©2013 Poultry Science Association, Inc.
Evaluation of different litter materials for broiler
production in a hot and humid environment:
1. Litter characteristics and quality
A. Garcês,1 S. M. S. Afonso, A. Chilundo, and C. T. S. Jairoce
Veterinary Faculty, Eduardo Mondlane University, C.P. 257, Maputo, Mozambique
Primary Audience: Broiler Producers, Extension Officers, Researchers
SUMMARY
Litter production, physicochemical properties, and the nutrient composition of river bed
sand, coconut husk, rice hulls, Guinea grass, newspaper combined with wood shavings, and
corn cob were determined and compared with wood shavings (WS) as the control. The trial was
carried out over 35 d in an open-sided and naturally-ventilated broiler house under conditions of
high ambient temperatures and relative humidity. Compared with WS, more litter was produced
using sand and corn cob (P < 0.05), less with coconut husk, grass, and newspaper (P < 0.05),
and similar amounts using rice hulls. Rice hulls and corn cob litters were less compacted (P <
0.05) than WS. The water holding capacity of both sand and coconut husk was lower (P < 0.05)
and that of grass was higher (P < 0.05) than WS. Only coconut husk showed a significantly
higher moisture content than WS, whereas sand was about 1/5 as wet (P < 0.05). The initial pH
of all substrates except rice hulls differed significantly from WS, but at the end of the rearing
cycle all litters were at the same level. Sand, grass, and newspaper litters volatilized greater
amounts of ammonia than WS (P < 0.05). Nutrient composition of the organic litters was similar to WS, except for the ash content, which was higher in coconut husk, rice hulls, and grass.
Most litters were equivalent to a 1N:1P2O5 grade fertilizer.
Key words: broiler, alternative litter material, physicochemical property, chemical composition
2013 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 22:168–176
http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr.2012-00547
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
Particle size, absence of dust, bulk density,
thermal conductivity, drying rate, and compressibility make pine shavings an ideal bedding material for broilers. However, both softwood and
hardwood shavings have become increasingly
expensive and difficult to obtain as the broiler
industry is expanding worldwide, and they are
unavailable in some production areas, encouraging researchers to evaluate other litter sources.
1
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Several alternative materials have been studied. Rice hulls have been identified as an appropriate litter alternative and are rapidly gaining
space in the broiler litter market [1]. Soft wheat
straw and rice straw can be used successfully as
poultry litter without apparent adverse effects
on bird performance or litter quality [2]. Sand
has been considered a suitable litter material,
resulting in increased BW and lower coliform
and aerobic plate counts [3]. Crop residue [4],
chopped corn cobs [5], shredded and processed
Garcês et al.: EVALUATION OF LITTER MATERIALS
newspaper [6], pelleted newspaper [7], forage
crops [8, 9], coconut husk [10], coir dust [11],
and refused tea [12] have been tested and produced results similar to wood or pine shavings.
The quality of litter is of great concern in
broiler production because it affects performance, health, carcass quality, and the welfare
of broilers. The efficiency of a particular bedding substrate is influenced by factors such as
particle size, moisture content and build up,
rate of caking, and other physical characteristics [13]. In most of the studies reported in the
literature, bird performance was the threshold
criterion, but few have provided information on
the physicochemical properties of the substrates
tested. The management and disposal of poultry
litter has become an important issue for farmers,
the industry, and the general public because of
growing concern about the environment. New
and innovative methods of using litter continue
to be studied, but land application remains the
most common use because poultry litter contains essential nutrients for plant growth, albeit
in variable concentrations [14].
Identifying suitable and affordable alternative litter sources is of particular importance
in developing countries, as broiler production
makes a significant contribution to the livelihoods of small-scale farmers. The objectives
of the study were to assess, for a wide range of
materials (sand, coconut husk, rice hulls, Guinea
grass, newspaper, and corn cob), their quality as
bedding substrates and their disposal value in a
subtropical environment, using wood shavings
(WS) as the control for the benchmark comparison.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Design and Husbandry
All bird procedures were conducted according to the guidelines for the care and use of farm
and laboratory animals approved by the Animal
Welfare and Ethics Committee of the Eduardo
Mondlane University, Mozambique. One-thousand-fifty 1-d-old Cobb broiler chicks obtained
from a commercial hatchery [15] were placed in
an open-sided, concrete-floored and naturally
ventilated broiler house. Birds were allocated
to 21 pens measuring 6.5 m2 such that each pen
contained 50 as-hatched chicks that were reared
169
to 35 d of age. A completely randomized design
was used, with 7 treatments replicated 3 times.
