Animal manures as feedstuffs: Broiler litter feeding trials

Agricultural Wastes 7 (1983) 13-38

Animal Manures as Feedstuffs: Broiler Litter Feeding Trials

J o h n H. Mar t in , Jr.,* R a y m o n d C. Loehr*

&

Thomas E. Pilbeamt

* Department of Agricultural Engineering. t Department of Animal Science.

Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA

A B S T R A C T

The use o f broiler litter as a feedstuff was evaluated on the basis of results of feeding trials reported in the literature. Although the method o f preparing or processing the broiler litter as a feed constituent (drying, composting or ensiling) influences its value, this assessment indicated that broiler litter has value as a feedstuff The maximum level of incorporating broiler litter into ruminant rations, on the basis of animal performance, varied f rom 1% to about 50 % of a ration. Generally, the optimum level o f incorporating broiler litter into rations was less than 20 %. However, it was incorporated at higher levels without adversely affecting animal performance. Broiler litter had an economic value as a feedstuff that equalled or exceeded its value as a fertiliser.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

This study assembled, critically reviewed and analysed published feeding trial results in an at tempt to quantify the value of various forms of broiler litter as feedstuffs. Included were unprocessed and dried broiler litter and litter that.had been ensiled or composted. Results from feeding trials w e r e

used for this evaluation since such results identify the actual utilisation of

13 Agricultural Wastes 0141-4607/83/$03.00 © Applied Science Publishers Ltd, England, 1983. Printed in Great Britain

14 John H. Martin, Jr., Raymond C. Loehr, Thomas E. Pilbeam

manures as sources of nutrients and permit their value as feedstuffs to be determined on the basis of animal performance using parameters such as weight gain and milk production as criteria. Since the methodology used for this evaluation has been described in detail in an earlier paper (Martin et al., 1983), it will not be restated here. The reader is referred to the paper for these details.

Not all of the references used in the evaluation are cited in this paper. Wherever possible the relevant papers and data are identified. Individuals interested in greater details of specific feeding trials and additional references may wish to obtain a copy of the complete report from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). (The complete report is titled 'Utilisation of Animal Manures as Feedstuffs For Livestock and Poultry', and can be obtained from NTIS, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia, USA 22161 .)

RESULTS AND C O M M E N T S

Animal performance

Unprocessed broiler litter The utilisation of unprocessed or minimally processed broiler litter as a feedstuff for growing and finishing steers has been investigated in a number of studies. Four met the selection criteria and were evaluated. Details of the studies and the composition of the rations are respectively summarised in Tables 1 and 2. Generally, the incorporation of broiler litter into the rations increased ash, calcium and phosphorus and decreased TDN and metabolisable energy levels.

The study by Noland et al. (1955) included steam heated broiler litter in three trial rations. In all trials, the litter-fed steers gained less efficiently and at a slower rate than the control steers. When the energy intakes were equalised for both groups of animals in trial 3, average daily gains were only slightly lower for the litter-fed steers.

Southwell et al. (1958) examined the effect of reducing or replacing cottonseed and corn with broiler litter. Snapped corn was fed to the control and the 9-9 ~o litter-fed animals and ground, shelled corn was fed to the 19.8 ~ litter-fed animals. Feed consumption per day and per kilogram of grain increased for the litter-fed steers. Average daily gains were slightly lower for the litter-fed steers (Table 1).

TA

BL

E 1

P

erfo

rman

ce o

f St

eers

Fed

Bro

iler

Litt

er

Sour

ce

Lit

ter

cont

ent

of

tota

l ra

tion

(%

)

Ave

rage

F

eed

conc

ersi

on

Fee

dstu

ff

dail

y ga

in

effi

cien

cy

redu

ced

or r

epla

ced

(kg

day

- 1 )

(k

g kg

- 1

wei

ght

gain

) in

the

die

t

Typ

e o

f li

tter

Nol

and

et a

l.

(195

5)

Sout

hwel

i et

al.

(1

958)

Fon

teno

t et

al.

(1

966)

Low

rey

et a

l. (1

975)

Con

trol

(0)

0.

97

10.7

9 18

.72

0.82

12

-76

Con

trol

(0)

0.

84

13,9

7 18

.75

0.60

19

.69

Con

trol

(0)

0.

94

14.8

1 18

.77

0.87

19

.01

Con

trol

(0)

0.

97

11.2

7 9.

9 0.

94

12.0

8 19

.8

0.93

12

-16

Con

trol

(0)

1.

30

11.1

5 25

-Hul

ls

1-28

10

.08

25-W

ood

1.20

10

.75

Con

trol

-1 (

0)

1.29

7.

78

20

1.18

8.

52

Con

trol

-2 (

0)

1.16

8.

53

20

1.18

8-

52

Cot

tons

eed

mea

l, m

olas

ses

and

corn

Sna

pped

cor

n,

cott

onse

ed m

eal

and

berm

uda

gras

s ha

y H

ay a

nd s

oybe

an m

eal

Pea

nut-

hull

s an

d so

ybea

n m

eal

Can

e ba

gass

e

Gro

und

corn

cob

s

Pean

ut-h

ulls

, w

ood-

shav

ings

Woo

d-sh

avin

gs

Sour

ce

TA

BL

E 2

C

ompo

siti

on o

f R

atio

ns U

sed

in t

he E

valu

atio

n of

'A

s-C

olle

cted

' B

roile

r L

itte

r as

a F

eeds

tuff

for

Ste

ers

Rat

ion

Per

cen

t o

f dr

y m

atte

r M

etab

olis

able

Cru

de

Dig

esti

ble

Eth

er

Ash

C

alci

um

Pho

spho

rus

Cru

de

prot

ein

prot

ein

extr

act

fibr

e

TD

N

ener

gy

(kca

l kg

- 1)

.'n

Nol

and

et a

l. C

ontr

ol

(195

5)

18"7

2 o;

, lit

ter

Con

trol

18

.75

°~, l

itte

r C

ontr

ol

18.7

7°,,

litt

er

Sout

hwel

l et

al.

Con

trol

(1

958)

9.

9o, / ,

litt

er

19"8

o~ l

itte

r

Fon

teno

t et

al.

Con

trol

(1

966)

25

° ~,

t lu

lls*

25 "~

, Woo

d*

Low

rey

et a

l. C

ontr

ol

(197

5)

20 ~

, li

tter

C

ontr

ol 2

12.9

9"

7 3"

6 6"

0 0.

35

0.46

11

.0

78.7

3

102

12.3

9.

2 2.

8 8"

4 0.

81

0.66

12

.4

74.5

2

793

,~

12.9

9.

7 3"

6 6.

0 0.

35

0-46

11

"0

78.7

3

102

-~

12.3

9.

2 2.

8 8.

4 0.

81

0-66

12

"4

74-5

27

93

13. I

9.

8 3.

6 5-

9 0.

35

0"47

10

-3

79.5

3

102

12.3

9.

2 2.

