PB83-190272
Resource Conservation and Utilization in Animal Waste Management-
Volume I. Utilization of Animal Manures as Feedstuffs for Liverstock
and Poultry
John H. Martin, et al
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
March 1983
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Technical Information Service
-------
EPA-600/2-83-024a
March 1983
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND UTILIZATION IN
ANIMAL WASTE MANAGEMENT - VOLUME I
Utilization of Animal Manures as
Feedstuffs for Livestock and Poultry
by
John H. Martin, Jr.
Raymond C. Loehr
Thomas E. Pilbeam
Cornell University
Department of Agricultural Engineering
Ithaca, New York 14853
Grant Number 806140
Project Officer
Lynn R. Shuyler
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 74820
-------
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-83-024a
2.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Resource Conservation and Utilization in Animal Waste
Management - Volume I
Utilization of Animal Manure as Feedstuffs for Livestocl
ana Poultry
7. AUTHOR(S)
Thomas E. Pilbeam, John H.
Loehr
Martin, Jr., and Raymond C.
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853
1 u ?&o.Nm&NO.
PBS 7 19027?
5. REPORT DATE
March 1983
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
APBC
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
R-806140
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
P4 na 1 Vnl . T
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/15
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read fnuntctions on the reverse before completing]
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Use of animal manures as feedstuffs has been suggested as a method to:
(1) reduce the cost of producing animal products, and (2) reduce or alleviate
potential air and water pollution problems associated with animal manures.
This study assembled, critically reviewed and analyzed reported information
pertaining to the nutrient characteristics of animal manures and their nutritive
value when utilized as feedstuffs in feeding trials. The evaluation focused on dairy
cattle, beef cattle, and caged laying hen manures, and broiler litter utilized as
feedstuffs for cattle and poultry.
Based on the results of feeding trials, the assessment of the nutritive value of
animal manures indicated that generally less than 25% of the manures could be incor-
porated into rations without adversely affecting animal performance. The estimated
economic value of the manures was highly variable. In some instances their fertilizer
values exceeded their value as a feedstuff.
The utilization of animal manures as feedstuffs does not appear to be a waste
management practice that reduces potential environmental quality problems caused by
the discharge of animal manures. Only a small quantity of animal manures may be in-
corporated into animal rations and the potential pollution abatement impact would be
minimal.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Agricultural Wastes
Animal Husbandry
Waste Disposal
Animal Nutrition
13. DISTRIBBTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Refeeding Systems
Animal Wastes
Cattle
Swine
Poultry
Economic
Literature Survey
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATl Field/Group
02/A, B, C, E
21. NO. OF PAGES
337
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
DISCLAIMER
Although the research described in this article has been funded wholly or
in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency through contract
or grant R-806140 to Cornell'University, it has not been subjected to the
Agency's required peer and policy review and therefore does not necessarily
reflect the views of the Agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
EPA is charged by Congress to protect the Nation's land, air and water
systems. Under a mandate of national environmental laws focused on air and
water quality, solid waste management and the control of toxic substances,
pesticides, noise, and radiation, the Agency strives to formulate and imple-
ment actions which lead to a compatible balance between human activities and
the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. In partial
response to these mandates, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab-
oratory, Ada, Oklahoma, is charged with the mission to manage research
programs to investigate the nature, transport, fate, and management of
pollutants in ground water and to develop and demonstrate technologies for
treating wastewaters with soils and other natural systems; for controlling
pollution from irrigated crop and animal production agricultural activities;
for controlling pollution from petroleum refining and petrochemical indus-
tries; and for managing pollution resulting from combinations of industrial/
industrial and industrial/municipal wastewaters.
This phase of the project was initiated to evaluate the use of animal
manures as feedstuffs for refceding back to animals. This study assembled,
critically reviewed, and analyzed reported information pertaining to the
nutrient characteristics of animal manures and their nutritive value when
utilized as feedstuffs in feeding trials. This information indicates that
only a small portion of the collectable animal manure could be utilized as
feestuffs and is useful in determining optimal practices which will lead to
the development of Best Management Practices for this phase of animal waste
management systems.
Clinton W. Hall, Director
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
111
-------
ABSTRACT
Use of animal manures as feedstuffs has been suggested as a method to:
(1) reduce the cost of producing animal products, and (2) reduce or alleviate
potential air and water pollution problems associated with animal manures.
This utilization of manures is dependent upon their nutrient composition
and their ability to be substituted for conventional feedstuffs without
adversely affecting animal performance. Pollution abatement benefits
could be realized if sufficient quantities of animal manures were utilized
as feedstuffs.
This study assembled, critically reviewed and analyzed reported informa-
tion pertaining to the nutrient characteristics of animal manures and their
nutritive value when utilized as feedstuffs in feeding trials. The evalua-
tion focused on 'dairy cattle, beef cattle, and caged laying hen manures,
and broiler litter utilized as feedstuffs for cattle and poultry. These
types of manures received emphasis because they represent approximately
85% of the economically recoverable manure produced annually in the United
States. The economic incentives for the utilization of animal manures as
feedstuffs were determined by the assessment of animal performance from
feeding trial information and the determination of economic benefits (such
as reduced feed •costs and increased animal selling price).
The assessment of the nutrient characteristics of dried poultry waste
(DPW), broiler litter, and dairy cow and beef cattle manure indicated that
when these are utilized as a feedstuff for ruminants: (1) they are more
comparable to silages and hays than to protein or energy feedstuffs, and
(2) they have an estimated economic value of about $58 to $80 per tonne (dry
matter basis). The assessment of the nutrient characteristics of DPW
indicated that when DPW is utilized as a feedstuff for laying hens: (1) it
is best considered as a source of minerals and amino acids, and (2) it has
an estimated economic value of about $117 per tonne (dry matter basis).
The lack of reported nutrient characteristics for other processed
animal manures (aerobically and anaerobically digested manures, manure
screenings, and Cereco products) prevented the identification of analogous
conventional feedstuffs and an estimation of the nutrient value of the
other processed manures. An exception was the Cereco silage product (CI)
which was estimated to have an economic value of about $58 to $80 per tonne
(dry matter basis).
Based on the results of feeding trials, the assessment of the nutri-
tive value of animal manures indicated that generally less than 25% of
the manures could be incorporated into rations without adversely affecting
iv
-------
animal performance. The estimated economic value of the manures was highly
variable. In some instances their fertilizer values exceeded their value
as a feedstuff. The estimated economic value of DPW as a feedstuff exceeded
its nutrient composition and fertilizer values, but only when small quanti-
ties were incorporated into a ration or diet.
The assessment of the nutritive value of other processed animal manures,
based on the results of feeding trials, indicated that aerobically digested
manure, manure screenings, and Cereco products may have value as a feed-
stuff. Due to the paucity of feeding trial results, the estimated economic
values of these other processed manures could not be determine^. The
utilization of anaerobically digested animal manures as feedstuffs did
not appear feasible based on reported feeding trial results.
The utilization of animal manures as feedstuffs does not appear to
be a waste management practice that reduces potential environmental quality
problems caused by the discharge of animal manures. Only a small quantity
of animal manures may be incorporated into animal rations and the potential
pollution abatement impact would be minimal.
This work was submitted in partial fulfillment of contract no. 806140
by Cornell University under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This report covers the time period of October 1978 to
April 1980.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures vii
Tables x
Abbreviations xviii
Acknowledgements xix
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions and Recommendations 4
3. Objectives and Scope 7
4. Fundamental Nutritional Concepts and Terminology 9
5. Nutrient Characteristics of Poultry Manure, Broiler Lit-
ter, and Dairy Cow and Beef Cattle Manure 17
6. Nutrient Characteristics of Processed Animal Manures .... 52
7. Nutritive and Economic Value of DPW Based on the Results
of Feeding Trials 76
8. Nutritive and Economic Value of Broiler Litter on the
Basis of Feeding Trials 120
9. Nutritive and Economic Value of Dairy Cow and Beef Cattle
Manure Based on the Results of Feeding Trials 158
10. Nutritive and Economic Value of Processed Animal |
Manures Based on the Results of Feeding Trials . . . . j . 183
11. Summary 211
References 217
Appendices
A. References for the Nutrient, Mineral and Amino Acid Com-
position of Animal Manures 230
B. Composition of Conventional Feedstuffs 241
C. Feeding Studies Not Evaluated 243
D. Fertilizer Value of Animal Manures 255
E. Market Prices of Feedstuffs 258
F. Cost Estimates for Drying Laying Hen and Dairy Cattle
Manure 261
G. Summaries, Ration and Manure Composition, and Manure
Handling Methods of the Evaluated Feeding Trials 279
VI
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Relationships Between Different Forms of Energy
Consumed as Feedstuffs 14
2 Relationship Between ADF and Digestible Protein
Content for Conventional Feedstuffs and Animal
Manures 35
3 Relationship Between TON and Digestible Protein
Content for Conventional Feedstuffs and
Animal Manures 36
•4. Relationship Between Crude Protein and Digestible
Protein Content For Conventional Feedstuffs and
Animal Manures 37
5 Relationship Between Crude Protein and Amino Acid
Content for Conventional Feedstuffs and Animal
Manures 33
6 Relationship Between ADF and Metabolizable Energy
Content for Conventional Feedstuffs and Animal
Manures 39
7 Relationship Between Metabolizable Energy and TON
Content for Conventional Feedstuffs and Animal
Manures 40
8 Relationship Between ADF and NDF Content for Con-
ventional Feedstuffs and Animal Manures 42
9 Relationship Between ADF and TON Content for Con-
ventional Feedstuffs and Animal Manures 43
10 Comparison of Crude and Digestible Protein Contents
for Conventional Feedstuffs and Animal Manures . . 44
11 Comparison of Metabolizable Energy Content for
Feedstuffs and Animal Manures 45
12 Comparison of Crude Fiber Contents for Conventional
Feedstuffs and Animal Manures 46
vii
-------
Number Page
13 Comparison of Dry Matter Contents for Conventional
Feedstuffs and Processed Animal Manures 68
14 Comparison of Amino Acid Contents for Conventional
Feedstuffs and Other Processed Animal Manures ... 70
15 Comparison of Crude Protein Contents for Conven-
tional Feedstuffs and Processed Animal
Manures 72
16 Relationship Between ADF and NDF Content for Con-
ventional Feedstuffs and Processed Animal
Manures 73
17 Relationship Between Metabolizable Energy and TON
Content for Conventional Feedstuffs and
Processed Animal Manures 74
18 Theoretical Animal Response When Animal Manures
Are Used as Substitutes For Conventional Feedstuffs 80
19 Actual Animal Response When Animal Manures Are
Used As Substitutes For Conventional Feedstuffs . . 81
20 Relationships Between DPW Diet Content (without
lard or soybean oil supplementation), Feed Con-
sumption Per Dozen Eggs, and Egg Production For
Laying Hens Fed DPW 87
21 Relationships Between DPW Diet Content (with lard
or soybean oil supplementation), Feed Consumption
Per Dozen Eggs, and Egg Production For Laying
Hens Fed DPW 88
22 Relationship Between DPW Diet Content and Revenue
From Egg Sales For Laying Hens Fed DPW 93
23 Relationship Between DPW Diet Content and Economic
Return for Laying Hens Fed DPW 94
24 Relationship Between DPW Ration Content and Feed
Consumption Per Unit of Body Weight Gain For Steers
Fed DPW 100
25 Relationships Between DPW Ration Content, Feed Con-
sumption Per Day, and Milk Production For Dairy
Cows Fed DPW . 108
26 Relationships Between DPW Ration Content, Milk
Revenue, and Economic Return For Dairy Cows Fed DPW 112
Vlll
-------
Number Page
27 Relationships Between Broiler Litter Ration
Content, Feed Consumption Per Day, and Feed
Consumption Per Unit of Body Weight Gain For
Steers Fed As Collected Broiler Litter .... 124
28 Relationships Between Dried Broiler Litter
Ration Content, Feed Consumption Per Unit of
Body Weight Gain, and Average Daily Gain For
Steers Fed Dried Broiler Litter 134
29 Relationships Between Ensiled Broiler Litter
Ration Content, Average Daily Gain, and Feed
Consumption Per Unit of Body Weight Gain For
Heifers Fed Ensiled Broiler Litter 143
30 Relationships Between Ensiled Broiler Litter
Ration Content, Average Daily Gain, and Feed
Consumption Per Day For Steers Fed Ensiled
Broiler Litter 144
31 Relationship Between Dried Beef Cattle Manure
Ration Content, Feed Per Kilogram of Gain,
And Average Daily Gain For Ruminants Fed Dried
Beef Cattle Manure 164
32 Relationship Between Dried Beef Cattle Manure
Ration Content, Kilograms of Feed Per Kilogram
Of Gain, and Average Daily Gain For Ruminants
Fed Dried Beef Cattle Manure 165
33 Relationships Between Ensiled Beef Cattle Manure
Ration Content, Average Daily Gain, and Feed
Consumption Per Unit of Body Weight Gain (com-
pared to corn silage fed controls) For Ruminants
Fed Ensiled Beef Cattle Manure 172
IX
-------
TABLES
Table Page
1 Nutrient Compositions of Animal Manures and
Conventional Feedstuffs ,,,.,,,, 3
2 Fractions of Proximate Analysis . , , , . , n
3 The Digestive Systems of Various Species ,,.,,,, 16
i
4 Nutrient Characteristics of DPW 19
5 Mineral Composition of DPW , 20
6 Amino Acid Composition of DPW ,,,.,...,.,,, 21
7 Nutrient Characteristics of Broiler Litter 22
8 Mineral Composition of Broiler Litter 23
9 Amino Acid Composition of Broiler Litter , , 24
10 Nutrient Characteristics of Dairy Cow Manure 26
11 Mineral Composition of Dairy Cow Manure 27
12 Amino Acid Composition of Dairy Cow Manure .,,.,, 28
13 Nutrient Characteristics of Beef Cattle Manure • • .• • 30
14 Mineral Composition of Beef Cattle Manure 31
15 Amino Acid Composition of Beef Cattle Manure 32
16 Influence of Ration on Beef Cattle Manure Composition
and Digestibility 33
17 Estimation of the Economic Value of Animal
Manures 49
18 A Comparison of the Fertilizer Value and Estimated
Economic Values of Animal Manures 50
-------
Table Page
19 Nutrient Characteristics of Aerobically Digested
Animal Wastes 53
20 Amirio Acid Composition of Aerobically Digested
Animal Wastes 54
21 Nutrient Characteristics of Anaerobically Digested
Steer Manure (55°C) 55
22 Amino Acid Composition of Dried Cake (Anaerobically
Digested Steer Manure, 55°C) 55
23 Nutrient Characteristics of Mesophilic and Thermo-
philic Anaerobically Digested Dairy Cow Manure ... 56
24 Nutrient Characteristics of Thermophilic Anaero-
bically Digested Steer Manure, 55°C 58
25 Amino Acid Composition of Digester Influent and
Effluent (Steer Manure, 55°C) 59
26 Nutrient Characteristics of Dairy Cow Manure Screen-
ings 60
27 Nutrient Characteristics of Beef Cattle Manure
. Screenings 60
28 Nutrient Characteristics of Ceres Product CI-
Cereco Silage 61
29 Nutrient Characteristics of Ceres Product CII-
Cereco Protein 63
30 Amino Acid Composition of Ceres Product Cll-Cereco
Protein 64
31 A Comparison of the Nutrient Characteristics of
Aerobically Digested Swine Manure and As Collected
Swine Manure 65
32 A Comparison of the Nutrient Characteristics of
Aerobically Digested Caged Laying Hen Manure and
Dried Caged Laying Hen Manure 65
33 A Comparison of the Nutrient Characteristics of
Processed Beef Cattle Manure and As Collected
Beef Cattle Manure 66
XI
-------
Table
34 A Comparison of the Nutrient Characteristics
of Dairy Cow Manure Screenings and As Collected
Dairy Cow Manure ................... 57
35 A Comparison of the Amino Acid Contents of Soybean
Meal, Ground Corn, and Aerobically Digested Laying
Hen and Swine Manures ..... , .......... 71
36 Performance of Laying Hens Fed DPW as a Feedstuff , , 83
37 Performance of Laying Hens Fed DPW as a Feedstuff
Cpercent change from the control) .......... 85
38' Economic Estimate of the Value of DPW as a Feedstuff
for Laying Hens Collars) .............. 89
39 Economic Estimate of the Value of DPW as a Feedstuff
for Laying Hens (percent change from the control) . . 91
40 Maximum and "Optimum" Levels of Incorporating DPW into
Laying Hen Diets ................... 95
41 Performance of Finishing Steers Fed DPW as a Feedstuff
(kilograms)' ..................... 97
42 Performance of Finishing Steers Fed DPW as a Feedstuff
(percent change from the control) .......... 98
43 Economic Estimate of the Value of DPW as a Feedstuff
for Finishing Steers (dollars) ............ 102
44 Economic Estimate of the Value of DPW as a Feedstuff
for Finishing Steers (percent change from the control . 103
45 Performance of Dairy Cows Fed DPW as a Feedstuff
(kilograms)
46 Performance of Dairy Cows Fed DPW as a Feedstuff
(percent change from the control) .......... 107
47 Economic Estimate of the Value of DPW as a Feedstuff
for Dairy Cows (dollars)
48 Economic Estimate of the Value of DPW as a Feedstuff
for Dairy Cows (percent change from the control) . .
