Littertreat litter2 feed

LITTERTREATPLT (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. 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 66Cotton seed cake 20Poultry litter 8Fish meal 4Maclick super 2Total 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–

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.

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)

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 15.3Treatments 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 " "

(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 9.8All steers fed 1.0kg hay/hd/dayBroiler litter

(peanut hulls) 36.6 910 13.0

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/da

y1330 8.7

Energy balance by maize grain and potato flakes

Steers (235 kg)

Broiler litter + minerals + Vitamins A, D

5.5 kg/head/da

y980 11.9

Steers (220 kg)

Broiler litter (no mineral balance)

6.0 kg/head/da

y730 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/da

y620 12.7

Energy balance by maize grain and potato flakesBroiler litter +

minerals + Vitamins A, D

3.5 kg/head/da

y860 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 kgconcentrate

- 1120 n.a. Litter analysis(% DM):

Broiler litter 30.0 1200 7.8 crude protein

(wood shavings) 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 (wood shavings) 60.0 1080 9.8 ash 12.7; Ca 1.82;

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%

Muftićet 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 dried layer excreta (DPW)

32.0 1250 10.4

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,

Male cattle (306-328

Control- 1142 4.08 No significant

carcass differences

1971 kg)

Broiler 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 cattle (160-417 kg)

Large number of experiments with broiler litter including carcass evaluations, etc.

60.0From 879 to 1092

n.a.

Energy was balanced by maize 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-bredBostaurus +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

bulls Pasture + litter (maize cobs) 20.0 573 - 192 53.6

(273 kg)Pasture + litter (groundnut hulls)

20.0 614 - 175 55.6

(180 days) Pasture + litter (rice hulls) 20.0 510 - 167 53.0

Cullison et al., 1976a

Steer calves (152.5 days)

Control - 1200 7.3

Supplemental N from broiler excreta

50% supplemental N 5.8 1180 7.5

100% supplemental N 13.0 1110 7.9

Cullison et al., 1976b

Steer calves (145 days)

Dressing

Abscessed

liver %

Positive control - 1130 7.1 60.9 70.0

Broiler litter (wood shavings) 20.0 1160 7.5 60.8 55.0

Broiler litter (peanut hulls) 19.5 1080 8.0 61.2 35.0

Dried layer excreta 12.7 900 9.3 60.8 35.0

Negative control - 1070 7.5 60.3 21.1

McClure et al., 1978

Cross-bred heifers (251–256 kg)

Maize silage -809

-Dressin

g %58.1

Maize silage + SBM - 941 - 60.0

Maize silage + litter about 50% 1014 - 60.7

Maize silage + litter + SBM30% litter in silage

about 50 % 1032 - 59.9

EFFECT OF FEEDING BROILER LITTER ON PERFORMANCE OF FINISHING STEERS

Broiler litter in ration1 (% DM)

Critical nutrients in complete ration (%) Performance over 154 days

Crude protein TDN Ash Crude fibreAverage

LWG/day(kg)

Feed/gain(kg)

03 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 10.2Source: 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% CP2

Broiler litter (peanut hulls) 24.9 % CP2

Dried layer manure 40.4% CP2

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 intensity1 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2

Flavour desirability1 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6

Tenderness1 3.6 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.9

Juiciness1 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.5

Composite grade1 3.4 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.51 Range 1 (minimum desirability) through 5 (maximum desirability).2 Crude protein content in poultry waste.

Source: Cullision et al., 1976.MILK PRODUCTION OF COWS FED RATIONS CONTAINING

DPE (DRIED POULTRY EXCRETA)

Reference ItemDiets

Control1 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.

PERFORMANCE OF LAYERS ON VARIOUS RATIONS

Parameter UnitFormula

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 289Source: Nesheim, 1972.

RECYCLED DLM: INFLUENCE ON EGG PRODUCTION,FEED EFFICIENCY AND TOTAL MORTALITY

DietHen 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.

