Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T21:37:01.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Nutritional and toxicological evaluation of three deep-stacking methods for the processing of broiler litter as a foodstuff for beef cattle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2010

D. L. Rankins Jr
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA
J. T. Eason
Affiliation:
Sand Mountain Substation, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA
T. A. McCaskey
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA
A. H. Stephenson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA
J. G. Floyd Jr
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Dairy Sciences, Auburn University, AL 36849, USA
Get access

Abstract

Broiler poultry litter was deep-stacked (2·5 m high) in three ways: (1) uncovered, (2) covered with 0·1524 mm clear polyethylene and (3) surface-watered to form a 2·5 cm crust upon drying. After 30 days, each litter was used to formulate two diets containing proportionately 0·25 or 0·50 poultry litter (dry-matter basis). Urea was used as the nitrogen source in the control diet. All diets contained 100 g/kg cottonseed hulls, 20 g/kg limestone and cracked maize. Each of the seven diets was offered to 12 crossbred steers (two pens per diet; initial body weight 204 kg) for 84 days. Blood was collected and body weights measured every 28 days. After 84 days, liver biopsies were obtained from four steers per diet and an additional three steers per diet were penned individually and nutrient apparent digestibilities were determined. Steers gained 1·6 kg/day on the urea diet and 1·2, 1·3 and 1·2 kg/day on the diets containing 0·25 litter, uncovered, covered or watered, respectively. Steers consuming the 0·50 litter diets gained 1·0, 0·9 and 1·0 kg/day, respectively (significant linear decrease; P < 0·01). Litter depressed (P < 0·04) apparent dry matter, organic matter and gross energy digestibilities regardless of stacking method. However, nitrogen apparent digestibility was decreased by uncovered and watered litter only. Increased proportion of litter in the diet resulted in increased serum sorbitol dehydrogenase and aspartate aminotransferase and liver copper concentrations (P < 0·07); however, clinical copper toxicosis (haemolytic crisis) was not observed. Dietary inclusion of broiler poultry litter also increased serum phosphorus and decreased serum calcium concentrations (P < 0·07). Covering deep-stacked litter preserved nitrogen quality, but improvements over uncovered litter were not of sufficient magnitude to elicit improved animal performance in this study.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 1993

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

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1985. Official methods of analysis. 14th 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: 367371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullison, A. E., McCampbell, H. C., Cunningham, A. C., Lowrey, R. S., Warren, E. P., McClendon, B. D. and Sherwood, D. H. 1976. Use of poultry manures in steer finishing rations. Journal of Animal Science 42: 219228.CrossRefGoogle 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: 107111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontenot, J. P., Webb, K. E., Harmon, B. W., Tucker, R. E. and Moore, W. E. C. 1971. Studies of processing, nutritional value and palatability of broiler litter for ruminants. Proceedings of the international symposium on livestock wastes. Publication, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, PROC-271, p. 301.Google Scholar
Goering, H. D. 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 Htter on nitrogen utilization by lambs. Journal of Animal Science 39: 942946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaneko, J. J. 1989. Clinical biochemistry of domestic animals. 4th ed. Academic Press, New York.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
Silanikove, N. and Tiomkin, D. 1992. Toxicity induced by poultry litter consumption: effect on measurements reflecting liver function in beef cows. Animal Production 54: 203209.Google Scholar
Statistical Analysis Systems Institute. 1982. SAS user's guide: statistics. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Stephenson, A. H., McCaskey, T. A. and Ruffin, B. G. 1990. Management practices that affect the value of poultry litter as a feed ingredient. Proceedings of the sixth international symposium on agricultural and food processing wastes. Publication, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, no. 05–90, 219.Google 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: 12121217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed