PRODUCTION, MODELING, AND EDUCATION

The Use of Refused Tea as Litter Material for Broiler Chickens

N. S. B. M. Atapattu1 and K. P. Wickramasinghe

Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ruhuna, Mapalana, Kamburupitiya, Sri Lanka

ABSTRACT A completely randomized design experi-ment was conducted to determine the suitability of re-fused tea (RT) as a litter material for broiler chickens.Physiochemical properties of RT were compared withpaddy husk (PH). Subsequently, broilers were raised onRT- or PH-based litter to compare the performances andlitter qualities. Twenty-day-old broiler chicks (n = 150)were randomly allocated into 6 deep litter pens so thateach treatment had 3 replicates. Chicks received 0.8 ft2 offloor spacing until d 28 and 1.3 ft2 thereafter. Each cagehad a feeder and a drinker. Litter materials and littersamples taken on 28, 35, and 39 d were analyzed for bulkdensity, moisture, ash, and N. Chick mortality was low(1.3%) and similar on 2 types of litters. Live weights ond 28, 35, 39, and weight gains, feed intakes, dressingpercentages, and feed conversion ratios were not affected

Key words: litter, paddy husk, refused tea

2007 Poultry Science 86:968–972

INTRODUCTION

The deep litter system is probably the most popularbroiler management system throughout the world. Thesuitability of a range of materials such as wood shavings(Brake et al., 1992), shredded paper (Griffith, 1993), sawdust, corn cobs (Chaloupka et al., 1967), recycled paper(Lien et al., 1992), paddy husk (Hester et al., 1985, 1987),refined gypsum (Wyatt and Goodman, 1992), and leaves(Willis et al., 1997) as litter materials for poultry has beenstudied. The quality of litter material directly affects theperformance, health, carcass quality, and welfare of thepoultry (Malone et al., 1982, 1983; Malone and Chaloupka,1983; Veltman et al., 1984). An ideal litter material shouldbe dry with higher water-holding capacity (WHC) butshould also be able to release the absorbed moisturequickly. Under Sri Lankan conditions, paddy husk (PH)is the most widely used litter material for poultry. Thephysiochemical properties of PH make it an ideal littermaterial, and performance trials have also shown thatPH to be the best litter material for poultry [http://

©2007 Poultry Science Association Inc.Received November 15, 2006.Accepted January 12, 2007.1Corresponding author: Mahindaatapattu1@yahoo.com

968

by the type of litter material. The bulk density, moisturelevel, and pH of the RT were comparable with PH. Eventhough the water-holding capacity of PH (213%) was sig-nificantly higher (P < 0.01) than RT (70%), the latter mate-rial had significantly higher (P < 0.01) water-releasingcapacity compared with the former (17.9 vs. 13.6%).Throughout the experiment the RT litter had around 10%units higher moisture level than PH litter. By d 39, themoisture content of the RT litter was (48%) significantlyhigher (P = 0.05) than PH litter (37%). The N contents ofRT litter were higher (P < 0.05) than those of PH on d 28,35, and 39, being 8.1, 7.8, and 7% and 3.4, 3.6, and 3%,respectively. It was concluded that RT could be success-fully used as an alternative litter material for broilers. Ahigher N content in RT-based spent broiler litter wouldmake it be a better organic fertilizer and ruminant feedcompared with PH-based litter.

www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/poultry/alt-litter (lastaccessed Dec. 2006)]. In Sri Lanka, in recent years, PHhas become a highly sought material by many other in-dustries to be used as a fuel. Consequently, in manyareas of the country, poultry farmers find it increasinglydifficult to get PH to be used as a litter material. Theprice of PH is also rising, incurring an additional cost onfarmers. In this context, alternative litter materials forpoultry industry are important. Refused tea (RT) or teawaste is a by-product of black tea processing. Generally,4 to 5 kg of RT is produced for every 100 kg of greenleaves processed. Annual RT production of Sri Lanka isestimated to be around 20 to 25 million tonnes (Tea Re-search Institute of Sri Lanka, 2004). The objective of thepresent study was to determine the suitability of RT asa litter material for broilers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Chick Performance Assay