49 Performance of Heifers Fed DPW as a Feedstuff (kilo-
grams) ........................ 115
-XI1
-------
Table
50 Performance of Heifers Fed DPW as a Feedstuff
(percent change from the control) .......... 11 S
51 Economic Estimate of the Value of DPW as a Feedstuff
for Heifers (dollars) ......... ,..,,,, 115
52 Economic Estimate of the Value of DPW as a Feedstuff
for Heifers (percent change from the control) , , , , 115
53 A Summary of the Maximum and "Optimum" Animal Response
and Economic Levels of Incorporating DPW Into Laying
Hen Diets and Ruminant Rations ........... 118
54 . Performance of Steers Fed As Collected Broiler Lit-
ter as a Feedstuff (kilograms)
55 Performance of Steers Fed As Collected Broiler Lit-
ter as a Feedstuff (percent change from the control) 122
56 Economic Estimate of the Value of As Collected Broiler
Litter as a Feedstuff for Steers (dollars) ..... 126
57 Economic Estimate of the Value of As Collected Broiler
Litter as a Feedstuff for Steers (percent change from
the control) ..................... 127
58 Composition and Cost of Various Types of Litter . . . 129
59 Performance of Steers Fed Dried Broiler Litter as a
Feedstuff (kilograms) ................ 131
60 Performance of Steers Fed Dried Broiler Litter as a
Feedstuff (percent change from the control) ..... 132
61 Economic Estimate of the Value of Dried Broiler Litter
as a Feedstuff for Steers (dollars) ......... 135
62 Economic Estimate of the Value of Dried Broiler Litter
as a Feedstuff for Steers (percent change from the
control) ...................... 136
63 Performance of Ruminants Fed Ensiled Broiler Litter as
a Feedstuff (kilograms) ............... 140
64 Performance of Ruminants Fed Ensiled Broiler Litter as
a Feedstuff (percent change from the control) .... 141
65 Economic Estimate of the Value of Ensiled Broiler Litter
as a Feedstuff for Ruminants (dollars) ....... 145
Xlll
-------
Table Page
66 Economic Estimate of the Value of Ensiled Broiler
Litter as a Feedstuff for Ruminants (percent change
from the control) , , , . , 147
67 Performance of Beef Heifers Fed Composted Broiler
Litter as a Feedstuff (kilograms) 151
68 Performance of Beef Heifers Fed Composted Broiler
Litter as a Feedstuff (percent change from the control 151
69 Performance of Brood Cows Fed Composted Broiler Litter
as a Feedstuff (kilograms) 152
70 Performance of Brood Cows Fed Composted Broiler Litter
as a Feedstuff (percent change from the control) . . . 153
71 Economic Estimate of the Value of Composted Broiler
Litter as a Feedstuff for Beef Heifers and Brood Cows
(dollars) 155
72 Economic Estimate of the Value of Composted Broiler
Litter as a Feedstuff for Beef Heifers and Brood Cows
(percent change from the control) 156
73 Summary of the Maximum Animal Response Levels of
Incorporating Broiler Litter Into Ruminant Rations and
the Estimated Economic Value of the Litter 157
74 Summary of the Studies Utilizing Dairy Cow Manure as
a Feedstuff 159
75 Performance of Steers and Heifers Fed As Collected or I
Dried Beef Cattle Manure as a Feedstuff (kilograms) . 161
76 Performance of Steers and Heifers Fed As Collected, or
Dried Beef Cattle Manure as a Feedstuff (percent change
from the control) 162
77 Economic Estimate of the Value of As Collected or Dried
Beef Cattle Manure as a Feedstuff for Steers and Heifers
(dollars) 166
78 Economic Estimate of the Value of As Collected or Dried
Beef Cattle Manure as a Feedstuff for Steers and Heifers
(percent change from the control) 167
79 Performance of Ruminants Fed Ensiled Beef Cattle Manure
as a Feedstuff Compared to Corn Silage Fed Controls
(kilograms) 170
xiv
-------
Table Page
80 Performance of Ruminants Fed Ensiled Beef Cattle
Manure as a Feedstuff Compared to Corn Silage Fed
Controls (percent change from the control) 170
81 Performance of Ruminants Fed Ensiled Beef Cattle
Manure as a Feedstuff Compared to Corn Grain Fed
Controls (kilograms) 173
82 Performance of Ruminants Fed Ensiled Beef Cattle
Manure as a Feedstuff Compared to Corn Grain Fed
Controls (percent change from the control) 174
83 Economic Estimate of the Value of Ensiled Beef Cattle
Manure as a Feedstuff for Ruminants Compared to Corn
Silage Fed Controls (dollars) 176
84 Economic Estimate of the Value of Ensiled Beef Cat-
tle Manure as a Feedstuff for Ruminants Compared to
Corn Silage Fed Controls (percent change from the
control) 176
85 Economic Estimate of the Value of Ensiled Beef Cat-
tle Manure as a Feedstuff for Ruminants Compared to
Corn Grain Fed Controls (dollars) 178
86 Economic Estimate of the Value of Ensiled Beef Cat-
tle Manure as a Feedstuff for Ruminants Compared
to Corn Grain Fed Controls (percent change from the
control) 179
87 Summary of the Maximum Animal Response and Economic
Levels of Incorporating Beef Cattle Manure into
Ruminant Rations, and the Estimated Economic Value
of the Manure 182
88 Performance of Swine Fed Aerobically Digested Swine
Manure (ODML) as a Feedstuff (kilograms) 185
89 Performance of Swine Fed Aerobically Digested Swine
Manure (ODML) As a Feedstuff (percent change from
the control 185
90 Economic Estimate of the Value of Aerobically Digested
Swine Manure (ODML) As a Feedstuff For Swine (dollars). ,186
91 Economic Estimate of the Value of Aerobically Digested
Swine Manure (ODML) As a Feedstuff For Swine (percent
change from the control) 186
xv
-------
Table Page
92 Performance of Swine Receiving Aerobically Digested
Swine Manure (ODML) As a Substitute For Tap Water
(kilograms) 187
93 Performance of Swine Receiving Aerobically Digested
Swine Manure (ODML) As a Substitute For Tap Water
(percent change from the control) 187
94 Economic Estimate of the Value of Aerobically Digested
Swine Manure (ODML) As a Substitute For Tap Water
For Swine (dollars) 188
95 Economic Estimate of the Value of Aerobically Digested
Swine Manure (ODML) As a Substitute For Tap Water For
Swine (percent change from the control) 188
96 Performance of Caged Laying Hens Receiving Aerobically
Digested Laying Hen Manure (ODML) As A Substitute For
Tap Water 189
97 Performance of Ruminants on Digestibility Trials Fed
Anaerobically Digested Animal Manures as a Feedstuff . . 191
98 Performance of Ruminants Fed Aerobically Digested
Animal Manures as a Feedstuff (kilograms) 193
99 Performance of Ruminants Fed Anaerobically Digested
Animal Manures as a Feedstuff (percent change from the
control) . . . 193
100 Economic Estimate of the Value of Anaerobically Digested
Animal Manures as a Feedstuff for Ruminants (dollars) , . 194
101 Economic Estimate of the Value of Anaerobically Digested
Animal Manures as a Feedstuff for Ruminants (percent
change from the control) 195
102 Performance of Ruminants Fed Beef Cattle Manure Screen-
ings as a Feedstuff (kilograms) 197
103 Performance of Ruminants Fed Beef Cattle Manure Screen-
ings as a Feedstuff (percent change from the control) . . 198
104 Performance of Ruminants Fed Dairy Cow Manure Screen-
ings as a Feedstuff (kilograms) 200
105 Performance of Ruminants Fed Dairy Cow Manure Screen-
ings as a Feedstuff (percent change from the control) , .200
xvi
-------
Table Page
106 Performance of Steers, on a Digestibility Trial, Fed
Cereco High Fiber Silage (CI) as a Feedstuff 201
107 Performance of Steers on a Digestibility Trial, Fed
Cereco Dried Protein Product (CII) as a Feedstuff ... 202
108 Performance of Ruminants Fed Cereco Products as a
Feedstuff (kilograms) 203
109 Performance of Ruminants Fed Cereco Products as a
Feedstuff (percent change from the control) 203
110 Economic Estimate of the Value of Cereco Products
as a Feedstuff for Ruminants (dollars) 205
111 Economic Estimate of the Value of Cereco Products
as a Feedstuff for Ruminants (percent change from the
control) 206
112 • Summary of Animal Response and Economic Levels of
Utilizing Processed Animal Manures as a Feedstuff
and as a Tap Water Substitute For Ruminants, Swine, and
Laying Hens, and Their Estimated Economic Value .... 209
113 Summary of the Maximum and "Optimum" Levels of Incor-
porating Animal Manures Into Laying Hen Diets and
Ruminant Rations, Based on Animal Performance 212
114 Summary of the Estimated Economic Value of DPW .... 213
115 Summary of the Estimated Economic Value of Broiler
Litter 213
116 Summary of the Estimated Economic Value of Beef Cat-
tle Manure 215
117 Summary of the Estimated Economic Value of
Processed Animal Manures 216
xvn
-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS
ADE
ADF
ADG
CI
CII
cm
CF
CP
DEL
DCF
DCP
DEE
DM
DNFE
DP
DPW
EBL
EE
HRT
ME
NDF
NE
NFE
NPN
ODML
TON
TKN
TP
-apparent digestible energy
-acid detergent fiber
-average daily gain
-Cereco silage product
-Cereco protein product
-Cereco soil conditioner
-crude fiber
-crude protein
-dried broiler litter
-digestible crude fiber
-digestible crude protein
-digestible ether extract
-dry matter
-digestible nitrogen-free extract
-digestible protein
-dried poultry waste
-ensiled broiler litter
-ether extract
-hydraulic retention time
-metabolizable energy
-neutral detergent fiber
-net energy
-nitrogen-free extract
-nonprotein nitrogen
-oxidation ditch mixed liquor
-total digestible nutrients
-total Kjeldahl nitrogen
-true protein
xvi 11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The technical assistance of Drs. Peter Van Soest and James Robertson,
Cornell University, is sincerely appreciated.
Special appreciation goes to Karen Rizzo and Colleen Martin for
patient secretarial and editorial assistance throughout the project.
The authors are particularly grateful for the comments and suggestions
made by the following individuals as well as their review of an early draft
of this report:
Dr. W.B. Anthony
Animal and Dairy Sciences Department
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
Auburn, Alabama
Dr. R.E. Austic
Poultry Science Department
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
Dr. C.J. Flegal
Department of Poultry Science
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
. Dr. J.P. Fontenot
Department of Animal Science
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia
Mr. C.B. Gilbertson
U.S. Department of Agriculture (ARS)
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, Nebraska
Dr. A.G. Hashimoto
U.S. Department of Agriculture (ARS)
Clay Center, Nebraska
Dr. L.W. Smith
U.S. Department of Agriculture (ARS)
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center
Beltsville, Maryland
xix
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The use of animal manures as feedstuffs is conceptually attractive
because it has the potential to reduce production costs and to provide a
partial solution to manure management and environmental problems. For these
reasons, a number of nutritional and economic studies have evaluated the
use of animal manures as feedstuffs.
Interest in the use of animal manures as a component of animal feed is
not new. Research on this topic occurred in the 1940s with early interest
focusing on dairy and poultry manures as sources of "an unidentified growth
factor," riboflavin (vitamin 62), and vitamin B^- A number of studies
demonstrated the beneficial effect that resulted from the inclusion of
dairy and poultry manures in the poultry diets of that period (Lamoreux
and Schumacher, 1940; Hammond, 1942; Rubin et_ al^., 1946).
In the 1950s, interest in manures as feedstuffs focused on the use of
poultry litter as a source of crude protein in rations for beef cattle
(Noland et_ a^., 1955; Southwell et_ al_., 1958). Positive results were
noted when a portion of the cattle ration was replaced by poultry litter.
In the 1960s, interest in animal manures as feedstuffs expanded to
include beef cattle manure, as well as poultry litter and manure. Anthony
(1966, 1968, 1969) incorporated feedlot beef cattle manure into cattle
rations and also developed the concept of wastelage (57 parts feedlot
manure to 43 parts ground hay) as a silage substitute for cattle. Interest
in broiler litter involved further delineation of its nutritive value using
protein digestibility studies (Brugman et_ al_., 1964; Fontenot et_ al_. , 1964,
1966). The use of dried caged laying hen manure in laying hen diets pro-
duced positive results (Quisenberry and Bradley, 1968; Flegal and Zindel,
1969).