The treatments were as follows: WS (the control litter), river bed sand, coconut husk, rice
hulls, Guinea grass (Panicum maximum), a 1:1
mixture of newspaper and WS, and corn cobs.
The newspaper was shredded, the coconut husks
and grass were cut into pieces of approximately
3 cm, and the corn cobs were roughly ground.
All materials were air-dried before being spread
evenly to a depth of approximately 5 cm in each
pen.
Except for the types of litter, all broilers
had a common environment. The pens were
equipped with an identical number of tube feeders and drinkers. The birds were electrically
brooded until 14 d and fed ad libitum with the
same corn–soybean commercial starter (day 0 to
20) and grower (day 20 to 35) diets. Water was
provided continuously. They were vaccinated
against infectious bursal disease and Newcastle
disease, as required by the country’s veterinary
authority. Maximum and minimum air temperatures during the study averaged 32.0 ± 1.6°C
and 21.2 ± 1.5°C, respectively. Average relative
humidity was 73.6% (maximum 82.4 and minimum 64.9%).
Litter Quality
Litter samples were collected at the beginning and end of the experiment from 5 locations
within each pen (4 equidistant from each corner
and one central), thoroughly mixed and subsequently analyzed. Subsamples were submitted
to the National Agriculture Research Institute
laboratory for chemical analysis. Proximate
analysis was performed according to AOAC
guidelines [16]. Phosphorus (P) was determined
using the volumetric method described by Bender and Wood [17]. Sodium (Na) was determined
as sodium chloride titrimetrically by the Volhard
method [18].
Bulk density, moisture content, pH, water
holding capacity and water releasing capacity
were determined according to Brake et al. [13].
Bulk density is the weight of 1 L of as-is litter.
Litter moisture was measured after drying for 24
h at 105°C. The pH was recorded using an electronic meter after 30 g of macerated litter were
added to 250 mL of deionized water, agitated for
JAPR: Research Report
170
5 min, and suspended for 30 min. Water-holding
capacity was determined as follows: each litter
sample was dried until constant weight and 50
g of litter was placed in a 500-mL beaker; the
beaker was filled with water and left to stand for
30 min; excess water was then drained for 3 min
and the sample was weighed again; the percentage of water absorbed was calculated on a DM
basis. To determine the water-releasing capacity, each litter sample was placed in a 3-cm-deep
pan; the pan was filled with water and allowed
to stand for 30 min; after draining the excess water for 3 min, the litter sample was weighed; the
pan was then weighed 5 and 24 h after draining;
moisture loss at each time point was expressed
as a percentage of the initial wet weight of the
sample.
Determination of NH3 emissions was based
on the microdiffusion method [19] as follows:
100 g of fresh litter was weighed, placed in a
500-mL cylindrical flask, and leveled; a 50-mL
beaker containing 10 mL of 2% (m/v) boric acid
was placed on top of the litter; the flask was
closed and incubated for 20 h at 30°C; the boric
acid solution was then titrated against sulfuric
acid 0.1 N with metal orange and bromocresol
green; volatilized NH3 (in milligrams per 100
grams of litter) was calculated by multiplying
the amount of sulfuric acid used (A) by its normality and the molecular weight of ammonia:
NH3 = A × 0.1 × 17.
Statistical Analysis
Data were analyzed using the GLM procedure in SPSS for Windows, Release 18 [20].
The experimental unit for statistical analysis
was the individual replicate pen of birds. Arcsine √% transformations were performed on
percentage values before analysis and corrected
back to the original base. Statistical differences
in the results between WS (the control) and the
other litters were determined using the Dunnett
test (2-tailed). A probability of P < 0.05 was required for statements of significance. Pearson
correlation coefficients were calculated between
final litter moisture and initial water-releasing
capacity, and between pH and volatilized NH3.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Litter Production
Except for rice hulls, the amount of litter produced either per bird or per kilogram of
live marketed broiler differed significantly (P <
0.05) from WS because of the different weight
per volume of the materials before utilization
(Table 1). Sand litter was 4 times heavier than
WS (P < 0.05) posing potential problems in handling and transportation. However, sand allows
producers to rear multiple flocks while only
removing small portions of litter [21], which
could compensate for these aspects and make it
a convenient bedding source.
