Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:22:01.237Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nitrogen and energy metabolism and serum constituents in lambs given broiler poultry litter processed by three deep-stacking methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

B. J. Rude ,
D. L. Rankins Jr  and
W. A. Dozier III
B. J. Rude
Affiliation:
Auburn University, Auburn AL 36849, USA
D. L. Rankins Jr
Affiliation:
Auburn University, Auburn AL 36849, USA
W. A. Dozier III
Affiliation:
Auburn University, Auburn AL 36849, USA
Get access

Abstract

Poultry litter has been used as an economical nitrogen (N) source in ruminant diets. However, litter must be processed to eliminate pathogens. Broiler poultry litter was processed by three different deep-stack methods: (1) uncovered, (2) covered with 0.1524 mm clear polyethylene, and (3) aerated by placing perforated pipe 1 m apart within the stack. Stack temperature was measured for 28 days. The litter was used to formulate experimental diets (186 g litter per kg), while the control diet contained urea as the N source. All diets contained 100 g/kg cottonseed hulls, 16 to 17 g/kg limestone, varying amounts of cracked maize and added retinol. The control diet contained 131 g/kg crude protein (CP) while the litter diets contained 125 g/kg CP. The diets were offered to 16 crossbred wether lambs (37 (s.e. 6·1) kg) in individual metabolism crates for 16 days. Blood was collected at the initiation and termination of the trial. Covering litter with plastic decreased temperature ivithin the stack (P < 0·05). Maximum temperature for the uncovered, covered and aerated stacks was: 68°C, 57°C and 72°C, respectively. Dry-matter intake and dry matter, energy and neutral-detergent fibre apparent digestibilities were not different (P > 0·05) among the diets. Apparent digestibility for N was less (P < 0·05) in lambs given uncovered and aerated litter than in those given the control diet. However, N apparent digestibility in lambs given covered litter was not different from that of those given the control diet. Gross energy and N retention of the four diets were not different (P > 0·05). Covering deep-stacked broiler poultry litter improved N digestibility by proportionately 0·15 compared with uncovered litter. Serum chloride was decreased while serum urea was increased (P < 0·05) in sheep consuming the litter-containing diets. Deep-stacked broiler litter should be covered in an air-tight manner in order to maximize its nutritive value.

Keywords

digestibilitypoultry manureprocessingsheep
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Production , Volume 58 , Issue 1 , February 1994 , pp. 95 - 101
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries. 1990. Alabama agricultural statistics. Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries, Montgomery, AL.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official methods of analysis. 15th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, A. N. and Fontenot, J. P. 1966. Protein and energy value of peanut hull and wood shaving poultry litters. Journal of Animal Science 25: 367–371.Google Scholar
Caswell, L. F., Webb, K. E. and Fontenot, J. P. 1977. Fermentation, nitrogen utilization, digestibility and palatability of broiler litter ensiled with high moisture corn grain. Journal of Animal Science 44: 803–813.Google Scholar
Cross, D. L., Skelley, G. C, Thompson, C. S. and Jenny, B. F. 1978. Efficacy of broiler litter silage for beef steers. Journal of Animal Science 47: 544–551.Google Scholar
El-Sabban, F. F., Bratzler, J. W., Long, T. A., Frear, D. E. H. and Gentry, R. F. 1970. Value of processed poultry waste as a feed for ruminants. Journal of Animal Science 31: 107–111.Google Scholar
Flachowsky, G. and Hennig, A. 1990. Composition and digestibility of untreated and chemically treated animal excreta for ruminants — a review. Biological Wastes 31: 17–36.Google Scholar
Gihad, E. A. 1976. Value of dried poultry manure and urea as protein supplements for sheep consuming low quality tropical hay. Journal of Animal Science 42: 706–709.Google Scholar
Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures and some applications). Agricultural handbook, United States Department of Agriculture, no. 379.Google Scholar
Harmon, B. W., Fontenot, J. P. and Webb, K. E. 1974. Effect of processing method of broiler litter on nitrogen utilization by lambs. Journal of Animal Science 39: 942–946.Google Scholar
Harmon, B. W., Fontenot, J. P. and Webb, K. E. 1975. Ensiled broiler litter and corn forage. II. Digestibility, nitrogen utilization and palatability by sheep. Journal of Animal Science 40: 156–160.Google Scholar
Kinzell, J. H., Yokoyama, M. T., Schull, L. R., Flegal, C. J., Krenbiel, J. D., Sleight, S. D., Anstead, J. R. and Magee, W. T. 1983. Feeding of dehydrated poultry manure to steers on performance, blood and urine parameters and liver drug-metabolizing enzyme activities. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 63: 381–389.Google Scholar
McCaskey, T. A. and Anthony, W. B. 1979. Human and animal health aspects of feeding livestock excreta. Journal of Animal Science 48: 163–177.Google Scholar
McCaskey, T. A., Stephenson, A. H. and Ruffin, B. G. 1989. Good management necessary to cash in on broiler litter resource. Highlights of Agricultural Research, Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station 36: (3), 14.Google Scholar
McCaskey, T. A., Sutton, A. L., Lincoln, E. P., Dobson, D. C. and Fontenot, J. P. 1985. Safety aspects of feeding animal wastes. Proceedings of the fifth international symposium on agricultural wastes. Publication, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, no. 13–85, p. 275.Google Scholar
National Research Council. 1984. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle. 6th ed. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Oltjen, R. R. and Dinius, D. A. 1976. Processed poultry waste compared with uric acid, sodium urate, urea and biuret as nitrogen supplements for beef cattle fed forage diets. Journal of Animal Science 43: 201–208.Google Scholar
Rankins, D. L., Eason, J. T., McCaskey, T. A., Stephenson, A. H. and Floyd, J. G. 1993. Nutritional and toxicological evaluation of three deep-stacking methods for the processing of broiler litter as a foodstuff for beef cattle. Animal Production 56: 321–326.Google Scholar
Rude, B. J. and Rankins, D. L. 1993. Evaluation of bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) and johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) as alternatives to corn forage (Zea mays) for ensiling with poultry litter. Animal Feed Science and Technology In press.Google Scholar
Silanikove, N. and Tiomkin, D. 1992. Toxicity induced by Yorkpoultry litter consumption: effect on measurements reflecting liver function in beef cows. Animal Production 54: 203–209.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1982. SAS user's guide: statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and procedures of statistics 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
Webb, K. E. and Fontenot, J. P. 1975. Medicinal drug residues in broiler litter and tissues from cattle fed litter. Journal of Animal Science 41: 1212–1217.Google Scholar