J APPL POULT RES 2007. 16:598-604. doi:10.3382/japr.2007-00034
© 2007 Poultry Science Association
A Novel Bedding Material Made from Cotton Waste, Gypsum, and Old Newsprint for Rearing Turkeys1
J. L. Grimes*,2,
T. A. Carter*,
A. E. Gernat
and
J. L. Godwin*
* Department of Poultry Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh 27695-7608; and Escuela Agricola Panamericana, El Zamorano, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, Central America
Correspondence: 2 Corresponding author: Jesse_Grimes{at}ncsu.edu
 |
SUMMARY
|
|---|
Two experiments and 3 field trials were conducted to examine the usefulness of a novel bedding material for rearing Large White commercial turkeys. The control bedding was pine shavings (PS) in both experiments and all trials. The novel bedding, aGroChips (AC), is a chopped paper product made from cotton lint waste, gypsum, and old newsprint following a proprietary paper manufacturing process. In both experiments, hens and toms were reared according to typical industry techniques. In the first experiment, use of AC resulted in significantly (P <0.05) heavier toms and hens. In the second, the toms brooded and reared on AC were significantly (P <0.05) heavier than those brooded and reared on PS, whereas toms brooded on one bedding and then reared on the other were intermediate in weight. There were no differences in final cumulative FCR or carcass yield in either experiment. Three field trials were conducted with Large White commercial turkey hens in which the hens were brooded either on PS or AC, with both groups reared on PS. There was a mean increase of 0.2 kg in BW, a decrease (improvement) of 0.03 in FCR, and an increase of 3,200 kg per trial for AC-brooded birds (based on 16,000 hens placed per brooder house). A hard, dry litter crust was observed in the AC houses. With subsequent testing, further changes in the manufacturing process to create a hard, durable pellet may result in a more usable and useful bedding material.
Key Words: turkey • turkey production • bedding • performance • body weight • feed conversion
|
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
|
|---|
Although there has been some interest in brooding turkeys in cages and growing turkeys to market on raised floors [1], commercial turkeys in the United States are grown on dirt or clay floors overlaid with some type of bedding material. Many types of bedding materials have been used to rear poultry, including straw, corncobs, cornstalks, sugarcane stalks, peat moss, peanut hulls, wood shavings, and oat hulls [2]. In many areas of the United States, shavings from pine or other soft wood have historically been the bedding of choice for poultry production [3]. However, in the turkey industry today a product is used that more closely resembles sawdust or a mixture of sawdust, pine shavings, and wood chips than pure, high-quality pine shavings (personal observations). As pine shavings have become less available, using alternative bedding materials, extending the life of currently used litter, or both continue to be explored in the turkey industry.
Cotton waste, old newsprint, and gypsum are all waste products that are readily available in the southeastern United States These products have been combined and manufactured into a novel animal bedding material (aGroChips, AC) [4] that has been tested as a broiler bedding material [5]. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of this novel bedding material for brooding and rearing turkeys.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS
|
|---|
Two experiments (experiment 1 and experiment 2) and 3 field trials were conducted with Large White turkey toms and hens. Birds were raised and handled according to methods approved by the North Carolina State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. The control litter was pine shavings (PS) in all trials. In experiment 1, one-day-old tom (25) or hen (35) poults were placed in each of 24 floor pens (6.22) containing either PS or AC in a randomized complete block design, to provide 12 replicate pens per treatment (48 pens total). Birds were reared in the same pen for the entire experimental period. In experiment 2, 50 one-day-old tom or 66 one-day-old hen poults were placed in each of 48 floor pens with either PS or AC litter. At 5 wk of age, the birds in experiment 2 were divided equally between the original pen and one of another 48 additional pens (96 total pens) with either PS or AC litter. This provided 4 litter treatments in experiment 2, with 12 pens per treatment of hens and toms: 1) PS brood and PS grow, 2) PS brood and AC grow, 3) AC brood and PS grow, and 4) AC brood and AC grow. Typical industry rearing techniques were used. Feed consumption (by pen) and mortality were monitored. Feed conversion ratios were calculated. In experiment 1, hens were weighed at 3, 6, 9, and 12 wk, whereas toms were weighed at 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 20 wk. In experiment 2, all birds were weighed at 5, 10, 15, and 21 wk of age. Carcass yield was determined in both experiments. In experiments 1 and 2, feed was provided by commercial turkey feed mills and, within each experiment, all birds received the same feed. The pen was the experimental unit and data were analyzed by using PROC GLM of SAS [6]. The least squares means procedure was used to separate treatment means (P 
0.05).
