Littertreat litter2 feed


Published on

1 Comment
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Littertreat litter2 feed

  1. 1. LITTERTREATPLT (POULTRY LITTER TREATMENT)1. ETHICS AND STATUTORY REGULATIONSUsing adequately processed animal waste in animal feed may not be estheticallypleasing but it is safe, nutritionally valid, and environmentally sound.Recycled animal waste, such as processed chicken manure and litter, has beenused as a feed ingredient for almost 40 years. This animal waste contains largeamounts of protein, fiber, and minerals, and has been deliberately mixed intoanimal feed for these nutrients.Prior to 1967, the use of poultry litter as cattle feed was unregulated but that yearthe FDA issued a policy statement that poultry litter offered in interstatecommerce as animal feed was adulterated effectively banning the practice. In1980, FDA reversed this policy and passed regulation of litter to the states. InDecember 2003, in response to a the detection of bovine spongiformencephalopathy (mad cow disease)in a cow in the state of Washington, the FDAannounced plans to put in place a poultry litter ban. Because poultry litter cancontain recycled cattle proteins as either spilled feed or feed that has passedthrough the avian gut, the FDA was concerned that feeding litter would be apathway for spreading mad cow disease. In 2004, FDA decided to take a morecomprehensive approach to BSE that would remove the most infectious proteinsfrom all animal feeds. The FDA decided at this point that a litter ban wasunnecessary in part based on comments by the North American RenderingIndustry( 2005, the FDA published a proposed rule that did not include a litter ban and in2008 the final rule did not include the ban either.
  2. 2. 2. CITATIONS:1. Poultry litter has been extensively used as a feed ingredient for ruminantanimals and a number of studies pertaining to its feed use were reviewed byBhattacharya and Taylor (1975).2. Broiler litter substituted in high-grain diets resulted in a reduction in daily gainsand a lower feed conversion ratio. Using a lower-energy-based diet, Cross andJenny found gains of feedlot steers were similar between cattle fed dietscontaining corn silage with either 0, 10, or 30 percent broiler litter substituted forcorn silage. Several other recent studies have demonstrated the potential use ofbroiler litter in livestock diets. In 1994 McCaskey et al. reported that beef steergains were 2.53 pounds per day on a concentrate diet as compared with 2.12pounds per day on a diet of 50 percent broiler litter and 50 percent corn. Basedon animal performance and current feed prices, a producer could afford to payup to $123 per ton for the 50 percent broiler litter-50 percent corn diet.Diets containing broiler litter can produce acceptable levels of performance bybeef cattle.However, raw broiler litter needs to be processed to ensure its safety frompotentially harmful pathogens. Processing can be achieved by moderate heat,either during the ensiling process or by deep stacking or pelleting the broilerlitter.( Example of how to mix a high yielder home-made concentrateNutrient %Maize germ 66Cotton seed cake 20Poultry litter 8Fish meal 4Maclick super 2Total 100( Elam et al. (1954) reported that chick growth increased when 17.6 ml of afiltered suspension of their litter (autoclaved for 15 min at 15 psi and 121–
  3. 3. 125°C) was added per kg of their conventional feed. This effect wasequivalent to the addition of fish solubles.In the most recent report of the CAST (1978) it is stated that already in1908, Henry reported on manure refeeding experiments of the late 1800sand that Henry and Morris in 1920 recommended feeding cattle manure topigs.( Based on the results of several other experiments, the industrialproduction of pelleted cattle ration, using 40% dried broiler litter ofstandard quality (from a three-million broiler farm), was established by theauthor (Müller et al., 1968) in 1967. The composition of the pelletedformula was as follows:Ingredients %Broiler litter 40.0Cereal grain and milling by-products 50.0Molasses 8.8Mineral/vitamin supplement 1.2A large-scale application of this formula on the one hand and directly-feddehydrated broiler litter on the other, was carried out as a part of acomprehensive extension programme of the Czechoslovak Ministry ofAgriculture and Nutrition on 204 farms holding 21,065 head of cattle in 12districts. Daily live weight gains ranged from 0.95 to 1.25 kg according tothe farm, with a farm average of 1.12 kg (Anon., 1968).( Quisenberry and Bradley (1969) found that the overall performance oflaying hens on diets containing 10 and 20% of untreated litter and manurewas generally better than that of the controls when the diets were properlybalanced in protein and energy.
  4. 4. DRIED LAYER MANURE IN POULTRY FEEDSMichigan scientists Flegal and collaborators (1969, 1971a, 1971b, 1972) fedlaying hens rations containing 10, 20, 30 and 40% dried layer manure (DLM)and balanced in protein, calcium and phosphorus. Egg production (with theexception of layers fed 10% DLM), feed efficiency, and weight gain fell asthe proportion of DLM in the ration increased. Feed costs declined withincreased 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 significantdifferences in egg production and egg weight were observed. Somevariations in feed consumption were apparently attributable to a lowerenergy content in the wheat-bran and DLM diets. The amount of faecal drymatter excreted per hen per day was considerably greater for birds fedDLM than for those of the control group. Apparently only a small portion ofDLM was utilized by the hen.In a completely closed, continuous-recycling experiment on a large numberof laying hens, pullets 20 weeks old were fed either 0, 12.5 or 25%dehydrated layer manure (DLM) for 412 consecutive days. Manure was thusreturned to the same birds 31 times. The results are given in Table 59. Theincorporation of 12.5 or 25% DLM affected neither the productionparameters, nor the quality, flavour or taste of eggs or of meat produced byhens fed on any of the tested diets. The chemical composition of DPWmonitored from DLM-fed groups for 31 cycles showed no substantialchanges (see Table 60). However, some accumulation of mineral matterand fibre took place during later cycles.(
  5. 5. EXPERIMENTS WITH FEEDING POULTRY LITTER TO BEEF CATTLEReferenceClass ofcattleTreatment/natureof poultry litter,feeding, etc.Litter intotal ration%Meandailygain(g)Feed/gainRemarksNoland etal., 1955YearlingsteersControl - 970 10.8Treatmentsequated for NBroiler litter (canebagasse)18 .8 820 13.0Control - 840 14.0Broiler litter (canebagasse)18.8 600 19.6Control - 940 15.3Treatmentsequated for N andenergyBroiler litter (canebagasse)18.8 870 19.5Southwell etal., 1958Yearlingsteers (140days)Control - 970 11.350% supplementalproteinBroiler litter(ground maizecobs)9.9 940 12.1Broiler litter 19.8 930 12.2Southwell etal., 1958Steers (18–20 months)Control (maize) -AllsimilarBetterthan30%litterBroiler litter 15.0 " "Broiler litter 30.0 " "Fontenot etal., 1964Steers (382kg)Control - 1300 11.2Carcass grades forwood shaving litterslightly lowerBroiler litter(groundnuts)25.0 1280 10.1Broiler litter(wood shavings)25.0 1200 10.8Drake et al.,1965Steers (375kg)Control - 1070 9.8No significantarcassdifferencesBroiler 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. 6. (maize cobs)Broiler litter(grass, hay)40.0 920 12.2 " "Broiler litter(soybean hulls)40.0 950 12.4 " "Mixture of aboveDrake et al.,1965Steers (375kg)Control - 1210 8.4No significantcarcass differencesBroiler 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., 1966Crossbredsteers (334kg)Control (50% Nfrom SBM)- 840litter/kg/gainDressing % 58.3Broiler litter (50%dig. N from litter)2.8 kg/ day 850 1.5 58.8Broiler litter (50%dig. N from) litter+ energy)2.8 kg/day 968 1.3 60.2Broiler litter 5.0 kg/day 850 2.7 58.2Fontenot etal., 1966Yearlingsteers (123days)Control - 1300 11.2 Carcass % 5Broiler litter(peanut hulls)23.1 1280 10.1 5Broiler litter(wood shavings)23.1 1200 10.8Fontenot etal., 1966Yearlingsteers (123days)Control - 1210 8.4All rations equatedfor N and fibreBroiler litter(peanut hulls)22.7 1000 11.0Broiler litter (corncobs)22.6 1010 10.5Broiler litter(chopped hay)22.8 1060 10.7Broiler litter(soybean hulls)22.3 940 10.0Control - 1070 9.8 All steers fed 1.0kg
