.[ISI] 44. Mackie, R.I. 1994. Microbial production of odor components. p. 18–19. In Proc. of Int. Round Table on Swine Odor Control, Ames, IA. 13–15 June 1994. Iowa State Univ. Publ., Ames. 45. Mackie, R.T., P.G. Stroot, and V.H. Varel. 1998. Biochemical identification and biological origin of key odor components in livestock waste. J. Anim. Sci. 76:1331–1342.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- 60. 46. Mader, J.R., and M.C. Brumm. 1987. Effect of feeding sarsaponin in cattle and swine diets. J. Anim. Sci. 65:9–15.[ISI][Medline] 47. Martinez, J., J. Jolivent, F. Guiziou, and G. Langeoire. 1997. Ammonia emissions from pig slurries. Evaluation of acidification and the use of additives to reduce losses. p. 475–483. In Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Ammonia and Odour Emissions from Animal Production, Vinkeloord, the Netherlands. 6–10 Oct. 1997. NVTL, Rosmalen, the Netherlands. 48. Miner, J.R., and R.S. Stroh. 1976. Controlling feedlot surface emmision rates by application of commercial products. Trans. ASAE 19:533–538.[ISI] 49. Misselbrook, T.H., C.R. Clarkson, and B.F. Pain. 1993. Relationship between concentration and intensity of odours for pig slurry and broiler houses. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 55:163–169.[ISI] 50. Moore, P.A., Jr., T.C. Daniel, D.R. Edwards, and D.M. Miller. 1995. Effects of chemical amendments on ammonia volatilization from poultry litter. J. Environ. Qual. 24:293–300.[ISI] 51. Muck, R.E., and T.S. Steenhuis. 1982. Nitrogen losses from manure storage. Agric. Manure 4:41–54. 52. Ogink, N.W.M., and W. Kroodsma. 1996. Reduction of ammonia emissions from a cow cubical house by flushing with water or a formalin solution. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 53:23–50. 53. O'Halloran, L.P., and A. Sigrest. 1993. Influence of incubating monocalcium phosphate with liquid hog manure on inorganic phosphorous and phosphourous availability in two Quebec soils. Can. J. Soil. Sci. 73:371–379.[ISI] 54. O'Neill, D.H., and V.R. Phillips. 1991. A review of the control of odour nuisance from livestock buildings. Part 1: Influence of the techniques for managing waste within the building. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 50:1–10.[ISI] 55. Pain, B.F., R.B. Thompson, L.C.N. De La Cremer, and L. Ten Holte. 1987. The use of additives in livestock slurries to improve their flow properties, conserve nitrogen and reduce odours. p. 229–246. In Van Der Meer et al. (ed.) Development in plant soil sciences. Animal manure on grassland and fodder crops. Fertiliser or waste? Martius Nijhoff Publ., Dordrecht, the Netherlands. 56. Patni, N.K. 1992. Effectiveness of manure additives. Report for Ontario pork producers. The Centre for Food and Animal Res., Research Branch, Agriculture Canada, Central Exp. Farm, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 57. Ritter, W.F. 1981. Chemical and biochemical odour control of livestock wastes: A review. Can. Agric. Eng. 23:1–4.[ISI] 58. Ritter, W.F., N.E. Collins, and R.P. Eastburn. 1975. Chemical treatment of liquid dairy manure to reduce malodours. p. 381–384. In Managing Livestock Manure, Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. on Livestock Manure. Publ. PROC-275. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI. 59. Safley, L.M., D.W. Nelson, and P.W. Westerman. 1983. Conserving manurial nitrogen. Trans. ASAE 26:1166–1170.[ISI] 60. Schaefer, J. 1977. Sampling, characterisation and analysis of malodours. Agric. Eng. Res. 3:121–127. 61. Smith, K., A. Drysdale, and D. Saville. 1980. An investigation into the effectiveness of some odour control treatments in stored pig manure. Project Rep. 24. New Zealand Agric. Eng. Inst., Lincon College, Canterbury, New Zealand. 62. Spoelstra, S.F. 1980. Origin of objectionable odorous compounds in piggery manure and the possibility of applying indicator components for studying odour development. Agric. Environ. 5:241–260.[ISI]