In the 1970s, interest in animal manures as feedstuffs focused on the
continued delineation of their nutritive value via digestibility and nitrogen
balance studies (Anthony, 1971; Smith, 1971, 1973a, 1973b).
Thus, over the past forty years, the use of animal manures as feedstuffs
has evolved from the detection of "an unknown growth factor" to the identi-
fication of their nutrient content and their nutritional value.
Although a substantial data base has been established for the use of
animal manures as feedstuffs, the information is not consistent and the
value of animal manures as feedstuffs is not completely clear. Similarly,
-------
the delineation of possible pollution control benefits from the use of
animal manures as feedstuffs also is not clear. The extent to which the
costs of air and water pollution control and the alleviation of waste
disposal problems could be reduced by the use of animal manures as feedstuffs
needs to be clarified.
The nutritional basis for utilizing manures as feedstuffs appears to
be reasonable when the nutrient composition of these materials is compared
with conventional feedstuffs. As a source of nitrogen and minerals (Table 1),
manures compare favorably to conventional feedstuffs.
When the nutrient composition of the collectible animal manures is con-
sidered,livestock and poultry manures represent a significant potential feed
source for animal agriculture. It has been estimated that the collectible
quantity of manure voided annually by livestock and poultry in the United
States is 633 million tonnes (Lauer, 1975). This quantity of manure
represents 3.2 million tonnes of manurial nitrogen, which exceeds the
crude protein content of the 1972 United States soybean crop.
When the economic value of manure is based on its value as a source of
animal or plant mutrient the results suggest that manures may have greater
value as feedsutffs. Smith and Wheeler (1979) concluded that the economic
value of manures as a source of protein in animal feeds is many times greater
than as a source of plant nutrients. Using least-cost feed-formulation tech-
niques, materials, estimated values ranged from $24 to $39 per tonne.
-------
TABLE 1. NUTRIENT COMPOSITIONS OF ANIMAL MANURES AND CONVENTIONAL FEEDSTUFFS
(Ensminger and Olentine, 1978)
Metabolizable Energy
kcal/kg
Protein
Cattle manure without
bedding, dehydrated 13
Poultry manure with
litter 29.2
Poultry manure without
litter 32.4
Corn, Grain No. 2 9.8
PTiiHo Pl""h f*~r Phn Q -— .
Fiber Extract Ash Calcium phorus Ruminants
28.4 2.9 19.1 2.02 0.71 1,770
18.0 2.1 -- 2.25 1.80
15.2 1.9 29.9 8.8 2.5 1,900
2.2 4.4 1.5 0.02 0.34 3,300
Poultry
-_
--
990
3,854
Soybean meal, solvent
extracted, 49% 47.6 4.7 1.5 6.9 1.03
Alfalfa hay, sun-cured,
all analyses 17.6 30.1 2.6 9.0
Corn silage, all
analyses 7.0 25.5 2.8 5.3 0.35
0.70 3,020 2,817
1.53 0.22 2,350 663
0.28 2,470
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
1. Reported values for the nutrient content of dried poultry waste
(DPW), broiler litter, and dairy cow and beef cattle manures are
highly variable. Care should be taken in the use of "average"
values when estimating the nutritive value of manures as feed-
stuffs or for other purposes.
2. When animal manures (DPW, broiler litter, dairy cow and beef cattle
manures) are utilized as a feedstuff, they appear most comparable to
corn silage and forages such as alfalfa, timothy, and bermudagrass
hays and not to energy or protein feeds. The economic value of
manures, when used to replace corn silage, appears to be about
$58 per tonne, based on their nutrient characteristics (dry matter
basis). When hays are replaced, the value of manures as feedstuffs
is about $70 per tonne (dry matter basis).
3. DPW used as a feedstuff for laying hens is best described as a
source of minerals and some amino acids and has an estimated
economic value of about $117 per tonne, dry matter basis. .
4. The performance of animals fed animal manures as feedstuffs can,
in general, be predicted from the nutrient characteristics of
the total diet or ration.
5. Utilization of animal manures as feedstuffs is generally most
effective when manures constitute a relatively small fraction,
typically less than 20% of the ration.
6. The use of DPW as a feedstuff for both laying hens and ruminants
generally enhances animal performance when incorporated into
rations at low levels (5-12.5%), Based upon animal performance,
the economic value of DPW as a feedstuff is greater than the
value estimated from the nutrient composition and fertilizer
content.
7. The use of broiler litter as a ruminant feedstuff typically enhances
animal performance. The level of utilization that will maximize
animal performance varies with the nature of litter management
prior to utilization. Estimates of the economic value of broiler
litter, based upon animal performance and nutrient composition, are
-------
comparable and exceed the fertilizer value.
8. The use of beef cattle manure as a ruminant feedstuff generally
impairs animal performance. The economic value of beef cattle
manure as a feedstuff is typically less than its fertilizer value.
9. The utilization of processed animal manures (aerobically
digested manure, manure screenings, and Cereco products) as a
feedstuff may have merit. Further investigation is, however,
necessary before the nutritive value of these materials as a feed-
stuff can be established.
10. The potential environmental quality benefits derived from the utili-
zation of animal manures as feedstuffs will not be large due to
the limited quantities that can be effectively utilized in this
manner.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Background information, such as the composition of the diet or
ration fed and the age, health, and productive state of animals
involved, always should be identified when nutrient characteristics
of animal manures are reported. The lack of this information
hampers an evaluation of the relevance of the reported character-
istics and a comparison to other data.
2. The nutrient characteristics of the actual animal manures to be
used as feedstuffs should be obtained before the manures are
utilized in both experimental and commercial situations. These
characteristics should be included in all reports of feeding trials
and large scale use of manures as feedstuffs.
3. Rations containing animal manures should be formulated to meet
protein needs using digestible protein for ruminants and amino acids
for monogastrics. The formulation of rations using crude protein
does not reflect the availability of fecal nitrogen.
4. Feeding trials should compare the performance of manure-fed animals
to a normal, healthy control group receiving a nutritionally
balanced ration. Use of nonrepresentative control groups can
result in erroneous and nonusable data.
5. Broiler litter appears to have significant nutritive and economic
value as a feedstuff for ruminants.
6. Further studies to more clearly delineate the nutritive and
economic values of aerobically digested manures and dairy cow
and beef cattle manure screenings are needed.
7. Before results from experimental or other studies on the use of
animal manures as feedstuffs are accepted, information on: (1) the
adequacy of positive control diets or rations to satisfy nutritional
-------
needs, and (2) the performance of control animals in comparison
to established norms must be available and critically analyzed.
-------
SECTION 3
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
Although the use of animal manures as feedstuffs appears attractive,
the realization of potential benefits remains elusive, and a comprehensive
analysis of information to identify the better opportunities for this option
has been lacking. The objectives of this report are to: (1) examine
various methods of utilizing animal manures as'feedstuffs, such as dried
manure to livestock and poultry, ensiled manure to livestock, aerobically
digested manure to poultry, etc.; (2) assess the economic incentive for
the utilization of animal manures as feedstuffs, such as reduced feed costs,
increased egg sale revenue, increased animal selling price, etc.; and(3)
identify the pollutional control benefits associated with the use of animal
manures as feedstuffs, such as decreased potential for air and water pollu-
tion, alleviating waste management problems, etc.
This study assembled, critically reviewed and analyzed reported informa-
tion pertaining to the nutrient characteristics of animal manures and their
utilization as feedstuffs. The evaluation focused .on dairy cattle, beef
cattle, and caged laying hen manures, and broiler litter utilized as a
feedstuff for cattle and poultry. These types received emphasis because
they represent approximately 85% of the economically recoverable manure
produced annually in the United States (Van Dyne and Gilbertson, 1978).
Although sheep commonly are used as a recipient species, studies of feeding
manure to sheep were not analyzed. Sheep have the ability to efficiently
utilize feedstuffs having low economic value. Since the cost of conventional
feedstuffs, principally forages, for sheep are low, the gross value of
manures as substitutes will be correspondingly low. The results from
digestibility trials utilizing sheep as the recipient species, however, were
included in this report.
The economic incentive was determined by: 1) the assessment of animal
performance from published information on feeding trials and 2) the deter-
mination of economic benefits (such as reduced feed efficiency costs,
increased animal selling prices, and increased revenue from egg sales).
Two general types of manures v;ere evaluated as sources of animal
nutrients: 1) manure which was dried, composted, ensiled, screened or
Cereco processed, and 2) liquid manure which was aerobically or anaero-
bically digested.
The report objectives were achieved by the following methodology:
-------
1. Assessment of the reported nutrient characteristics of animal
manures to determine if they could be classified as a protein,
energy or forage substitute;
2. Estimation of the economic value of animal manures based on
nutrient characteristics;
3. Assessment of animal manures as feedstuffs based upon reported
animal performance in feeding trials;
4. Estimation of the economic value of animal manures based on
reported animal performance in feeding trials;
5. Identification of the more appropriate types of animal manures
that can be used as feedstuffs; and
6. Evaluation of the pollution control benefits that result from the
•use of -manures as feedstuffs.
-------
SECTION 4
FUNDAMENTAL NUTRITIONAL CONCEPTS AND TERMINOLOGY
INTRODUCTION
In this study, emphasis is placed on nutritional considerations as the
basis for assessing the technical feasibility of utilizing manures as feed-
stuffs. To facilitate a better understanding of the subsequent sections,
this section briefly presents basic nutritional concepts, methodology, and
terminology.
Feedstuffs represent sources of nutrients and energy which when released
by digestive processes are absorbed into body fluids and tissues. Nutrients
include amino acids or precursors for amino acid synthesis, minerals, and
vitamins. Undigested and indigestible residues from feed and metabolic and
endogenous losses are concentrated in the excreta. The extent to which
these residues can be used as nutrients depends on their biodegradability.
Nutrients absorbed from digested feeds are used for different body
processes. Exact utilization depends on animal species, age, and produc-
tivity. Total nutrient requirements can be partitioned into maintenance,
production, and reproduction. Maintenance requirements refer to the base
level of nutrient intake necessary for basal metabolism and normal activity.
Nutrients in excess of maintenance requirements are considered production
requirements and are utilized for growth, fattening, or production of milk
and eggs. Reproduction requirements refer to nutrients utilized for fetus
development.
Nutritional requirements of domestic animal species for maintenance,
production and reproduction have been established by the National Research
Council. A nutritionally balanced ration is a feedstuff or a combination
of feedstuffs which meet the physiological requirements for production and/or
maintenance. Animal performance will correlate directly with the level of
nutrient intake. Productive performance of animals fed a maintenance level
diet can be expected to be negligible.
QUALITATIVE NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
Energy
Available energy is one of the most important characteristics of a feed-
stuff. Animals obtain energy from the oxidation of dietary carbon and
-------
hydrogen sources resulting in the production of carbon dioxide and water.
The released energy is used for work, is converted to heat, or is stored in
body tissue. Many organic compounds including proteins can serve as dietary
sources of energy, but the primary sources are carbohydrates and fats. Not
all organic compounds are digestible and only the digestible fraction of a
feedstuff can serve as a source of energy and other nutrients. Both feed
consumption and efficiency of feed conversion are closely related to the
metabolizable energy content of a ration in such animals as the chicken
which tends to eat to satisfy energy requirements and adjusts feed intake
accordingly.
Amino Acids
Amino acids and precursors for amino acid synthesis long have been
recognized as dietary essentials. Amino acids constitute the building
blocks for protein synthesis, and proteins are the principal constituents
of animal tissue, such as muscle, cartilage, connective tissue, blood
proteins, nucleoproteins, hormones, and enzymes. Essential amino acids are
those that cannot be synthesized by the animal and must be supplied by the
diet. Amino acids which can be synthesized from nonprotein nitrogen com-
pounds are described as nonessential amino acids.
Essential amino acid requirements vary by species and for different
functions, such as maintenance versus production, within species. The desig-
nations of essential and nonessential amino acids apply only to monogastric
species. For ruminants, nonprotein nitrogen compounds such as urea can be
utilized to provide essential amino acids via microbial synthesis. Essential
amino acids for poultry and swine which must be supplied in the diet include
arginine, lysine, histidine, leucine, isoleucine, valine, methionine,
threonine, tryptophan, and phenylalanine (Scott et_ aj^., 1976; Ensminger and
Olentine, 1978).
Minerals and Vitamins
Several inorganic elements are required for the metabolic functions of
all animals. Minerals are required for skeletal formation, as components of
hormones, as activators of enzymes, and for maintenance of osmotic relation-
ships. Essential minerals include calcium, phosphorus, sodium, potassium,
selenium, molybdenum, chlorine, magnesium, iron, sulfur, iodine, manganese,
copper, cobalt, and zinc. Requirements for minerals vary extensively with
species and are dependent upon factors such as sex and age.
Vitamins function as organic catalysts of metabolic reactions. Some
vitamins are metabolic essentials but not dietary essentials since they
can be synthesized by microorganisms in the digestive tract. This phenomenon
is species dependent. Vitamins are fat soluble (vitamins A, D, E, and K) or
water soluble (B-complex vitamins and vitamin C). Although feedstuffs are
important sources of vitamins and minerals, supplements commonly are used to
assure a balanced ration.
10
-------
Nutrient Value of Feedstuffs
The value of a material as a feed is dependent on its ability to
supply nutrients required for maintenance, production, and reproduction.
Determination of the diet nutrient composition and the respective avail-
ability of the nutrients are essential to the scientific formulation of
practical diets to meet established nutritional requirements. The follow-
ing outlines the principal methods of feedstuff nutrient characterization
and discusses the significance of the various parameters.
Proximate Analysis
The proximate analysis or Weende Food Analysis Scheme (Crampton and
Lloyd, 1959) has been the most widely utilized procedure for estimating
the nutritive value of feedstuffs. This procedure consists of fraction-
ating feed materials into six components: moisture, ash, crude protein,
ether extract, crude fiber, and nitrogen-free extract. Procedures and
major components are outlined in Table 2.
TABLE 2. FRACTIONS OF PROXIMATE ANALYSIS
Fraction
Procedure
Major Components
1. Moisture (dry matter)
2. Ash
3. Crude protein (TKN x
6.25 = crude protein)
4. Ether extract (fat)
5. Crude fiber (CF)
6. Nitrogen-free
extract (NFE)
Heat sample at 100°C
to a constant weight
Ignite sample at
600°C for 2 hr
Kjeldahl sulfuric-
acid digestion
Extraction with
ether
Residue after
boiling in weak acid
and weak alkali
Remainder - 100
minus sum of other
factors
Water and any volatile
compounds
Mineral elements
Proteins, amino acids,
nonprotein nitrogen
Fats, oils, waxes,
resins, pigments
Cellulose, hemicellulose,
lignin
Starch, sugars, some
cellulose, hemicellulose,
and lignin
> The ash fraction represents an estimate of the inorganic or total
mineral content of a feedstuff and is used to indicate possible total
mineral deficiency or excessive mineral content. Excessive mineral content
can adversely affect digestive processes in some species. The ash determina-
tion is not capable of indicating deficiencies of specific minerals.