  7. 7. Broiler litter(peanut hulls)36.6 910 13.0hay/hd/dayBroiler litter (corncobs)36.6 960 12.4 " "Broiler litter(chopped hay)36.7 1020 12.0 " "Broiler litter(soybean hulls)36.5 920 12.2 " "Ray andCate, 1966YearlingSteersControl 25.0 932 8.84Broiler litter(cottonseed hulls)25.0 1477 7.39Müller etal., 1968Steers (247kg)Broiler litter +minerals +Vitamins A, D4.5kg/head/day1330 8.7Energy balance bymaize grain andpotato flakesSteers (235kg)Broiler litter +minerals +Vitamins A, D5.5kg/head/day980 11.9Steers (220kg)Broiler litter (nomineral balance)6.0kg/head/day730 13.9Broiler litter +minerals +Vitamins A, D6.0kg/headday1140 12.3Müller etal., 1968Steers (185kg)Broiler litter (nomineral balance)3.5kg/head/day620 12.7Energy balance bymaize grain andpotato flakesBroiler litter +minerals +Vitamins A, D3.5kg/head/day860 9.2Müller etal., 1968Steers (221kg)Broilerlitter(woodshavings)40.0 1460 7.52Complete pelletedformula:Steers (189kg)Broiler litter(wood shavings)40.0 1420 7.1450% grain8.8% molassesSteers (216kg)Broiler litter(wood shavings)40.0 1380 7.6340% litter1.2% supplementMüller andDřevjaný,1968Holsteinsteers (283kg) (154days)Control forage +1.5 kgconcentrate- 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. 8. (wood shavings)Broiler litter(wood shavings)70.0 830 10.2P 1.57. Moisture oflitter was 16.9%;Balancingingredients: wheatflour, feed grain;dry potato flakes;sugar, sugar beetmolasses; urea in30, 40, and 50%litter.Kumanov etal., 1969Steers (215kg)Control 40.0 1260 -Dig. N. 74.91%Dig. DM 78.11%Broiler litter(meal)40.0 980 -Dig. N. 64.75%OMDs 75.63%Muftidet al.,1969 bBlackpiedcattle (130–140 kg)Broiler litter(wood shavings)72.4 888 -Saved 30–40% infeed costs over 135daysSzelényinéetal., 1969Young bullsBroiler litter(chopped strawbase)25.0 1220 -Borgioli andTocchini,1969Chianinacattle (320kg)Control - 1315 Better No significantBroiler litter(wood shavings)25.0 1239 - carcass differencesLízal andBraun, 1969Bulls Control - - -(250-300 kg)Broiler litter(sawdust)40.0 - - Retained 11.15 gBroiler litter(wood shavings)40.0 - -N more thancontrol Retained6.30 g N more thancontrolBorgioli andTocchini,1969a, bSteers (320kg)Control - 1239 7.55 No difference inPoultry litter 25.0 1315 6.35 carcassEl-Sabban etal., 1970SBM control - 1220 10.3Autoclaved layerexcreta4.85 1220 10.0Dried layerexcreta4.89 1150 10.8Urea control - 1430 8.2Bucholtz etal., 1971Yearlingsteers (134days)SBM control - 1520 7.0Urea control - 1410 7.2All supplementalprotein from32.0 1250 10.4
  9. 9. dried layerexcreta (DPW)Supplementalprotein from 1/2DPW - 1/2 urea10.5 1310 8.1Supplementalprotein from 1/2DPW - 1/2 urea9.3 1370 7.3Yankov etal., 1971Steers (209kg)Broiler litter(maize cobs)45.0 1467 5.08Broiler litter(sunflowerbushes)45.0 1161 5.84Paliev et al.,1971SteersBroiler litter(sawdust)49.0 1087 6.24Broiler litter(sawdust)44.0 1152 6.01Meregallietal., 1971Steers (260kg)Control - 1238 7.26 Carcass % 58.6Poultry litter(dried)25.0 1250 7.83 58.7Szelényinéet al., 1971Young bullsControl - 1250 -Broiler litter(chopped strawbase)25.0 920 -Fontenotand Webb,1971YearlingSteers (121days)Control - 730 13.1Broiler litter 25.0 670 13.4Broiler litter 50.0 370 19.4Velloso etal., 1971Crossbredbullocks(287 kg)Control - 903 -Broiler litter(maize silage +ears)35.0 720 -Broiler litter(ground maizecob base)45.0 814 -Sommerand Pelech,1971Male cattle(306-328 kg)Control- 1142 4.08No significantcarcass differencesBroiler litter(sawdust + strawbases) n.a. 936 4.00Rossi andCosseddu,1972Crossbredbulls (224kg)Broiler litter 38.0 1430 6.51Felkl et al.,1972Male andfemaleLarge number ofexperiments with60.0From879 ton.a.Energy wasbalanced by maize
  10. 10. cattle (160-417 kg)broiler litterincluding carcassevaluations, etc.1092 silage, sugar beetpulp and cerealgrain mealWebb et al.,1973Yearlingsteers (134days)Control - 1270 8.3010% molassesTreatmentsequated for TDN25% broilermanure25.0 1040 9.2325% broilermanure25.0 1030 9.65Batsman,1973Simmentalbulls (16months)Control - 865 - No significantBroiler litter n.a. 896 - carcass differencesBroiler litter n.a. 870 - " "Bosman,1973Calves (7months)Control - 1161 6.48Cattle on 40% litterhad carcasses oflower grade withless fat coveringthan other groupsBroiler litter(maize meal)20.0 1117 6.89Broiler litter(lucerne meal)40.0 900 7.71Denisov etal., 1973Bull calves(6 months)Control - 892 9.125.0 822 8.9Broiler litter(straw and chaff)40.0 757 9.7Broiler litter(wood shavingsbase)25.0 600 12.3Batsman,1973Bull calves(7 months)Control - 708 - No significantBroiler litter n.a. 745 - carcass differencesBroiler litter n.a. 710 - " "Broiler litter n.a. 721 - " "Müller,1969 (cit.1974)Malaysiancross-bredBostaurus+indicus(87.8 and65.0 kgrespectively)Dehydratedbroiler litter(wood shavings)45.0 760 -(Estim. 50-75%Bostaurus)Dehydratedbroiler litter(wood shavings)45.0 600 -(Estim. less than50% Bostaurus) 464and 362 kg finalweight respectivelyMüller,1974Malaysiacross-bredBostaurusand indicus(54–61 kg)Poultry litter(ensiled)35–40 740 7.2Dressing 58-61%Poultry litter(ensiled)35–40 630 6.5Aranjó andPerez-Buriel, 1976Native ZebuPasture (Digitariadecumbens)- 388 -Carcasshot (kg)%152 49.9
  11. 11. bullsPasture + 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 53.0Cullison etal., 1976aSteer calves(152.5 days)Control - 1200 7.3Supplemental Nfrom broiler excreta50%supplemental N5.8 1180 7.5100%supplemental N13.0 1110 7.9Cullison etal., 1976bSteer calves(145 days)DressingAbscessedliver %Positive control - 1130 7.1 60.9 70.0Broiler litter(wood shavings)20.0 1160 7.5 60.8 55.0Broiler litter(peanut hulls)19.5 1080 8.0 61.2 35.0Dried layerexcreta12.7 900 9.3 60.8 35.0Negative control - 1070 7.5 60.3 21.1McClure etal., 1978Cross-bredheifers(251–256kg)Maize silage -809-Dressing%58.1Maize silage +SBM- 941 - 60.0Maize silage +litterabout 50% 1014 - 60.7Maize silage +litter + SBM30% litter insilageabout 50 % 1032 - 59.9
  12. 12. EFFECT OF FEEDING BROILER LITTER ON PERFORMANCE OF FINISHING STEERSBroiler litter in ration1(%DM)Critical nutrients in complete ration(%)Performance over 154 daysCrude protein TDN Ash Crude fibreAverageLWG/day(kg)Feed/gain(kg)0366 10.3 21.0 1.12 n.a.30 15.0 76 7.8 10.0 1.20 7.840 15.0 74 7.9 11.3 1.22 8.150 15.0 73 7.9 12.6 1.21 9.760 15.5 71 8.7 13.7 1.08 9.870 17.3 65 9.7 15.1 0.83 10.2Source: Müller and Dřevjaný, 1968.1Broiler 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 rationswere pelleted (8 mm pellets).2Balancing ingredients: wheat flour, feed grade; dry potato flakes; sugar, sugarbeet molasses. Ureawas used to make up crude protein to 15% in rations with 30, 40 and 50%. Barley straw was used as asource of “long fibre” as libitum.3Control was fed green forage ad libitum and 1.5 kg of conventional feed concentrate with limitedaccess to pasture; feed efficiency data for the control were therefore not established.CATTLE FED ON POULTRY WASTES: CARCASS QUALITYParametersPositivecontrolBroiler litter(wood shavings)22.5% CP2Broiler litter(peanuthulls) 24.9 %CP2Dried layermanure40.4% CP2NegativecontrolCrude protein of diets(%)11.5 11.0 11.6 11.9 8.9Daily gain/head (kg) 1.13 1.16 1.08 0.90 1.07Feed/gain (kg) 7.07 7.49 7.97 9.33 7.49Dressing (%) 60.9 60.8 61.2 60.8 60.3Abscessed liver (%) 70.0 55.0 35.0 35.0 21.1Flavour intensity13.3 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2Flavour desirability13.6 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6Tenderness13.6 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.9Juiciness13.4 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5Composite grade13.4 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.51Range 1 (minimum desirability) through 5 (maximum desirability).2Crude protein content in poultry waste.Source: Cullision et al., 1976.
  13. 13. MILK PRODUCTION OF COWS FED RATIONS CONTAININGDPE (DRIED POULTRY EXCRETA)Reference ItemDietsControl1DPEBull and Reid, 1971Milk (kg/day)Mean21.19 17.81Thomas et al., 1972 19.60 20.60Kneale andGarstang, 197514.80 15.9017.10 15.4018.17 17.42Bull and Reid, 1971Milk fat(%)3.68 3.92Thomas et al., 1972 3.30 3.87Kneale andGarstang, 19753.58 3.47Smith et al., 1976 3.70 3.60Mean 3.57 3.72Bull and Reid, 1971 Milk, total solids(%)12.40 12.5611.80 11.85Mean 12.10 12.21Smith et al., 1976 Fluid milk/kg dryfeed0.83 0.81Fat-correctedmilk/kg TDN1.46 1.551Supplemented with conventional feeds.Source: Smith, 1977.