- 61. 63. Stevens, R.J., R.J. Laughlin, and J.P. Frost. 1989. Effect of acidification with sulphuric acid on the volatilisation of ammonia from cow and pig slurries. J. Agric. Sci. 113:389–395.[ISI] 64. Turner, C., and C.H. Burton. 1997. The inactivation of viruses in pig slurries: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 61:9–20.[ISI] 65. Varel, V., H. Nieenaber, and B. Byrnes. 1997. Urease Inhibitors reduce ammonia emmssion from Poultry Litter. p. 721–728. In Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Ammonia and Odour Emissions from Animal Production, Vinkeloord, the Netherlands. 6–10 Oct. 1997. NVTL, Rosmalen, the Netherlands. 66. Warburton, D.J., J.N. Scarborough, D.L. Day, A.J. Muehling, S.E. Curtis, and A.H. Jensen. 1980. Evaluation of commercial products for odour control and solids reduction of liquid swine manure. p. 309–313. In Livestock waste: A renewable resource. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., St. Joseph, MI. 67. Watkins, B.D., S.M. Hengemuehle, H.L. Person, M. Yokoyama, and S.J. Masten. 1997. Ozonation of swine manure wastes to control odors and reduce the concentrations of pathogens and toxic fermentation metabolites. Ozone Sci. Eng. 19:425–437.[ISI] 68. Williams, A.G. 1983. Organic acids, biochemical oxygen demand and chemical oxygen demand in the soluble fraction of piggery slurry. J. Sci. Food. Agric. 34:212–220.[ISI][Medline] 69. Williams, A.G. 1984. Indicators of piggery slurry odour offensiveness. Agric. Manure 10:15–36. 70. Witter, E. 1991. Use of ClCa2 to decrease ammonia volatilisation after application of fresh and anaerobic chicken slurry to soil. J. Soil Sci. 423:369–380. 71. Woestyne, M.V., and W. Verstraete. 1995. Biotechnology in the treatment of animal manure. p. 311–327. In Biotechnology in animal feeds and animal feeding. VCH Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Weinhiem, Germany. 72. Zhu, J., D.S. Bundy, L. Xiwei, and N. Rashid. 1997a. The hindrance in the development of pit additive products for swine manure odor control—A review. J. Environ. Sci. Health. A 32:2429–2448.[ISI] 73. Zhu, J., D.S. Bundy, L. Xiwei, and N. Rashid. 1997c. A procedure and its application in evaluating pit additives for odor control. Can. Agric. Eng. 39:207– 214.[ISI] 74. Zhu, J., and L.D. Jacobson. 1999. Correlating microbes to major odorous compounds in swine manure. J. Environ. Qual. 28:737–744.[ISI] 75. Zhu, J., G.L. Riskowski, and M. Torremorell. 1999. Volatile fatty acids as odour indicators in swine manure—A critical review. Trans. ASAE 42:175–182.[ISI] 76. Bagley, C.P. 1991. Alternative feed sources for beef cattle. MS Cattle Bus. 37(10):55. 77. Bagley, C.P., W.B. Burdine, Jr., and R.R. Evans. 1994. Intake and performance of beef 78. heifers feed broiler litter and soybean hull supplements. J. Anim. Sci. 77(Suppl. l):381. 79. Beede, D.K. 1992. Preventing milk fever. Feed Mgmt. 43(6):28. 80. Brosh, A., Z. Holzer, Y. Aharoni, and D. Levy. 1993. Intake, rumen volume, retention time, and digestibility of diets based on poultry litter and wheat straw in beef cows before and after calving. J. Agric. Sci. 121:103. 81. Burdine, W.B., Jr., C.P. Bagley, and R.R. Evans. 1993. Weanling heifer performance on 82. chicken litter supplements. Livestock Day Rep. MAFES Bull. 243:24.
- 62. 83. Burns, J.C., and C.P. Bagley. 1995. Cool-season forages for grazing by livestock. In: 84. Forages of the U.S. ASA Monograph (in press). 85. Castellanos, J.Z., and P.F. Pratt. 1981. Mineralization of manure nitrogen; correlation with laboratory indices. J. Soil Sci. Soc. 45:354. 86. Caswell, L.F., J.P. Fontenot, and K.E. Webb, Jr. 1978. Fermentation and utilization of 87. broiler litter ensiled at different moisture levels. J. Anim. Sci. 46:547. 88. Cross, S.L., and B.F. Jenny. 1976. Turkey litter silage in rations for dairy heifers. J. Dairy 89. Sci. 59:919. 90. Fontenot, J.P. 1978. Poultry litter as a feed ingredient for cattle and sheep. VPI and SU 91. Spec. Rep. 92. Fontenot, J.P. 1979. Animal nutrition aspects of grass tetany. p. 51-62. In: V.V. Rendig and D.L. Grunes (Ed.) Grass Tetany. ASA Spec. Pub. 35. ASA, CSSA and SSSA, Madison, WI. 93. Fontenot, J.P. 1983. (Ed.). Underutilized Resources of Animal Feed Stuffs. Nat. Acad. 94. Press. Washington, DC. 95. Fontenot, J.P., A.N. Bhattacharya, C.L. Drake, and W.H. McClure. 1966. Value of broiler 96. litter as a feed for ruminants. ASAE Pub. SPO 366:105. 97. Hall, B.M., C.W. Wood, K.H. Yoon, K.S. Yoon, and D.P. Delaney. 