11
-------
The crude protein estimation is based on the total Kjeldahl nitrogen
(TKN) determination and the assumption that the average nitrogen content
of protein is 16%. This results in the multiplication factor of 6.25 used
to convert TKN to crude protein. Crude protein includes both protein
nitrogen and nonprotein nitrogen and is of limited value in assessing the
value of a feedstuff as a protein source for monogastric animals. While
crude protein is of greater value in ruminant nutrition, this analysis does
not estimate the digestibility of nonprotein nitrogen compounds such as
amines, purines, pyrimidines, urea, and ammonia.
Ether extract is only an approximation of the fat content of a feedstuff
in that it includes anything that can be extracted with ether, such as
organic acids, oils, pigments, alcohol, and fat-soluble vitamins. Many
complex lipids, such as phospholipids and fats bound to proteins, are not
completely extracted.
Crude fiber represents an attempt to estimate indigestible feedstuff
carbohydrates. It is based on the assumption that those carbohydrates which
are dissolved by boiling in dilute acid and then in dilute alkali will also
be readily digestible by animals. The term crude fiber represents about 80%
of the cellulose, and only about 15% of the hemicellulose and lignin in
a sample. It is not an accurate measurement of indigestible materials.
Ruminants and herbivorous nonruminants can utilize a large portion of the
cellulose component of crude fiber.
Nitrogen-free extract (NFE) is a calculated estimate of digestible
carbohydrates and is a catchall for organic materials for which there are
no specific analyses in the proximate analysis procedure. NFE is calculated
as follows:
NFE, % = 100 - (moisture, % + crude fiber, % + ash, % +
ether extract, % + crude protein, %) (1)
The NFE component of manure is to a large degree a mathematical fiction since
it is based on the crude protein factor of 6.25, which grossly underestimates
the organic contribution of microbial metabolic wastes that are the dominant
nonfibrous component of feces (Van Soest, 1980). Also, the inherent errors
of the crude fiber analysis are carried over in the calculation of NFE.
Energy
Several parameters characterize energy values of feedstuffs such as
total digestible nutrients (TON), apparent digestible energy (ADE) , metabo-
lizable energy (ME) , and net energy (NE) . TON is an estimate of the energy
value of a feedstuff based on feeding trial results in which the proximate
analysis parameters for the feedstuff and feces are compared to determine
the digestible fraction. TON is computed by (Ensminger and Olentine, 1978) :
TON, % = nCP + DCF + DNFE + (DEE x 2.25)
Feed Consumed, kg ^ J
12
-------
where: DCP = digestible crude protein, kg
DCF = digestible crude fiber, kg
DNFE = digestible nitrogen-free extract, kg
DEE = digestible ether extract, kg
Digestible ether extract is multiplied by 2.25 to reflect the higher energy
content of fats. Digestible ether extract is likely to be a large error in
fecal analysis since most microbial fatty acids are excreted as soaps of
calcium and magnesium which are ether insoluble, unless pH adjustments are
made.
Digestible energy (DE) can be approximated by multiplying the kilograms
of TON in a material by 4400 kcal. TON represents a poor approximation of
the energy value of feedstuffs for several reasons. First, only digestive
losses are considered. Energy contained in urine, gaseous products, and heat
is not included. Second, there is a poor relationship between crude fiber
and NFE digestibility in certain feeds. Third, energy values of roughages
are overestimated in relation to concentrates due to higher heat losses per
unit mass of TON in high fiber feedstuffs (Ensminger and Olentine, 1978;
Maynard and Loosli, 1969). Thus, TON is of questionable value as a measure
of feedstuff energy.
Energy balance feeding trials provide a more accurate estimation of
feedstuff energy content by partitioning the gross energy content as shown
in Figure 1. Values for gross energy as well as those for fecal and urinary
energy are determined by bomb calorimetry (Maynard and Loosli, 1969). Direct
or indirect calorimetry is used to determine the heat' increment which includes
heat of fermentation and heat of nutrient metabolism. Apparent digestible
energy, metabolizable energy, and net energy can be mathematically described
as follows:
Apparent Digestible Energy = Gross Energy - Fecal Energy (3)
Metabolizable Energy = Apparent Digestible Energy -
(Urinary Energy + Energy in Gaseous Products) (4)
Net Energy =' Metabolizable Energy - Heat Increment (5)
Apparent digestible energy (ADE) is utilized widely due to its relative ease
of determination. It is roughly comparable to TON in that energy lost as
urine, gaseous products, and heat is not considered. ADE is not applicable
to feedstuffs for poultry in that fecal material and urine are not excreted
separately. The inclusion of the heat increment in the ME determination
results in the overestimation of the energy value of roughages, as compared
to concentrates, which is also true of the TON estimation. ME is considered
to be the most accurate estimate of the energy value of feedstuffs for
poultry, but not for ruminants. Due to the inclusion of the heat increment
in metabolizable energy values, net energy (NE) is of greater accuracy to
estimate the energy value of feedstuffs for ruminants.
13
-------
GROSS ENF.RGY
Fecal Digestible
energy energy
Urinary Metabolizable
energy energy
I ^
Heat Net
increment energy
I I
Maintenance Production
a. Basal metabolism a. Growth
b. Voluntary activity b. Fat
c. Heat to keep body warm c. Eggs,
d. Energy to keep body cool lactation
d. Work
Figure 1. Relationships Between Different Forms of Energy Consumed as
Feedstuffs
-------
Protein
Although crude protein is used extensively in the formulation of rations
or diets, recognition of the limitations of this estimate has resulted in the
adoption of alternatives such as digestible protein (DP), total true protein
(TP), and amino acid composition.
Digestible protein represents a calculated estimate of the digestible
fraction of crude protein utilizing regression equations developed from
reported data (Harris, 1970). These equations are specific for both species
and type of feed. Digestible protein is most commonly used in relation to
feedstuffs for ruminants. Reported values also are available for feedstuffs
for swine.
Total true protein represents a more accurate estimate of the protein
value of feedstuffs for monogastric species. The limitation of TP is that
amino acid composition is not delineated. Thus, a feedstuff may be adequate
with respect to TP but be deficient in one or more essential amino acids.
Amino acid composition represents the most fundamentally sound basis of
assessing the protein value of feedstuffs for monogastric species and can be
determined by calorimetric techniques or by gas-liquid chromatography.
Forage Fiber Analysis
Limitations of the proximate analysis method have resulted in a more
accurate method (Goering and Van Soest, 1970) of estimating digestible and
indigestible fractions of feedstuffs. Using the forage fiber analytical
methodology, a feedstuff is separated into four fractions: neutral detergent
solubles, neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and
lignin.
In the first step, the feed sample is boiled in a neutral detergent
solution to separate the soluble and insoluble fractions. The soluble
fraction is comprised of cell contents and includes sugars, starches, pectins,
proteins, lipids, nonprotein nitrogen, and water soluble minerals and vita-
mins. This fraction is highly digestible CaPProximately 98%) by both rumi-
nants and nonruminants. The insoluble fraction, NDF, consists of cell walls,
cellulose, hemicellulose, silica, fiber-bound protein, and lignin. The
digestibility of the NDF fraction of a feedstuff is dependent on microbial
activity in the digestive tract, and NDF is essentially indigestible by
nonruminants. Feedstuffs having high NDF fractions generally produce lower
feed intake and reduced levels of performance when fed to ruminants.
Boiling the NDF fraction in an acid detergent solution solubilizes
hemicellulose. The remaining insoluble fraction, termed ADF, contains
cellulose, lignin, and some acid insoluble ash (silica). Cellulose is
highly digestible by ruminants, but both lignin and silica are indigestible.
ADF can serve as an indicator of digestible dry matter and digestible energy.
The cellulose and lignin components of ADF can be separated by the
addition of sulfuric acid to solubilize cellulose or potassium permanganate
15
-------
to remove cellulose. Lignin is estimated after ignition of the insoluble
fraction to determine acid insoluble ash. Lignin is essentially indigestible
by all animals and limits availability of cellulose to rumen bacteria.
The cellulose and hemicellulose fractions of a feedstuff can be cal-
culated from NDF, ADF, and lignin values as follows:
Hemicellulose = neutral detergent fiber - acid detergent fiber
(6)
Cellulose = acid detergent fiber - lignin
(7)
Although the forage fiber analytical methodology was developed to evaluate
forages, it has been applied to other materials including human foods,
animal manures, and other products (Van Soest and Robertson, 1976).
Species Utilization
The ability of an animal to transform, digest, and utilize feedstuffs
depends upon its organs of digestion. Table 3 summarizes the digestive
system of various species. Because of the difference in the digestive
systems, the nutritional characteristics of feedstuffs and their utiliza-
tion are species-dependent.
TABLE 3. THE DIGESTIVE SYSTEMS OF VARIOUS SPECIES
Species
Digestive System
Man, dog, carnivorous
animals
Pig, omnivorous animals
Ruminants
Poultry
Esophagus, stomach, small intestine,
large intestine
Cecum, stomach, small intestine, large
intestine
Forestomach, rumen, reticulum, omasum,
large intestine, small intestine, cecum
Esophagus, crop, proventriculus, gizzard,
small intestine.
16
-------
SECTION 5
NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF POULTRY MANURE,
BROILER LITTER, AND DAIRY COW AND BEEF CATTLE MANURE
INTRODUCTION
This section evaluates the available information on the nutrient
characteristics of poultry manure, broiler litter and cattle manure. These
potential feedstuffs are characterized in terms of their mineral, amino acid,
protein, and other nutrient parameters.
These characteristics are then compared on a nutrient and economic
basis to conventional feedstuffs so as to identify the potential of broiler
litter and poultry and cattle manure as animal feedstuffs. The conventional
feedstuffs used for comparison are corn silage, timothy hay, alfalfa hay,
bermudagrass hay, soybean meal, cottonseed meal, grain corn and sorghum
grain. These feedstuffs are common ingredients in animal feeds and are the
ones for which manures and litter are most commonly substituted in feeding
trials. 'The nutrient characteristics of these conventional feedstuffs are
presented in Appendix B.
Subsequent sections evaluate the nutrient characteristics of other
processed manures (Section 6) and identify the value of the potential feed-
stuffs on the basis of results from feeding trials (Sections 7 through 10).
DRIED POULTRY WASTE
This section discusses the nutrient characteristics of dried poultry
waste (DPW) from caged laying hens. DPW is composed of freshly collected
feces from commercial laying or broiler flocks not receiving medicants. It
is thermally dehydrated to a moisture content of not more than 15%, does not
contain any substances at harmful levels, is free of extraneous materials
such as wire, glass and nails, and is labeled to show the minimum percent
protein and fat and percent fiber. It may be used in sheep, lamb, beef, and
dairy cattle and broiler and layer chick feeds with broiler and laying rations
usually limited to 20% and 30%, respectively (Essig, 1977).
The nutrient characteristics of DPW are highly variable and can be a
result of differences in formulation of poultry diets, methods of handling
and treatment of the wet feces, and the drying procedure utilized. Evans
et al. (1978) reported that when a high and low crude protein diet (17.8%
versus 14.2%) was fed to laying hens, significant differences were observed
in fecal composition. Nitrogen and nitrogenous compounds in the feces of
17
-------
the 17.8% crude protein group were higher than the 14.2% crude protein group.
The drying process can cause protein losses ranging from 3 to 40%. Bird age
will affect fecal output, although the influence on raw waste composition
is minimal.
The nutrient, mineral and amino acid compositions of DPW are shown in
Tables 4, 5, and 6. Protein digestibility of the crude protein in DPW has
been reported to be 53% for laying hens (Yoshida and Hoshii, 1963) and 57%
for ruminants (Lowman and Knight, 1970; Bull and Reid, 1971; Oltjen et al.,
1972; Tinnimit et^ aj^. , 1972; Van Soest and Robertson, 1976).
DPW has been erroneously classified as a "bulky protein concentrate"
on the basis of its crude protein and crude fiber levels (Bhattacharya and
Taylor, 1975). By definition, concentrates are feeds that are high in NFE
and TON and low in crude fiber (Ensminger and Olentine, 1978). The nutrient
characteristics of DPW shown in Table 4 do not fulfill this definition and
it is not appropriate to classify DPW as a "protein concentrate".
The extreme ranges in metabolizable energy (ME) values confound the
utilization of DPW as an: energy source. While the ME of DPW is too low to
be incorporated at high levels in efficient poultry rations, it is comparable
to hay fed to ruminants (Bhattacharya and Taylor, 1975). Based upon its
ADF, NDF and lignin content, DPW is comparable to forages when fed to
ruminants (Van Soest and Robertson, 1976).
The mineral composition of DPW (Table 5) reveals that the total ash
content is high and can restrict its value as a feedstuff when used in
large quantities. Soluble ash may adversely affect rumen microorganisms
and food passage rates in ruminants (Van Soest, 1980). When DPW is utilized
as a mineral source, the absorption and digestibility of calcium and phos-
phorus has been reported to be high when fed to ruminants (Bull and Reid,
1971). However, the utilization of calcium and phosphorus in DPW by laying
hens is decreased when compared to conventional mineral supplements (Polin
et:al., 1971).
BROILER LITTER
Broiler litter consists of bedding material, excreta, wasted feed and
feathers. Bedding usually is a low cost by-product such as wood shavings,
peanut hulls, corn cobs, grass hay or straw. The characteristics of broiler
litter are highly variable, with the variation possibly caused by storage
time of the litter prior to usage, number of batches of broilers raised on
the litter, mechanical or chemical treatment of the litter prior to analysis,
type of bedding utilized, and the composition of the diet fed to the broilers.
A significant loss of nutrients occurs if the litter is stored for consider-
able periods of time (Cross, 1977). The litter characteristics also are
influenced by the method of handling and treatment, with the drying process
causing a 20% reduction in nitrogen (Fontenot, et_ aJ_. , 1971).
The nutrient, mineral and amino acid compositions of broiler litter
are shown in Tables 7, 8, and 9. The digestible protein and crude fiber
18
-------
TABLE 4. NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF DPW
Composition of
Dry Matter, %
Crude Protein
True Protein
Digestible Protein
(Ruminant)
NPN x 6.25
Ether Extract
Crude Fiber
NFE
TDN
ADF
NDF
Lignin
Energy, kcal/kg
Gross energy
Digestible Energy
(Ruminant)
Metabolizable Energy
(Poultry)
(Ruminant)
Dry Matter, %
Number
of
Mean Range Observations Source*
28.0 17.0 - 40.4
14.6 11.3 - 21.8
12.6 9.7 - 14.6
9.7 7.8 - 11.6
2.2 1.4 - 3.2
13.0 8.2 - 21.0
33.4 21.8 - 45.1
52.3
24.7 14.0 - 43.1
52.4 37.7 - 62.0
1.4
3047 2200 - 3522
2456 1875 - 3194
1309 480 - 2050
1900
84.7 78.7 - 89.7
25
5
5
2
21
20
11
1
5
3
1
13
3
11
1
5
1,2,3,5,6,7,10,
12,13,14,15,16,
18,20,21,24,27
7,14,20,21,27
8,14,23,25
7,21
3,5,7,10,11,13,
14,15,16,18,20,
21,22,24,27
5,6,7,10,11,13,
15,16,18,20,21,
22,24,27
6,7,11,14,15,16
22,24
14
2,19,26
2,19
26
3,5,10,16,17,
18,21
3,8,9
1,13,16,17,21,27
8
3,5,12,15,20
*See Appendix A
19
-------
TABLE 5. MINERAL COMPOSITION OF DPW .