  14. 14. PERFORMANCE OF LAYERS ON VARIOUS RATIONSParameter UnitFormulaControl Bran DLM DLMComposition of rations:Maize % 64.5 49.6 52.5 48.0Dried layer manure % - - 22.5 22.5Wheat bran % - 19.8 - -Fat % 1.5 3.7 3.7 1.5Soybean meal (49%) % 17.0 11.5 11.5 17.0Other ingredients % 17.0 15.4 9.8 11.0Nutrient content:Crude protein % 15.3 13.9 13.9 15.4Metabolizable energy Mcal/kg 2.86 2.64 2.64 2.44Performance:Egg production % 92.5 91.5 91.7 89.0Egg weight g 57.7 57.6 57.7 58.1Feed/hen/day g 103.8 112.2 114.3 118.1Feed/dozen eggs kg 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.6Body weight gain g 170 158 126 145Faecal dry matter:Feed consumed % 25.7 32.6 34.6 38.3Feed DM consumed % 28.4 35.2 37.7 42.0Amount/hen/day % 26.6 36.5 39.5 45.2Metabolizable energy:Hen/day intake Kcal/kg 297 296 302 289Source: Nesheim, 1972.RECYCLED DLM: INFLUENCE ON EGG PRODUCTION,FEED EFFICIENCY AND TOTAL MORTALITYDietHenhoused(%)Production Henday(%)Feed/bird/day(g)Feed/dozeggs(kg)Mortality(%)Control 59.6 64.4 96.4 2.41 7.912.5%DIM62.4 67.8 95.1 2.22 6.925.0%DIM59.2 65.0 107.8 3.00 7.7Source: Flegal et al., 1972.
  15. 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 21–31CP 32.8 24.8 26.6 32.9 24.2 25.0Corrected CP 12.6 11.9 13.3 12.3 11.5 12.4Ether extract 1.5 2.2 2.4 1.8 1.8 2.0Crude fibre 11.3 12.6 13.2 11.8 12.4 12.1Ash 28.6 31.0 29.3 29.3 33.0 34.5Ca 8.9 10.3 8.5 8.7 11.5 10.5P 2.5 3.4 3.2 2.6 3.4 3.4Source: Flegal et al., 1972.UTILIZATION OF DPM TO FEED GROWING CHICKS AND BROILERSDPM in diet(%)0 5 10 15 2020(+Fat)Data at 4 weeks (Leghorns)Avg. body weight (g) 269 270 273 278 262Feed efficiency 2.39 2.47 2.51 2.62 2.72Data at 4 weeks (Broilers)Avg. body weight (g) 606 607 569 571 623Feed efficiency 1.82 1.85 1.94 2.05 1.92Source: Flegal and Zindel (1970).
  16. 16. 3. PREAMBLEPoultry litter may include excreta, bedding, wasted feed and feathers. Bedding may consist ofrice husk, wood shavings, sawdust, straw, peanut hulls or other fibrous materials. While mostof the poultry litter is from broiler production, Layer in cages and Chicks grown in deep litterare also sources of litter. The litter may be from one crop of layers/broilers or accumulatedover 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 intensivesystems using confined rearing methods.The creation of large farms at the commercial level for raising domestic animals in largenumbers such as cows, chickens, pigs and swine, has created an increased environmentalconcern over the animals waste products created by such a large domestic production ofanimals. Typical environmental concerns, which are each related but different in results,include, among others, ground water and stream contamination from runoff at the waste sitesand soil contamination, particularly for agricultural purposes, resulting from the large volumeof waste. Therefore, animal manure has become a tremendous environmental problemthroughout the world.Management of the large volumes of excreta produced from these systems has meantbedding is minimized and slatted floors are employed, allowing feces and urine to collect asslurry containing approximately 3 to 12% solids. As intensive farming methods have proveneconomically effective, many adverse effects of handling livestock wastes, particularly asslurry, 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 thespread of pathogens, are becoming ever-increasing concerns. The importance of all theseproblemsvaries according to the nature of the waste, concerns of the farmer, distance ofneighbors, vulnerability of the surrounding environment, and current legislation.
  17. 17. LLiitttteerr ccoonnttaaiinnss eesssseennttiiaall nnuuttrriieennttss ffoorr aanniimmaall ggrroowwtthhaanndd ppeerrffoorrmmaannccee.. IItt aallssoo ccoonnttaaiinnss oorrggaanniicc mmaatttteerr tthhaattiimmpprroovveess ffeeeedd cchhaarraacctteerriissttiiccss.. FFoorr bbootthh ooff tthhee aabboovveennaammeedd rreeaassoonnss,, tthhiiss ccaann bbee uusseedd aass aann aanniimmaallffeeeeddiinngg ssttuuffff..OOnnee ooff tthhee mmoosstt pprroommiissiinngg mmeetthhooddss ooff ddiissppoossaall ooffPPoouullttrryy LLiitttteerr,, iiss rreeccyycclliinngg aass aa lliivveessttoocckk ffeeeeddiinnggrreeddiieenntt oorr aass aann aaqquuaa ccuullttuurree ppoonndd wwaatteerr mmeeddiiuummaaddddiittiivvee ffoorr pprroommoottiinngg tthhee ppllaannkkttoonn ggrroowwtthh aanndd ffoorrbbiiooggaass pprroodduuccttiioonn..AAnniimmaall mmaannuurreess hhaavvee bbeeeenn aann iimmppoorrttaanntt oorrggaanniiccmmaannuurree ssoouurrccee ooff ffrreesshh wwaatteerr aaqquuaaccuullttuurree ffoorrddeevveellooppiinngg aanndd mmaaiinnttaaiinniinngg PPllaannkkttoonn aanndd aass tthheepprriinncciippaall mmaatteerriiaall ooff bbiiooggaass ffeerrmmeennttaattiioonn iinn rruurraallaarreeaass aanndd aallssoo aass aa mmaannuurree iinn aaggrriiccuullttuurraall ffaarrmmss ffoorrssooiill eennrriicchhmmeenntt..
  18. 18. RRaabbbbiittss,, rraattss,, ppoouullttrryy aanndd ppiiggss aarree tthhee mmoosstt ttyyppiiccaalleexxaammpplleess bbeeccaauussee iinn ssppeecciiffiicc nnuuttrriittiioonnaall ssiittuuaattiioonnss tthheeyyccoonnssuummee tthheeiirr oowwnn eexxccrreettaa iinn ssuubbssttaannttiiaall qquuaannttiittiieess ttoommeeeett tthheeiirr rreeqquuiirreemmeennttss ooff nnuuttrriieennttss mmiissssiinngg ffrroomm tthheeiirrddiieettss.. PPiiggss ffrreeeellyy rrooaammiinngg iinn vviillllaaggeess lleeaavvee hhaarrddllyy aannyyppoouullttrryy oorr ccaattttllee mmaannuurree uunnuuttiilliizzeedd,, eevveenn wwhheenn tthheeyy aarreeffuullllyy ffeedd oonn tthhee ““bbeesstt bbaallaanncceedd”” ddiieettss aaccccoorrddiinngg ttoo mmaannssvviieeww.. TThhiiss pphheennoommeennoonn iiss aattttrriibbuuttaabbllee ttoo tthhee aanniimmaallssiinnssttiinncctt ttoo sseeaarrcchh ffoorr nnuuttrriieennttss ccrreeaatteedd bbyy tthheeeennddooggeennoouuss ssyynntthheessiiss ooff tthhee eenntteerriicc mmiiccrroofflloorraa..RReesseeaarrcchh oonn ffeeeeddiinngg ppoouullttrryy lliitttteerr hhaass bbeeeenn ccoonndduucctteeddssiinnccee tthhee 11995500’’ss..FFoolllloowwiinngg aa tthhoorroouugghh rreevviieeww ooff tthhee aavvaaiillaabbllee lliitteerraattuurreeccoonncceerrnniinngg tthhee uussee ooff ppoouullttrryy lliitttteerr iinn bbootthh bbeeeeff aanndd ddaaiirryyccaattttllee ddiieettss,, tthheerree aappppeeaarrss ttoo bbee nnoo mmoorree hheeaalltthh rriisskkss ttooaanniimmaallss oorr iinnddiirreeccttllyy ttoo hhuummaannss ffrroomm pprrooppeerrllyy pprroocceesssseeddbbrrooiilleerr lliitttteerr tthhaann ffrroomm aannyy ootthheerr ssoouurrccee ooff ccaattttllee ffeeeedd..TThhee rruummeenn ((ssttoommaacchh)) ooff aa bbeeeeff aanniimmaall ddooeess aann eexxcceelllleennttjjoobb ooff bbrreeaakkiinngg ddoowwnn aanndd ccoonnvveerrttiinngg bbrrooiilleerr lliitttteerr iinnttoonnuuttrriieennttss,, wwhhiicchh ccaann tthheenn bbee aabbssoorrbbeedd aanndd uusseedd bbyy tthheeaanniimmaall..