One-day-old broiler chicks were purchased from a localcommercial hatchery. Chicks were brooded on an electricfloor brooder for 2 wk and were fed with a commercialbroiler starter diet (Nutrina Feeds, Sri Lanka) until theywere 20 d old. The PH and RT litters were randomly

at National C

hung Hsing U

niversity Library on A

pril 10, 2014http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

REFUSED TEA AS LITTER MATERIAL FOR BROILER CHICKENS 969

allocated to 6 cages, resulting in 3 replicates per treatment.On d 20, chicks were individually weighed and allocatedinto 6 deep litter cages so that between cage weight varia-tion was minimum. Each cage housed 25 birds. Each cagehad a feeder and a bell-shaped drinker. A commercialbroiler finisher diet (Nutrina Feeds) was fed from d 21to 39. From d 21 to 28 chicks were given 0.8 ft2 of floorspace per chick and 1.3 ft2 thereafter. Ad libitum feedingand watering was done every day. Lighting was continu-ous. Chicks were weighed on d 28, 35, and 39 and killedon d 40. Three birds were randomly selected from eachcage for manual processing. Crop contents were exam-ined for the presence of RT or PH particles. Weights of theliver and gizzard and dressed carcasses were recorded.

Litter Materials and Sample Analysis

The RT was obtained from a local tea factory. The RTand PH samples were analyzed for moisture content, pH,WHC, and bulk density (BD) by using methods adoptedby Brake et al. (1992). The WHC was expressed on a freshmatter basis. To determine the water-releasing capacity,each litter material was placed in pans at 3 cm of depth.Then pans were filled with water and allowed to standfor 30 min. After draining the excess water for 3 min, theweights of the litter samples were determined. Then, thepans were weighed 1.5, 3, 4.5, and 24 h after draining.Moisture loss at each time point was expressed as a per-centage of the initial wet weight of the sample. Threerandom litter samples were taken from each cage on d28, 35, and 39. The BD (Brake et al., 1992), moisture content(at 105°C for 24 h), ash (at 550°C for 12 h), and N (AOAC1990) were determined.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed by using GLM procedure of Mini-tab Inc. (11.12, State College, PA). Performance criteria[live weight, weight gain, feed intake, and feed conver-sion ratio] and total litter production data were analyzedusing pen means as replicates. For carcass and litter qual-ity data analysis there were 9 replicates each, resultingfrom 3 randomly selected litter samples from each cage,respectively. Effects were considered statistically signifi-cant when P < 0.05.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Physiochemical Properties

The particle size, freedom from dust, BD, thermal con-ductivity, drying rate, and compressibility make the PHan ideal litter material for poultry. Performance trialshave also shown PH as the best litter material for broilers[http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/reader/poultry/alt-litter (last accessed Dec. 2006)]. Therefore the physio-chemical properties of RT and the performance of thebroilers on RT-based litter and the properties of the litterwere compared with those of PH. Physiochemical proper-

Table 1. Comparison of some physiochemical properties of paddy husk(PH) and refused tea (RT)

Litter type

Item1 PH RT ANOVA

Bulk density (kg/m3) 97 ± 0.9 84 ± 0.9 NSMoisture (%) 10.3 ± 0.9 12.6 ± 1.6 NSWHC (%) 213 ± 18 70 ± 8 NSWRC (%)

1.5 h 1.3 ± 0.4 1.5 ± 0.3 NS3 h 2.5 ± 0.5 3.1 ± 0.5 *4.5 h 3.7 ± 0.3 6.4 ± 0.5 *24 h 13.6 ± 0.8 17.9 ± 0.7 **

pH 6.1 6.3N (%) 0.37 ± 0.04 0.69 ± 0.07 ***Ash (%) 0.36 ± 0.02 0.21 ± 0.04 **

*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.1WHC =water-holding capacity; WRC = water-releasing capacity.

ties of RT and PH are given in Table 1. Bulk density ofRT (84 kg/m3) was not significantly different from PH(94 kg/m3). Bulk densities of PH and RT were lower thanthe bulk densities of other litter materials such as pinewood shaving (192 kg/m3) and hard wood bark (403kg/m3; Brake et al., 1992). Low BD of these materialsindirectly reflect the high porosity and thus are conducivefor better water-holding ability, air circulation throughthe litter, and release of moisture.