Debris (feathers, feces, feed, and soil) and
water added to the bedding during the cycle
averaged 896 g per broiler raised. As expected,
the amount of debris produced did not depend
on the type of bedding material used. The bulk
density of the organic litters increased on average 2.4 times during the cycle because of higher
litter moisture, deposition of fecal solids, and
Table 1. Production and bulk density of different broiler litters (as is)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Litter production (g)
Litter type
Wood shavings (CON)
Sand
Coconut husk
Rice hulls
Grass
Newspaper
Corn cob
Pooled SEM
a
Per
bird
Per kg of
liveweight
Debris added
(g/bird)
0d
35 d
Variation
(%)
1,809
6,759a
1,464a
1,732
1,247a
1,475a
2,190a
0.405
1,060
3,824a
823a
1,001
771a
885a
1,259a
0.230
894
905
907
887
872
880
925
10.1
77
1,469a
57a
114a
49a
53a
215a
108
252
1,087a
227
230
133a
137a
359a
69.5
225
−26a
293
102a
170
157
67a
24.3
Means significantly different from the control (CON), Dunnett’s test at 5% probability.
Garcês et al.: EVALUATION OF LITTER MATERIALS
171
Table 2. Initial and final physicochemical properties of different broiler litters
WHC1 (g of H2O/g)
Litter type
Wood shavings (CON)
Sand
Coconut husk
Rice hulls
Grass
Newspaper
Corn cob
Pooled SEM
WRC2 (%)
0d
35 d
0d
35 d
Moisture
(%) 35 d
2.55
0.17a
2.74
1.83a
2.54
3.39a
1.47a
0.220
2.64
0.28a
2.15a
2.34
0.35a
2.97
3.06
0.214
21.3
8.6a
33.8a
32.1a
33.7a
21.5
11.0a
2.27
16.3
12.1a
20.7
26.4a
13.9
16.3
21.5
1.10
33.3
7.2a
50.0a
34.5
30.8
25.7
24.0
2.86
pH
0d
6.3
7.3a
5.6a
6.5
7.2a
7.9a
5.9a
0.172
35 d
8.9
9.0
8.9
8.5
9.1
9.0
9.0
0.052
NH3
(mg/100 g) 35 d
7.0
24.0a
7.6
7.8
21.2a
15.7a
11.1
1.49
a
Means significantly different from the control (CON), Dunnett’s test at 5% probability.
Water holding capacity (DM basis).
2
Water releasing capacity (after 24 h).
1
smaller particle size with use. Conversely, the
bulk density of sand litter decreased 26% with
use because the organic solids added were less
dense than its particles.
Because the quantity of the accumulated debris was similar in all litter types, the percentage
variation in bulk density from Day 0 (loose reference state) to Day 35, or relative bulk density,
could be used as an indicator of the compactness
of organic litters [22, 23]. The state of compaction of coconut husk, grass, and newspaper was
similar to WS (Table 1). Corn cob and rice hulls
were less compacted than WS (P < 0.05). There
is little data in the literature on the compaction
of litter based on nonconventional materials. In
contrast to our findings, Benabdeljelil and Ayachi [2] found no difference between WS and rice
hulls when compaction was assessed by a subjective visual score.
Physicochemical Properties
The physicochemical characteristics of the
various kinds of litter evaluated at the beginning
and end of the experiment are shown in Table 2.
An ideal litter substrate should not only be able
to absorb the moisture of feces and spilled water
from the drinkers, but should also release moisture quickly. Water-holding and water-releasing
capacity are thus important characteristics in
the evaluation of litter materials. At 35 d, sand
retained one-ninth as much (P < 0.05) and lost
three-fourths as much (P < 0.05) water as WS.
Of the organic materials, grass had significantly
(P < 0.05) higher and coconut husk significantly
(P < 0.05) lower absorptive capacity than WS
but a similar rate of moisture loss. The waterholding capacity of rice hulls, newspaper, and
corn cob litters were equivalent to that of WS.
Averaged across materials, moisture absorption
measured on DM increased 14% throughout the
growing period as the substrates became denser
because of the deposition of fecal solids.
In the short term (5 h), all litters had a waterrelease capacity similar to WS (data not shown),
but after 24 h, rice hulls had lost a significantly
(P < 0.05) higher quantity of water. Wood shavings, coconut husk, rice hulls, grass, and newspaper decreased on average 34% of their capacity to lose water throughout the cycle because
of lower water flow resulting from their reduced
particle size and increased compaction. Sand
and corn cob were exceptions; these litter types
increased their rate of moisture loss over time.