  19. 19. Table 1:Typical Range of Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium Values for Broiler LitterAdapted from VanDevender et al., 2000.Values are for 2,054 broiler litter samples analyzed by University of Arkansas AgriculturalDiagnostics Lab from 1993 to 2000.Table 2:Litter nutrient analysis at Applied Broiler Research Unit during 9-flock growoutInitial bedding material was 50/50 mix of rice hulls and pine shavings/sawdust.2Caked litter was removed after each flock, but samples were taken before cake removal.3Figures are averages of four 40 x 400 houses on the farm.Table 3Composition of Poultry Manure %ge on DM BasisNutrient Deep Litter Cage SystemNitrogen %ge 1.22 1.63P2O5 %ge 2.04 4.65K20 %ge 1.65 2.10S %ge 0.95 1.15Zn ppm 164 433Cu ppm 34 41Fe ppm 2405 5200Mn ppm 275 490
  20. 20. Table 4Chemical composition of poultry waste from different sources on Dry Matter BasisBroiler LayerDeep Litter Cage droppings Deep Litter Cage DroppingsCP 24 to 31 20 to 23 15 to 19 23 to 28True Protein 15 to 17 10 to 12 NA 11.3Crude Fibre 16 to 24 17 to 28 20 to 26 12 to 28Ether Extract 03.3 1.21 to 1.66 0.73 0.9 to 2.0Nitrogen Free Extract 29.5 30 to 37 38 28 to 38Total Ash 15 21 to 29 28 to 29 21 to 28ME Cattle Kcal/KgDM 2180 NA NA NAME Poultry Kcal/KgDM NA 1150 NA NATable 5Mineral content of Poultry Waste on Dry Matter BasisBroiler LayerDeep Litter Cage droppingsCa 2.3 1.65 8.8P 1.70 1.45 2.50Mg 0.48 0.66 0.67Na 0.54 0.40 0.94K 2.04 1.40 2.33Fe ppm 1414 3480 0.20Cu ppm 267 20.50 150Mn ppm 286 245 406Zn ppm 275 47.50 463Amino acid profile of the poultry litter is almost equal to that of Barley.Table 6Composition of Poultry Manures compared to FYMNutrient FYM Broiler Litter Layer Cage DroppingsN 1.1 3.84-4.96 3.68-4.48P as P2O5 1.33 4.25 6.25Potassium as K2O 1.30 2.45 2.80Sulfur 0.60 0.95 1.15Zinc as Zn in ppm 58 275 463Copper as Cu in ppm 10 267 150Fe in ppm 2600 1414 2000Mn in ppm 130 286 406
  21. 21. Table 7pH, organic carbon content, and nutrient composition of poultry litter.Sample typeParameter Egg layer litter Broiler litterOrganic C (%) 15.3(4.7)+32.5pH 8.1 6.4Salts (dS/m) 7.2 7.0Macronutrients (%)Nitrogen 3.3 4.1Phosphorus 2.9 2.1Potassium 3.6 2.7Sulfur 1.0 0.73Calcium 17.9 4.0Magnesium 0.8 0.7Micronutrients (ppm)Boron 42.7 33.5Copper 163 163Iron 2,040 3,254Manganese 647 444Molybdenum 10.7 6.2Zn 403 383+Value in parenthesis is inorganic C as calcium carbonate.Table 8ESTIMATED PRODUCTION OF POULTRY WASTE(g DM/bird/day)Class of poultry Kind of waste ProductionBroiler manure 11.0Broiler litter 18.6Replacement bird manure 13.7Replacement bird litter 27.3Layer manure 32.9Layer litter 65.8Turkey litter 87.7
  22. 22. 444... CCCOOONNNCCCEEEPPPTTT OOOFFF LLLIIITTTTTTEEERRRTTTRRREEEAAATTTTTThhheee nnnooovvveeelll cccooonnnccceeepppttt iiisss tttooo tttrrreeeaaattt ttthhheee pppooouuullltttrrryyy llliiitttttteeerrriiinnn sssiiitttuuuwwwiiittthhh BBBIIIOOOOOODDDOOONNNIIILLLtttooo eeellliiimmmiiinnnaaattteee ttthhheee ppprrrooobbbllleeemmmsss llliiikkkeeeAAAmmmmmmooonnniiiaaa eeemmmiiissssssiiiooonnnsss,,, ffflllyyy aaannnddd mmmaaaggggggoootttsss,,,aaannnddd ttthhheeennn SSSuuubbbssseeeqqquuueeennntttlllyyyfffuuurrrttthhheeerrr tttrrreeeaaattt ttthhheee aaabbbooovvveee llliiitttttteeerrr tttrrreeeaaattteeedddwwwiiittthhh BBBIIIOOOOOODDDOOONNNIIILLLaaattt ttthhheee FFFeeeeeeddd fffaaaccctttooorrryyytttooo eeellliiimmmiiinnnaaattteee PPPaaattthhhooogggeeennnsssaaannnddd tttooo iiimmmppprrrooovvveee TTTDDDNNNaaannnddd tttooo rrreeeddduuuccceee AAANNNFFFssssssooo aaasss ttthhheee rrreeesssuuullltttaaannnttt tttrrreeeaaattteeeddd llliiitttttteeerrrbbbeeecccooommmeeesss fffiiittt fffooorrr uuussseee iiinnn AAAnnniiimmmaaalll fffeeeeeedddsssaaasss fffeeeeeedddiiinnnggg ssstttuuuffffffrrreeeppplllaaaccciiinnnggg DDDOOORRRBBB aaannnddd RRRiiiccceee PPPooollliiissshhh pppaaarrrtttiiiaaallllllyyy
  23. 23. 5.1 AMMONIA EMISSIONSLivestock slurry is a valuable fertilizer source for crop production but its value is reducedover time by significant losses of nitrogen (N), attributed mainly to the volatilization ofNH3(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 amajor 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 tothis 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 thespreading of livestock slurry (Burton, 1996), necessitating an increase in storagecapacity.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 totalN
  24. 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 50to 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) andbicarbonate ions. Hydrolysis occurs rapidly, with complete conversion of urea N toNH+4 possible within a matter of hours, depending on environmental conditions (Muckand Richards, 1980; Beline et al., 1998).This ammonium equilibrates with ammonia (NH3) which can be readily lost to air in agaseous form. The urea (mammals) and uric acid (birds) in urine is rapidly hydrolyzed byenzymes 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 proteinN mainly occurs through the activity of proteolytic and deaminative bacteria, initiallyhydrolyzing 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 arelatively unimportant source of NH+4 where livestock slurry is stored for a short period oftime (Muck and Steenhuis, 1982). However, where livestock slurry is stored for longperiods, especially at higher temperatures, it becomes the dominant pathway forNH+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, andthis can be readily emitted to air from animal housing.Nitrous oxide (N2O) is formed from microbial processes of nitrification and denitrificationthat 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 isapplied.Once emitted, the NH3can be converted back to NH4+in the atmosphere, and this NH4+reacts with acids (e.g. nitric acid, sulfuric acid) to form aerosols with a diameter of lessthan 2.5 micometers (PM 2.5). These small particles are considered a health concern forhumans and a contributor to smog formation. Removal of ammonium by depositioncontributes to soil and water acidity and ecosystem overfertilization or eutrophication.Nitric oxide and N2O are rapidly interconvereted in the atmosphere and are referred tojointly as NOx. Nitrous oxide diffuses from the troposphere into the stratosphere, where itcan remain for hundreds of years contributing to global warming and stratospheric ozonedepletion. A molecule of nitrous oxide has a global warming potential that is 296 timesthat of a molecule of CO2(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2001).
  25. 25. A single molecule of ammonia or nitrous oxide once emitted to the environment can altera wide array of biogeochemical processes as it is passed through various environmentalreservoirs in a process known as the nitrogen cascade (Galloway et al., 2003). A singlemolecule of nitric oxide can continue regenerating in the stratosphere while sequentiallydestroying one ozone molecule after another. Likewise, as reactive nitrogen is passedthrough various environmental reservoirs a single atom can participate in a number ofdestructive processes before being converted back to N2. For example, a singlemolecule of reactive nitrogen can contribute sequentially to decrease atmosphericvisibility (increase smog), increase global warming, decrease stratospheric ozone,contribute to soil and water acidity, and increase hypoxia in fresh and subsequentlycoastal 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 agriculturalproduction(van Aardenne et al., 2001).About 50% of the anthropogenic ammonia losses to the environment derive directly fromanimal feedlots, manure storage, or grazing systems, with additional losses occurringindirectly from cropping systems used to feed domestic animals as well as feed humansdirectly. In addition, animals contribute 25% of the anthropogenic N2O production with anadditional 25% coming from cropping systems. Only about 10% of the anthropogenic NOproduction derives from agriculture, most of it coming from crop-soil systems.The environmental problems caused by reactive nitrogen release into the environmentare profound and ever increasing, and agriculture is the biggest source of reactivenitrogen losses to air and water(van Aardenne et al., 2001).(Dr. Rick Kohn; Use Of Animal Nutrition To Manage Nitrogen Emissions; AnimalAgriculture)
  26. 26. Properties of the gases produced from poultry manures and their physiologicalresponses on adult human (source: CAMMG, 1979).