Composition of
Dry Matter, %
Ash
Aluminum
Calcium
Chlorides
Iron
Magnesium
Phosphorus
Potassium
Sodium
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
Mean
27.6
0.11
8.07
0.87
0.54
0.50
2.29
2.24
0.60
1.5
0.94
4.9
66
4.6
320
<0.04
0.68
376
Number
of
Range Observations
13.4-42.9
.07-. 20
5.5-12.3
.65-1.08
.15-1.22
.20-. 77
1.34-2.64
1.72-3.30
.26-. 96
.66-2.34
.58-1.30
-
18-179
3.45-5.8
233-468
-
.47-. 90
141-713
22
3
20
4
11
8
16
6
5
2
2
1
11
2
11
1
2
11
Source*
3,5,6,7,10,11,
13,14,15,16,18,
20,21,22,24,27
6,7
3,4,6,7,9,10,
13,14,15,16,27
4,6,13
4,6,7,15,24
4,6,7,15,18
3,4,6,7,9,10,
13,15,16,24,27
4,6,7,15,24
4,6,7,15
6,16
6
6
4,6,7,13,15,16,
18
6
4,6,7,13,15,18
6
6,16
4,6,7,13,15,18
See appendix A
20
-------
TABLE 6. AMINO ACID COMPOSITION OF DPW
Amino Acid,
% of dry matter
Arginine t
Cystine
Glycine
Histidine t
Leucine t
Isoleucine t
Lysine t
Methionine t
Phenylalanine t
Tyros ine
Valine t
Alaniiie
Pro line
Glutamic Acid
Serine
Threoninet
Aspartic Acid
Tryptophan t
Total Amino Acids
Essential Amino Acids
% of Total
Mean
0.39
.06
1.65
.20
.64
.40
.41
.16
.38
.31
.52
.67
.58
1.33
.52
.45
1.03
.53
10.23
3.63
35.5
Range
.35-.
.02-.
.51-2
.18-.
.55-.
.33-.
.33-.
.10-.
.32-.
.27-.
.47-.
.66-.
.51-.
47
14
.43
21
77
51
45
33
45
37
60
67
64
1.32-1.33
.51-.
.40-.
1.02-
-
53
48
1.03
.. -
Number
of
Observations
5
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
5
2
2
2
2
3
2
1
...
13,
13,
13,
13,
13,
13,
13,
13,
13,
13,
13,
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
16
Source*
16,
17
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
16,
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
*See appendix A
tEssential amino acids
21
-------
TABLE 7. NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF BROILER LITTER
Composition of
Dry Matter, %
Crude Protein
True Protein
Digestible Protein
(Ruminant)
NPN x 6.25
Ammonia x 6.25
Ether Extract
Crude Fiber
NFE
TON
ADF
NDF
Lignin
Energy, Kcal/kg
Gross Energy
Digestible Energy
(Ruminant)
Metabolizable Energy
(Ruminant)
Dry Matter. %
Mean
26.8
15.8
22.6
7.6
5.1
2.4
21.2
27.5
58.9
30.4
47.4
9.7
3652
2440
1627
80.6
Number
of
Range Observations Source*
14.4-40.0
13.6-18.0
21.6-23.4
4.8-15.1
4.2-6.4
0.8-3.5
11.4-32.2
10.5-34.0
52.0-72.5
-
44.0-56.4
9.4-10.4
3250-3862
-
1100-2181
72.7-89.1
28
7
6
11
5
19
25
15
5
1
5
3
5
1
3
19
1,3,4,5,6,7,
8,9,10,11,12,
13,14,15,16,
17,18,19,20,
21,23
3,4,7,12,14
4,14,22
5,9,12,15,16,
21
3,4,15,18
1,3,4,5,7,8,
9,10,11,12,
13,14,15,18,
19,20
1,3,4,5,7,10,
11,12,13,14,
15,16,17,18,
19,20,21
3,4,5,7,8,9,
10,11,12,14,
15,18,19
14,16,17,19,21
24
8,9
3,4
4,5,13,15
14
14,20
3,4,5,7,8,12,
14,15,16,19,21
kSee appendix A
22
-------
TABLE 8. MINERAL COMPOSITION OF BROILER LITTER
~ — .
Composition of
Dry Matter, %
Ash
Aluminum
Calcium
Chlorides
Iron
Magnesium
Phosphorus
Potassium
Sodium
Sulfur
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
Mean
18.6
0.05
2.60
0.35
0.07
0.39
1.81
1.78
0.38
0.24
4.1
0.86
6
50
2.3
211
0.06
0.44
187
Number
of
Range Observations
9.5-30.7
.03-. 09
1.60-6.07
-
.05-. 08
.26-. 54
.89-2.86
1.54-1.88
.21-. 54
.17-. 45
.6-11.0
.42-1.3
-
31-127
2.1-2.5
166-321
-
.38-. 50
133-272
26
3
20
1
4
13
18
9
2
7
8
2
1
9
2
5
1
2
5
Source*
1,3,4,5,7,8,9,
10,11,12,13,14,
15,17,18,19,20,
21
6,15
3,4,5,6,8,9,12,
14,15,16,19,21,
23
6
6,12
6,12,14,15,21,
23
3,4,5,6,8,9,12,
14,15,19,21,23
6,12,21,23
6,12
21,22
6,12,21
6
6
6,12,21,23
6
6,12,23
6
6
6,12,23
''See appendix A
23
-------
TABLE 9. AMINO ACID COMPOSITION OF BROILER LITTER
Amino Acid,
% of dry matter
Arginine t
Cystine
Glycine
Histidine t
Leucine t
Isoleucine t
Lysine t
Methionine t
Phenylalanine t
Tyros ine
Valine t
Alanine
Pro line
Glutamic Acid
Serine
Threonine t
Aspartic Acid
Tryptophan t
Total Araino Acids
Essential Amino Acids
% of Total
Mean
0.84
.22
2.12
.29
1.11
.64
.69
.30
.64
.48
.88
.94
1.34
2.66
.76
.67
1.27
-
15.85
5.39
34.0
Range
.50-1.42
.09-. 47
1.37-2.98
.24-. 43
1.00-1.23
.59-. 68
.57-. 93
.13-. 62
.54-. 80
.33-. '73
.76-1.10
.88-1.09
.92-2.26
2.02-4.06
.57-1.15
.57-. 80
.99-1.50
""
Number
of
Observations*
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
~
^Bhargava and O'Neil (1975) and
Bhattacharya and Fontenot (1965, 1966)
tEssential Amino Acids
24
-------
levels of broiler litter are greater than that of DPW. Protein digesti-
bility has been reported not to be influenced by bedding material types
(Bhattacharya and Fontenot, 1966), although analysis of various bedding
materials has indicated significant differences in their digestibilities
(Van Soest and Robertson, 1976).
The mineral composition of broiler litter (Table 8) indicates that
it is a good source of calcium and phosphorus, although it has less than
DPW. These minerals can reduce the amount of supplemental mineral sources
needed in ruminant rations (Fontenot, 1977).
The amino acid composition of broiler litter (Table 9) constitutes
approximately 59% of the crude protein. The digestibility of the crude
protein appears relatively high, over 80%, but decreases as the bedding
content increases (Bhattacharya and Fontenot, 1965).
DAIRY COW MANURE
Dairy cow manure consists of feces, urine and, in many instances, bed-
ding from lactating or nonlactating cows. The cows are usually fed a ration
high in roughage with supplemental grain sometimes provided. The composition
of dairy cow manure is influenced by: (1) the type and quantity of bedding
included with the manure, (2) whether urine is included with the manure,
(3) the feed ration composition, and (4) the type of animal (lactating, non-
lactating, calf, etc.). The manure from dairy cows receiving a high roughage
ration had a reduced nutritive value (Fisher, 1974; Van Soest and Robertson,
1976).
The nutrient, mineral and amino acid compositions of dairy cow manure
are shown in Tables 10, 11, and 12. Crude and true protein levels are
lower than DPW, and digestible protein is lower than both DPW and conven-
tional feedstuffs. Crude fiber, ADF, NDF and lignin levels are higher than
DPW and conventional energy and protein feedstuffs. The dry matter diges-
ibility of dairy cow manure has been reported to be 48% or lower. Differences
in reported data might be attributed to the ration the cows were fed and to
changes in storage prior to the manure being incorporated in a feed.
Van Soest and Robertson (1976) reported a higher digestibility for cow
manure from animals fed a corn-hay ration than those fed an alfalfa ration.
The amino acid composition of dairy cow manure (Table 12) was obtained
from animals receiving a ration composed of: 55% haylage-corn silage, 15%
corn and cob meal, 24% brewers' grain, and 3% soybean meal. The crude protein
of the ration was 16.2% and the calculated amino acid content was 7.8%. The
amino acid/crude protein ratio of the manure is the highest of any animal
manure evaluated.
The mineral composition of dairy cow manure (Table 11) indicates it is
higher in calcium, phosphorus and potassium than conventional feedstuffs.
However, the absorption and digestibility of these minerals has not been
reported.
25
-------
TABLE 10. NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY COW MANURE
Composition of
Dry Matter, %
Mean
Range
Number
of
Observations
Source11
Crude Protein
True Protein
Digestible Protein
(Ruminant)
Ammonia x 6.25
Ether Extract
Crude Fiber
NFE
TON
ADF
NDF
Lignin
Energy Kcal/kg
Gross Energy
Metabolizable Energy
(Ruminant)
Dry Matter, %
15.3 12.0-21.9
12.5
5.1
4.8
3.0
29.8
35.2
45.0
43.7
66.0
14.4
3.2-7.3
4.1-6.1
2.5-3.8
23.5-37.5
29.4-41.0
-
33.6-55.7
58.4-71.0
7.2-27.1
3674 2500-4955
1208
15.5 10.9-20.7
19
10
1,5,6,7,8,
10,13,14
3
6
5
3
2
1
5
8
6
9,11,12
6,7
1,5,10
5,10,14
5,10
5
8,12
5,8,13
5,8,13
1,2,4
14
2,3,4,5,7
*See appendix A.
26
-------
TABLE 11. MINERAL COMPOSITION OF DAIRY COW MANURE
Composition of
Dry Matter, %
Mean
Range
Number
of
Observations
Source
Ash
13.4 8.1-16.5
10
1,5,8,10,14
Calcium
3.88 2.3-4.9
3,6,14
Chlorides
1.72 1.19-2.20
Iron
0.27
Magnesium
Phosphorus
.r
Potassium
Sodium
Copper
Manganese
Zinc
0.64 .42-1.03 4
0.65 .25-1.60 16
1.42 .81-1.75 7
0.42 .32-. 53 6
72 - 1
292 - 1
327 - 1
3,6
1,3,4,6,7,
10,14
6,7,10
6,7
3
3
3
"See appendix A.
27
-------
TABLE 12. AMINO ACID COMPOSITION OF DAIRY COW MANURE*
Amino Acid
Arginine t
Glycine
Histidine t
Leucine t
Isoleucine t
Lysine t
Methionine t
Phenylalanine t
Tyros ine
Valine t
Alanine
Proline
Glutamic Acid
Serine
Threonine t
Aspartic Acid
Total Amino Acids
Essential Amino Acids
% of Total
% of
Dry Matter
0.45
.54
.23
1.07
.59
.63
.18
.51
.41
.62
.76
.62
1.46
.50
.55
1.08
10.20
4.83
47.4
Unpublished data, J. Chandler (1979).
tEsseiitial amino acids
28
-------
BEEF CATTLE MANURE
Beef cattle manure is composed of feces, urine and, in some instances
bedding. The manure normally is allowed to accumulate for varying time
periods prior to removal on different types of strata. One of the major
factors that affects the variation in beef cattle manure characteristics
is the type of housing from which the manure is collected. The nitrogen
content of manure collected from unpaved open lots is about one-half of the
content of manure collected from dry lots or total confinement lots with
slotted or paved floors (Adriano, 1975). Variation can also be due to:
(1) time of year the manure is collected, (2) length of time between excre-
tion and collection, (3) the extent to which bedding is included, and (4)
the treatment of the manure prior to analysis and utilization.
The nutrient, mineral and amino acid compositions of beef cattle
manure are shown in Tables 13, 14, and 15. The crude protein levels is
similar to dairy cow manure, but lower than DPW, and the digestible protein
is lower than DPW and conventional energy and protein feedstuffs. Crude
fiber, ADF, NDF and lignin levels are comparable to broiler litter, but
higher than conventional energy and protein feedstuffs.
The ash content of beef cattle manure is high but is extremely variable
due to inclusion of dirt and other foreign matter (Table 14). This contam-
ination can restrict the utilization of beef cattle manure as a feedstuff.
The high ash content also can be attributed to the decomposition that will
occur if the manure is permitted to accumulate for long periods of time
before removal and utilization.
The amino acid composition of beef cattle manure varies (Table 15).
This variation can be attributed to the type of ration fed, which affects
the degree of rumination and the microbial synthesis of amino acids in the
rumen.
The ration the animals are fed influences the nutrient composition of
beef cattle manure. Table 16 clearly demonstrates that if beef cattle
manure is to be utilized as a feedstuff, manure from steers fed concentrates,
high grain or low roughage rations has a higher nutritive value than manure
from steers fed all roughage or silage rations.
Ensiling beef cattle manure with low cost roughages has been suggested
as a method to increase the nutritive value and digestibility of the manure,
destroy harmful microorganisms, and decrease handling costs (Anthony, 1971).
Yokoyama and Nummy (1976) ensiled beef cattle manure with corn silage and
reported that the nutritive value of the resultant mixture was enhanced.
Lamm et al. (1977) reported similar results with ensiled cattle manure and
legume-grass hay. Composting feedlot manure and incorporating it into high
concentrate rations has been reported to improve the apparent digestibility
of the manure (Albin and Sherrod, 1975).