Three field trials were conducted with a commercial turkey producer using Large White commercial hens. Unlike experiments 1 and 2, in which the bedding was high-quality PS, the PS used in these field trials was a mixture of pine shavings, sawdust, and wood chips, with sawdust being prominent. Contract turkey farms with 2 similar brooder houses and 4 grower houses were used for each of the 3 field trials. The AC or PS bedding was placed in one brooder house per trial (2 brooder houses total per trial). There were 16,000 hen poults per house. The poults were evenly split by breeder flock. At 5 wk, the poults and brooder house litter were transferred to 2 grow-out houses per brooder house. Litter was placed over existing PS in the grow-out houses. Birds were reared to 14 wk. Poult delivery, feed delivery, and truck weights destined for the processing plant were kept separate by brooder house. No statistical analyses were performed for the field trial data; therefore, observational comparisons are presented.
|
RESULTS
|
|---|
In experiment 1, the use of AC resulted in heavier toms from 6 to 20 wk and heavier hens at 12 wk (Table 1
). The toms reared on AC bedding averaged 20.05 kg, whereas toms reared on PS bedding averaged 19.38 kg. Hens reared on AC bedding averaged 7.23 kg, whereas hens reared on PS bedding averaged 7.06 kg. The hens reared on AC had a better 3-wk cumulative feed conversion than hens reared on PS (1.24 vs. 1.30; Table 2). There were no other differences in FCR attributable to bedding (Table 2). There were also no differences in mortality (toms =9.7 ±1.6%, hens =1.9 ±0.6%; data not shown) attributable to bedding type.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 1. Body weights (g or kg)1 of Large White commercial turkeys grown on pine shavings (PS) or AC2 litter for experiment 1
|
|
In experiment 2, the toms brooded and reared on AC were heavier at 20 wk than those brooded and reared on PS, with the other 2 treatments being intermediate (PS-PS =20.82, PS-AC =20.96, AC-PS =21.15, AC-AC =21.39 kg; Table 3). The hens brooded on PS and reared on AC were lighter than those in the other treatments (PS-PS =13.70, PS-AC =13.24, AC-PS =13.59, AC-AC =13.59 kg; Table 4). In experiment 2, there were no differences in FCR (Table 5) or mortality (toms =10.6 ±1.9%, hens =9.0 ±1.2%; data not shown). Bedding treatment did not affect carcass yield in either experiment 1 or 2 (data not shown).
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 3. Body weights (g or kg)1 of Large White commercial turkey toms brooded and grown on pine shavings (PS), AC2 litter, or both for experiment 2
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 4. Body weights (g or kg)1 of Large White commercial turkey hens brooded and grown on pine shavings (PS) or AC2 litter for experiment 2
|
|
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 5. Cumulative feed conversion ratios of Large White commercial turkeys brooded on pine shavings (PS) or AC1 litter for experiment 2
|
|
Although no statistical analyses were computed for the field trials, there was a nominal mean increase of 0.2 kg in BW, a decrease (improvement) of 0.03 in FCR, and an increase of 3,200 kg in live weight sold per farm for the AC-bedded birds (Table 6). Although litter cake was not measured, we made some general observations. In both experiments 1 and 2 and in the field trials, the AC resulted in a hard crust over the top of the litter. In the field trials, the growers were able to till the control litter but were unable to till the AC litter in the AC brooder houses because of the hard-crusted surface.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
Table 6. Performance of Large White commercial turkey hens reared to approximately 14 wk of age on pine shavings (PS) or AC1 in 3 field trials2
|
|
|
DISCUSSION
|
|---|
The amount of sawdust in pine shavings used by turkey growers has increased over the past few years. Many turkey producers are resigned to using sawdust because it is available from shavings suppliers and is cost competitive. In many cases, it is the only bedding material available. Although it is usually possible, and desirable, to avoid hardwood shavings, hardwood sawdust mixed with softwood sawdust is difficult to avoid or to even detect. For turkey poult brooding, however, sawdust of any type is not desirable because poults are prone to litter consumption [7, 8, 9, 10]. However, in many cases, turkey growers use either sawdust or pine shavings that closely resemble sawdust because other materials are unavailable, including good-quality pine shavings. In addition, many turkey companies have limited supplies of shavings and are either reusing brooder house litter or testing and using alternative bedding materials, such as rice hulls, sunflower hulls, chopped wheat straw, or chipped cardboard [7].