  27. 27. Summary of NH3 emission rates (ER, g of NH3·AU−1·d−1)1of laying hen houses withdifferent housing and management schemes in different countries (Liang et al.,2005)Country House type (season) Manure removalNH3ER Reference (year)England Deep pit (winter) Information notavailable192 Wathes et al.(1997)England Deep pit (summer) Information notavailable290 Wathes et al.(1997)England Deep pit (NA2) Information notavailable239 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 andPennsylvania)High-rise (all year)—standard dietAnnual 298 Liang et al. (2005)United States (Iowa) High-rise (all year)—1%lower CP dietAnnual 268 Liang et al. (2005)The Netherlands Manure belt (NA) Twice a week with nomanure drying31 Kroodsma et al.(1988)The Netherlands Manure belt (NA) Once a week withmanure drying28 Kroodsma et al.(1988)Denmark Manure belt (all year) Information notavailable52 Groot Koerkamp etal. (1998)Germany Manure belt (all year) Information notavailable14 Groot Koerkamp etal. (1998)The Netherlands Manure belt (all year) Information notavailable39 Groot Koerkamp etal. (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 manuredrying17.5 Liang et al. (2005)United States(Pennsylvania)Manure belt (all year) Twice a week withmanure drying30.8 Liang et al. (2005)1AU = animal units (1 animal unit = 500 kg of live weight).2NA = not available.
  28. 28. 5.2 Factors Influencing VolatilizationThe 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 theremainder excreted in the urine and 20 to 50% excreted in the feces. Urea is the majornitrogenous 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) andbicarbonate ions.Hydrolysis occurs rapidly, with complete conversion of urea N to NH+4 possible within amatter 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 proteinN mainly occurs through the activity of proteolytic and deaminative bacteria, initiallyhydrolyzing 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 arelatively unimportant source of NH+4 where livestock slurry is stored for a short period oftime(Muck and Steenhuis, 1982).However, where livestock slurry is stored for long periods, especially at highertemperatures, it becomes the dominant pathway for NH+4 production(Patni and Jui, 1991).Reactions that govern NH3 volatilization may be represented by the followingsummarized equation(Freney et al., 1981):[1]The driving force for NH3 volatilization is considered to be the difference in NH3 partialpressure between that in equilibrium with the liquid phase and that in the ambientatmosphere. In the absence of other ionic species, this is predominately influenced bythe NH+4 concentration, pH, and temperature, although any displacement of theequilibrium will affect NH3 emission.
  29. 29. 5.3 OFFENSIVE ODORSOffensive odor emanating from livestock production is of concern for intensive systemsand confined operations as the number of complaints continue to rise(Jongebreur, 1977; ONeill and Phillips, 1991; Misselbrook et al., 1993).Odors from livestock slurry are due to a complex mixture of volatile compounds arisingfrom 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; ONeill and Phillips, 1992).According to ONeill and Phillips (1992), the most important odorous components emittedfrom 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 odorthresholds.Odor can be assessed by two criteria: strength, which is measured as concentration orintensity, and offensiveness (i.e., the perceived quality). Relationships between theknown volatile compounds and perceived olfactory responses have also been sought bymany 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 predictolfactory response. Based on olfactory measurements, the problem of odor nuisance canbe tackled by reducing either the perceived strength or offensiveness(ONeill and Phillips, 1991).Reducing odor strength implies destroying or diluting odorants, whereas reducing odoroffensiveness implies modifying odorants emitted from livestock slurry.
  30. 30. 5.4 Handling PropertiesWhere livestock waste is handled as a slurry, handling problems are often encountereddue to the formation of crusts and sediments during storage that make removal for timelyand 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, physiologicalstate, and diet, but generally consist of undigested plant fiber and protein.Stimulating the microbial degradation of total solids would appear to be a more feasibleapplication than either control of NH3 or odor emissions, as the targeted organiccompounds are readily identified.Work is needed to discover the microbial decay patterns of theses organic compounds inlivestock slurries and identify the responsible enzymes and bacterial genera.
  31. 31. 5.5 Pollution to Surface WatercoursesToday 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 andphosphorous (P).Williams (1983) found that the volatile fatty acid (VFA) fraction of livestock slurryaccounted for up to 70% of its BOD.The VFA fraction of livestock wastes has also been identified as a primary contributor toodor(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 isrequired 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.
  33. 33. 6.1 Waste DisposalDisposal of untreated Poultry litter is posing a big concern, in view of thepollutions involved.6.2 EconomicsUsually, it is economical to feed poultry litter.Using present prices for conventional feeds, poultry litter is worth about Rs5000 per ton, based on its nutritional value. Usually, the price of poultrylitter is about Rs 250-500 per ton. Even after transporting the litterhundreds of miles, the total price of the litter, including transportation, isabout Rs 1000 per ton.6.3 Effect of feeding animal wastes on quality of animalproductsIn different experiments it has been found that feeding broiler litter did notadversely affect carcass quality. Furthermore, feeding the litter did notaffect taste of the meat.(UTILIZATION OF POULTRY LITTER AS FEED FOR BEEF CATTLEa; JosephP. Fontenot; John W. Hancock Jr. Professor; Department of Animal andPoultry SciencesVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Blacksburg, Virginia24061)Eden (1940) found that rabbits produce two types of faeces: the familiar drypellets during the day, and a soft, mucous type “rarely observed becausethe 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. 34. Southern (1940) conjectured that rabbits, by eating their faeces, have theability to nourish themselves in feed scarcity, cold or danger for severaldays.NUTRIENTS REQUIREMENTS OF BROILERS AND CATFISH,AND NUTRIENTS IN ANIMAL WASTESConstituent UnitNutrient requirementsComposition of animal wastes (range)Catfish1Broiler2Crude Protein % 25 23–18 18 – 42Calcium % 1.4–1.5 0.9 0.6 – 8.0Phosphorus % 0.9–1.0 0.7 0.5 – 3.0Methionine % 0.52 0.52–0.32 0.2 – 0.6Methionine+Cystine % 0.85 0.93–0.60 0.6 – 1.0Lysine % 1.33 1.20–0.85 0.7 – 1.3Arginine % 1.48 1.44–1.00 0.8 – 1.9Tryptophan % 0.3 0.23–0.17 -Threonine % 0.5 0.75–0.56 0.6 – 0.9Valine % 0.5 0.82–0.62 -Vitamin A IU/kg 22,000 1,500 2,000–15,000Riboflavin ppm 9 3.6 4 – 12Pantothenic acid ppm 28 10 12 – 28Niacin ppm 124 27 40 –120Choline ppm 1,537 1,300 -Vitamin B12 ppm 23 9 100 – 1,000Folic Acid ppm 0.64 0.55 -Sources:1Deyoe and Tiemeier, 1968;2NRC, 1977.
  35. 35. 6.4 Crude Protein:Litter can be low in crude protein because of either very high ash content orbecause of excess volatilization of N in the poultry house. High temperatures andexcess moisture in the poultry house leads to N volatilization.Microbes present in Bioodonil will convert ammonia into Nitrite and Nitriteto Nitrate and thus preserves the Protein.Furthermore microbes present in LITTERTREAT fixes atmospheric Nitrogeninto the litter.Also other microbes present in LITTERTREAT produce single cell proteinswhich are novel and supplies quality amino acids.
  36. 36. 6.5 PathogensMany 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 predominantpathogens found in the poultry litter.There are more than 100 zoonoses (Decker and Steele, 1966; Joint WHO/FAOCommittee on Zoonoses, 1959; Diesch, 1971), some of which are commonly foundin animal waste.Recycling animal waste qithout treatment as a feed ingredient represents adeparture from normal feeding practices and may result in an increased incidenceof these pathogens.Incidents of botulism caused by Clostridium botulinium have been reported incattle fed poultry litter in some countries. This problem, in all cases, was causedby 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 PoultrySciences; Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Blacksburg, Virginia24061)Alexander et al. (1968) reports presence of the followingClostridium perfringens Clostridium chauvoeiClostridium novyi Clostridium sordelliiClostridium butyricum Clostridium cochleariumClosrridium multifermentans Clostridium carnisClostridium tetanomorphum Clostridium histolyticumCorynebaeterium pyogenes Corynebacterium equiSalmonella blockley Salmonella saint-paulSalmonella 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 beforeincorporating it as feed.