Moreover, it should be noted that corn cob litter doubled both its holding and its releasing capacity, ending up with the lowest moisture level
of all the organic materials. This is consistent
with the previously mentioned low compaction.
Because corn cobs contain mainly cellulose
and hemicelluloses (86 to 93%) and very little
lignin [24], they absorb and release water very
quickly and thus have industrial applications as
an absorbing and adsorbing agent. In the case of
sand, the coarser organic material accumulated
between the fine inorganic particles increased
the amount of water absorbed and released by
this material.
The percentage moisture of the organic litters
was similar to WS except in the case of coco-
172
nut husk, which was 1.5 times wetter (P < 0.05),
whereas sand litter was 25% less wet than the
control (P < 0.05). These results are consistent
with previous research [2, 25]. The average
moisture for all the litters increased almost 3
times throughout the rearing cycle from an initial value of 10% because of waste accumulation, water spillage, the birds’ respiration, and
air humidity. The ability of the unused materials
to release water (0 d) was a poor predictor of
the final litter moisture because neither variable
was negatively correlated (r = 0.71; P < 0.001),
indicating that the capacity of the litters to bind
and release water was affected mainly by their
physical structure, particle size, and rate of compaction over time. Coconut husk, in particular,
was highly compacted (more material per unit
area) and this prevented evaporation of the absorbed water, thus raising moisture content to
very high levels.
The pH of WS and the other litter materials
was similar, although all materials except rice
hulls differed significantly from the control before being used. On average, pH increased 33%
during the rearing period with coconut husk
showing the greatest increase (57%) and newspaper the lowest (14%). The leveling effect of
fecal and water accumulation over time on litter
pH agrees with Davasgaium and Bodoo [26].
At 0 d, only grass hay volatilized NH3 (0.23
mg/100 g) as leaves absorb and emit ammonia. At the end of the experiment, sand, grass,
and newspaper litters emitted significantly (P
< 0.05) more ammonia than WS, and coconut
husk and rice hull litters volatilized comparable
amounts. It is an added advantage if litter material has a low pH, because the conversion of
excretory uric acid into ammonia is decreased
at acidic pH levels [27] and also because, as pH
rises above 7, the NH3 shifts from the ionized
to the un-ionized form and is thus more available for volatilization [28]. Although pH and
NH3 emissions in this study were positively correlated (r = 0.70; P < 0.001) only 49% of the
variation could be explained by the relationship
between these 2 traits.
Because litter pH usually exceeds 8, moisture
and temperature are other important factors that
are known to affect NH3 [29]. An association
between litter moisture and NH3 emission was
observed for grass, newspaper, and corn cobs:
JAPR: Research Report
the higher the moisture content was, the more
ammonia these materials lost to the environment. Conversely, WS, rice hulls, and coconut
husk were the wettest litters, but volatilized the
lowest quantities of NH3, probably because the
very high moisture content of these litters suppressed ammonia emissions, as demonstrated by
Liu et al. [30]. Although comparisons must be
treated with caution, these 3 litters had moisture
in excess of 33%, the threshold that Wang et al.
[31] found for ammonia volatilization to begin
falling in both the short and long term. The presence of high concentrations of lignin in these
materials could also have contributed to reducing the substrate for microbial growth, and thus
the formation of ammonia [32].
Sand volatilized 3 times more NH3 than
WS and had 4 times less moisture (P < 0.05).
Moreover, this inorganic substrate had the lowest moisture content of all materials and lost
the highest amount of NH3. Similar differences in moisture content between sand and WS
have been observed elsewhere [3, 30]. Miles et
al. [33] reported more NH3 generated by sand
(18.5 mg of N) than by WS (0.9 mg of N) litters created in a laboratory with a moisture content equivalent to ours (sand: 8%; WS: 31.6%).
However, Bilgili et al. [3] found no difference in
the ammonia production rates of sand and pine
shavings. The physical structure, labile nature
and very low holding capacity of this inorganic
material might explain our findings, as birds’ excreta are not absorbed by the sand and remain
suspended between the small particles, releasing
more ammonia.
Chemical Composition
The chemical composition of the litters is
shown in Table 3. As expected, sand differed
significantly (P < 0.05) from WS. Sand had oneeleventh the nitrogen, one-fifth the phosphorus,
and 1/3 the sodium, whereas the ash content was
8 times higher. Bowers et al. [21] also reported
less nitrogen and phosphorus on single-flock
sand litter, whereas Bilgili et al. [34] found less
Na and P but similar N in sand litter used for 3
successive flocks. The latter authors categorized
reused sand litter as a 3N:3P2O5 grade fertilizer.