8 8-

4 0-

81

0"66

12

"4

74.5

2

793

.t~

11 "9

4 8-

5 3.

36

1.95

0-

27

0"28

8.

76

67.0

2

511

I 1.4

3 8-

1 2"

09

4.11

0-

19

0"35

10

.13

64.8

2

385

¢~

10.7

3 9.

6 1'

64

6"80

0.

35

0.45

6"

06

72.2

2

568

~ 13

"0

9"2

3.2

4"4

0.32

0-

30

13"6

78

.3

2867

14

.2

10"9

3-

6 6"

6 0.

73

0.64

9-

4 81

.2

2 86

6 14

.2

10-9

3"

6 6-

6 0.

73

0.64

9.

4 81

.2

2 86

6 13

.1

9-6

3.7

3"8

0-56

0.

58

12"6

80

.4

2 85

1 15

.4

12-1

3"

9 6.

4 1.

00

0.90

6"

2 85

"9

2 94

9 .~

11

.5

8.2

3.7

3.7

0.53

0.

56

15.1

77

.8

2 75

6

* H

ulls

= p

eanu

t-hu

ll l

itte

r; w

ood

= w

ood-

shav

ing

litte

r.

_~

Broiler litter as feed 17

The substitution of 25 ~ peanut-hull or wood-shaving broiler litter for the hay and soybean meal in the control ration was evaluated by Fontenot et al. (1966). Feed consumption was lower for both litter-fed groups compared with controls. The peanut-hull litter-fed steers were more efficient than either the controls or the steers fed the wood-shaving litter. Average daily gains were only slightly reduced for the steers fed the peanut-hull litter, but they were greatly reduced for the steers fed the wood-shaving litter (Table 1). This comparison suggests that the nutritive value of peanut-hull litter may be greater than that of wood-shaving litter.

Lowrey et al. (1975) studied the effect of substituting 20 ~o broiler litter for peanut hulls and reducing the soybean meal in two control rations. Control Ration 2 differed from Control Ration 1 by having more peanut hulls and less soybean meal, and a resultant lower crude- and digestible- protein level (Table 2). When the performance of the litter-fed steers was compared with steers fed Control Ration 1, feed consumption was higher for the litter-fed steers. Feed efficiency was decreased, however, and average daily gain was reduced. When the litter-fed animals and the animals in Control Group 2 were compared, feed consumption per day slightly increased, feed efficiency was similar and average daily gain was improved (Table 1).

There were no significant correlations between any of the parameters used to characterise animal performance and broiler-litter ration content when all the studies were analysed. However, if the study by Noland et al. (1955) was excluded from the analysis, because feed consumption was restricted, reasonable correlations were obtained (Table 3). Feed consumption per day and per kilogram of weight gain were inversely correlated with broiler-litter content of the ration.

Dried broiler litter Dried broiler litter has also been used as a feedstuff for growing and finishing steers. A total of nine studies were found that evaluated this possibility. Four studies fulfilled the selection criteria and were evaluated. Study details and results, and the composition of the rations, are summarised in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. Generally, the incorporation of dried broiler litter into steer rations increased crude and digestible protein, ash, calcium and phosphorus, and decreased TDN and metabolisable energy levels of the rations (Table 5).

Substitution of 25 ~ broiler litter for portions of the hay, corn, alfalfa meal and soybean meal in a ration for steers did not significantly affect

7o

TA

BL

E 3

P

rodu

ctio

n E

ffic

ienc

y T

rend

s W

hen

Bro

iler

-Lit

ter

was

Use

d as

a F

eeds

tuff

--R

esul

ts o

f F

eedi

ng T

rial

s

ltem

P

rodu

ctio

n pa

ram

eter

s

(Y)

(X)

Rel

atio

nshi

p be

twee

n R

* pa

ram

eter

s M

axim

um

leve

l o

f ut

ilis

atio

n**

Bro

iler

lit

ter

fed

to s

teer

s

Dri

ed b

roil

er l

itte

r fe

d to

ste

ers

Ens

iled

bro

iler

lit

ter

fed

to h

eife

rs

Ens

iled

bro

iler

lit

ter

fed

to s

teer

s

Fee

d pe

r un

it o

f ga

in

(% c

hang

e fr

om c

ontr

ols)

F

eed

inta

ke p

er d

ay

( % c

hang

e fr

om c

ontr

ols)

F

eed

per

unit

of

gain

( %

cha

nge

from

con

trol

s)

Ave

rage

dai

ly w

eigh

t ga

in

( % c

hang

e fr

om c

ontr

ols)

F

eed

per

unit

of

gain

( %

cha

nge

from

con

trol

s)

Ave

rage

dai

ly w

eigh

t ga

in

( ~o

chan

ge f

rom

con

trol

s)

Fee

d in

take

per

day

( %

cha

nge

from

con

trol

s)

Ave

rage

dai

ly w

eigh

t ga

in

( % c

hang

e fr

om c

ontr

ols)

Bro

iler

lit

ter

rati

on c

onte

nt (

%)

Bro

iler

lit

ter

rati

on c

onte

nt (

%)

Dri

ed b

roil

er l

itte

r ra

tion

con

tent

(%

) D

ried

bro

iler

lit

ter

rati

on c

onte

nt (

%)

Ens

iled

bro

iler

lit

ter

rati

on c

onte

nt (

%)

Ens

iled

bro

iler

lit

ter

rati

on c

onte

nt (

%)

Ens

iled

bro

iler

lit

ter

rati

on c

onte

nt (

%)

Ens

iled

bro

iler

lit

ter

rati

on c

onte

nt (

%)

Y=

-0.9

2

X-2

0.2

0.

67

Y=

-0-9

7

X-1

7-1

0.

78

Y =

1.0

5 X

- 11

.7

0.87

Y=

-1-2

2

X+

19

.4

0.82

Y =

I. 1

3 X

- 1.

43

0.99

Y =

0-6

9 X

- 6.

34

0.74

Y=

-0.9

6

X+

25

.1

0.78

Y=

-0.7

7

X+

40

.6

0.71

22%

18yo

117o

15.5

%

1.3%

10%

25%

52%

* C

orre

lati

on c

oeff

icie

nt.

** L

evel

at

whi

ch t

he m

onet

ary

retu

rns

are

neit

her

enha

nced

or

adve

rsel

y af

fect

ed.

TA

BL

E 4

P

erfo

rman

ce o

f S

teer

s F

ed D

ried

Bro

iler

Lit

ter

Sour

ce

Lit

ter

cont

ent

of

tota

l ra

tion

~?

~,)

A r

erag

e F

eed

conv

ersi

on

Fee

dstu

ff

dail

y ga

in

effi

ciem

T

redu

ced

or r

epla

ced

(kg

da

y- l

) (k

g k

g-

l w

eigh

t ga

in)

in t

he d

iet

Deh

ydra

tion

m

etho

d

Fon

teno

t et

al.

(197

1)

Web

b et

al.