Grimes et al. [5] reported on 2 studies in which AC was used for rearing 4 flocks of broilers. One study examined the use of 3 formulations of AC at 2 depths (5 and 10 cm) compared with pine shavings at 10 cm. Another study was conducted with 3 flocks and examined AC at different pH levels (low, neutral, and high) as well as with and without a plastic liner or a liner made from the AC material. There were no differences in 42-d BW in study 1 (2.94 kg) or 49-d BW for the 3 flocks in study 2 (3.39, 3.28, and 3.26 kg). There were also no differences in feed conversion, ammonia levels, mortality, breast blister index, hock condition index, or foot pad condition index. In some instances, the AC had a higher incidence of litter caking. The results reported by Grimes et al. [5] are similar to other reports in which paper-containing products were used for broilers.
Other alternative bedding materials have been tested with turkeys, with variable results. Frame et al. [11] reported on the use of pelletized newspaper (PN) as an alternative bedding material for brooding turkey poults. In their 6-flock trial (5 hen and 1 tom), poults brooded on a PN product had weights equal to poults brooded on shavings. In 4 of the hen trials, poults reared on PN tended to have lower 28-d mortality than poults reared on shavings (4.7 vs. 5.7%, P =0.08). In 1 tom trial, litter-associated mortality was significantly greater for tom poults reared on shavings compared with tom poults reared on PN (0.9 vs. 0.2%, P <0.05). The authors suggested that the difference in mortality might have been due to the poults having greater recognition of feed vs. bedding when brooded on the newspaper product compared with when brooded on shavings. Frame et al. [11] also reported less litter adhesion and foot pad ulceration for the birds reared on PN.
Frame et al. [12] evaluated dairy compost as a bedding material for brooding turkeys. Manure solids were separated from liquid dairy manure and composted in windrows before use. Two strains of tom turkey poults were brooded to 35 d on either the dairy compost or pine shavings. Body weight of one strain, but not the other, was reduced when brooded on the dairy compost compared with the BW of the birds brooded on pine shavings. In addition, increased foot pad scores, indicating foot pad lesions or ulcerations, were observed for poults brooded on dairy compost. However, neither bird mortality nor ambulatory disturbances were affected in either strain by bedding material. The dairy compost was not used to rear birds past 35 d.
Hester et al. [13] evaluated particleboard residue as a bedding material for turkeys. Three strains of turkeys were reared to 123 d on 3 bedding materials: hardwood shavings, fine particleboard, or coarse particleboard. There was no strain xbedding type interaction, with all 3 strains performing similarly. Turkeys reared on the fine particleboard had lowered incidences of breast buttons and lower BW (0.16 kg) but greater muscle deposition (0.22 kg). Birds reared on coarse particleboard had increased BW at 123 d compared with those reared on the other 2 bedding materials but also experienced increased incidence of foot pad dermatitis, possibly because of particleboard particle size and shape. For birds selected for processing, live or carcass weights or yields were not different for the bedding materials. Total muscle and thigh muscle were greater for birds reared on fine particleboard. However, breast meat weight was not affected by litter source. Leg abnormalities were the most numerous for birds reared on the hardwood shavings (15.2%), followed by birds on the coarse particleboard (9.9%), with birds reared on the fine particleboard (6.1%) having the least leg abnormalities. There was no difference in the amount of litter cake per pen by bedding type.