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 3.4Source: Flegal et al., 1972.

UTILIZATION OF DPM TO FEED GROWING CHICKS AND BROILERS

DPM in diet(%)

0 5 10 15 2020(+

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 1.92Source: Flegal and Zindel (1970).

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 become evident. 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

problems varies according to the nature of the waste, concerns of the farmer, distance of

neighbors, vulnerability of the surrounding environment, and current legislation.

Litter contains essential nutrients for animal growth Litter contains essential nutrients for animal growth

and performance. It also contains organic matter thatand performance. It also contains organic matter that

improves feed characteristics. For both of the above improves feed characteristics. For both of the above

named reasons, this can be used as an animal named reasons, this can be used as an animal

feeding stuff.feeding stuff.

One of the most promising methods of disposal of One of the most promising methods of disposal of

Poultry Litter, is recycling as a livestock feed Poultry Litter, is recycling as a livestock feed

ingredient or as an aqua culture pond water medium ingredient or as an aqua culture pond water medium

additive for promoting the plankton growth and for additive for promoting the plankton growth and for

biogas production. biogas production.

Animal manures have been an important organicAnimal manures have been an important organic

manure source of fresh water aquaculture formanure source of fresh water aquaculture for

developing and maintaining Plankton and as thedeveloping and maintaining Plankton and as the

principal material of biogas fermentation in ruralprincipal material of biogas fermentation in rural

areas and also as a manure in agricultural farms forareas and also as a manure in agricultural farms for

soil enrichment.soil enrichment.

Rabbits, rats, poultry and pigs are the most typical Rabbits, rats, poultry and pigs are the most typical

examples because in specific nutritional situations they examples because in specific nutritional situations they

consume their own excreta in substantial quantities to consume their own excreta in substantial quantities to

meet their requirements of nutrients missing from their meet their requirements of nutrients missing from their

diets. Pigs freely roaming in villages leave hardly any diets. Pigs freely roaming in villages leave hardly any

poultry or cattle manure unutilized, even when they are poultry or cattle manure unutilized, even when they are

fully fed on the “best balanced” diets according to fully fed on the “best balanced” diets according to

man's view. This phenomenon is attributable to the man's view. This phenomenon is attributable to the

animals instinct to search for nutrients created by the animals instinct to search for nutrients created by the

endogenous synthesis of the enteric microflora.endogenous synthesis of the enteric microflora.

Research on feeding poultry litter has been conducted Research on feeding poultry litter has been conducted

since the 1950’s. since the 1950’s.

Following a thorough review of the available literature Following a thorough review of the available literature

concerning the use of poultry litter in both beef and concerning the use of poultry litter in both beef and

dairy cattle diets, there appears to be no more health dairy cattle diets, there appears to be no more health

risks to animals or indirectly to humans from properly risks to animals or indirectly to humans from properly

processed broiler litter than from any other source of processed broiler litter than from any other source of

cattle feed. The rumen (stomach) of a beef animal does cattle feed. The rumen (stomach) of a beef animal does

an excellent job of breaking down and converting broileran excellent job of breaking down and converting broiler

litter into nutrients, which can then be absorbed and litter into nutrients, which can then be absorbed and

used by the animal.used by the animal.

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 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

Rabbits, rats, poultry and pigs are the most typical Rabbits, rats, poultry and pigs are the most typical

examples because in specific nutritional situations they examples because in specific nutritional situations they

consume their own excreta in substantial quantities to consume their own excreta in substantial quantities to

meet their requirements of nutrients missing from their meet their requirements of nutrients missing from their

diets. Pigs freely roaming in villages leave hardly any diets. Pigs freely roaming in villages leave hardly any

poultry or cattle manure unutilized, even when they are poultry or cattle manure unutilized, even when they are

fully fed on the “best balanced” diets according to fully fed on the “best balanced” diets according to

man's view. This phenomenon is attributable to the man's view. This phenomenon is attributable to the

animals instinct to search for nutrients created by the animals instinct to search for nutrients created by the

endogenous synthesis of the enteric microflora.endogenous synthesis of the enteric microflora.