The moisture content of the RT (12.6%) was comparablewith that of PH (10.3%). An ideal litter material shouldnot have too high a moisture level because it would in-crease the risk of pathogenic microbial growth and in-creases the ammonia production (Carlile, 1984). Due toincreased dustiness, too dry litter materials make thepoultry more susceptible to respiratory diseases. The pHof the RT (6.3) was also not statistically different fromthat of PH (6.1). For a litter material, it is an added advan-tage to have a lower pH level because the conversion ofexcretory uric acid into ammonia is reduced at acidic pHlevels (Moore et al., 1996).

Ruszler and Carson (1974) pointed out that moisture-releasing capacity was the most important characteristicin the evaluation of litter materials, whereas Molone etal. (1982) concluded that moisture absorbability was moreimportant. Moisture absorbability and the moisture-re-leasing capacity of PH and RT were different. The WHCof PH (213%) was around 3 times higher than that of RT(70%) and significantly (P < 0.001) higher. This is contraryto the findings of Ruszler and Carson (1968) who foundthat litter materials with smaller particle size absorbedless moisture than larger litter materials. Obviously, notonly the particle size, but also the other physiochemicalproperties may affect the WHC of litter materials. Con-trary to WHC, water-releasing capacity of RT (17.9%) wassignificantly higher than that of PH (13.6%). An ideallitter material should be able to absorb the moisture ofthe feces and spilled water from the drinkers. Also, itshould be able to release the absorbed moisture quicklyto prevent the litter getting too wet. As discussed later(Table 2), the moisture content of the RT-based litter was

at National C

hung Hsing U

niversity Library on A

pril 10, 2014http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

ATAPATTU AND WICKRAMASINGHE970

Table 2. Growth performers of broiler chicks reared on paddy husk (PH) or refused tea (RT) litter from d 21to 39 and the properties of the litter

Litter type

Item PH RT ANOVA

Growth performanceMortality (%) 1.3 1.3Live weight (g)

D 21 635 ± 16 643 ± 26 NSD 39 2,058 ± 116 2,012 ± 76 NS

Weight gain (g) 1,422 ± 106 1,369 ± 63 NSFeed intake (g/d) 139 ± 7 133 ± 10 NSFeed conversion ratio 1.80 ± 0.12 1.78 ± 0.01 NSWater intake1 (mL/d) 380 ± 134 353 ± 161 NSWater:feed 3.1 ± 0.2 2.9 ± 0.23 NSLitter qualityBulk density (kg/m3)

D 28 188 ± 2 140 ± 1 NSD 35 240 ± 4 220 ± 9 NSD 39 210 ± 0.07 180 ± 3 NS

Litter weight (kg)D 21 18 22 NSD 39 46 ± 8 41 ± 11 NS

Litter weight/kg of LW 0.92 ± 0.28 0.82 ± 0.12 NSLitter moisture (%)

D 28 45 ± 5.7 51 ± 6 NSD 35 42 ± 5.7 51.6 ± 2.3 NSD 39 37 ± 4 48 ± 5 *

Litter ash (%)D 28 0.98 ± 0.2 0.48 ± 0.1 *D 35 1.1 ± 0.4 0.6 ± 0.1 NSD 39 1.5 ± 0.2 0.62 ± 0.3 *

Litter N (%; DM basis)D 28 3.4 ± 0.8 8.1 ± 0.55 **D 35 3.6 ± 0.3 7.8 ± 0.7 *D 39 3.5 ± 0.6 7.00 ± 0.5 *

1From d 35 to 39.*P<0.05; **P < 0.01; ***P < 0.001.

significantly higher than that of PH. This indicates thathigher water-releasing capacity of RT has not been effec-tive in maintaining a lower litter moisture level when itwas used as a litter material. Litter caking was increasedwith RT compared with PH. This feature may probablyhave reduced the release of moisture by evaporation andexplains why RT-based litter contained more moisturethough the water-releasing capacity was higher than thatof PH.