Enueme et al. [14] conducted a study to evaluate peat as a bedding material for rearing turkeys. Male turkeys reared on peat had 20-wk BW that were 96% of those reared on wood shavings, although the mean weights were not significantly different. However, birds reared on peat did have a higher incidence of swollen foot pads, which impaired walking ability compared with birds reared on wood shavings. Enueme and Waibel [15] conducted a study to determine whether a larger peat particle size would influence bird performance and incidence of swollen foot pads. Three peat beddings differing in particle size were compared with wood shavings for use as turkey bedding material. The male birds reared on the peat with the smallest particle size (1 to 4 cm3) had BW similar to birds reared on wood shavings at 20 wk. The male birds reared on the peat with the largest particle size (4 to 7 cm3) had lower BW (P =0.13) and increased incidence of swollen foot pads (P <0.05) at 20 wk compared with the males reared on wood shavings. Females reared to 16 wk were not affected by bedding type. Litter moisture was not affected by bedding type in either study.
Veltmann et al. [16] reared turkeys on whole or ground rice hulls (GRH) or a mixture of whole rice hulls and wood shavings and compared them with turkeys reared on wood shavings to 8 wk of age. No performance differences were attributable to bedding. However, approximately 2% of birds reared on GRH had clumps of litter adhering to their feet until the birds started to scratch the litter (3 to 4 wk of age). In addition, feed consumption was reduced from 0 to 3 wk for birds reared on GRH. Because of a numerical increase in mortality, the authors suspected that the birds consumed the GRH and, upon necropsy, they found GRH particles in the enlarged, gaseous ceca of birds reared on GRH. Hester et al. [17] reported 2 trials comparing the effects of light intensity, litter source, and management on turkey performance. The sources of litter were hardwood shavings and rice hulls. Pens containing the 2 bedding materials were either not managed (poor litter conditions) or managed by litter stirring, litter cake removal, and new bedding additions in an attempt to provide ideal litter conditions. There were no effects in either trail from litter source or management on bird performance to 132 d of age. However, in one trial, birds reared on rice hulls did consume less feed.
Most studies comparing poultry bedding materials have reported that when birds are reared on alternative beddings, their performance is equal to or less than that of birds reared on wood shavings. In the current study, turkeys reared on AC experienced greater final BW than turkeys reared on pine shavings. One possible reason may be due to the turkey poults eating litter, as suggested by Frame et al. [11]. During the field trial portion of the current study, a small sample of 4-wk-old birds was euthanized and the gizzards grossly examined for size and content. The gizzards from poults brooded on pine shavings contained wood shavings, whereas the gizzards from poults brooded on AC were noticeably smaller and contained no AC material. This might indicate that birds brooded on pine shavings consumed litter regularly, whereas the birds brooded on AC did not. Malone et al. [18] reported that poultry can consume as much as 4% of their diet as litter. Enueme et al. [14] reported that turkey poults consuming a diet containing 5% wood flour had significantly (P <0.05) lighter 21-d BW than poults consuming a control diet (464 vs. 500 g). Therefore, it is possible that the improved growth of birds on AC resulted from less litter consumption compared with poults reared on pine shavings.
Acceptance of an alternative bedding material by turkey producers may also be dependent on the resulting litter characteristics during and subsequent to its use. In the 3 field trials in the current study, we observed that a hard, dry crust formed in the AC brooder houses, most notably beneath the feed and water lines. Although this did not appear to affect the performance of the birds, the hard-crusted surface prevented the turkey growers from tilling the litter, especially beneath the feed and water lines. With subsequent testing, changes in the manufacturing process to create a hard, durable pellet might result in less crust formation, and therefore a more desirable and useful bedding material.