  37. 37. 6.6 DISEASE TRANSMISSIONThere are many unanswered questions with regard to animal wastes as agents ofdisease transmission, and information on basic research is still lacking. There areenormous differences of opinion between the epidemiologist on the one hand andthe animal grower on the other. While the epidemiologist treats animal wastes as areservoir of pathogenic and non-pathogenic organisms dangerous to animalsand/or man (Strauch, 1977), the view of the animal production community is thatinterspecies or monospecies coprophagy always existed in nature, that animalsare always in close contact with their own wastes, and that conventional feedingredients (meat and bone meal from condemned carcasses, fish meal, bloodmeal and many others) are not always free of pathogens.Exposure of poultry waste to 30 and 37°C for one week eliminated yeasts andsharply reduced moulds. Similarly, Botts et al. (1952) reported that the survivaltime of Salmonella spp. was 15 to 20 days in old litter but 70 and 63 days in newlitter. Carriere et al. (1968) reported that Mycobacterium avium survival wasshorter 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°Cfor 60 minutes was effective in destroying all potentially dangerous pathogens.The most resistant was S. typhimurium. Fontenot et al. (1971) reported that dryingat 150°C for a minimum of 3 hours sterilized litter. Shorter exposure (1 or 2 hours),
  38. 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 mosteffective means of total elimination of coliform Salmonella-type organisms(Wilkinson, 1978) and that it also resulted in a substantial reduction of the totalbacterial count.Temperatures and exposure times generally considered (Müller, 1975) sufficientfor 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 afew 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 fewinstants 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 above50°C.These well established facts show that animal wastes treated by heat, ensiling orother processes are safe.The CAST report (1978) reaches the following conclusions regarding the danger ofdisease transmission through feeding animal wastes:“The animal body is protected in various ways from the pathogens it mightencounter in consuming animal wastes. These mechanisms include:”1. Lining of the digestive tract with contiguous cell layers that prevent theentrance of the pathogens into body tissue unless injury to the cell layeroccurs.2. Digestive enzymes and marked variations in pH within the digestive tractare lethal to many potential pathogens.3. The high microfloral population of the first three stomach compartments ofruminants, which inhibits the multiplication of pathogens.4. The immune system of the body. This system recognizes pathogens afterthe first encounter and then effectively neutralizes those pathogens whenthe body is exposed to them on subsequent encounters. This mechanismis especially important for pathogens from animal wastes fed to the same
  39. 39. species because many of these pathogens are so common that animalsacquire an early immunity to them. Ruminants in feedlots commonly ingesttheir own waste by licking the packed waste in pens, by licking their coat towhich waste has adhered, and by feed from feed bunks that have beencontaminated 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 wastefrom a group of animals is fed to the animals, and if one of the animals isshedding a pathogen, it is unlikely that any one animal will obtain the minimuminfective dose of this particular pathogen.”( contains reuterin producing microbes whichinhibits growth of pathogenic microbes such as Salmonella,Listeria, Escherichia.E. coli, Salmonella spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Clostridiumdifficile,Clostridium perfringens are eliminated by the secretionof organic acids produced by microbes present inLITTERTREAT.Bacitracin produced by microbes present in LITTERTREATsuppress the growth of pathogenic microbes.POLYMIXIN produced by microbes present in LITTERTREATinhibits the growth of pathogenic microbes.Microbes present in LITTERTREAT are able to help lessen theproliferation of hostile yeasts such as candida albicans.Microbes present in LITTERTREAT are going to eliminate thepathogens by competition and by inhibition successfully, relating toMoulds, Yeasts, Fungi, Gram positive Bacteria and Gram NegativeBacteria.
  40. 40. 6.7 TOXINSToxins produced by Aspergillus fumigates, Scopulariopsis sp. etc that are presentin 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 PoultrySciences Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Blacksburg, Virginia24061)Hendrickson and Grant (1971) detected more aflatoxin in fresh feedlot manurethan in partially decayed or stockpiled manure. No residues of aflatoxin werefound in composted manure.Aflatoxin levels found in samples of poultry litter, collected in several SoutheastAsian countries, varied between 50 and 500 ppm (Müller, 1975). Drying and otherprocessing of waste stops the microbial growth, but the inactivation of the actualtoxin can be partially eliminated by microbial processes, although the mode ofaction is unknown. Nevertheless, even samples of broiler litter high in aflatoxin(360 ppm), when fed to steers for an entire finishing period (172 days), producedno noticeable symptoms of aflatoxicity (Müller, 1967).
  41. 41. Bell (1975) studied fungi profiles in feedlot waste and found that a large number ofthermophilic and mesophilic fungi which are pathogenic or toxigenic to animalsand plants are normally present in feedlot surface manure. Thermophilic fungi(Mucor pusillus, lanuginosa, Talaromyces thermophilius, and Chaetomiumthermophile) were found, and their population remained practically unchangedover a two-month period during which samples were collected seven times.Mesophilic fungi of the genera Mucor, Rhizopus, Absidia and Mortierella weremostly present at lower temperatures and in fresh faeces.The moisture content appears to be a factor responsible for the degree ofinfestation: it was observed that A. flavus and Fusarium solani were found inincreased numbers when moisture of the feedlot waste increased.The magnitude of the problem of mycotoxins in animal waste is similar to that ofmycotoxins in feed.Aflatoxin AFB1 and Ochratoxin OA can be degraded by Enzymes likeREDUCTASE and DEHYDROGENASE.Trichothecenes T2 is degraded by EPOXIDASEZearalenone is degraded by LACTONASELLIITTTTEERRTTRREEAATT CCOONNTTAAIINNSS MMIICCRROOBBEESS TTHHAATT PPRROODDUUCCEE SSUUCCHH EENNZZYYMMEESSWWHHIICCHH CCAANN DDEEGGRRAADDEE TTHHEE TTOOXXIINNSS PPRREESSEENNTT IINN TTHHEE PPOOUULLTTRRYY LLIITTTTEERRTTOO BBEE TTRREEAATTEEDD..IITT CCOONNTTAAIINNSS PPRROOMMIISSIINNGG BBIIOOCCOONNTTRROOLL AAGGEENNTTSS FFOORR TTHHEEPPAATTHHOOGGEENNSS LLIIKKEEAASSPPEERRGGIILLLLUUSS OOCCHHRRAACCEEUUSS.. ,, AA.. ppaarraassiittiiccuuss,, AAssppeerrggiilllluuss ffllaavvuuss,,CCllaavviicceeppss SSpppp..,, FFuussaarriiuumm sseemmiitteeccttuumm,, FF.. ttrriicciinnccttuumm,, FF.. ooxxyyssppoorruumm,,FF.. ssoollaannii,, FF.. rriiggiiddiiuussccuulluumm,, FF.. ccuullmmoorruumm,, PP..CCiittrriinnuumm,, SSAAPPRROOLLEEGGNNIIAASSPP.. EETTCC..
  42. 42. 6.8 Ligno-cellulosic constituentsMicrobes and Enzymes present in LITTERTREAT appear todegrade macromolecule components (0.3–10.98% lignin, 16.55–32.3% cellulose and 7–30% hemi-cellulose)
  43. 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, theproblem would not be severe in cattle since they are not as sensitive to highdietary copper. In fact, we conducted an experiment in beef females fed dietscontaining high levels of litter with high copper levels during the winter feedingperiod for 7 years. No signs of copper toxicity were seen. Liver copper wasincreased in the spring in cows fed poultry litter, but the levels decreased in thefall 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 PoultrySciences; Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University; Blacksburg, Virginia24061)
  44. 44. 6.10 TRACE MINERALS AND VITAMINS:Many trace elements, vitamin K2, most of the vitamins of the B group and othervitamins or provitamins are found in fresh animal wastes in larger quantities thanin the original feed (Müller et al., 1968).Lamoreux and Schumacher (1940) detected more riboflavin in chicken faeces thanin their feed. Kennard et al. (1948) observed that the content of riboflavin inchicken faeces increased by 100% when the faeces were kept at room temperaturefor 24 hours, and by 300% in a week, as a result of bacterial synthesis of thevitamin.CRITICAL MINERALS: DIETARY AND FAECAL LEVELS(on DM)Element Unit Dietary level FaecalBroilerCopper ppm 150 330Manganese ppm 60 142Zinc ppm 68 151LayerCalcium % 3.25–4.00 5.00–8.00Manganese ppm 90 180Zinc ppm 120 288
  45. 45. 6.11 UGFFaecal wastes contain many unidentified nutritive (growth) factors (UGF) awaitingdiscovery and identification, as indicated by a wealth of literature.6.12 pH of LitterIf litter is to be added as feed its pH should be acidic.6.13 Pesticide residuesNo evidence has been obtained of pesticide residues in animal tissues fromanimals fed poultry litter.Data indicate that the level of pesticides is often higher in cattle fed conventionalfeed ingredients than in cattle fed poultry litter or other animal wastes. This isbecause the use of pesticides in agriculture is widespread, and high levels mayoften occur in forage, feed and crop residues (straw). The latter, when used forbedding, may contribute to the quantity of pesticides found in the litter or in thetissues of livestock fed animal wastes.In summary, however, pesticides in livestock waste feeding apparently representno serious threat to humans. Pesticides are commonly used in agriculture andoften occur in higher levels in conventional feeds and forages than in animalwastes.( Heavy metalsNo residues of heavy metals were detected in the meat and liver from cattle fedpoultry litter after a 1-day withdrawalRoxarsone, or 3-nitro-4-hydroxyphenylarsonic acid, was the most commonly usedarsenical compound in poultry feed hitherto, with a usage of 23 to 45 grams ofchemical per ton of feed for broiler chickens for increased weight gain, feedefficiency, improved pigmentation, and prevention of parasites. By design, mostof the chemical is excreted in the manure. Studies have shown arsenicconcentrations 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. 46. 6.15 Chemical Residues in Poultry LitterA potential problem of using animal excreta as a feed source is the possiblecontamination of the animals with the more than 20 feed additives currently usedin animal production (Calvert, 1973; USDA, 1971). Bhattacharya and Taylor (1975)and Fontenot and Webb (1975a) have reviewed the literature pertaining to drugresidues in animal excreta and their potential of appearing in the tissues andproducts produced by animals fed waste-formulated rations.DRUG RESIDUES IN BROILER LITTER aAntibiotics and other antimicrobial drugs (sulfa drugs, coccidiostatics, etc.) havebeen used for the past 30 years, mainly for poultry and pigs. They are excreted viathe intestinal and urinary route. Their activity (depending upon their chemicalstructure) changes during digestion and other metabolic processes and afterexcretion. Processing, temperature, humidity and pH of the excreted faecal wasteare the most significant exogenous factors responsible for the level of drugsfound. Many drugs form chemical complexes (e.g. with Ca) which render theminsoluble, so that their absorption by the body is either low or nil. Some drugsanalytically detected in wastes are physiologically inactive.Brugman et al. (1964), in an experiment with laying hens, fed rations containingvarious drugs (arsanilic acid, zoalene, unistat, nicarbazin, furan andsulfaquinoxaline) but did not detect any residues of these drugs except arsanilicacid, in the litter. Morrison (1969) studied the fate of organo-arsenicals as a feedadditive to broiler rations. Although they were found in the litter, the quantitiesdetected 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 to26.7 ppm. Donoho (1975) reported that 75% of the monensine incorporated as arumen stimulant into steers rations was found in the faeces. In dehydrated wastesfrom poultry fed monensin, a concentration of 10–15 ppm, was found, but Caswellet al. (1978) reported that monensin sodium fed to broilers was detected neither inthe litter nor in the litter silage.Brugman et al. (1967) reported that no residual amprolium or arsenic was found inthe heart, spleen, 12-rib, kidney, kidney fat, liver or brain of lambs fed rationscontaining 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. Theantibiotic was not found in blood, liver, kidney, muscles and other tissues, buttraces 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 drugsin broiler litter collected from poultry farms in Virginia. Their findings arepresented in Table 77. The wide range of concentrations of individual drugs could