Bhattacharya and Taylor (1975) concluded that beef cattle manure has
little or no value as a source of energy or protein, even when incorporated
at low levels in nonruminant rations. The value of beef cattle manure as
29
-------
TABLE 13. NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF BEEF CATTLE MANURE
Number
Composition of of
Dry Matter, % Mean Range Observations
Source*
Crude Protein 16.5 12.2-27.0
Digestible Protein
(Ruminant) 5.6 3.2-7.4
Ether Extract 2.8 1.6-7.4
Crude Fiber 22.6 9.2-31.4
NFE 28.1 14.6-36.5
TON 48.5 48-49
ADF 33.1 20.8-51.1
NDF 54.8 31.7-71.8
Lignin 8.6 5.0-15.0
Energy Kcal/kg
Gross Energy 3937 2920-4866
Digestible Energy
(Ruminants) 2160
Metabolizable Energy
(Ruminants) 1777
Dry Matter, % 21.1 15.7-25.2
27
4
12
6
10
2
11
21
4
9
1
1
10
1,
12
18
12
8,
16
9,
8,
9,
5,
14
3,
20
11
8,
9
9
1,
3,8,9,11,
,14,16,17,.
,21,22
,15,19
9,13,.
,17,18
13,14,16,18
19,13,16
12
6,10,11,
,20
5,6,12,14,
,12,14,20
13,14
3,16,17,18
*See appendix A.
30
-------
TABLE 14. MINERAL COMPOSITION OF BEEF CATTLE MANURE
Composition of
Dry Matter, %
Ash
Aluminum
Calcium
Chlorides
Iron
Magnesium
Phosphorus
Potassium
Sodium
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Selenium
Zinc
Mean
29.2
0.66
1.71
0.93
0.33
0.47
0.80
2.25
0.61
1.54
0.75
25.5
26.8
5.5
157
0.04
0.44
112
Range
11.5-47.5
.17-1.56
.87-3.02
.85-1.01
.16-. 65
.38-. 63
.39-1.60
1.10-3.00
.26-. 91
.88-2.2
.24-1.3
20-31
19.5-40
2.1-12.7
111-222
.03-. .05
.32-. 60
79.2-150
Number
of
Observations
16
4
11
2
9
9
9
7
5
2
5
2
6
5
8
2
4
8
Source*
8,9,11,12,13,
17,22
7
1,7,9,12,18,
21,22
7
1,7,22
1,7,22
1,7,9,12,18,
21,22
1,7,22
1,7,21
7
7, .21
7
1,7
7,21
1,7
7
7
1,7
*See appendix A.
31
-------
TABLE 15. AMINO ACID COMPOSITION OF BEEF CATTLE MANURE
Amino Acid, %
of Dry Matter
Arginine t
Cystine
Glycine
Histidine t
Leucine t
Isoleucine t
Lysine t
Methionine t
Phenylalanine t
Tyros ine
Valine t
Alanine
Proline
Glutamic Acid
Serine
Threonine t
Aspartic Acid
Total Amino Acids
Essential Amino Acids
% of Total
Mean
0.28
.11
.52
.19
.47
.37
.51
.15
.02
.02
.44
.58
.56
1.08
.31
.46
.78
6.85
2.89
42.2
Range
.14-. 44
.08-. 14
.39-. 69
.09-. 26
.44-. 53
.21-. 56
.33-. 73
.06-. 23
.01-. 06
.01-. 04
.29-. 61
.45-. 66
.24-. 76
.62-1.47
.15-. 46
.21-. 67
.52-1.02
Number
of
Observations
6
4
5
6
5
6
6
6
4
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Source*
2,3,4,
2
2,3
2,3,4
2,4
2,3,4
2,3,4
2,3,4
2,4
2,3,4
2,3,4
2,3,4
2,3,4
2,3,4
2,3,4
2,3,4
2,3,4
* See appendix A
t Essential amino acids
32
-------
TABLE 16. INFLUENCE OF RATION ON BEEF CATTLE MANURE
COMPOSITION AND DIGESTIBILITY
COMPOSITION
Diet
Low Roughage*
High Roughage*
Concentrate t
All Roughage t
All Roughage, ground t
High Grain t
Silage t
*
DIGESTIBILITY
Diet
Low Roughage
High Roughage
Crude
Protein
20.69
18.04
15.8
10.1
13.6
16.7
13.0
Crude
Protein
49.1
32.1
Ether Crude
Extract Fiber
4.69 15.72
2.56 20.46
2.9 17.9
1.2 16.2
1.6 28.9
-
- -
Ether Crude
Extract Fiber
77.3 32.6
55.8 3.2
Ash
-
-
8.5
35.5
12.8
9.1
21.2
* Lucas et^ al. (1975)
t Braman (1975)
t Ward and Muscato (1976)
33
-------
a feedstuff may lie in its utilization as a forage supplement in ruminant
rations.
COMPARISON TO CONVENTIONAL FEEDSTUFFS
Feedstuffs are classified into three major categories: (1) energy
feeds, (2) protein feeds, and (3) forages (Ensminger and Olentine, 1978).
Energy feeds are defined as those that are high in energy, low in fiber
(under 18%) and contain less than 20% protein (corn grain and sorghum grain).
Protein feeds are those containing more than 20% digestible or true protein
(soybean meal and cottonseed meal). Forages are defined as those feeds that
are vegetative material in a fresh, dried or ensiled state which are fed
to livestock and average more than 18% fiber in the dry state (corn silage,
timothy, alfalfa, and bermudagrass hays).
The nutritive value of manures and broiler litter as feedstuffs can
be identified by using the definitions noted above and comparing the average
values of digestible protein, ADF, TON, crude protein, and amino acid con-
tent in the previous tables to the average values for conventional feedstuffs
(Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5). These comparisons indicate that on the basis of
the ratios of digestible protein to ADF, and digestible protein to TON, animal
manures are more comparable to forages than to protein or energy feeds.
On the basis of crude or digestible protein and amino acid content, animal
manures should not be considered as a protein feed for ruminants or non-
ruminants .
Protein feeds are the most expensive feedstuff with the exception of
the nutrient phosphorus. From an economic point-of-view, the utilization
of animal manures as a protein feed would offer the largest economic incentive.
However, the digestible protein levels of DPW, dairy cow and beef cattle
manure are below 20%, and they therefore would not be defined as protein
feeds.
Broiler litter could be classified as a protein feed on the basis of
its digestible protein content (23%). The digestible protein appears to
represent 85% of the .crude protein, which is in agreement with the results
of Smith and Calvert (1976). Thes-e values are in contrast to those reported
by Van Soest and Robertson (1976) who estimated that the true digestibility
of refed animal fecal nitrogen will not exceed 50%. The reason(s) for
this discrepancy is unclear. However, based on its ADF and TON levels,
broiler litter could also be classified along with other manures as being
more comparable to forages than to protein or energy feeds.
Energy feeds are the second most expensive feedstuff, and if animal
manures could be utilized as a substitute for typical energy feeds, a large
economic incentive also would be present. However, animal manures should
not be classified as energy feeds due to their low energy content. Further-
more, when the ADF and metabolizable energy and metabolizable energy and
TON of typical feedstuffs and animal manures are compared (Figures 6 and 7),
animal manures are comparable to forages and not energy feeds.
34
-------
LEGEND
50
cr
LU
Q
Lu
O
$S
f
Z
LU
a.
LU
30
20
S 10
R=-0.83
Y=-1.0100+44.5
MANURES
I. OPW
2. BROILER LITTER
3. DAIRY COW
4. BEEF CATTLE
SILAGE 8 FORAGES
5. CORN SILAGE
6. TIMOTHY HAY
7. ALFALFfc HAY
8. BERMUDAGRASS HAY
PROTEIN FEEDS
9. SOYBEAN MEAL
10. COTTONSEED MEAL
10 20 30 40
ADF, % OF DRY MATTER
50
Figure 2. Relationship Between ADF and Digestible Protein Content
for Conventional Feedstuffs and Animal Manures
35
-------
LEGEND
50
LU
o:
O
u_
o
30
UJ
H-
LU
S .0
CO
UJ
o
O
• MANURES
I. DPW
2. BROILER LITTER
3. DAIRY COW
4. BEEF CATTLE
• SILAGE a FORAGES
5. CORN SILAGE
a TIMOTHY HAY
7. ALFALFA HAY
a BERMUDAGRASS HAY
O PROTEIN FEEDS
9. SOYBEAN MEAL
10. COTTONSEED MEAL
R-0.90
Y« 1.0000-93.7
20 40 60 80
TON, % OF DRY MATTER
100
Figure 3. Relationship Between TDN and Digestible Protein Content
for Conventional Feedstuffs and Animal Manures
36
-------
LEGEND
50 -\
a:
UJ
(T
O
O 30-
UJ
(T
Q.
UJ
_J
CD
jl 10
CO
UJ
O
• MANURE
I.DPW
2.BROILER LITTER
3. DAIRY COW
4.BEEF CATTLE
• SILAGE a FORAGES
5.CORN SILAGE
6. TIMOTHY HAY
7. ALFALFA HAY
8.BERMUOAGRASS HAY
o PROTEIN FEEDS
9. SOYBEAN MEAL
10. COTTONSEED MEAL
a ENERGY FEEDS
11. CORN, GRAIN
12.SORGHUM .GRAIN
R = 0.96
Y = 0.87(x)-4.08
'••4
10 20 30 40
CRUDE PROTEIN, % OF DRY MATTER
50
Figure 4. Relationship Between Crude Protein and Digestible
Protein Content For Conventional Feedstuffs and
Animal Manures
37
-------
or
UJ
40
30
or
^ 20
8«
tff
9
o 10
o
I 0
LEGEND
• MANURES
I. DPW
2, BROILER LITTER
3. DAIRY COW
4. BEEF CATTLE
• FORAGE
7. ALFALFA, HAY
O PROTEIN FEEDS
9. SOYBEAN MEAL
10. COTTONSEED MEAL
D ENERGY FEEDS
11. CORN, GRAIN
12. SORGHUM, GRAIN
R = 0.94
Y = 0.54 (X)-0.03
10
20
30
40
50
CRUDE PROTEIN, % OF DRY MATTER
FigureS. Relationship Between Crude Protein and Amino Acid Con-
tent for Conventional Feedstuffs and Animal Manures
38
-------
LEGEND
tr
cr
o
o
o
cr
UJ
UJ
CD
<
M
_J
O
CD
4.0
3.0
. 2-0
1.0
• MANURES
I. DPW
2. BROILER LITTER
3. DAIRY COW
4. BEEF CATTLE
• SILAGE 8 FORAGES
5. CORN SILAGE
6. TIMOTHY HAY
7. ALFALFA HAY
a BERMUDAGRASS HAY
O PROTEIN FEEDS.
9. SOYBEAN MEAL
10. COTTONSEED MEAL
D ENERGY FEEDS
II. CORN, GRAIN
12. SORGHUM, GRAIN
TO HENS
R=-0.83
Y = -0.04(X) -I- 3.30
UJ
10
20
30
40
50
ADF, % OF DRY MATTER
Figure 6. Relationship Between ADF and Metabolizable Energy
Content for Conventional Feedstuffs and Animal
Manures
39
-------
100
80
cc
UJ
i-
(T
O
60
20
LEGEND
• MANURES
I. OPW
2. BROILER LITTER
3. DAIRY COW
4. BEEF CATTLE
• SILAGE a FORAGES
5. CORN SILAGE
6. TIMOTHY HAY
7. ALFALFA HAY
8. BERMUDAGRASS HAY
O PROTEIN FEEDS
9. SOYBEAN MEAL
10. COTTONSEED MEAL
D ENERGY FEEDS
II. CORN, GRAIN
12. SORGHUM, GRAIN
, 7* 5
•*TO CATTLE
8
R « 0.92
Y- 22.0 00+14.7
0 1.0 2.0 3.0
METABOLIZABLE ENERGY, Meal/kg OF DRY MATTER
Figure 7.
Relationship Between Metabolizable Energy and TON Content
for Conventional Feedstuffs and Animal Manures
40
-------
The remaining feedstuff category, forages, seems to be the correct
classification for animal manures. Broiler litter, cattle and dairy manure
all contain more than 18% fiber and therefore may be classified as forages.
DPW contains only 13% fiber, and therefore does not fulfill the classical
definition of a forage. An alternate method of classification would be
to utilize ADF, NDF, and TDN. When these parameters for animal manures and
typical feedstuffs are compared, animal manures again are shown to be more
comparable to forages than to protein or energy feeds (Figures 8 and 9).
Both forages and animal manures are high in ADF and low in TDN, while pro-
tein and energy feeds are low in ADF and high in TDN.
In summary, the classification of animal manures as feedstuffs, based
upon classical nutritional definitions and their reported nutrient content,
indicates that they should be considered to be more comparable to silages or
forages (corn silage and alfalfa, timothy and bermudagrass hays) than to
protein or energy feeds when fed to ruminants. Animal manures should not be
classified as protein feeds (Figure 10). The crude and digestible protein
content of DPW, broiler litter, and dairy cow and beef cattle manures are
lower than typical protein feeds (soybean and cottonseed meal). The pro-
tein levels of beef cattle and dairy cow manures are comparable to protein
levels in typical energy feeds (corn and sorghum grain) and silage and
forages (corn silage, and alfalfa, timothy and bermudagrass hay). The
protein levels of DPW and broiler litter are higher than energy feeds and
silage and forages; however, DPW is lower in digestible protein than broiler
litter.
Classifying animal manures as energy feeds also is inappropriate
(Figure 11). All animal manures are lower in metabolizable energy than
energy and protein feeds, and silages and forages. Metabolizable energy
levels of broiler litter and cattle manures for poultry have not been
reported. The metabolizable energy levels of silage and forages were
omitted from the comparison because they are not utilized in typical poultry
rations.
Classifying animal manures as comparable to silage and forages seems
to be appropriate (Figure 12). All animal manures are higher in fiber than
protein and energy feeds.
It is not proper to classify DPW fed to nonruminants on the basis of
ADF, NDF, or digestible protein, because these parameters are not pertinent
to monogastric nutrition. On the basis of the relationship between the
crude protein and amino acid content (Figure 5), DPW should not be classified
"as"a protein feed. The low metabolizable energy content of DPW to nonrumi-
nants, in contrast to typical energy feeds (Figure 11), also indicates that
DPW is not an energy feed. The classification of DPW as a feed for non-
ruminants is best summarized by Nesheim (1972) who suggested that it should
be considered as a source of minerals and perhaps some amino acids.
ESTIMATION OF ECONOMIC VALUE
The nutrient evaluations in the previous sections have established
a basis for estimating the economic value of DPW, broiler litter, and cattle
41
-------
LEGEND
100
(T
LU
h-
cr
Q
o
3*
o
80
60
40
• MANURES
I. DPW
2. BROILER LITTER
3. DAIRY COW
4. BEEF CATTLE
• SILAGE a FORAGES
5. CORN SILAGE
6. TIMOTHY HAY
7. ALFALFA HAY
8. BERMUOA6RASS HAY
O PROTEIN FEEDS
9. SOYBEAN MEAL
10. COTTONSEED MEAL
D ENERGY FEEDS
II. CORN, GRAIN
12. SORGHUM, GRAIN
20
R-0.92
Y« 1. 33(X)
11.8
Figure 8.