Performance of the broiler chicks raised on PH- or RT-based litters is shown in Table 2. Chick mortality in eachtreatment (1.3%) was within acceptable limits. Severalauthors (Malone et al., 1983; Peacock et al., 1984; Brakeet al., 1992) have found that broiler chicks ate smallerlitter materials like saw dust. We also found a few RTparticles in the crop contents of 2 chicks dissected on d40. Higher particle size might have limited the consump-tion of RT. Wyatt and Goodman (1992) also found thatbroiler chicks did not eat fir wood shaving.

None of the growth parameters were statistically differ-ent (P > 0.05) between the treatments. The weight, weightgain, feed intake, and feed conversion ratio values of thechicks raised on RT-based litter were comparable withthose of PH at each growth stage. Several other studies(Peacock et al., 1984; Brake et al., 1992; Lien et al., 1992;Wyatt and Goodman, 1992) have also found that growth

performances were not affected by the litter types suchas recycled paper, pine shaving, refined gypsum, andhardwood bark. No clear health abnormalities or behav-ioral differences were observed between the chicks raisedon 2 types of litter materials.

Dressing percentage and the weight of the liver andgizzard were also not affected by the type of litter. Nocarcass grading was done in the present experiment.However, there were no clear visible abnormalities of thecarcasses of the broilers raised on RT. Our findings arein agreement with those of Brake et al. (1992), Lien et al.(1992), and Willis et al. (1997).

Water intake was also not affected by the type of thelitter used. However, in general the water intake per birdand per unit weight of the feed ingested were higher thanthe values reported by NRC (1994). We used bell-drinkersto provide water. Nicholson et al. (2004) showed thatspillage of water from bell drinkers was higher than fromnipple drinkers. Also, the higher ambient temperatureand high relative humidity might have increased the ac-tual water intake. In some previous experiments con-ducted in our laboratory under hot humid conditions, we(Atapattu and Gamage, 2006) have found comparativelyhigher water intake values for broilers. Water:feed rationwas also not affected by the type of litter but was higherthan typical values reported by NRC (1994).

at National C

hung Hsing U

niversity Library on A

pril 10, 2014http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

REFUSED TEA AS LITTER MATERIAL FOR BROILER CHICKENS 971

Litter Characters

Though the performance and carcass characters werenot significantly affected by the type of litter used, thecharacters of 2 types of litters were significantly differentwith respect to several important parameters (Table 2).The BD of the 2 types of litters were increased until d 35and then declined. No significant difference in BD wasobserved between 2 litters at any time of the experiment,and throughout the experiment the BD of PH litter washigher than that of RT. It must be noted that BD of thePH before being used as a litter was higher than RT. Thismay be due to higher silica contents of the PH. The totallitter production and litter production per kilogram oflive weight produced were also not significantly affectedby the kind of litter used. In general, approximately 1 kgof litter was produced from d 21 to 40, per kilogram oflive weight.

Throughout the 19-d experimental period, the moisturelevel of RT-based litter was higher than that of PH-basedlitter. On d 28, the moisture levels of 2 litters were notsignificantly different, though RT-based litter had highermoisture level. By d 35, there was a trend to have (P =0.07) higher moisture level in RT litter. By d 39, the mois-ture level in RT litter was higher (P = 0.05) than PH-based litter.