In the present study, sand contained twice as
much phosphate as total nitrogen, an unfavor-
Garcês et al.: EVALUATION OF LITTER MATERIALS
173
Table 3. Chemical composition and equivalent fertilizer concentrations of different broiler litters
% (dry weight)
Litter type
Total
N
Crude
fiber
Crude
fat
Ash
P
Na
N:P2O5
Wood shavings (CON)
Sand
Coconut husk
Rice hulls
Grass hay
Newspaper
Corn cob
Pooled SEM
1.34
0.12a
1.38
1.87
0.93
1.46
1.26
0.01
28.2
1.2a
24.5
25.5
16.0a
31.6
20.1
2.30
1.11
0.26a
0.59
0.96
0.92
0.93
0.63
0.08
11.9
95.9a
17.5a
21.9a
19.3a
11.4
12.0
6.35
0.649
0.124a
0.528
0.782
0.711
0.682
0.638
0.061
0.388
0.110a
0.616
0.507
0.269
0.391
0.278
0.042
1:1
1:2
1:1
1:1
1:2
1:1
1:1
—
a
Means significantly different from the control (CON), Dunnett’s test at 5% probability.
able ratio. Sand litter could possibly be used as a
soil additive but only after rearing several flocks
of broilers on the same litter, because organic
matter buildup results in decreasing mineral levels over time [21].
There was no difference in the total N of WS
(1.3%) and the other organic litters (0.9% to
1.9%), which agrees with the findings of other
researchers [5, 12]. Irrespective of the substrate,
the N content of the litters was low, approaching the minimum value reported in the literature
(1.0%) [35], because of high loss and low deposition. Excessive loss through NH3 volatilization
should have occurred given the prevailing high
ambient temperatures and relative humidity. Reduced N deposition is linked to the short rearing
cycle (35 d), the low bird density (8 birds/m2),
and a low intake as feed and nutrient consumption were certainly depressed by the high ambient temperatures. Although the composition of
the feed was not determined, the possibility of it
having substandard protein and amino acid content, which is common in developing countries
with weak regulatory and quality control systems, cannot be excluded. It is known that for
every percentage point reduction in dietary CP,
there will be a corresponding 7% to 8% reduction in the N content of the litter [36, 37].
There was no difference in the phosphorous
(0.6%) and sodium (0.4%) levels of WS and the
other organic litters (P: 0.5% to 0.7%; Na: 0.3%
to 0.6%) although coconut husk, rice hulls, corn
cobs, and the newspaper mixture contained significantly (P < 0.05) more Na and less P than
WS before being used (data not shown). Concentration of both elements in the organic litters
doubled during the rearing cycle, a rate of increase that is lower than that reported by Kelley
et al. [38]. A higher accumulation was expected
because high ambient temperatures adversely
influence mineral metabolism, increasing the
excretion of phosphorus, sodium, and other elements [39]. Moreover, P values are close to,
and Na values less than, the minimum figures
reported in the literature (0.6% and 0.7%, respectively) [40]. Because the excretion and concentration of these and other elements in litter
are heavily dependent on the respective dietary
levels [41], it could be assumed that the broilers
in this study consumed low amounts of minerals
due to the same underlying factors discussed for
nitrogen.
Broiler litter is a valuable resource and can
be used in many ways. The predominant use is
as a fertilizer for forage, cereal, and fiber crop
production [42], but litter can also be composted to produce a mixture suitable for use in gardens and nurseries [27]. Quality litter (processed
properly to eliminate pathogens) is used as an
ingredient in animal feed in many developing
countries [43–45], as it is a relatively cheap nonprotein source of nitrogen for ruminants [46].
The application of broiler litter to agricultural
land can enhance soil productivity and improve
soil quality by improving aggregate formation
and stability [47]. Compared with commercial
fertilizers, broiler litter has some disadvantages,
including variable nutrient content, lower nutrient concentrations, and an N:P ratio that does
not meet plant needs [48]. Using broiler litter as
the only fertilizer or basing application rates on
the management of N to minimize nitrate losses
JAPR: Research Report
174
can lead to higher P soil levels in excess of plant
requirements and to environmental problems if
P moves into surface water from runoff or erosion [27].