Alternative bedding materials for poultry will continue to be researched and evaluated. Comparisons with pine shavings or sawdust will probably continue as the benchmark test. Although bird performance will always be a threshold criterion, cost, availability, and subsequent litter characteristics will also help determine whether a new or alternative bedding material is adopted by poultry growers and the poultry industry.
|
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
|
|---|
- The aGroChips bedding material might be a viable alternative to pine shavings, especially with a change in form from a chopped paper-like material to a hard, durable pellet.
|
FOOTNOTES
|
|---|
1 The use of trade names in this publication does not imply endorsement by the North Carolina Research Service or the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service of the products named or criticism of similar ones not mentioned. 
|
REFERENCES AND NOTES
|
|---|
- Ferket. Peter R., 1998. Alternative turkey management systems. Pages 52–58 in Proc. 21st Tech. Turkey Conf., Cheshire, UK. S. Murdoch, ed. Turkeys Magazine, Leyburn, UK.
- Grimes, J. L., J. Smith, and C. M. Williams. 2002. Some alternative litter materials used for growing broilers and turkeys. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 58:515–525.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Malone, G. W. 1992. Evaluation of litter materials other than wood shavings. Pages 274–284 in 1992 Proc. Natl. Poult. Waste Manage. Symp. Natl. Poult. Waste Manage. Symp. Committee, Auburn, AL.
- aGroChips is a manufactured animal bedding material containing cotton lint, gypsum, and newsprint. Novovita Inc., Raleigh, NC. The gypsum was obtained as a waste product from citric acid manufacturing.
- Grimes, J. L., T. A. Carter, and J. L. Godwin. 2006. Use of a litter material made from cotton waste, gypsum, and old newsprint for rearing broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 85:563–568.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- SAS Institute. 1992. SAS User’s Guide. Version 6.08. SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.
- Puffinbarger, C. 2006. Nicholas Turkey Breeding Farms, Lewisburg, WV. Personal communication.
- Danko, T. 2001. Raising Turkeys. University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension. http://extension.unh.edu/pubs/hgpubs/turkeys.pdf Accessed May 25, 2006.
- Alberta Turkey Industry. Agriculture and Food. Alberta Government. http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/pou3600 Accessed May 25, 2006.
- Turkeys. Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food, Production. http://www.agr.gov.sk.ca/docs/production/Turkey.asp Accessed May 25, 2006.
- Frame, D. D., R. E. Buckner, and G. L. Anderson. 2002. Pelletized newspaper bedding for turkeys and its effect on brooding performance. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 11:229–232.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Frame, D. D., E. J. Kelly, N. Fields, and L. G. Bagley. 2004. Dairy compost as a source of turkey brooder bedding. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 13:614–618.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Hester, P. Y., D. L. Cassens, and T. A. Bryan. 1997. The applicability of particleboard residue as a litter material for male turkeys. Poult. Sci. 76:248–255.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Enueme, J. E., P. E. Waibel, and R. S. Farnham. 1987. Use of peat as a bedding material and dietary component for tom turkeys. Poult. Sci. 66:1508–1516.[ISI][Medline]
- Enueme, J. E., and P. E. Waibel. 1987. Comparison of reed-sedge peat with wood shavings as a bedding for turkeys. Poult. Sci. 66:2063–2065.[ISI]
- Veltmann, J. R., Jr., F. A. Gardner, and S. S. Linton. 1984. Comparison of rice hull products as litter material and dietary fat levels on turkey poult performance. Poult. Sci. 63:2345–2351.[ISI]
- Hester, P. Y., A. L. Sutton, and R. E. Elkin. 1987. Effect of light intensity, litter source, and litter management on the incidence of leg abnormalities and performance of male turkeys. Poult. Sci. 66:666–675.[ISI][Medline]
- Malone, G. W., G. W. Chaloupka, and W. W. Saylor. 1983. Influence of litter type and size on broiler performance: 2. Factors affecting litter consumption. Poult. Sci. 62:1741–1746.[ISI]
TOP
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