(197

3)

Oli

phan

t (I

974

)

Cul

liso

n et

al.

(197

6)

Con

trol

(0)

0.

73

13.0

6 25

0.

67

13-4

3 50

0.

37

19.4

0

Con

trol

(0)

1.

27

8.30

25

1.

04

9.23

25

&

Mol

asse

s 1.

03

9.65

C

ontr

ol (

0)

1.12

5.

89

14.7

1.

03

6.12

C

ontr

ol (

0)

1-23

5.

77

16.1

1.

16

6.03

C

ontr

ol (

0)

1.12

5.

89

23-1

0.

92

6-74

C

ontr

ol (

0)

1.12

7.

07

20 (

Woo

d)

1.17

7-

51

20 (

Hul

ls)

1.08

7.

97

Neg

. C

ont.

(0)

1.

06

7-49

C

ontr

ol (

0)

1.20

7.

28

5.8

1-18

7.

53

13

1-11

7-

90

Tom

othy

hay

, co

rn,

alfa

lfa

mea

l,

soyb

ean

mea

l,

phos

phat

e, s

alt

Ear

cor

n,

soyb

ean

mea

l,

lim

esto

ne

Bar

ley,

soy

bean

mea

l,

fish

mea

l, m

iner

als

Soy

bean

mea

l,

pean

ut-h

ulls

, m

iner

als,

mol

asse

s

Cor

n, s

oybe

an m

eal

Com

mer

cial

dry

er,

outp

ut t

empe

ratu

re

of 1

21 °

C

Com

mer

cial

dry

er,

outp

ut t

empe

ratu

re

of 1

32 °

C

Not

spe

cifi

ed

Air

dri

ed t

o 15

-18

~o m

oist

ure

Dri

ed i

n ho

use

wit

h he

ated

flo

ors

to

11.7

~o

moi

stur

e

t,O

TA

BL

E 5

C

omp

osit

ion

of

Rat

ion

s U

sed

in

the

Eva

luat

ion

of D

ried

Bro

iler

Lit

ter

(DB

L)

as a

Fee

dstu

ff f

or S

teer

s

Sour

ce

Rat

ion

Per

cen

t o

f dr

)" m

atte

r C

rude

D

iges

tibl

e ~

Eth

er

Ash

C

alci

um

prot

ein

prot

ein

extr

act

Pho

spho

rus

Cru

de

TD

N

fibr

e

Met

abol

isab

le

ener

gy

(kca

lkg

~)

Fon

teno

t et

al.

C

ontr

ol

15"5

I 1

"7

3"6

4.5

0-46

0.

49

9"6

83.6

(1

971)

2

5%

DB

L

18.1

14

.5

3-3

10.6

0-

80

0"66

11

.6

77.4

5

0%

DB

L

20.7

17

-3

3.1

16.6

1-

14

0.84

13

.7

73-0

W

ebb

et a

l.

Con

trol

13

.8

I 1.5

3.

5 4.

2 0-

80

"0.5

0 43

"8

80.7

(1

973)

2

5%

DB

L

14.2

10

.3

3-6

6.8

0.71

0-

75

27.5

78

"4

25

% D

BL

an

d

14"2

10

.4

3"3

7-9

0.79

0.

72

21-8

76

.9

Mol

asse

s O

liph

ant

(197

4)

Con

trol

16

"1

12.5

2.

1 8-

5 0.

70

0-59

25

-3

58"0

14

.7%

DB

L

16"0

12

.6

2"2

8"8

0.59

0.

51

26-6

56

.7

16'1

% D

BL

15

.8

1 I-8

2.

1 9.

0 0"

62

0.53

26

-5

56"8

23

.1%

DB

L

15.7

12

-5

2-2

9.7

0-79

0.

64

26"3

57

-0

Cul

lison

et

al.

C

ontr

ol

I1.5

8.

9 3-

2 3"

2 0-

39

0.31

8"

5 82

.9

(197

6)

20 ~

o D

BL

(W

ood)

* l 1

-0

10"0

3"

1

4.4

0" 34

0"

44

6"5

87-2

2

0%

DB

L (

Hul

ls)*

11

"6

10"6

3"

3 5-

9 0"

43

0"52

5"

2 87

"2

Neg

. C

ontr

ol

8"9

7.3

3.4

2.6

0"30

0-

27

8.3

84.0

C

ontr

ol

10.8

8.

1 3.

2 3-

2 0.

44

0-40

7.

0 84

.7

5.8

% D

BL

10

.9

8.2

3"0

3.9

0"58

0"

48

7"4

83-0

13

% D

BL

11

"2

8.3

3-0

4.6

0.76

0.

57

8.3

80-9

2 96

6 26

31

2 29

8 29

15

2 68

0 2

652

2 78

5 26

02

2 60

8 2

495

2 94

6 30

01

3001

29

73

3017

2

928

2821

r"

e~

* W

ood

= w

ood-

shav

ing

litte

r.

Hul

ls =

pea

nut-

hull

lit

ter.


animal performance (Fontenot et al . , 1971). Feed consumption, feed conversion efficiency and average daily gain were reduced slightly for the litter-fed steers. When litter content was increased to 50 ~o, animal performance decreased significantly (Table 4).

Use of 25 ~ broiler litter or 25 ~o broiler litter plus 10 ~ molasses to replace soybean meal and portions of ear corn in the control ration of steers significantly decreased animal performance (Webb et al . , 1973) (Table 4). Feed consumption, feed conversion efficiencY and average daily gain decreased for both groups of litter-fed steers. Molasses was added to one ration to overcome palatability problems but was unsuccessful. In the study by Fontenot et al. (1971), using 25 ~o litter did not significantly affect animal performance, but the same level significantly lowered animal performance in the study of Webb et al. (1973).

Oliphant (1974) examined the effects of feeding three levels of dried broiler litter to steers. Soybean meal, fish meal and barley were either partially or completely replaced. All steers receiving litter were fed for additional time periods (20 to 50 days) to allow the steers to attain final body weights similar to the control steers, since feed consumption was decreased. However, total feed consumed increased for the litter-fed steers because of the extended trial period. Feed-conversion efficiency and average daily gain were decreased for the litter-fed steers. The author reported the slaughter weight of the 23.1~ litter-fed steers to be significantly lower, and attributed their poor performance to the lowered energy content of the ration, their reduced intake and decreased efficiency.

In the first of two studies, Cullison et al. (1976) substituted either 20 wood shavings or 20 ~ peanut hull-based litter for soybean meal, peanut hulls and minerals in two control rations. The positive control ration contained 8 ~o soybean meal which was omitted in the negative control ration. When compared with the positive control group, feed consumption increased for both litter-fed groups and feed conversion efficiency was decreased (Table 4). However, the average daily weight gain of the wood-shaving litter-fed steers increased, while it decreased for the peanut-hull fed steers. In comparison with the negative control group, feed consumption increased for both litter groups. Feed conversion efficiency of the wood-shaving litter-fed group was similar to controls and average daily gain was increased. The peanut-hull litter-fed group had a lower feed conversion efficiency and a slightly higher average daily gain. Because of their lower average daily gains in comparison with animals fed


the wood-shaving litter, the animals fed the peanut-hull litter had their ration supplemented with 0.45 ~o kg of peanut hulls per day from day 71 until the study terminated. This increased average daily gains. Although average daily gains increased after day 71, the overall average daily gain for the entire period was less than the control.