  47. 47. be attributable to the level of drug fed and perhaps other factors (litter age, littertreatment, bedding, medication, etc.). Zinc bacitracin activity was also detected inthe litter from farms where this drug was not supplemented.Most researchers agree that residues of antimicrobial drugs in animal wastespose little danger because their retention by animal tissues is much below thesafety level, or even nil. The only problem may arise when broiler waste is fed athigher levels to dairy cows, where regulations establish a zero tolerance of drugsin milk.Drug Level b NO.Average Range samplesOxytetracycline, ppm 10.9 5.5- 29.1 12Chlortetracycline, ppm c 12.5 0.8- 26.3 26Chlortetracycline, ppm d . 75 0 .1- 2.8 19Penicillin, units/g 12.5 0 -25.0 2Neomycin, ppm 0 0 12Zinc bacitracin, units/ge 7.2 0.8- 36.0 6Zinc bacitracin, units/g f 12.3 0 .16-36.0 5Amprolium, ppm 27.3 0 -77.0 29Nicarbazin, ppm 81.2 35.1-152.1 25Arsenic, ppm 40.4 1.1- 59.7 41Copper, ppmg 254.7 132.1-329.3 46Copper, ppm h 50.8 37.3- 99.4 35a 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. 48. 6.16 TDNMicrobes present in Littertreat produce Enzymeslike Keratinase which degrade waste and convertthe same into TDN
  49. 49. 7. ABOUT LITTERTREATPresent novel method is to treat and biodegrade the Poultry Litter so asodor is controlled, pathogens are eliminated by competition and thematerial is biodegraded to form bioavailability of the nutrients for use inplants and animals in the first phase.In the first phase usage of BIOODONIL @ 1.5 Kg/Ton of Poultry litter onceuniformly spread over layers of each not exceeding 12.5 cm height andtotal 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 Bioodoniltreated Poultry litter to convert this biodegraded material fit for animalconsumption as a feeding stuff in the concentrate feeds @ 7.5%-15replacing 50% of the de oiled rice or wheat brans and polishes to thatextent without any adverse effects on odour, palatability, nutrition,contamination etc.For better results and to reduce the operation time involved one may go foruse of Fomenters where the parameters like Moisture, pH, Temperature,Oxygen etc can be closely monitored.
  50. 50. 8. MODE OF ACTION OF LITTERTREATAccording to Brown (1972), anaerobic processes are generally easier andcheaper, but yield less profit and are hampered by the discharge ofeffluent, or even solid waste, which is incapable of anaerobic conversion.On the other hand, aerobic processes are necessary when manures (cattlemanure for example) are rich in ligno-cellulosic constituents digestible onlyby aerobic action.Based on mesophilic fermentation, bacteria offer a wider range of micro-organisms and require less controlled conditions. Thermophilicfermentation, however, offers a higher degree of safety through prolongedexposure of the biomass to higher temperatures, eliminating pathogensand pasteurizing the product. In addition, the thermophilic process yieldsmore biomass, as it also utilizes the ligno-cellulosic constituents. For thisreason, most scientists turn to thermophilic organisms that offer highprotein substrate (50 to 60%) and are rich in nutritionally important aminoacids (lysine, methionine, cystine and tryptophane) (Brown, 1972), usuallylimiting 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 bacteriaTemperature°CGreatest activity °CMin. Max.Psychrophilic -4 25 – 30 15 – 20Mesophilic + 10 40 – 45 30 – 37Thermophilic + 45 75 55 – 65
  51. 51. 9. SUGGESTED LEVEL AND METHOD OF USINGLITTERTREAT ON LITTER TREATED WITHBIOODONILAT FEED FACTORYIn the static process the semi-dry manure, alone or together with otherorganic material, is spread in layers and turned over once or several timesduring the process as done with BIOODONIL. The moisture content shouldbe 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 inestablishing the quantity that can be used in ruminant diets.It is felt that the safe level of inclusion of treated litter in ruminant rationscould be in the range of 50% of the Brans and Polishes. Feedingrecommendations cannot however be firm until the exact individualcomposition of the treated manure is known.Aeration of the litter is not necessary since TREATLITTER ContainsOxygen Liberators in itself.
  52. 52. 10. CONTENTS OF LITTERTREATAnionic saltsEnzymes,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 TDNMicrobes that fix Ammonical Nitrogen,Microbes that help in degrading the Chemicals, Hormones and Pesticidespresent in the Poultry LitterMicrobes that help in predigestionMicrobes that help in pregelatinisation of the Starch present in the Poultry LitterMicrobes that inhibit and kill pathogens,Microbes that produce essential Amino acids like L Lysine, DL MethionineMicrobes that produce novel Enzymes which improve the bioavailability ofnutrients 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 etcOrganic acids,Propreitory additivesSea Weed Extract ,
  53. 53. 11. EXPECTED RESULTS:11.. IInnccrreeaasseedd TTDDNN22.. IInnccrreeaasseedd bbiiooaavvaaiillaabbiilliittyy33.. IInnccrreeaasseedd ppaallaattaabbiilliittyy44.. BBeetttteerr NNuuttrriittiioonnaall PPrrooffiillee55.. RReedduucceedd OOddoorr66.. RReedduucceedd PPaatthhooggeenniicc LLooaadd
  54. 54. 12. WHEN POULTRY LITTER TREATED WITHBIOODONIL AND TREATLITTERis to be used as an animal feeding stufffollowing changesare 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 Cattlefeeds.3. Safe Reduction in TRACEMINERALS like Copper, Manganese whenused @ 7.5% level in the Feed: 10-12%4. Safe Reduction in MINERALS like Calcium, Phosphorous, Zinc whenused @ 7.5% level in the Feed : 3-6%5. Safe Reduction in AMINOACID ADDITIVES like L Lysine, D LMethionine, 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 thefollowing, considering that contribution from Litter treated withLITTERTREAT contributes zero values of these components:Tryptophan, Valine, Choline and Folic acid
  55. 55. 13. FOR BETTER RESULTS:Litter treated with BIOODONIL andLITTERTREAT, may be pelletized.An examination of feeds by Zindel and Bennett (1968) failed to revealsalmonellae in pelleted or extruded feeds. Edel et al. (1973) reported thatthe spread of salmonellae may be prevented by the pelleting of feeds.Apparently, heating and subsequent drying during pelleting destroysalmonellae. Pelleting would also appear to be an effective method ofeliminating potentially pathogenic organisms in waste blended rations.
  56. 56. 14. SUGGESTED LEVEL AND METHOD OF USAGEOF TREATED POULTRY LITTER INTO ANIMALFEEDSBROILER LITTER CONTRIBUTION TO PROTEIN REQUIREMENTS OF BEEF CATTLEBroilerlitter fedat level(%)Protein contributionCrude protein level of broiler litter (%)20 25 3020g/kg of diet 40 50 60% of requirements133 42 5030g/kg of diet 60 75 90% of requirements150 63 7540g/kg of diet 80 100 120% of requirements167 83 1001At 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 (%) Use40 20 all ruminants35 23 all ruminants30 26 all ruminants25 32 excluding dairy cattle20 40 excluding dairy cattle15 53excluding dairy cattle and intensivebeef cattle production10 80only in feed emergency situations, formaintenance and wintering of cattleand sheep
  57. 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 forPoultry Science, Coop. Ext. Ser., Agri. Exp. Sta., University of Arkansas,Fayetteville.2. Bhattacharya, A N & Taylor J C, Journal of Animal Science, 1975Doye, 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 ofArkansas, Fayetteville4. 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 UnitedStates. 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 hogmanure. 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-Odorasefor 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 theirrole 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 transformationsduring anaerobically stored 15N-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. onAmmonia and Odour Emissions from Animal Production, Vinkeloord, theNetherlands. 6–10 Oct. 1997. NVTL, Rosmalen, the Netherlands.11. Buchgraber, K. 1983. Vergleich der Wirksamkeit konventioneller und alternativerDugungssyssteme auf dem. Gruland hinsichtlich Etrag, Futterqualitat und Gutedes Pflanzenbestandes. Diss., Vienna.12. Buijsman, E., H.F.M. Mass, and W.A.H. Asman. 1987. Anthropogenic NH3emissions in Europe. Atmos. Environ. 21:1009–1022.[ISI]
  58. 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 minimisepollution and to maximise nutrient utilisation—An EU collaboration. p. 5–10. In G.Parafait et al. (ed.) Ingenieries EAT—Animal Manures and Environment inEurope. Dec. 1996. Antony, Cemagfef, France.15. Daigle, J.Y., A. Arseneau, and A. Robichaud. 1987. Sphagnum peat: A tool forliquid 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 ofliquid 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 intensiveswine housing. J. Agric. Practice 10:15–18.18. Donham, K.J., and K.E. Gustafason. 1982. Human occupational hazards fromswine confinement. Ann. Am. Conf. Gov. Hyg. 2:137–142.19. Donham, K.J., M.J. Rubino, T.D. Thedell, and J. Kammermeyer. 1977. Potentialhealth 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 airpollution 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 cant do. Paperpresented at the 9th Eng. Foundation Conf. in Environ. Eng. in the FoodProcessing 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 chlorinesuppress odours in liquid hog manure? Agric. Eng. 49:340–343.[ISI]24. Hartung, J. 1992. Emissions and control of gases and odorous substances fromanimal 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 livestockbuildings 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 theyucca 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 ammoniacontrol. 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. SoilSci. 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. ofthe 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 hetvoer. Praktijk-oderzoek varkenshoulderij. June 1996. Rosmalen, the Netherlands.