Research on feeding poultry litter has been conducted Research on feeding poultry litter has been conducted

since the 1950’s. since the 1950’s.

Following a thorough review of the available literature Following a thorough review of the available literature

concerning the use of poultry litter in both beef and concerning the use of poultry litter in both beef and

dairy cattle diets, there appears to be no more health dairy cattle diets, there appears to be no more health

risks to animals or indirectly to humans from properly risks to animals or indirectly to humans from properly

processed broiler litter than from any other source of processed broiler litter than from any other source of

cattle feed. The rumen (stomach) of a beef animal does cattle feed. The rumen (stomach) of a beef animal does

an excellent job of breaking down and converting broileran excellent job of breaking down and converting broiler

litter into nutrients, which can then be absorbed and litter into nutrients, which can then be absorbed and

used by the animal.used by the animal.

Table 4Chemical composition of poultry waste from different sources on Dry Matter Basis

Broiler LayerDeep Litter Cage droppings Deep Litter Cage Droppings

CP 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 NA

Table 5Mineral content of Poultry Waste on Dry Matter Basis

Broiler LayerDeep Litter Cage droppings

Ca 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 47.50 463

Amino 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 58 275 463

Copper as Cu in ppm 10 267 150Fe in ppm 2600 1414 2000Mn in ppm 130 286 406

Table 7pH, organic carbon content, and nutrient composition of poultry litter.

Sample typeParameter Egg layer litter Broiler litter

Organic 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 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

4. 4. CONCEPT OF LITTERTREATCONCEPT OF LITTERTREAT

The novel concept is to treat the poultry litter The novel concept is to treat the poultry litter

in situ in situ

with BIOODONIL with BIOODONIL

to eliminate the problems like to eliminate the problems like

Ammonia emissions, fly and maggots, Ammonia emissions, fly and maggots,

and then Subsequently and then Subsequently

further treat the above litter treated further treat the above litter treated

with BIOODONIL with BIOODONIL

at the Feed factory at the Feed factory

to eliminate Pathogens to eliminate Pathogens

and to improve TDN and to improve TDN

and to reduce ANFs and to reduce ANFs

so as the resultant treated litter so as the resultant treated litter

becomes fit for use in Animal feeds becomes fit for use in Animal feeds

as feeding stuff as feeding stuff

replacing DORB and Rice Polish partiallyreplacing DORB and Rice Polish partially

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 (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 (NH3) 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 (N2O) 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 NH3 can 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

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 N2O are rapidly interconvereted in the atmosphere and are referred to jointly as NOx. 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).

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 N2O 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)

Properties of the gases produced from poultry manures and their physiological responses on adult human (source: CAMMG, 1979).

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 removalNH3

ER Reference (year)England Deep pit (winter) Information not 192 Wathes et al. (1997)

Country House type (season) Manure removalNH3

ER Reference (year)available

England Deep pit (summer) Information not available

290 Wathes et al. (1997)

England Deep pit (NA2) 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)

1AU = animal units (1 animal unit = 500 kg of live weight).

2NA = not available.

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 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.

5.3 OFFENSIVE ODORSOffensive 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.

5.4 Handling PropertiesWhere 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.

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 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.

6.6. POINTS TO PONDER POINTS TO PONDER

FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDINGFOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING BEFORE ATTEMPTING BEFORE ATTEMPTING THE CONVERTION OF THE CONVERTION OF POULTRY LITTER POULTRY LITTER INTO ANIMAL FEEDING STUFFINTO ANIMAL FEEDING STUFF

6.1 Waste DisposalDisposal of untreated Poultry litter is posing a big concern, in view of the pollutions involved.

6.2 EconomicsUsually, 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 productsIn 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 SciencesVirginia 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.