In the second study, Cullison et al. (1976) substituted 5.8 ~ and 13 broiler litter into a ration for steers, thus partially replacing corn and soybean meal. Daily feed consumption increased, and feed conversion efficiency and average daily gains slightly decreased, for the 5.8 ~ litter group. Feed consumption per day for the 13 ~ litter group was similar to that of the controls; however, feed conversion efficiency and average daily gain decreased (Table 4). The authors attributed the poorer performance of the 13 ~o litter group to a lower level of total concentrate in the ration and concluded that the poor performance was not related to protein source.

When the criteria used to characterise animal response and dried-litter content of the ration were analysed, reasonable correlations were obtained (Table 3). Both feed consumption per kilogram of gain and average daily gain were found to be directly related to dried broiler litter content for the range of values considered. The maximum level of incorporating dried broiler litter into steer rations that appeared to neither enhance nor depress feed conversion efficiency was about 11 ~o, and the level that would neither enhance nor depress average daily gain was about 15.5 ~o. The optimum level, based on animal response, for incorporating dried broiler litter into steer rations may be less than the above percentages, but it could not be determined from the available data.

Ensiled broiler litter Ensiled broiler-litter has also been considered as a feedstuff for growing and finishing steers and growing heifers. This possibility has been investigated in several studies; howe'¢er, only three studies met the selection criteria and were evaluated. The details of these studies and results are summarised in Table 6 and the ration compositions in Table 7. As with the dried broiler litter, the incorporation of ensiled broiler litter into ruminant rations increased crude and digestible protein, ash, calcium and phosphorus, and decreased the TDN and metabolisable energy levels of the rations.

McClure et al. (1977) ensiled a combination of 17 ~ broiler litter and

TA

BL

E 6

P

erfo

rman

ce o

f R

um

inan

ts F

ed E

nsil

ed B

roil

er L

itte

r

Sour

ce

Lit

ter

cont

ent

of

tota

l ra

tion

(%

)

Ave

rage

F

eed

com

'ers

ion

Ani

mal

da

ily

gain

ef

fici

ency

le

d

(kg

da

y-l)

(k

gkg

-l

wei

ght

gain

)

Fee

dstu

ff

redu

ced

or r

epla

ced

in t

he d

iet

Ens

ilin

g du

rati

on

McC

lure

et

al.

(197

7)

McC

lure

et

al.

(197

8)

Cro

ss e

t al

. (1

978)

• N

egat

ive

cont

rol

(0)

0.54

15

-77

Hei

fers

12

.8

0.92

16

.26

Pos

itiv

e co

ntr

ol

(0)

0.94

14

.12

12.8

+ S

BM

* 0.

99

15.1

2 N

egat

ive

cont

rol

(0)

0.81

15

-19

22.3

1.

01

15-4

4

Pos

itiv

e co

ntro

l (0

) 0.

94

13.3

8 22

.3 +

SB

M

1.03

15

.12

Co

ntr

ol

(0)

0.72

11

.25

10

0-90

9.

89

30

0-94

9.

68

50

0-63

10

.63

Hei

fers

Ste

ers

Co

rn s

ilag

e,

shel

led

corn

, so

ybea

n m

eal

Co

rn s

ilag

e,

shel

led

corn

, so

ybea

n m

eal

Co

rn s

ilag

e,

cott

onse

ed m

eal

No

t sp

ecif

ied

Not

spe

cifi

ed

6 w

eeks

eo

* S

oybe

an m

eal.

I'J

TA

BL

E7

Com

pos

itio

nof

Rat

ion

s U

sed

inth

eEva

luat

ion

ofE

nsi

led

B

roil

erL

itte

r(E

BL

) as

a F

eeds

tuff

~rR

um

inan

ts

Sour

ce

Rat

ion

Per

cen

t o

f dr

y m

atte

r

Cru

de

Dig

esti

ble

Eth

er

Ash

C

alci

um

prot

ein

prot

ein

extr

act

Pho

spho

rus

Cru

de

fibr

e

TD

N

Met

abol

isab

le

ener

gy

( kca

l kg

- l )

Hei

jers

M

cClu

re

et a

l. (1

977)

McC

lure

et

al.

(197

8)

Stee

rs

Cro

ss e

t al

. (1

978)

Neg

ativ

e co

ntro

l 7.

2 4.

3 3'

5 2.

3 0.

23

0-30

14

-9

78-0

2

801

12"8

'~i E

BL

12

.0

8.9

3.3

5.3

0.56

0.

49

16-7

73

.5

2 58

2 ~

,

Posi

tive

-~

cont

rol

10.1

6"

6 3.

0 2.

8 O

" 33

O. 3

2 17

.2

74.5

2

685

12"8

°~,, a

nd S

BM

* 14

.3

10-9

3.

1 5.

6 0"

62

0.51

17

"0

73-0

25

65

Neg

ativ

e "~

co

ntro

l 8.

5 5.

0 3.

4 2.

I 0.

25

0.29

14

.2

76.3

3

027

22.3

° o

EB

L

14.1

10

.4

3.2

7.1

0.85

0.

69

15.9

69

-0

2 51

1

Posi

tive

cont

rol

8.2

7.7

3.2

2.4

0.27

0.

31

14.3

75

.9

2 72

9 22

.3°.

0 an

d S

BM

* 16

.6

12.6

3.

1 7.

4 0"

86

0.71

16

.1

68"4

24

87

Con

trol

I 1

"1

7"9

3"6

3"4

0"22

0.

44

17"2

73

"3

2 60

1 10

';0 E

BL

1 I

'1

8"9

3"7

5"4

0-50

0-

61

20'5

72

'4

2517

.D

3 30

°~, E

BL

12

"1

9"0

3'5

8"1

1"10

0"

83

15"6

73

"4

2476

"~

50

'!,,

EB

L

14"4

11

"5

3"6

12-0

1-

60

1"20

15

"6

71"6

2

316

~,

* S

oybe

an m

eal.


83 % corn silage. In the ration which was fed to heifers, broiler litter constituted 12.8 ~o of the total ration. McClure et al. (1978) also ensiled a mixture of 19~o broiler litter and 81 ~o corn silage. In this study, the broiler litter constituted 22-3 ~ of the total ration. In both studies, a negative (corn silage plus grain) and a positive (corn silage plus grain plus soybean meal) control were used.