1994. Nutrient losses in runoff from land applied broiler litter. Highlights of Alabama Agric. Res. 41(1):13. 98. Hays, S.M. 1994. A cleanup of poultry litter. Highlights of Alabama Agric. Res. 42(5):10. 99. Hileman, L.H. 1965. Broiler litter as a fertilizer. Arkansas Farm Res. 144(1):6. 100. Hileman, L.H. 1967. The fertilizer value of broiler litter. Arkansas Agri. Exp. Sta. Rep. Ser. 158. 101. Hileman, L.H. 1973. Response of orchardgrass to broiler litter and commercial fertilizer. 102. Arkansas Agric. Exp. Sta. Rep. Ser. 207. 103. Honeycutt, H.J., C.P. West, and J.M. Phillips. 1988. Responses of bermudagrass, tall fescue and tall fescue-clover to broiler litter and commercial fertilizer. Arkansas Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 913. 104. Kingery, W.L., C.W. Wood, D.P. Delany, J.C. Williams, and G.C. Mullins. 1994. Impact of long-term land applications of broiler litter on environmentally related soil properties. J. 105. Environ. Qual. 23:139. 106. Kingery, W.L., C.W. Wood, D.P. Delany, J.C. Williams, G.L. Mullins, and E. Van Stante. 107. 1993. Implications of long-term land applications of poultry litter on tall fescue pasture. J. 108. Prod. Agric. 6:390. 109. Leidner, J. 1994. Calves gain 2.8 pounds daily on poultry litter. Prog. Farmer. March, 110. 94:64. 111. Malone, G.W., and G.W. Morgan. 1993. Economic impact of the Mississippi poultry
- 63. 112. industry. Miss. Agric. For. Exp. Sta. Sp. Bull. 88-6. 113. McCaskey, T.A., S.N. Britt, B.G. Ruffin, J.T. Eason, and R.L. Strickland. 1994. Feed value of broiler litter for stocker cattle. Highlights of Alabama Agric. Res. 41(1):12. 114. Mitchell, C.C., R.H. Walker, and P.P. Shaw. 1993. Are there weeds in broiler litter? 115. Highlights of Alabama Agric. Res. 40(4):4. 116. Noland, P.R., B.F. Ford, and M.C. Ray. 1955. The use of ground chicken litter as a source of nitrogen for gestating-lactating ewes and fattening steers. J. Anim. Sci. 14:860. 117. Patil, A.R., A.L. Boltsch, D.L. Galloway, Sr., and L.A. Forester, Jr. 1993. Intake and 118. digestion by Holstein steer calves consuming grass hay supplemented with broiler litter. 119. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 44:251. 120. Rankins, D.L., J.T. Eason, T.A. McCaskey, A.H. Stephenson, and J.G. Floyd, Jr. 1993. 121. Nutritional and toxicological evaluations of three deep-stacking methods for the processing of broiler litter as a foodstuff for beef cattle. Anim. Prod. 56:321. 122. Rude, B.J., and D.L. Rankins, Jr. 1993. Evaluation of bermudagrass and johnsongrass as alternatives to corn silage for ensilage with poultry litter. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 44:101. 123. Ruffin, B.G., and T.A. McCaskey. 1991. Feeding broiler litter to beef cattle. Alabama 124. Coop. Ext. Ser. Circ. ANR-557. 125. Stuedemann, J.A., and C.S. Hoveland. 1988. The fescue endophyte: History and impact on animal agriculture. J. Prod. Agric. 1:39. 126. Stuedemann, J.A., S.R. Wilkinson, D.J. Williams, H. Ciordia, J.V. Ernest, W.A. Jackson, 127. and J.B. Jones, Jr. 1975. Long-term broiler litter fertilization of tall fescue pastures and 128. health and performance of beef cows. p. 265-268. In: Managing Livestock Wastes. Am. 129. Soc.Agric. Eng. Pub. Proc. no. 275, St. Joseph, MI. 130. Taylor, J.C., and R.E. Geyer. 1979. Regulatory considerations in the use of animal waste as 131. feed ingredients. J. Anim. Sci. 48:218. 132. Van der Watt, H.V.H., M.E. Sumner, and M.L. Cabrera. 1994. Bio availability of copper, 133. manganese, and zinc in poultry litter. J. Environ. Qual. 23:43. 134. Wilkinson, S.R., J.A. Stuedemann, D.J. Williams, S.R. Jones, Jr., R.N. Dawson, and W.A. 135. Jackson. 1971. Recycling broiler litter on tall fescue pasture at disposal rates and evidence of beef cow health problems. p. 321-324. In: Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Abatements. Proc. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. Pub. Proc. no 271, St. Joseph, MI. Williams, D.J., D.E. Tyler, and E. Papp. 1969. Abdominal fat necrosis as a herd problem in Georgia cattle. J. Amer. Vet. Med. Assoc. 154:1018. 136. Wolf, D.C., M.L. May, J.M. Phillips, and P.M. Gale. 1987. Ammonia volatilization from 137. soil amended with hen manure. Agron. Abstr.:36.