Call Girls in Nagpur Sakshi Call 7001035870 Meet With Nagpur Escorts
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
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.
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
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.
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 ,
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.