The negative control group in the 1977 study performed poorly, possibly due to the low crude and digestible protein content of the ration. When the performance of the animals fed the 12.8 ~o litter ration was compared with the negative control group, the performance of the litter-fed animals was better. The litter-fed animals were able to utilise the broiler litter as a supplement, and no palatability problems were encountered. When the performance of both groups fed the ensiled broiler litter was compared with the positive control group, weight gains were lower for animals fed the 12.8 ~ litter and higher for the animals fed 12.8 ~o litter plus soybean meal. Feed consumption increased for both groups fed on the broiler litter. The increase was in proportion to the litter content of the ration, which suggests that the litter acted as a diluent. Feed conversion efficiency decreased for both groups of litter-fed heifers with the decrease being the largest for the animals fed the litter without the soybean meal. The total ration required per unit of gain increased by 15-2 ~o for the animals fed litter without soybean meal and 7.1 ~o for the animals fed litter plus soybean meal (Table 6).

In the 1978 study, the negative control group again performed poorly, possibly due to the low crude and digestible protein content of the ration (Table 7). The animals fed the 22.3 ~o litter ration outperformed the negative control group in terms of weight gains. However, feed consumption greatly increased and feed conversion efficiency slightly decreased. In comparison with the positive control group, both groups of litter-fed animals gained more weight, but feed consumption per day greatly increased and feed efficiency decreased (Table 6). The increase in feed consumption per day was related to the litter content in the rations, again suggesting that the litter might have been only a diluent in the ration.

There were no apparent correlations between any of the parameters used to characterise animal response (expressed as a percent change from the control) and ensiled broiler-litter content of the ration when all of the data from the studies were evaluated. However, when the comparisons with the negative control groups were deleted from the comparison,


several correlations resulted. Feed consumption per kilogram of gain increased directly with ensiled broiler litter content. The maximum level of incorporation that appeared to neither increase nor decrease feed consumption was about 1.3 ~o (Table 3). In terms of average daily gain, the maximum level that appeared to neither enhance nor adversely affect gains was about 10 ~ . These analyses are four data points and additional studies are required to clearly determine any animal performance benefits for utilising ensiled broiler litter as a feedstuff for heifers.

In the study by Cross et al. (1978), several levels of ensiled broiler litter were included in the rations for growing steers. Feed consumption increased for the animals fed the 10~ and 30~o litter rations and decreased for those fed the 50 ~ litter rations. Although all animals fed litter had improved feed conversion efficiency, the authors suggested that protein availability may have been lower for the control group and any benefits from feeding litter silage may be biased. The digestible protein level for the control ration was lower than that of all the other rations (Table 7).

There were no apparent relationships between any of the parameters used to characterise animal response and the ensiled broiler-litter content of the ration when the data were expressed in kilograms. However, when expressed as per cent changes from the control, both daily feed- consumption and average daily gain were functions of litter content (Table 3). The maximum level of incorporating broiler litter silage into steer rations that would neither increase nor decrease daily feed consumption appears to be about 25 ~o, and the maximum level for average daily gain may be about 52 ~o. There was insufficient information to determine optimum levels for ensiled broiler litter.

Composted broiler litter Composted broiler litter has been considered as a feedstuff for beef heifers and brood cows and has been studied extensively by Webb et al. (1974, 1975, 1977, 1978). Details of these studies and their results are summarised in Table 8 and the compositions of the rations fed are summarised in Table 9. As in other studies where broiler litter was used as a feedstuff, incorporation of composted broiler litter into the rations increased the crude and digestible protein, ether extract, ash, calcium, phosphorus and TDN, and decreased crude fibre and metabolisable energy levels of the rations (Table 9). Copper (Cu) was added to one litter ration in each study to determine its long-range effect upon growth and

TA

BL

E 8

P

erfo

rman

ce

of

Bee

f H

eife

rs a

nd

B

roo

d

Co

ws

Fed

C

om

po

sted

B

roil

er

Lit

ter

Sour

ce

Lit

ter

cont

ent

At'

erag

e F

eed

eom

'ers

ion

Pet

" ce

nt

Ani

mal

o[

tot

al r

atio

n da

il)"

gain

ef

fici

ent)

' ea

h'in

g fe

d

(kgd

a)'

l)

(kg

kg -

1 w

eigh

t ga

in)

Fee

dstu

ff

redu

ced

or r

epla

ced

in t

he r

atio

n

Web

b

et a

l. (1

974)

Web

b

et a

l. (1

975)

Web

b

et a

l. (1

974)

Web

b

et a

l. (1

977)

Web

b

et a

l. (1

975)

Co

ntr

ol

(0)

0.26

21

.21

--

Hei

fers

50

0.38

13

.57

50 +

Cu

0.

41

14.9

0 --

Co

ntr

ol

(0)

0.24

31

.18

--

Hei

fers

H

ay

75

0.48

15

.18

--

75 +

Cu

0.

49

15-7

9

Co

ntr

ol

(0)

-0-5

6

--

78.6

H

eife

rs

Hay

75

- 0.

62

--

85.7

75 +

Cu

-0

.51

--

10

0-0

Co

ntr

ol

(0)

--

8.16

63

.6

Bro

od

co

ws

Hay

80

--

7-48

58

.5

80 +

Cu

-

7-48

69

.7

Co

ntr

ol

(0)

7.80

10

0"0

Bro

od

co

ws

Hay

80

--

6.26

91

.7

80 +

Cu

7-

08

100.

0

Co

ntr

ol

(0)

--

9.8

4

83.3

B

roo

d

cow

s H

ay

72-4

9.

48

83-3

72.4

+ C

u

--

9.48

58

.3

Co

ntr

ol

(0)

--

9.12

--

B

roo

d

cow

s H

ay

66.7

--

7.

98

--

66.7

+ C

u

8-35

Hay

, u

rea

t-~

O~

TA

BL

E 9

C

omp

osit

ion

of

Rat

ion

s U

sed

in t

he E

valu

atio

n of

Com

pos

ted

Bro

iler

Lit

ter

as a

Fee

dstu

ffT

or B

eef

Hei

fers

and

Bro

od C

ows

Sour

ce

Rat

ion

Per

cen

t o

f dr

)' m

att

er

Cru

de

Dig

esti

ble

Eth

er

Ash

C

alci

um

prot

ein

prot

ein

extr

act

Met

ab

oli

sab

le

Pho

spho

rus

Cru

de

TD

N

ener

gy

fib

re

(kca

lkg

1)

Bee

f Hei

fers

W

ebb

et a

l. (1

974)

Web

b et

al.

(197

5)

Bro

od C

ows

Web

b et

al.

(197

4)

Web

b et

al.

( 197

7)

Web

b et

al.

(197

8)

Con

trol

13

-0

9-0

2.2

4.9

1.02

0.

24

35-4

59

.2

2 I 1

3 '~

50

% L

itte

r 18

" 1

13.7

3"

2 10

.1

1.32

1.

16

36.6

72

.0

2 35

4 C

ontr

ol

15.8

11

"6

1 '8

6.6

1 "49

0.