10 20 30 40
ADF, % OF DRY MATTER
50
Relationship Between ADF and: NDF Content for Conventional
Feedstuffs and Animal Manures
42
-------
100
80
I-
h-
-------
UJ
h-
o
a:
a.
50
UJ 40
£ 30
0
U.
O
^ 20
10
n CRUDE
PROTEIN
Y777\ DIGESTIBLE
'//A PROTEIN
PROTEIN DPW BROILER DAIRY BEEF
FEEDS LITTER COW CATTLE
MANURE MANURE
ENERGY SILAGE
FEEDS AND
FORAGES
Figure 10. Comparison of Crude and Digestible Protein Contents for Conventional Feedstuffs
and Animal Manures
-------
-------
cr
LU
or
o
or
LU
CD
LU
o
z>
or
o
30
20
10
1
SILAGE DPW BROILER DAIRY BEEF PROTEIN ENERGY
AND LITTER COW CATTLE FEEDS FEEDS
FORAGE MANURE MANURE
Figure 12. Comparison of Crude Fiber Contents for Conventional Feedstuffs and Animal Manures
-------
manures as feedstuffs. In that animal manures are not commercially bought
and sold, no market exists to establish monetary values for these manures
as feedstuffs. It is, however, possible to estimate the economic value of
these materials based on market prices of analogous conventional feedstuffs.
In the previous section, it has been established that DPW, broiler litter,
and dairy cow and beef cattle manures are more comparable to corn silage
and forages (alfalfa, timothy and bermudagrass hay) than to protein or energy
feeds on the basis of their nutrient characteristics when used as feedstuffs
for ruminants.
The economic value of the poultry and cattle manures was determined
by assuming that they were substituted for silage and forage in animal
rations and by calculating the economic value as the value of the substituted
silage or forage. For example, when broiler litter is substituted on a 1:1
basis for 20% of the corn silage component of a ruminant ration and animal
performance is not adversely affected, the economic value of the broiler
litter should be equivalent to the economic value of the corn silage
replaced.
The economic values of DPW, broiler litter, and dairy cow and beef
cattle manures used as feedstuffs for ruminants were estimated as follows:
1. The market cost of 26% 'dry matter corn silage was $15 per tonne
(1979). Its dry matter cost is calculated by dividing $15 by 26%,
which equals $58 per tonne.
2. The market cost of 90% dry matter hay was $72 per tonne (1979).
Its dry matter cost is calculated by dividing $72 by 90%, which
equals $80 per tonne.
3. On a nutrient basis, 1 unit of manure dry matter is equivalent
to 1 unit of corn silage or hay dry matter; therefore the values of
these manures on a dry basis when used as replacements for corn
silage and hay are $58 per tonne and $80 per tonne, respectively.
4. The "as collected" value of animal manures was calculated by
multiplying the dry matter economic value of the manures by the dry
matter content of the manure as excreted.
5. The following dry matter values were used to calculate the "as
collected" value: DPW = 85%, poultry manure as excreted = 25%, broiler
litter = 80%, dairy cow manure =15.5%, and beef cattle manure = 21%.
6. As an example, the calculation of the "as collected" value of
broiler litter is:
A. 1 tonne of broiler litter dry matter is equivalent to 1 tonne
of corn silage dry matter = $58.
1. The dry matter of broiler litter = 80%
2. The "as collected" value of broiler litter is calculated
by multiplying $58 by 80%, which equals $46 per tonne.
47
-------
B. 1 tonne of broiler litter dry matter is equivalent to 1 tonne
of hay dry matter = $80.
1. The dry matter of broiler litter = 80%
2. The "as collected" value of broiler litter is calculated
by multiplying $80 by 80%, which equals $64 per tonne.
The estimated value of animal manures when fed to ruminants (dry matter
basis) is $58 per tonne when equated to corn silage and $80 per tonne when
equated to hay (Table 17). The "as collected" values of the manures reflect
the differences in dry matter content of the manures as excreted and range
from a low of $9 per tonne for dairy cow manure to a high of $64 per tonne
for broiler litter.
The nutritive value of DPW, utilized as a feedstuff for laying hens,
was not clearly determined in the previous section. Its value has been
attributed to its mineral and amino acid content (Nesheim, 1972). Therefore,
the estimated economic value of DPW was compared to a feedstuff containing
phosphorus and amino acids (meat and bone meal). This estimated value does
not result from a 1:1 substitution because of the quantitative nutrient
differences between DPW and meat and bone meal. The following assumptions
and calculations were utilized to estimate the economic value of DPW as a
feedstuff for laying hens:
1. The market cost of 93% dry matter meat and bone meal is $250 per
tonne. Its dry matter cost is calculated by dividing $250 by 93%,
which equals $269 per tonne.
2. The ratio of the phosphorus content of meat and bone meal to that
of DPW is 2.3:1.
3. The'dry matter value of meat and bone meal ($269) was divided by
2.3 to yield a value for DPW of $117 per tonne of dry matter.
4. Because DPW contains 85% dry matter, the as collected value is
calculated by multiplying the $117 per tonne of dry matter by 85%
to yield a value of $99 per tonne.
5. Poultry manure as excreted contains 25% dry matter; therefore the
excreted value is calculated by multiplying $117 per tonne of dry
matter by 25% to yield a value of $29 per tonne.
These estimates of the economic value of DPW are probably an over-
estimate, because the amino acid to phosphorus ratio is higher for the meat
and bone meal than DPW. It does, however, provide a reference point.
In summary, these estimated economic values of animal manure suggest
that they have value as animal feeds. These values are, however, signifi-
cantly lower than some of the more costly feedstuffs, such as soybean meal
which has a market value of $216 per tonne (Feedstuffs, 1979). The value
of these manures as feedstuffs is generally higher than their value as
sources of plant nutrients (Table 18). It should be recognized that the
48
-------
TABLE 17. ESTIMATION OF THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF ANIMAL MANURES
Cost of Conventional
Animal
Manure
DPW
Broiler Litter
Dairy Cow
Beef Cattle
Species
Fed
Laying Hen
Ruminant
Ruminant
Ruminant
Ruminant
Conventional
Feedstuff
Comparable To
Meat and Bone Meal
Corn Silage
Hay
Corn Silage
Hay
Corn Silage
Hay
Corn Silage
Hay
Feedstuffs
Market
Cost
$250
15
72
15
72
15
72
15
72
per Tonne
Dry Matter
Cost
$269
58
80
58
80
58
80
58
80
Estimated Value of Manure
per
Dry Matter
Basis
$117
58
80
58
80
58
80
58
80
Tonne
As Collected
Basis
$99*(29t)
49*(14t)
68*(20t)
46*
64*
9§
12§
12**
17**
*Value based on 85% dry matter
tValue based on 25% dry matter
*Value based on 8Ci% dry matter
iValue based on 15.5% dry matter
**Value based on 21% dry matter
-------
TABLE 18. A COMPARISON OF THE FERTILIZER VALUE AND ESTIMATED ECONOMIC VALUE OF ANIMAL MANURES*
Animal Manure
Fertilizer Value,
Dollars per Tonnet
Estimated
Economic Value, Dollars per Tonne
Used as a Substitute For:
Meat £, Bone Meal Corn Silage Forages
Caged Laying Hens,
25% Dry Matter
12
29
14
20
01
o
Broiler Litter,
80% Dry Matter
Dairy Cow,
15.5% Dry Matter
32
46
64
12
Beef Cattle,
21% Dry Matter
12
17
* Feedstuff value from Table 17
t See appendix D
-------
economic values for manures as feedstuffs presented in this section are
only estimates. The true value of these materials as feedstuffs can only
be determined via animal response as identified in animal feeding trials.
51
-------
SECTION 6
NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF PROCESSED
ANIMAL MANURES
INTRODUCTION
This section evaluates the reported information on the nutrient
characteristics of aerobically and anaerobically digested manures, cattle
manure screenings, and Cereco products. The characteristics are compared
to conventional feedstuffs on a nutrient and economic basis in order to
identify the relative value of these other processed animal manures as
potential feedstuffs.
AEROBICALLY DIGESTED MANURES
Aerobic digestion is a biological treatment process that uses micro-
organisms to metabolize organic matter and synthesize microbial solids.
Oxidation ditches are an example of aerobic biological treatment systems
that have been used for the digestion of manures. Several studies have
demonstrated the value of including biologically processed oxidation ditch
mixed liquor (ODML) as a feedstuff.
The nutrient characteristics of aerobically digested animal wastes are
shown in Table 19. On the basis of the limited available data, swine ODML
is higher in crude protein than swine ODML settled solids. The amino acid
composition of swine and laying hen ODML is shown in Table 20.
ANAEROBICALLY DIGESTED MANURES
Anaerobic digestion has been used successfully to produce biogas
(methane) from animal wastes. However, the economic value of the methane
does not appear to offset the required capital investments (Jewell et_ al.,
1976; 1978; Hashimoto et_
-------
TABLE 19. NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF AEROBICALLY DIGESTED ANIMAL
WASTES
Composition of
Dry Matter, %
Dry matter
Crude Protein
Ash
Calcium
Phosphorus
Potassium
Magnesium
Sodium
Iron
Copper
Zinc
TON
ADF
NDF
Lignin
Laying Hen Swine Swine ODML Beef
ODML* ODMLt Settled Solids* Settled Solidsi
1.4 3 _ 20
29.5 49.0 27.7 15.2
40.5 41.7
3.33 1.6
2.69 3.83 1.5
4.14
1.49
2.75
0.55
0.007
0.115
48.5
21.6
56.1
6.3
* Martin et al_. (1976); Martin (1980)
t Harmon et_ a^. (1973, 1975)
* Harmon et al_. (1972)
§ Hegg et.al_. (1974, 1975)
53
-------
TABLE 20. AMINO ACID COMPOSITION OF AEROBICALLY DIGESTED ANIMAL WASTES
Amino Acid
Swine ODML*
Laying Hen ODML t
Arginine *
Cystine
Glycine
Histidine *
Leucine *
Isoleucine *
Lysine *
Methionine *
Phenylalanine *
Tyrosine
Valine *
Alanine
Proline
Glutamic Acid
Serine
Threonine £
Aspartic Acid
Tryptophan *
Total Amino Acids
Essential Amino Acids
% of total
1.28
2.29
0.47
2.79
1.49
1.42
0.77
.48
,17
,06
,83
,29
.06
.55
1.96
3.73
0.28
1.
1.
2.
2.
1,
5.
2.
32.92
14.0
42.5
Percent of Dry Matter
1.70
0.17
1.57
0.74
1.86
1.20
1.80
0.51
1.17
0.80
1.68
1.83
1.00
3.34
0.86
1.26
2.46
23.95
11.92
49.8
*Harmon et_ a^. (1973, 1975)
tJ. Martin, Jr., Unpublished data (1980)
^Essential Amino Acids
by centrifuging the effluent, has been suggested to have value as a sub-
stitute for cottonseed meal (Burford and Varani, 1978; Prior and Hashimoto,
1980).
Nutrient characteristics of the dried cake and wet cake are shown in
Table 21. The crude protein content of the wet cake is higher than the dried
cake content indicating that the wet cake may be a better source of protein
than the dried cake. The amino acid composition of the dried cake is shown
in Table 22. The total and essential amino acid content of the anaerobically
digested steer manure is higher than that of as collected beef cattle manure
(Table 15).
The nutrient characteristics of mesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic
digestor influent and effluent utilizing dairy manure as a substrate are
shown in Table 23. The effluent of both digesters is lower in digestible
carbohydrates, cellulose and hemicellulose, and higher in indigestible
components, lignin and ash, than the influent. This indicates that the
54
-------
TABLE 21. NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF ANAEROBICALLY DIGESTED STEER
MANURE (55°C)
Component Dried Cake (*) (t) Wet Cake (*)
Dry Matter (%) 92.0 23.0
Composition of Dry Matter, %
Crude Protein 18.2 24.5
Digestible Protein - 18.7
Ash 23.3 37.9
Calcium 0.69
Phosphorus 1.63
TON - 61.0
Metabolizable Energy, Meal/kg - 2.20
(*) Hashimoto et_ al_. (1978)
(t) Prior and Hashimoto (1980)
(*) Burford and Varani (1978)
TABLE 22. AMINO ACID COMPOSITION OF DRIED CAKE*'(Anaerobically Digested
Steer Manure, 55°C)
Percent of
Amino Acid Dry Matter
Arginine t
Glycine
Histidine t
Leucine t
Isoleucine t
Lysine t
Methionine t
Phenylalanine t
Tyro sine
Valine t
Alanine
Proline
Glutamic Acid
Serine
Threonine t
Aspartic Acid
Total Amino Acids
Essential Amino Acids
% of Total
0.53
0.76
0.24
1.10
0.62
0.62
0.15
0.53
0.28
0.68
0.82
0.69
2.09
0.43
0.57
1.23
11.34
5.04
44.4
* Prior and -Hashimoto (1980)
t Essential Amino Acids
55
-------
TABLE 23. NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF MCSOPHILIC AND THERMOPHILIC ANAEROBICALLY DIGESTED DAIRY COW MANURE
(Jewell et al., 1978).
Component
Dry Matter (%)
NDF
ADF
Cellulose
££ Hemicellulose
Lignin
Ash
Influent Effluent
8.00
j.
0
50.66
32.34
24.18
18.32
8.16
11.43
5.34
45.33
32.22
21.03
13.11
11.19
16.18
Influent Effluent
7.00
55.86
34.73
24.26
21.12
10.47
10.49
5.42
% of Dry Matter
52.40
35.72
22.62
16.68
13.10
13.01
* 12 day HRT, 35°C, completely mixed
t 5 day HRT, 60°C, completely mixed
-------
potential feedstuff value of the influent has been reduced by the digestion
process, and the effluent, apart from bacterial debris, could be considered
largely as nonnutritive residues (Van Soest and Robertson, 1978).
Nutrient characteristics of the thermophilic anaerobic digestion of
steer manure are shown in Tables 24 and 25. The crude protein and amino
acid contents of the effluent have been reported to be "enhanced" when
expressed on a dry matter basis (Prior and Hashimoto, 1980). It should be
noted that this "enhancement" results from a concentration effect only.
When the grams per liter of influent and effluent are determined, to account
for solids destruction that occurred during the thermophilic digestion, the
amino acid content of the effluent decreased by 9% and the crude protein con-
tent decreased by 2.5% (Tables 24 and 25).
CATTLE MANURE SCREENINGS
Mechanical separation converts manure slurries into solid and liquid
fractions. The benefits include: (1) liquid fractions that are easier to
handle and apply to the land; (2) use of the solid fraction as a potential
source of bedding, fertilizer, and possibly a feedstuff; and (3) primary
treatment of the slurry prior to storage reducing possible solids handling
problems.