Based on our results, the organic litters had
concentrations of total nitrogen and phosphate
equivalent to WS and are a comparable source
of these 2 plant nutrients. However, because
of its unfavorable 1N:2P2O5 ratio, grass litter might pose an additional risk of excessive
buildup of soil P. Coconut husk, rice hulls, and
grass litters had significantly (P < 0.05) more
ash than WS, presupposing higher content of
trace elements such as magnesium, manganese,
copper and zinc [49] required for plant nutrition.
High concentration of Na may contribute to soil
structure degradation and compete with K for
exchange site in the soil [47]. In this regard, the
low Na content of the present litters might be advantageous. However, from a practical point of
view, litter and soil testing combined with nutrient budgeting (i.e., knowing what nutrients are
being used and removed) [50] is the best way to
effectively use and take advantage of these litters as a source of nutrients.
Jacob et al. [51] demonstrated that high CF
is associated with low total digestible nutrient
content and they concluded that, if CP values
are below 18%, the litter should only be used as
fertilizer, not as a source of animal feed. All the
litters tested, including WS, lacked nutritional
value for feeding to ruminants as CP was very
low (5.8% to 11.7%), CF very high (>20%), and
crude fat was too low, as a minimum of 1.5% is
desirable [4]; only the ash content was within
the 15% to 25% acceptable range. The high CF
content of the litters indicated a high proportion
of bedding material because only one flock of
broilers was raised. If more flocks were to be
grown on the same litter, total fiber would decrease and nitrogen would increase, as demonstrated by Álvarez and Combellas [52], who
reported a 21% decrease in NDF and a 27% increase in CP when 5 flocks were raised on the
same rice hulls litter.
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
1. Based on the physicochemical characteristics evaluated and the level of compactness, rice hulls and corn cob had
comparable quality to WS as litter materials for broiler production.
2. Combining shredded newspaper with
WS would reduce use of the latter, a
scarcer litter source, at the expense of a
significant increase in the amount of ammonia volatilized.
3. Sand has good potential as an alternative
litter substrate. The limitations imposed
by its bulk density might be overcome by
extending the number of flocks reared in
the same litter before cleaning the broiler
house. This management practice might
also make sand a suitable fertilizer.
4. The least effective litter sources were coconut husk, because of the high moisture
content, and grass, given the high ammonia release.
5. All the organic materials evaluated could
be used as a soil additive provided their
nutrient limitations are taken into consideration.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. Almeida Paz, I. C. L., R. G. Garcia, R. Bernardi, I.
A. Nääs, F. R. Caldara, L. W. Freitas, L. O. Seno, V. M. O.
S. Ferreira, D. F. Pereira, and F. Cavichiolo. 2010. Selecting
appropriate bedding to reduce locomotion problems in broilers. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 12:189–195.
2. Benabdeljelil, K., and A. Ayachi. 1996. Evaluation of
alternative litter material for poultry. J. Appl. Poult. Res.
5:203–205.
3. Bilgili, S. E., G. I. Montenegro, J. B. Hess, and M. K.
Eckman. 1999. Sand as litter for rearing broiler chickens. J.
Appl. Poult. Res. 8:345–351.
4. Jordaan, J. D. 2004. The influence of bedding material and collecting period on the feeding value of broiler and
layer litter. MSc Thesis. Faculty of Natural and Agricultural
Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South
Africa.
5. Avila, V. S., U. Oliveira, E. A. P. Figueiredo, C. A.
F. Costa, V. M. N. Abreu, and P. S. Rosa. 2008. Avaliação
de materiais alternativos em substituição à maravalha como
cama de aviário. Braz. J. Anim. Sci. 37:273–277.
6. Malone, G. W., P. H. Allen, G. W. Chaloupa, and W.
F. Ritter. 1982. Recycled paper products as broiler litter.
Poult. Sci. 61:2161–2165.
7. Malone, G. W., and N. Gedamu. 1995. Pelleted newspaper as a broiler litter material. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 4:49–
54.
8. Smith, J. C. 2002. Chopped Bermuda grass hay as an
alternative bedding material for rearing market turkey hens.
North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
9. Davis, J. D., J. L. Purswell, E. P. Columbus, and A.
S. Kiess. 2010. Evaluation of chopped switchgrass as a litter
material. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 9:39–42.
Garcês et al.: EVALUATION OF LITTER MATERIALS
10.Huang, Y., J. S. Yoo, H. J. Kim, Y. Wang, Y. J. Chen,
J. H. Cho, and H. Kim. 2009. Effect of bedding types and
different nutrient densities on growth performance, visceral
organ weight, and blood characteristics in broiler chickens.