25

33"7

57

.0

2 02

0 7

5~

L

itte

r 22

-4

18"3

2-

8 14

.4

1"96

1-

43

28.9

65

.4

1 99

0 C

ontr

ol

15.8

11

"6

1.8

6"6

I "49

0.

25

33"7

57

-0

2 02

0 '

75 ~

o L

itte

r 22

.4

18"3

2"

8 14

-4

I "96

1.

43

28.9

65

-4

1 99

0 t~

Con

trol

15

"8

11-6

1-

8 6"

6 1.

49

0.25

33

.7

57"0

2

020

80~o

Lit

ter

23.6

19

.8

2.8

15-2

2.

09

1.51

17

"4

66.1

I

974

Con

trol

15

.8

I 1-6

1 "

8 6-

6 1-

49

0.25

33

"7

57.0

2

020

~ 80

~,,,

Lit

ter

23.6

19

.8

2.8

15.2

2.

09

1"51

17

.4

66.1

1

974

72.4

% L

itte

r 22

"9

17.9

2.

7 14

.4

2.03

1.

39

19-0

65

"2

1 97

7 C

ontr

ol

15.8

11

"6

1 "8

6.6

1.49

0"

25

33.7

5

70

2

020

" 66

"7 ~

o L

itte

r 22

.3

18"5

2.

7 13

.7

1.99

1.

30

20.1

64

.6

1 98

1 ~

.


reproduction, and to determine if copper toxicity would be encountered. The litter used was removed from broiler houses bedded with wood- shavings and was stacked in an open shed for an unspecified time prior to feeding.

The original forty-two beef heifers in the study by Webb et al. (1974) were fed the litter ration during the winter months and placed on pasture for the remainder of the year. The initial study started in December, 1972 and concluded in May, 1978, when thirty-six of the original animals remained. The study with the original thirty-three brood cows (Webb et al., 1974) was conducted during the two winters (1970 to 1972) when the litter rations were fed. The remaining time the cows were on pasture.

The rations for the heifers and cows were fed in such amounts as to supply the TDN requirements for growing heifers and pregnant cows. Additional hay was added to the litter rations in 1977-1978 because of a poor grazing season and the cows entered the winter in a thin condition. The additional hay was calculated into the feed intake data in this evaluation.

There were no differences between rations containing composted litter or composted litter plus copper in any of the studies. Copper content in the liver of the copper-supplemented animals was higher than that of the other animals in the studies. The copper levels decreased during the summer when all animals were on pasture.

The utilisation of composted broiler litter in growing beef heifer wintering rations improved feed conversion efficiency and weight gains and had no harmful effects upon calving or calf birth weights (Table 8). This increased performance is not unexpected because the nutrient content of their ration was higher than that of the control rations (Table 9). The control ration was high in hay whilst the litter rations contained ear- or shell-corn. The daily intake of digestible protein was 41-66 ~o greater for the litter-fed heifers than the controls. To evaluate the value of composted broiler litter, the control rations should have been nutritionally equivalent to the litter rations.

The use of composted broiler litter in wintering rations of pregnant brood cows previously raised on composted broiler litter as heifers did not affect their performances, according to the authors. This information indicates that pregnant brood cows are able to utilise the nutrients in composted litter when it constitutes as much as 67 ~o to 80 ~ of the ration.

No correlations between any of the parameters used to characterise an imal response and the composted litter content of rations were


apparent. Therefore, any maximum or optimum levels of incorporation of composted broiler litter into rations could not be determined.

Economic value

Unprocessed broiler litter Feed costs per tonne, per day and per kilogram of gain were reduced for the broiler litter fed steers in the trials by Noland et al. (1955). Although the market value (selling price) of the litter-fed steers was slightly decreased due to lower finished weights, this was offset by feed cost savings, and the economic return was positive for all three trials.

In the study by Southwell et al. (1958), feed costs per tonne, per day and per kilogram of gain were reduced for both groups of litter-fed steers, with the decrease being largest for the animals fed the 19"8 % litter ration. Projected animal selling prices for the litter-fed steers were slightly lower than for the controls. The economic return was increased for the litter groups. This increase, however, reflected feed cost savings and was largest for the 19.8 % litter-fed group. Similarly, the higher calculated gross value of litter for the animals fed the 19.8 % litter reflected the increased feed cost savings.

Feed costs per tonne and per day were decreased for both groups of litter-fed steers in the study by Fontenot et al. (1966). Feed costs per kilogram of gain were lower for the animals fed the peanut-hull litter than for the animals fed the wood-shavings litter. However, projected animal selling prices were lower for both litter-fed groups when compared with the controls. The economic return was increased for both litter groups. The increase was largest for the peanut-hull litter-fed animals. The calculated gross value of the peanut-hull litter was higher than that determined for the wood-shaving litter.

In the study by Lowrey et al. (1975), all feed costs were reduced for the litter-fed steers. The decrease was largest when compared with control group 1 steers, due to the higherlration cost. The selling price of the litter- fed animals was reduced when compared with control group 1 steers; however, it was slightly increased when compared with control group 2 steers. The economic return of the litter-fed animals was decreased when compared with the control group 1, reflecting the lower animal selling price that was not offset by feed cost savings. Thus, the calculated gross value of litter was negative when compared with the control group 1 animals and positive when compared with the control group 2 steers.


There were no apparent relationships between any of the economic parameters and broiler litter content of the ration and maximum or optimum economic levels of incorporating broiler litter into growing and finishing steer rations could not be determined.

Dried broiler litter Feed costs per tonne, per day and total feed costs decreased linearly as

ration litter content increased, for both groups of steers fed dried broiler litter (Fontenot et al., 1971). Feed costs per kilogram of gain did not decrease in a direct relationship for the litter-fed steers due to the decreased weight gains for the steers fed 50 ~o litter. The economic returns were increased for both litter groups and reflect both feed-cost savings and the poor animal performance of the control group.

In the study by Webb et al. (1973), all feed costs were reduced for both groups fed litter, but the feed cost savings were lower for animals fed litter plus molasses because of the cost of molasses. Because of the poor animal performance of both groups fed litter, animal selling prices and economic returns were negative, since the feed cost savings only partially offset reduced animal performance. As a result, the gross values of litter for both groups were negative.

Feed costs per tonne and per day were reduced in proportion to the litter content of the ration in the study by Oliphant (1974). Due to the extended trial periods for the litter-fed-groups, feed costs per kilogram of gain and total feed cost savings were not directly related to the litter content. Projected animal selling prices for the 14~7 ~o and 16.1 ~ litter-fed groups increased, but were slightly reduced for the 23.1 ~ group. The economic return for all three litter-fed groups was increased and the estimated gross value of the litter for all three groups was positive.

All feed costs were reduced for the 20 ~o wood-shaving and peanut-hull litter-fed steers in the first study by Cullison et al. (1976). Both litter groups economically outperformed the control groups. This was reflected in the large increase in economic return and calculated gross value of dried broiler-litter for the wood-shaving litter-fed group and the slight increase for the peanut-hull litter-fed group.