The reported moisture contents of various kinds oflitters vary widely. For example, Wyatt and Goodman(1992) found as low as 6.5% litter moisture level whenrecycled gypsum was used as a litter material, whereasBrake et al. (1992) reported high moisture level as 44% forpine shaving litter. Compared with our findings, Andrewand McPherson (1963) reported lower (34%) moisturelevel in PH litter after 8 wk of growing period. Carr etal. (1990) recommended that it is desirable to maintainlitter moisture below 30% for ammonia control. The highlitter moisture levels we observed may be attributed toseveral factors. The use of bell-shaped drinkers as ob-served by Nicholson et al. (2004) has increased the waterspillage from drinkers and the litter moisture levels. Thewater intake was also high in this experiment, probablydue to high ambient temperature and relative humidity.At the same time humid conditions might have reduceddrying capacity of the litters.

Because the drying capacity of RT was significantlyhigher than PH, it was expected that RT litter would drymore quickly than PH. However, the moisture levels ofthe 2 types of litter suggest that it was not the case. Itwas observed that the litter cake formation in RT litterwas higher than PH-based litter. Consequently, frequentraking was required to minimize the cake formation inRT litter. Formation of cakes might have reduced theair circulation through the RT particles and reduced therelease of moisture.

The moisture level (Malone et al., 1982) as well as thephysical appearance of the material (Lien et al., 1992)affect the degree of litter cake formation. The RT, beinglonger and more fibrous than PH, can form cake easily.However, as suggested by Lien et al. (1992), although RT-

based litter contains more moisture and tends to formmore cakes, it may still be used as an alternative littermaterial because RT did not affect the broiler performanceand health.

Apart from the N contained in the litter material, thelitter is enriched with N due to excretory N as well asfeed spillage. Meanwhile, a part of litter N is continuouslyconverted to ammonia and lost to the atmosphere. TheN content of RT (0.69% on dry matter basis) was signifi-cantly higher (P < 0.001) than the N content of PH (0.39%).Wijesekara (2004) reported that N content of RT could beas high as 1.7%. The N contents of the RT-based litter ond 28, 35, and 39 were 8.1, 7.8, and 7.1%, respectively. Therespective values for PH-based litter were 3.4, 3.6, and3.5%, which were significantly lower than RT-based litter.Over the 19-d broiler rearing period, the N content of PHwas increased 9.45-fold (from 0.37 to 3.5%), whereas theN content of RT increased 10.14-fold from 0.69 to 7%.Higher litter moisture levels promote the loss of N asammonia (Moore et al., 1996). Because RT-based littercontained higher litter moisture levels throughout theexperiment, the litter N level of RT-based litter wouldhave been low compared with that of PH-based litter.However, that was not the case in the present experiment.We assume that it may be a possibility that RT bindssome ammonia, preventing volatilization. Further investi-gations are in progress in our laboratory to test this hy-pothesis.

The N content of PH-based litter was lower than thetypical litter N level (0.45%) reported by Elwinger andSvensson (1996). Interestingly, throughout the experi-ment, the N content of the RT-based litter was at least1.6 times higher than the N level reported by Elwengerand Svensson (1996). Spent poultry litter is widely usedas an organic fertilizer and as a ruminant feed resource.It is concluded that RT could successfully be used as analternative litter material for broilers. Having higher Ncontent than conventional litter materials, the value ofRT-based spent poultry litter as an organic fertilizer andruminant feed may be higher.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Critical comments of K. K. Pathirana and K. A. Kumara-siri, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ruhuna, SriLanka, are greatly appreciated.

REFERENCES

Andrew, L. D., and B. N. McPherson. 1963. Comparison ofdifferent types of litter materials for broiler litter. Poult. Sci.41:249–254.

Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 1990. Official Meth-ods of Analysis. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., Arlington, VA.

Atapattu, N. S. B. M., and V. L. G. Gamage. 2006. Water intakeof broiler chicken as affected by dietary microbial phytase.Proc. Sri Lanka. Assoc. Advance. Sci. 84 (Abstr.)

Brake, J. D., C. R. Boyle, T. N. Chamblee, C. D. Schultz, and E.D. Peeble. 1992. Evaluation of the chemical and physicalproperties of hardwood bark used as a broiler; litter material.Poult. Sci. 71:467–472.

at National C

hung Hsing U

niversity Library on A

pril 10, 2014http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

ATAPATTU AND WICKRAMASINGHE972

Carlile, F. S. 1984. Ammonia in poultry houses: A literaturereview. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 40:99–113.