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)Catfish1 Broiler2

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

a

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.

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.

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 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 followingClostridium 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.

6.6 DISEASE TRANSMISSION

a

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), 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 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)

6.7 TOXINS

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.

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).

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 a

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 EPOXIDASEZearalenone is degraded by LACTONASE

6.8 Ligno-cellulosic constituents

LITTERTREAT CONTAINS MICROBES THAT PRODUCE SUCH ENZYMES LITTERTREAT CONTAINS MICROBES THAT PRODUCE SUCH ENZYMES

WHICH CAN DEGRADE THE TOXINS PRESENT IN THE POULTRY LITTER WHICH CAN DEGRADE THE TOXINS PRESENT IN THE POULTRY LITTER

TO BE TREATED. TO BE TREATED.

IT CONTAINS IT CONTAINS PROMISING BIOCONTROL AGENTS FOR THE PATHOGENSPROMISING BIOCONTROL AGENTS FOR THE PATHOGENS

LIKE LIKE

ASPERGILLUS OCHRACEUSASPERGILLUS OCHRACEUS ..  , , A. parasiticus, A. parasiticus, AspergillusAspergillus flavus,flavus,

Claviceps Claviceps Spp., Spp., Fusarium semitectum, F. tricinctumFusarium semitectum, F. tricinctum , , F. oxysporum, F. oxysporum,

F. solani, F. rigidiusculum, F. culmorum,F. solani, F. rigidiusculum, F. culmorum, P.Citrinum, P.Citrinum, SAPROLEGNIASAPROLEGNIA

SP. ETC.SP. ETC.

6.9 Mineral Contents of Litter and Imbalances:

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)

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)

6.10 TRACE MINERALS AND VITAMINS:

a

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

6.11 UGFFaecal wastes contain many unidentified nutritive (growth) factors (UGF) awaiting discovery 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 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 metalsNo residues of heavy metals were detected in the meat and liver from cattle fed poultry litter after a 1-day withdrawalRoxarsone, 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.

6.15 Chemical Residues in Poultry LitterA 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 aAntibiotics 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 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.

6.16 TDN

LITTERTREAT IS NOT ADDRESSING THIS SUBJECT

Microbes present in Littertreat produce Enzymes like Keratinase which degrade waste and convert the same into TDN

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.

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 bacteriaTemperature°C

Greatest activity °CMin. Max.

Psychrophilic -4 25 – 30 15 – 20

Mesophilic + 10 40 – 45 30 – 37

Thermophilic + 45 75 55 – 65

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.

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 ,

11. EXPECTED RESULTS:

1.1. Increased TDNIncreased TDN

2.2. Increased bioavailabilityIncreased bioavailability

3.3. Increased palatabilityIncreased palatability

4.4. Better Nutritional ProfileBetter Nutritional Profile

5.5. Reduced OdorReduced Odor

6.6. Reduced Pathogenic LoadReduced Pathogenic Load

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

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.

14. SUGGESTED LEVEL AND METHOD OF USAGE OF TREATED POULTRY LITTER INTO ANIMAL FEEDS

BROILER LITTER CONTRIBUTION TO PROTEIN REQUIREMENTS OF BEEF CATTLEBroiler litter fed at level(%)

Protein contribution

Crude protein level of broiler litter (%)

20 25 30

20g/kg of diet 40 50 60

% of requirements1 33 42 50

30g/kg of diet 60 75 90

% of requirements1 50 63 75

40g/kg of diet 80 100 120

% of requirements1 67 83 1001 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 80only in feed emergency situations, for maintenance and wintering of cattle and sheep

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, 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 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 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. 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]

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.

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]

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]

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. 243:24.83. 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 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. Dairy

89. Sci. 59:919.90. Fontenot, J.P. 1978. Poultry litter as a feed ingredient for cattle and sheep. VPI

and 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, 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

broiler96. 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

poultry112. 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 and128. 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 as131. 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.