In the second study by Cullison et al. (1976), all feed costs were reduced for the litter-fed steers, with the increases being largest for the 13 ~o litter group. Projected animal selling prices were less for both litter-fed groups and reflected reduced weight gains. Economic returns were increased for both litter-fed groups, however, reflecting feed cost savings. The


calculated gross value of dried broiler-litter was positive for both litter-fed groups, but was highest for the group fed rations containing 5-8 ~o litter.

There were no apparent relationships between any of the economic parameters and dried broiler litter content of the ration. Neither the maximum nor optimum economic levels of incorporating dried broiler litter into growing and finishing steer rations could be determined.

The variable results delineated in the four feeding trials that could be evaluated did not clearly demonstrate the value of dried broiler litter as a feedstuff. The drying of the broiler litter may be a major source of variation and may alter its nutrient composition. Fontenot et al. (1971) reported that drying broiler litter at 150°C for 4 h resulted in a 19 ~o decrease in crude protein, a 59 ~ decrease in ether extract and a 20 increase in crude fibre.

In the first study by Cullison et al. (1976), data analysis indicated that wood-shaving litter was worth more as a feedstuff than peanut-hull litter. The nutrient composition of the two litter types suggests that the opposite should be true. The digestibility of untreated pinewood-shavings is 14.5~o, compared with 35"5~o for peanut-hull litter (Van Soest & Robertson, 1976). Fontenot et al. (1966) reported that untreated peanut- hull litter utilised as a feedstuff for steers outperformed wood-shaving litter. It is unclear why the wood-shaving litter-fed steers outperformed the peanut-hull litter animals in the study by CuUison et al. (1976).

Ensi led broiler litter Feed costs per tonne and per kilogram of gain were reduced for both litter groups in the study by McClure et al. (1977). In comparison with the negative control group, feed costs per day and total feed costs were higher for the animals fed the 12.8 ~o litter ration. This may be attributed to the large increase in feed consumption for the litter group. When compared with the positive control group, the animals fed the 12.8 ~o litter ration had lower feed costs per day and total feed costs. However, these costs increased slightly for the animals fed the 12.8 ~o litter plus soybean meal ration. The projected animal selling price and economic return increased for both groups fed the litter rations. When compared with the negative control animals, the large increase in economic return for the animals fed the 12.8 ~ litter ration reflected increased animal selling prices and not feed cost savings. When compared with the positive control group, the increased economic return for the animals fed the 12-8 ~o litter ration reflected both feed cost savings and increased animal selling prices. The


calculated gross value of litter was artificially high due to the poor performance of the negative control group and does not reflect its true value.

Feed costs per tonne and per kilogram of gain were lower for both groups of animals fed the litter rations in the study by McClure et al. (1978). Feed costs per day and total feed costs were higher for the animals fed the 22.3 ~o litter ra t ion when compared with the negative control group, but were lower for both groups of animals fed the litter rations when compared to the positive control group. The animal selling price and economic return were greater for both groups fed the litter rations.

The evaluation of animal performance and the economic analysis of utilising broiler litter silage as a feedstuff in finishing steer rations (Cross et al., 1978) was confounded by the poor performance of the control group. Incorporating 50 ~o or 70 ~ litter silage into a ration resulted in palatability problems.

These results were analysed to determine if correlations between ensiled broiler litter content and monetary returns existed. However, the data base was insufficient to determine maximum or opt imum levels of incorporating ensiled broiler litter into heifer rations. Although animal response data indicates that possible benefits exist, they were confounded by the abnormal performance of the control groups and the limited data base.

Compos t ed broiler litter All feed cost parameters were lower for the heifers and cows fed the composted litter rations. The decreases appeared directly related to the litter content in the ration. Feed cost savings were higher for the cows than the heifers; this was attributed to the higher litter content in the cow rations. The estimated gross value ofcomposted broiler litter was similar for both the heifers and the cows. The results of the economic evaluation of utilising composted broiler litter as a feedstuff for beef heifers and brood cows indicate that economic incentives may exist to reduce feed costs. However, the existing data base is too limited to draw specific conclusions.

DISCUSSION

This evaluation of animal performance based on feeding trials indicates that the benefits of utilising broiler litter as a feedstuff relate to its


nutritional composition which, in turn, is influenced by type of litter base, number of batches of birds raised on the litter and method of handling the litter prior to its use as a feedstuff. In the studies that evaluated unprocessed or minimally processed broiler litter, similar litter bases were not used. This factor is a major source of variation in the performance of steers fed similar levels of litter.

The nutrient composition of various types of litter is highly variable (Table 10). Pine shavings have the lowest nutritional value due to their

TABLE 10 Composi t ion and Cost of Various Types of Litter

Per cent of dry matter Type True dry Lignin Hemicellulose Crude TDN Cost per

matter protein tonne* digestibility

(%)

Peanut hulls + 35.5 18.0 k 9.0 8.4 22-5 $24.91 Cane bagasse + 46.7 14.0 k 26-7 1.1 33.7 $175.30 Corn cobs,

ground + 60.0 4.5 s 43.7 2.0 47-9 $13.78 Soybean hulls + 93.0 2.0~ 17.7 11 "0 80.0 $88-18 Pinewood- 14.5 22-4 k 17.4 0.7 1.5 $55-12

shavings ~ 15.8 s

* Agway, Inc., Ithaca, New York (1979). + Van Soest & Robertson (1976). § Chandler (1980). s = Sulphuric acid method, k = Permanganate method.

relative indigestibility.Although soybean hulls and cane bagasse have higher nutritional values, their higher cost requires close examination in any specific economic evaluation.

Utilisation of broiler-litter as a feedstuff in steer rations appears a feasible practice on the basis of nutrient value. However, the metabolisable energy of rations containing broiler litter will decrease and feed consumption per day may increase. The opt imum utilisation of broiler litter would appear to be in the rations that are low in protein.


Palatability problems can also influence the use of broiler litter in feed rations. Palatability of rations containing cane bagasse litter was similar to controls (Noland et al. , 1955). Southwell et al. (1958) reported a palatability problem using corn cob litter at high levels. On the basis of palatability and animal performance, the maximum level, based on animal response, of incorporating broiler litter into steer rations was about 19~o. However, only four studies were evaluated to determine the maximum level of incorporation and there was considerable variation between studies.

These results suggest that cattle producers located near poultry producers could utilise broiler litter as a feedstuffand reduce feed costs, as long as the litter price reflected short-distance transportation, handling" and storage costs.

The utilisation of composted broiler litter in wintering rations for beef heifers and pregnant brood cows has been reported only by Webb et al.

(1974; 1977, 1978) and their results have not been independently confirmed. This evaluation of composted broiler litter was hampered because of incomplete results. The nutrient composition of the composted broiler litter, the composting duration and the influence of composting on litter nutritive value were not reported.