J. Appl. Poult. Res. 18:1–7.
11.Swain, B. K., and R. N. S. Sundaram. 2000. Effect
of different types of litter material for rearing broilers. Br.
Poult. Sci. 41:261–262.
12.Atapattu, N. S. B. M., and K. P. Wickramasinghe.
2007. The use of refused tea as a litter material for broiler
chickens . Poult. Sci. 86:968–972.
13.Brake, J. D., C. R. Boyle, T. N. Chamblee, C. D.
Schultz, and E. D. Peebles. 1992. Evaluation of the chemical
and physical properties of hardwood bark used as a broiler
litter material. Poult. Sci. 71:467–472.
14.Tabler, G. T., and I. L. Berry. 2003. Nutrient analysis
of poultry litter and possible disposable alternatives. Avian
Advice 5:1–3.
15.Irvine’s Moçambique. Lda. Maputo, Mozambique.
http://www.irvinesafrica.com.
16.AOAC International. 1995. Official Methods of
Analysis. 16th ed. AOAC International, Arlington, VA.
17.Bender, M. R., and C. W. Wood. 2000. Total phosphorus in residual materials. Pages 77–82 in Methods of Phosphorus Analysis for Soils, Sediments, Residuals, and Water.
G. M. Pierzynski, ed. Southern Cooperative Series No. 396.
Kansas State University, Manhattan.
18.Haouet, M. N., M. Serena Altissimi, M. Framboas,
and R. Galarini. 2006. Validation of the Volhard method
for chloride determination in food. Accredit. Qual. Assur.
11:23–28.
19.Hernandes, R., and J. O. Cazetta. 2001. Método simples e acessível para determinar amónia liberada pela cama
aviária. Braz. J. Anim. Sci. 30:824–829.
20.IBM. 2010. IBM SPSS Statistics 18. IBM, Chicago,
IL.
21.Bowers, B. D., J. B. Hess, S. F. Bilgili, J. P. Blake,
M. K. Eckman, and E. A. Guertal. 2003. Nutrient buildup in
sand litter. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 12:522–525.
22.Silva, A. P., B. D. Kay, and E. Perfect. 1997. Management versus inherent soil properties effects on bulk density
and relative compaction. Soil Tillage Res. 44:81–93.
23.Håkansson, I., and J. Lipiec. 2000. A review of the
usefulness of relative bulk density values in studies of soil
structure and compaction. Soil Tillage Res. 53:71–85.
24.Foley, K. 1978. Physical properties, chemical properties and uses of the Anderson’s corncob products. The Andersons, Maumee, OH.
25.Atencio, J. L., J. A. Fernández, A. G. Gernat, and J.
G. Murillo. 2010. Effect of pine wood shavings, rice hulls
and river bed sand on broiler productivity when used as a
litter sources. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 9:240–243.
26.Davasgaium, M. M., and A. A. Boodoo. 1997. Litter
management: Use of bagasse as a potential source of litter
material for broiler production. Pages 140–145 in Proc. 3th
Annual Meeting of Agricultural Scientists. Food and Agricultural Research Council, Réduit, Mauritius.
27.Moore, P. A., Jr., T. C. Daniel, A. N. Sharpley, and C.
W. Wood. 1995. Poultry manure management: Environmentally sound options. J. Soil Water Conserv. 50:321–327.
28.Elliott, H. A., and N. E. Collins. 1982. Factors affecting ammonia release in broiler litter. Trans. ASAE 25:413–
424.
175
29.Coufal, C. D., C. Chavez, P. R. Niemeyer, and J.
B. Carey. 2006. Measurement of broiler litter production
rates and nutrient content using recycled litter. Poult. Sci.
85:398–403.
30.Liu, Z., L. Wang, D. Beasley, and E. Oviedo. 2007.
Effect of moisture content on ammonia emissions from
broiler litter: A laboratory study. J. Atmos. Chem. 58:41–
53.
31.Wang, L., Z. Liu, D. B. Beasley, R. Munilla, and G.
R. Baughman. 2006. Measuring ammonia emissions from
broiler litter. Paper number 064189 in Proc. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE) Annual International Meeting.
32.Duqueza, M. C. 1996. Evaluation of nitrogen bioavailability indices for poultry wastes. MS Thesis. Auburn
University, Auburn, AL.