  59. 59. 31. Hendriks, J.G.L., and M.G.M. Vrielink. 1997. Reducing the emission from pighouses by adding or producing organic acids in pig slurry. p. 493–501. In Proc. ofthe 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 manuretreatment to reduce ammonia volatilisation from pig housing. p. 301–306. InEuropean Assoc. for Animal Prod. Publ. 69. EAAP, Wageningen, theNetherlands.33. Hollenback, R.C. 1971. Manure odour abatement using hydrogen peroxide. 5638-R. Food Machinery Corp., Princeton, NJ.34. Husted, S., L.S. Jensen, and S.S. Jorgensen. 1991. Reducing ammonia lossfrom 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 controlof 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 useof Yucca schidigera extract as a `urease inhibitor in pig slurry. p. 330–335. InProc. 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 forindustrial pollution control. In Proc. of the 27th Purdue Ind. Waste Conf., PurdueUniv., Lafayette, IN. Purdue Univ. Publ., Lafayette, IN.39. Krieger, R., J. Hartung, and A. Pfeiffer. 1993. Experiments with feed additives toreduce ammonia emmisions from pig fattening houses—Preliminary results. p.295–300. In Proc. of the 1st Int. Symp. on Nitrogen Flow in Pig Production andEnviron. Consequenses, Wageningen, the Netherlands. 8–11 June 1993. EAAPPubl. no. 69. PUDOC, Wageningen, the Netherlands.40. Kroodsma, W., and N.W.M. Ogink. 1997. Volatile emissions from cow cubiclehouses 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 AnimalProduction, Vinkeloord, the Netherlands. 6–10 Oct. 1997. NVTL, Rosmalen, theNetherlands.41. Lauer, D.A., D.R. Bouldin, and S.D. Klaususner. 1976. Ammonia volatilizationfrom 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 gaseousmass-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 phosphatemonohydrate 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. ofInt. Round Table on Swine Odor Control, Ames, IA. 13–15 June 1994. Iowa StateUniv. Publ., Ames.45. Mackie, R.T., P.G. Stroot, and V.H. Varel. 1998. Biochemical identification andbiological origin of key odor components in livestock waste. J. Anim. Sci.76:1331–1342.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. 60. 46. Mader, J.R., and M.C. Brumm. 1987. Effect of feeding sarsaponin in cattle andswine diets. J. Anim. Sci. 65:9–15.[ISI][Medline]47. Martinez, J., J. Jolivent, F. Guiziou, and G. Langeoire. 1997. Ammonia emissionsfrom pig slurries. Evaluation of acidification and the use of additives to reducelosses. p. 475–483. In Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Ammonia and Odour Emissionsfrom 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 byapplication of commercial products. Trans. ASAE 19:533–538.[ISI]49. Misselbrook, T.H., C.R. Clarkson, and B.F. Pain. 1993. Relationship betweenconcentration 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 ofchemical 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 froma cow cubical house by flushing with water or a formalin solution. J. Agric. Eng.Res. 53:23–50.53. OHalloran, L.P., and A. Sigrest. 1993. Influence of incubating monocalciumphosphate with liquid hog manure on inorganic phosphorous and phosphourousavailability in two Quebec soils. Can. J. Soil. Sci. 73:371–379.[ISI]54. ONeill, D.H., and V.R. Phillips. 1991. A review of the control of odour nuisancefrom livestock buildings. Part 1: Influence of the techniques for managing wastewithin 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. Theuse of additives in livestock slurries to improve their flow properties, conservenitrogen and reduce odours. p. 229–246. In Van Der Meer et al. (ed.)Development in plant soil sciences. Animal manure on grassland and foddercrops. Fertiliser or waste? Martius Nijhoff Publ., Dordrecht, the Netherlands.56. Patni, N.K. 1992. Effectiveness of manure additives. Report for Ontario porkproducers. The Centre for Food and Animal Res., Research Branch, AgricultureCanada, Central Exp. Farm, Ottawa, ON, Canada.57. Ritter, W.F. 1981. Chemical and biochemical odour control of livestock wastes: Areview. Can. Agric. Eng. 23:1–4.[ISI]58. Ritter, W.F., N.E. Collins, and R.P. Eastburn. 1975. Chemical treatment of liquiddairy 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 manurialnitrogen. 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 theeffectiveness of some odour control treatments in stored pig manure. ProjectRep. 24. New Zealand Agric. Eng. Inst., Lincon College, Canterbury, NewZealand.62. Spoelstra, S.F. 1980. Origin of objectionable odorous compounds in piggerymanure and the possibility of applying indicator components for studying odourdevelopment. Agric. Environ. 5:241–260.[ISI]
  61. 61. 63. Stevens, R.J., R.J. Laughlin, and J.P. Frost. 1989. Effect of acidification withsulphuric 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: Areview. Bioresour. Technol. 61:9–20.[ISI]65. Varel, V., H. Nieenaber, and B. Byrnes. 1997. Urease Inhibitors reduce ammoniaemmssion from Poultry Litter. p. 721–728. In Proc. of the Int. Symp. on Ammoniaand Odour Emissions from Animal Production, Vinkeloord, the Netherlands. 6–10Oct. 1997. NVTL, Rosmalen, the Netherlands.66. Warburton, D.J., J.N. Scarborough, D.L. Day, A.J. Muehling, S.E. Curtis, andA.H. Jensen. 1980. Evaluation of commercial products for odour control andsolids reduction of liquid swine manure. p. 309–313. In Livestock waste: Arenewable 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 theconcentrations of pathogens and toxic fermentation metabolites. Ozone Sci. Eng.19:425–437.[ISI]68. Williams, A.G. 1983. Organic acids, biochemical oxygen demand and chemicaloxygen 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 applicationof 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 ofanimal manure. p. 311–327. In Biotechnology in animal feeds and animalfeeding. VCH Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Weinhiem, Germany.72. Zhu, J., D.S. Bundy, L. Xiwei, and N. Rashid. 1997a. The hindrance in thedevelopment 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 itsapplication 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 odorouscompounds in swine manure. J. Environ. Qual. 28:737–744.[ISI]75. Zhu, J., G.L. Riskowski, and M. Torremorell. 1999. Volatile fatty acids as odourindicators 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 performanceof beef78. 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 inbeef cows before and after calving. J. Agric. Sci. 121:103.81. Burdine, W.B., Jr., C.P. Bagley, and R.R. Evans. 1993. Weanling heiferperformance on82. chicken litter supplements. Livestock Day Rep. MAFES Bull. 243:24.
  62. 62. 83. Burns, J.C., and C.P. Bagley. 1995. Cool-season forages for grazing bylivestock. 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 andutilization of87. 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. Dairy89. Sci. 59:919.90. Fontenot, J.P. 1978. Poultry litter as a feed ingredient for cattle and sheep. VPIand SU91. 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, CSSAand 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 ofbroiler96. 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. Nutrientlosses 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 andcommercial fertilizer.102. Arkansas Agric. Exp. Sta. Rep. Ser. 207.103. Honeycutt, H.J., C.P. West, and J.M. Phillips. 1988. Responses ofbermudagrass, tall fescue and tall fescue-clover to broiler litter and commercialfertilizer. 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 environmentallyrelated 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 tallfescue 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 Mississippipoultry
  63. 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 broilerlitter?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 chickenlitter 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 and118. digestion by Holstein steer calves consuming grass hay supplemented withbroiler 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 forthe 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 andjohnsongrass 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.Alabama124. Coop. Ext. Ser. Circ. ANR-557.125. Stuedemann, J.A., and C.S. Hoveland. 1988. The fescue endophyte: Historyand 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 fescuepastures and128. health and performance of beef cows. p. 265-268. In: Managing LivestockWastes. 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 ofanimal waste as131. feed ingredients. J. Anim. Sci. 48:218.132. Van der Watt, H.V.H., M.E. Sumner, and M.L. Cabrera. 1994. Bio availabilityof 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 ratesand evidence of beef cow health problems. p. 321-324. In: Livestock WasteManagement and Pollution Abatements. Proc. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng. Pub. 271, St. Joseph, MI. Williams, D.J., D.E. Tyler, and E. Papp. 1969. Abdominalfat 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. Ammoniavolatilization from137. soil amended with hen manure. Agron. Abstr.:36.