Despite the problems encountered in the evaluation of composted broiler litter, its utilisation as a feedstuff appears to offer animal performance benefits and economic incentives. Beef heifers and brood cows fed composted broiler litter appeared to have an enhanced--or at least similar--level of performance when compared with cattle fed on a hay ration. This practice substantially reduced feed costs. Transportation, handling and composting costs also must be considered when determining the total costs of this practice.

This study attempted to characterise the value of broiler litter as a feedstuff by evaluating data from reported feeding trials and can be summarised as follows. The results indicated that dried broiler litter can have nutritive value as a feedstuff. The method used to prepare the litter as a feed constituent (drying, composting and ensiling) influenced its value.

The maximum and optimum levels of incorporating broiler litter in ruminant rations and the potential gross value are summarised in Table 11. Generally, the maximum level of incorporating these wastes into diets is about 2 5 ~ or less, although it appears that broiler litter can be incorporated at higher levels in some situations without adversely affecting animal performance.

O~

TA

BL

E 1

1 S

umm

ary

of I

ncor

pora

ting

Bro

iler

Lit

ter

into

Rat

ions

of

Rum

inan

ts

Typ

e o

f w

aste

Sp

ecie

s M

axim

um

Opt

imum

M

axim

um

Opt

imum

E

stim

ated

gro

ss r

alue

fe

d

anim

al

anim

al

econ

omic

ec

onom

ic

doll

ars

per

tonn

e*

resp

onse

let

'el

resp

onse

ler

el

lere

l le

t'el

Max

imum

O

ptim

um

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

lere

l le

rel

Bro

iler

Lit

ter

As-

coll

ecte

d D

ried

E

nsil

ed

Com

post

ed

Stee

rs

18-2

2 §

§ §

72

§ ~.

St

eers

11

-16

§ §

§ 90

§

.~

Stee

rs

25-5

2 §

§ §

--

§ H

eife

rs

1-10

§

§ §

90**

§

~.

Hei

fers

ap

prox

. 75

§

§ §

81

§ C

ows

appr

ox.

80

§ §

§ 72

§

* B

ased

upo

n 19

79 c

osts

and

pri

ces.

§

Can

not

be d

eter

min

ed f

rom

exi

stin

g da

ta.

"~

** E

stim

ated

gro

ss v

alue

com

pare

d w

ith

posi

tive

con

trol

gro

ups

equa

ls $

45 p

er t

onne

; va

lue

com

pare

d w

ith

nega

tive

con

trol

gro

ups

equa

ls $

180

per

tonn

e; t

he $

90 p

er t

onne

rep

rese

nts

the

mea

n of

all

the

obse

rvat

ions

.


A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

This study was supported by Project No. 806140, US Environmental Protection Agency. The encouragement and advice of Mr Lynn R. Shuyler, Project Officer, Robert S. Kerr, Environmental Research Laboratory, EPA, was of considerable assistance and greatly appre- ciated, as was the technical assistance, advice and critique of Drs Peter Van Soest and James Robertson, Depar tment of Animal Science, Cornell University.

R E F E R E N C E S

Chandler, J. A. (1980). Predicting methane fermentation biodegradability. MS Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 234pp.

Cross, D. L., Sketley, G. C., Thompson, C. S. & Jenny, B. F. (1978). Efficacy of broiler litter silage for beef steers, J. Anim. Sci., 47(2), 544--51.

Cullison, A. E., McCampbell, H. C., Cunningham, A. C., Lowrey, R. S., Warren, E. P., McLendon, B. D. & Sherwood, D. H. (1976). Use of poultry manure in steer finishing rations. J. Anim. Sci., 42(1), 219-28.

Fontenot, J. P., Bhattacharya, A. N., Drake, C. L. & McClure, W. H. (1966). Value of broiler litter as feed for ruminants. In: Management o f farm animal wastes. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. 105-12.

Fontenot, J. P., Webb, K. E. Jr., Harmon, B. W., Tucker, R. E. & Moore, W. E. C. ( 1971). Studies of processing, nutritional value and palatability of broiler litter for ruminants. In: Livestock waste management and pollution abatement. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, MI. 301-4.

Lowrey, R. S., Cullison, A. E., McCampbell, H. C., Watson, N. O. & Sherwood, D. H. (1975). Cattle and poultry waste for finishing steers. J. Anim. Sci., 40(1), 201 (Abstract).

Martin, J. H., Loehr, R. C. & Pilbeam, T. E. (1983). Animal manures as feedstuffs. Poultry manures feeding trials, Agricultural Wastes, 6(4), 193-220.

McClure, W. H., Fontenot, J. P. & Webb, K. E. Jr. (1978). Ensiled corn forage and broiler litter for furnishing heifers. Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State Univ. Livestock Research Report, 174, 131-4.

McClure, W. H., Westing, T. W., Fontenot, J. P. & Webb, K. E. Jr. (1977). Ensiled corn forage and broiler litter for finishing heifers. Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State Unit,. Livestock Research Report, 172, 68-71.

Noland, P. R., Ford, B. F. & Ray, M. L. (1955). The use of ground chicken litter as a source of nitrogen for gestating-lactating ewes and fatterning steers. J. Anim. Sci., 14(3), 860-5.


Oliphant, J. M. (1974). Feeding dried poultry waste for intensive beef production. Animal Production, 18(2), 211 17.

Southwell, B. L., Hale, D. M. & McCormick, W. C. (1958). Poultry house litter as a protein supplement in steer fattening rations. Georgia Agric. Exp. Sta. Mimeo Series N.S. 55.6 pp.

Van Soest, P. J. & Robertson, R. B. (1976). Composition and nutritive value of uncommon feedstuffs. In: 1976 Cornell Nutrition Conference, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 102-11.

Webb, K. E., Jr., Fontenot, J. P. & Harmon, B. W. (1973). Effect of molasses addition to rations containing processed broiler litter on performance and carcass characteristics of steers. Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State Unit,. Livestock Research Report, 153, 148-50.

Webb, K. E., Jr., Fontenot, J. P. & McClure, H. W. (1974). Broiler litter as a wintering feed for beef cows and heifers. Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State Univ. Livestock Research Report, 158, 125-8.

Webb, K. E., Jr., Fontenot, J. P. & McClure, H. W. (1975). Performance and liver copper levels of beef cows fed broiler litter. Virginia Polyteehnical Institute and State Univ. Livestock Research Report, 163, 128-31.

Webb, K. E., Jr., Fontenot, J. P. & McClure, H. W. (1977). Performance and liver copper levels of beef cows fed broiler litter. Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State Univ. Livestock Research Report, 172, 91-4.

Webb, K. E. Jr., Fontenot, J. P. & McClure, H. W. (1978). Performance and liver copper levels of beef cows fed broiler litter. Virginia Polytechnical Institute and State Univ. Livestock Research Report, 174, 81-4.

Documents

Animal manures as feedstuffs: Broiler litter feeding trials