33.Miles, D. M., D. E. Rowe, and T. C. Cathcart. 2011.
Litter ammonia generation: Moisture content and organic
versus inorganic bedding materials. Poult. Sci. 90:1162–
1169.
34.Bilgili, S. F., G. I. Montenegro, J. B. Hess, and M.
K. Eckman. 1999. Live performance, carcass quality, and
deboning yields of broilers reared on sand as a litter source.
J. Appl. Poult. Res. 8:352–361.
35.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.
36.Ferguson, N. S., R. S. Gates, J. L. Taraba, A. H. Cantor, A. J. Pescatore, M. L. Straw, M. J. Ford, and D. J. Burnham. 1998. The effect of dietary protein and phosphorus on
ammonia concentration and litter composition in broilers.
Poult. Sci. 77:1085–1093.
37.Jacob, J. P., R. Blair, D. C. Bennett, T. A. Scott, and
R. C. Newberry. 1994. The effect of dietary protein and amino acid levels during the grower phase on nitrogen excretion
of broiler chickens. Page 309 in Proc. Canadian Animal Science Meetings, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK,
Canada.
38.Kelley, T. R., O. C. Pancorbo, W. C. Merka, S. A.
Thompson, M. L. Cabrera, and H. M. Barnhart. 1998. Accumulation of elements in fractionated broiler litter during
re-utilization. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 7:27–34.
39.Belay, T., and R. G. Teeter. 1996. Effects of ambient
temperature on broiler mineral balance partition into urinary
and faecal loss. Br. Poult. Sci. 37:423–433.
40.López-Mosquera, M. E., F. Cabaleiro, M. J. Sainz,
A. López-Fabal, and E. Carral. 2008. Fertilizing value of
broiler litter: Effects of drying and pelletizing. Bioresour.
Technol. 99:5626–5633.
41.Wang, Z., S. Cerrate, F. Yan, P. Sacakli, and P. W.
Waldroup. 2008. Comparison of different concentrations of
inorganic trace minerals in broiler diets on live performance
and mineral excretion. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 7:625–629.
42.Bolan, N. S., A. A. Szogi, T. Chuasavathi, B. Seshadri, M. J. Rothrock, and P. Panneerselvam. 2010. Uses and
management of poultry litter. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 66:673–
698.
43.Mavimbela, D. T., J. B. J. Van Ryssen, and R. Last.
1997. The effect of high broiler litter diets as survival ration
on the health of sheep. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 68:121–124.
44.Tsadik, A. G., B. Tamir, and S. Melaku. 2008. Inclusion of different proportions of poultry litter in the rations of
yearling Hararghe Highland goats. Livest. Res. Rural Dev.
20:48 (online version).
176
45.Akinfala, E. O., and O. B. Komolafe. 2011. Evaluation of different processing methods on the nutrient composition of broiler litter and its utilization by weaner pigs in the
tropics. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 23:228 (online version).
46.Van Ryssen, J. B. J. 2001. Poultry litter as a feedstuff for ruminants: A South African scene. SA-Anim. Sci.,
vol. 2. Accessed Apr. 2012. http://www.sasas.co.za/Popular/
Popular.html.
47.Kpomblekou-A, K., R. O. Ankumah, and H. A. Ajwa.
2002. Trace and nontrace element contents of broiler litter.
Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 33:1799–1811.
48.Evers, G. W. 1998. Comparison of broiler poultry litter and commercial fertilizer for coastal Bermuda grass production in the southeastern US. J. Sustain. Agric. 12:55–77.
49.Adam, Z. C. 2005. Comparison of broiler litter, broiler litter ash with reagent grade materials as sources of plant
nutrients. MSc Thesis. Auburn University, Auburn, AL.
JAPR: Research Report
50.Griffiths, N. 2007. Best practices guidelines for using
poultry litter on pastures. NSW DPI Primefact 534, NSW
Department of Primary Industries, Australia.
51.Jacob, J. P., R. S. Kunkle, R. S. Trevola, R. D. Miles,
and F. B. Mather. 1997. Broiler litter, Part 1: A feed ingredient for ruminants. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service. Inst. Food Agric. Sci., Univ. Florida.
52.Alvarez, Z. R., and J. Combellas. 2003. Efecto del
número de lotes de aves sobre la composición química de la
cama de polos. Revista Facultad Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Central de Venezuela 44: 59–65. Accessed January
2012. http://bibliofcv.veter.ucv.ve/revistafcv/pdf/AlvarezLP.
pdf.