Carr, L. E., F. W. Wheaton, and L. W. Douglas. 1990. Empiricalmodels to determine ammonia concentrations from broilerchicken litter. Trans. ASAE 33(4):1337–1342.

Chaloupka, G. W., R. W. Lloyd, J. F. Cordy, and L. C. Greene.1967. Evaluation of litter materials for broiler production.Poult. Sci. 46:1242. (Abstr.)

Elwinger, K., and L. Svensson. 1996. Effect of dietary proteincontent, litter and drinker type on ammonia emission frombroiler houses. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 64:197–208.

Griffith, D. L. V. 1993. Shredded paper for litter. Broiler growerin Barbados are trying shredded paper as litter instead ofsugar-cane bagasse. Poult. Sci. 32:70–72.

Hester, P. Y., A. L. Sutton, and R. G. Elkin. 1987. Effect oflight intensity, litter source, and litter management on theincidence of leg abnormalities and performance of male tur-keys. Poult. Sci. 66:666–675.

Hester, P. Y., A. L. Sutton, R. G. Elkin, and P. M. Klingensmith.1985. The effects of lighting, dietary amino acids, and litteron the incidence of leg abnormalities and performance ofturkey toms. Poult. Sci. 64:2062–2075.

Lien, R. J., C. O. Conner, and J. F. Bilgili. 1992. The use ofrecycled paper chips as litter material for rearing broilerchickens. Poult. Sci. 71:81–87.

Malone, G. W., P. H. Allen, G. W. Chaloupka, and W. F. Ritter.1982. Recycled paper products as broiler litter. Poult. Sci.61:2161–2165.

Malone, G. W., and G. W. Chaloupka. 1983. Influence of littertype and size on broiler performance. 2. Processed newspa-per litter particle size and management. Poult. Sci.62:1747–1750.

Malone, G. W., G. W. Chaloupka, and W. W. Saylor. 1983.Influence of litter type and size on on broiler performance. 1.Factors affecting litter consumption. Poult. Sci. 62:1741–1746.

Moore, P. A. T., Jr., T. C. Daniel, D. R. Edwards, and D. M.Miller. 1996. Evaluation of chemical amendments to reduceammonia volatilization from poultry litter. Poult. Sci.75:315–320.

Nicholson, F. A., B. J. Chambers, and A. W. Walker. 2004. Am-monia emissions from broiler litter and laying hen manuremanagement systems. Biosys Engn 89:175–185.

Peacock, C. G., R. N. Brewer, C. A. Flood Jr., and J. L. Koon.1984. Effect of litter on broiler performance. Poult. Sci.63(Suppl. 1):163. (Abstr.)

Ruszler, P. L., and J. R. Carson. 1968. Physical and biologicalevaluation of five litter materials. Poult. Sci. 41:249–254.

Ruszler, P. L., and J. R. Carson. 1974. Methods of evaluatingthe potential usefulness of selected litter materials. Poult. Sci.53:1420–1427.

Tea Research Institute of Sri Lanka. Annual Report (2004). TeaRes. Inst., Talawakele, Sri Lanka.

Veltman, J. R., F. A. Gardner, and S. S. Linton. 1984. Comparisonof rice hull products as litter material and dietary fat levelson turkey pullet performance. Poult. Sci. 63:2345–2351.

Wijesekara, G. A. S. S. P. 2004. An evaluation of chemicallytreated refuse tea compost on tea plants. An undergraduatereport. University of Ruhuna, Sri Lanka.

Willis, W. L., C. Murray, and C. Talbott. 1997. Evaluation ofleaves as a litter material. Poult. Sci. 76:1138–1140.

Wyatt, C. L., and T. N. Goodman. 1992. Research Note: Theutilization of recycled sheetrock (refined gypsum) as a littermaterial for broiler houses. Poult. Sci. 71:1572–1576.

at National C

hung Hsing U

niversity Library on A

pril 10, 2014http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from