Mechanical separators that have been used with manures include: (1)
rotary screens; (2) flat belts; (3) roller presses; and (4) vibrating
screens. The performance of these and other separators have been reviewed
in detail (Johnson et_ a^., 1974; Pain et^ al_., 1978; Wai lick et_ al_., 1978).
The process involves diluting the manure with water, pumping the slurry
onto a separator and obtaining a solid and a liquid fraction.
The characteristics of dairy cow and beef cattle manure screenings
are shown in Tables 26 and 27. Considerable variation exists between dairy
and beef cattle manure screenings. This variation can be the result of
different rations and any uncontrolled mibrobial degradation that might have
taken place before the screening process.
CERECO PROCESS PRODUCTS
The Cereco Process developed by Ceres Ecology of New York City is a
patented process for producing three products from animal waste (Seckler
and Harper, 1978). The process involves mixing ground animal wastes with
water and processing the slurry through a series of mixing and liquid-solid
separation tanks. The resultant products are: (1) Cereco silage (CI),
(2) Cereco protein (CII), and (3) Cereco soil conditioner (CIII).
The nutrient characteristics of CI are shown in Table 28. CI consists .
of undigested grain and fiber particles from the animal waste and has been
suggested as a substitute for corn silage (Ward et al., 1975).
57
-------
TABLE 24. .NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF THERMOPHILIC ANAEROBICALLY DIGESTED STEER MANURE, 55°C (Prior and
Hashimoto, 1980)*
01
00
Component
Dry Matter
NDF
ADF
Cellulose
Hemicellulose
Lignin
Gross Energy
Amino Acids
Crude Protein
Ash
%
Influent
7.
41.
15.
10.
26.
22
9,
5
3
5
2
3.1
4661f
14.
34.
9.
28
8
8
%
Effluent
3
of Dry Matter -
40
20
10
20
.98
.1
.0
.6
.1
6.4
4655f
23
61
17
.53
.6
.1
Influent
72,
29.
11.
7.
18,
2.
336.
10.
25.
7.
2
96
05
58
92
24
5*
32
13
08
i per liter
Ef:
39
15
7
4
8
2
185
9
24
6
fluent
.8
.96
.96
.22
.00
.55
.3*
.36
.52
.81
(-44
(-46
(-28
(-44
(-57
(+13
(-45
(-9.
(-2.
(-3.
.9)
.8)
.0)
• 4)
• 7)
.8)
.0)
3)
5)
8)
* HRT average of 5 and 12 days, 55°C
t kilocalories per gram dry matter
$ Megacalories per liter
§ Percent change
-------
TABLE 25. AMINO ACID COMPOSITION OF DIGESTER INFLUENT AND EFFLUENT (Steer
Manure, 55°C)*
Amino Acid
Arginine t
Glycine
Histidine t
Leucine t
Isoleucine t
Lysine t
Methionine t
Phenylalanine t
Tyros ine
Valine t
Alanine
Pro line
Glutaraic Acid
Serine
Threonine t
Aspartic Acid
Essential Amino Acids
% of Total
Influent
% of D.M.
.44
1.52
.27
1.11
.63
.77
.26
.62
.33
.76
2.07
.67
2.46
.48
.62
1.27
14.28
5.48
38.4
g/1
0.32
1.10
0.19
0.80
0.45
0.56
0.19
0.45
0.24
0.55
1.49
0.48
1.78
0.35
0.45
0.92
10.32
3.96
38.4
% of D.M
.96
1.38
.44
2.12
1.37
1.48
.49
1.26
.79
1.53
1.63
1.14
4.54
.83
1.09
2.48
23.53
10.74
45.6
Effluent
g/1
0.38
0.55
0.18
0.84
0.55
0.59
0.19
0.50
0.31
0.61
0.65
0.45
1.81
0.33
0.43
0.99
9.36
4.27
45.6
Prior and Hashimoto (1980)
Essential amino acids
59
-------
TABLE 26. NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY COW MANURE SCREENINGS
Composition of
Dry Matter, %
Crude Protein
Ether Extract
Crude Fiber
TON
ADF
NDF
Lignin
Ash
Calcium
Phosphorus
Potassium
Gross Energy, Kcal/kg
Number of
Mean Range Observations
9.9 6.9-12.5
1.6
38.8
55
46.7 42.1-52.0
74.4 66.1-85.0
11.1 10.0-12.0
6.8
1.45
0.26
0.99
4490
3
1
1
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
Source*
1,
3
3
3
1,
1,
1,
3
3
3
3
3
2,3
2,3
2,3
2,3
*Numbers refer to the following sources:
1 - Johnson et_ al. (1974)
2 - Johnson et_ a^. (1975b)
3 - Van Soest and Robertson (1980)
TABLE 27. NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF BEEF CATTLE MANURE SCREENINGS
Composition of
Dry Matter, %
Crude Protein
Ether Extract
Crude Fiber
NFE
NDF
Ash
Calcium
Phosphorus
Gross Energy, Kcal/kg
Dry Matter, %
Number of
Mean Range Observations
13.4 12.8-14.0
1.0
35.9 35.0-36.8
44.0
82.0
5.8 5.7-6.0
0.94
0.24
4600.
31.0 27.0-35.1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
Source*
1,2
1,2
1,2
1
1
1,2
2
2
1
1,2
*Numbers refer to the following sources:
1 - Richter and Shirley (1977)
2 - Schake et al. (1977)
60
-------
TABLE 28. NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF CERES PRODUCT CI - CERECO SILAGE
Composition of
Dry Matter, %
Crude Protein
Ether Extract
Crude Fiber
NFE
TDN
ADF
NDF
Lignin
Ash
Calcium
Phosphorus
Energy, Kcal/kg
Digestible Energy
Metabolizable Energy
Net Energy - Maintenance
- Growth
Dry Matter, %
Number
of
Mean Range Observations
9.4 9.0-10.3
1.3 0.8-1.8
27.7 27.5-28.0
42.0 33.7-50.4
60.1 60.0-60.2
45.4
73.9
18.0
9.8
0.50
0.15
2740
2220
1780
1510
42.2 34.4-50.0
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Source*
2,5,6
5,6
2,6
5,6
2,6
5
5
5
5
2
2
6
6
6
6
2,6
See appendix A
61
-------
The nutrient and amino acid composition of the CII is shown in Tables 29
and 30. CII is a dry pelleted protein feed that has been suggested as a
substitute for soybean meal and/or corn (Ward et_ aJL , 1975). CII has a high
ash content and may pose a problem in a continuously recycled system. The
amino acid content of CII is higher than that of corn, but lower than that
of conventional protein feeds. It has been reported that when CII is mixed
with soybean meal, a complementarity of lysine and sulfur containing amino
acjds occurs (Kienholz, et^ a.l_. , 1975). The CIII product consists of dirt,
plant residues and other indigestible materials in manure, contains 1%
nitrogen, 0.5% phosphorus and 0.5% potassium, and can be used to provide
humus and plant nutrients for household plants, gardens and agricultural
crops (Seckler and Ward, 1974).
COMPARISON TO AS COLLECTED OR DRIED MANURES
Although the crude protein content of aerobically digested swine ODML
settled solids is higher than as collected swine manure, the total and
essential amino acids and mineral contents are lower than that of as col-
lected swine manure (Table 31). The crude protein, total amino acids and
minerals of aerobically digested swine ODML are higher than as
collected swine manure (Table 31). Because of limited reported information
on the nutrient characteristics of aerobically digested swine manure, con-
clusive comparisons to as collected swine manure cannot be made.
Before any direct comparisons are made between laying hen ODML and
DPW, a mass balance should be conducted to account for the differences in
dry matter content. However, on the basis of the dry matter composition,
ODML is similar to 'DPW in phosphorus levels and has a higher crude protein
level. The ash content is increased due to the volatile solids destruction
that occurs during the digestion process (Table 32). Although the amino
acid content of ODML increased 135%, it could not be ascertained if enhance-
ment occurred because solids destruction for the ODML was not reported.
The nutrient characteristics of beef cattle ODML settled solids and
as collected beef cattle manure arereported in Table 33. The ODML settled
solids are lower in crude protein than as collected cattle manure, and there-
fore their nutritive value may be less. The crude protein and metabolizable
energy contents of the wet cake obtained from centrifuging anaerobic digester
effluent indicates that it should have a higher nutritive value than as
collected beef cattle manure (Table 33). The slightly increased crude protein
and slightly decreased ash content of the dried centrifuge cake indicates
that it should have nominally improved nutritive value when compared to as
collected cattle manure. The amino acid content of both the influent and
effluent from the anaerobic digester are higher than as collected cattle
manure. The nutrient characteristics of beef cattle screenings are similar
to as collected cattle waste, except that the ash content of the screenings
is much lower (Table 33) .
The Cereco Process has utilized manure from beef cattle, dairy cows
and swine for the production of CI, CII, and CIII products. Nutrient
characteristics reported in the previous section were for manure from feedlot
62
-------
TABLE 29. NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF CERES PRODUCT CII - CERECO PROTEIN
Composition of
Dry Matter, %
Crude Protein
Ether Extract
Crude Fiber
NFE
TON
ADF
NDF
Lignin
Ash
Calcium
Phosphorus
Metabolizable Energy,
Kcal/kg
Dry Matter. %
Number
of
Mean Range Observations Source*
26.5 21.6-31.6
5.4 2.8-11.5
3.1 0.6-5.8
32.1 23.8-39.6
68.0
15.3 13.5-17.1
17.1
5.9
30.5 26.6-33.6
3.5
1.3
2300
91.3 87.4-94.1
6
5
5
6
1
2
1
1
5
1
1
1
4
1,3,5,6,7
1,5,6,7
1,3,6,7
1,3,5,6,7
6
5,8
8
8
1,5,6,7
5
5
6
1,6,7
*See appendix A
63
-------
TABLE 30. AMINO ACID COMPOSITION OF CERES PRODUCT CII - CERECO PROTEIN*
Amino Acid
Percent of
Dry Matter
Arginine t
Cystine
Glycine
Histidine t
Leucine t
Isoleucine t
Lysine t
Methionine t
Phenylalanine t
Tyrosine
Valine t
Alanine
Proline
Glutamic Acid
Serine
Threonine t
Aspartic Acid
Total Amino Acids
Essential Amino Acids
% of Total
0.88
1.09
1.24
0.51
0.68
0.48
0.60
0.46
0.81
1.23
0.59
5.05
0.85
0.88
0.44
0.67
0.72
17.18
5.68
33.1
* Kienholz et_ al_. (1975)
tEssential Amino Acids
64
-------
TABLE 31. A COMPARISON OF THE NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF AEROBICALLY
DIGESTED SWINE MANURE AND AS COLLECTED SWINE MANURE
""""" T> 4= TV \A
Total
Dry Crude Amino
Manure Type Matter Protein Calcium Phosphorus Acids
ODML Settled
Solids* 100 28 1.60 1.50 6.4
ODML *
3 49 3.33 3.83 32.9
As Collected
Manure f 25 21 2.92 2.08 16.1
("); Tables 19 and 20
Essential
Amino Acids,
% of Total
42.8
42.5
48.9
rOrr et al_. (1971)
Robinson et_ a^l. (1971)
Harmon and Day (1975)
Holland et_ ad. (1975)
Overcash £t al. (1975)
Pearce (1975)
Kornegay et_ al. (1977)
TABLE 32. A COMPARISON OF THE NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF AEROBICALLY
DIGESTED CAGED LAYING HEN MANURE AND DRIED CAGED LAYING HEN
MANURE
Manure
Type
ODML *
DPW ''
Dry
Matter
1.4
85
Crude
Protein
40.5
28.0
Phosphorus
2.69
2.29
Ash
40.5
27.6
Total
Amino
Acids
23.95
10.23
Essential
Amino Acids,
% of Total
49.4
35.5
* Tables 19 and 20
t Tables 4, 5, and 6
65
-------
TABLE 33. A COMPARISON OP THE NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF PROCESSED BEEF CATTLE MANURE AND AS
COLLECTED BEEF CATTLE MANURE
ON
Manure
Type
ODML Settled Solids*
Anaerobic:
Dried Cake
Wet Cake
Influent
Effluent
Screenings
§
Cereco Products :
CI
CII
AsrCollected
Cattle Waste
Dry
Matter
20.0
92
23
7
4
31
42.2
91.3
21.1
Total Essential
Crude Amino Amino Acids,
Protein Calcium Phosphorus Ash Acids % of Total
15.2
18.2 0.69 1.63
24.5
34 . 8
61.6
13.4 0.94 0.24
9.4 0.50 0.15
26.5 3.50 1.30
16.5 1.71 0.80
_
23.3 11.34 44.4
37.9
9.8 14.28 38.4
17.1 23.53 45.6
5.8
9.8
30.5 17.2 33.1
29.2 6.85 42.2
---Kcal/kg---
Metabolizable
Energy
-
_
2200
-
-
-
2220
2300
1777
* Table 19
t Tables 21, 22, 24, and 25
* Table 27
§ Tables 28, 29, and 30
# Tables 13, 14, and 15
-------
steers; therefore the Cereco products were compared to as collected beef .
cattle manure (Table 33). The CI silage product is lower in crude protein
and ash than as collected cattle manure; however, its metabolizable energy
content is increased suggesting that the product's nutritive value should be
increased. The CII protein product is higher in crude protein, metabolizable
energy, amino acids and ash than as collected cattle manure, suggesting that
its nutritive value should also be increased.
Dairy cow manure screenings are lower in crude protein, ether extract
and ash than as collected dairy manure (Table 34). The lower ash content
is important because it should reduce potential palatability problems. The
increased ADF and NDF content and decreased crude protein and lignin may be
attributed to the type of separation that occurs.
TABLE 34. A COMPARISON OF THE NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF DAIRY COW
MANURE SCREENINGS AND AS COLLECTED DAIRY COW MANURE
Manure Crude Ether
Type* Protein Extract
Screen-
ings* 9.9 1.6
As
Collected
Dairy ,
Manure 15,3 3.0
Phos-
NDF ADF Lignin TON Ash Calcium phorus
74.4 46.7 11.1 55 6.8 1.45 0.26
-
66.0 43.7 14.4 45 13.4 3.88 0.65
* Table 26
t Tables 10 and 11
COMPARISON TO CONVENTIONAL FEEDSTUFFS
In Section 5 it was possible to show the relationship between animal
manures, protein, energy, and forage feedstuffs. Unfortunately, due to
insufficient information pertaining to the nutrient characteristics of
aerobically and anaerobically digested manures, manure screenings, and Cereco
products, such detailed comparisons cannot be presented. However, an attempt
will be made to indicate relationships between these other processed manures
and conventional feedstuffs, based upon the available nutrient characteristics.
Direct, comparison of nutrient characteristics of these processed
animal manures and conventional feedstuffs is confounded by differences in
their physical state, as reflected by their dry matter content (Figure 13).
Since swine and caged laying hen ODML and effluent from anaerobic digesters
are liquids, direct comparisons to conventional feedstuffs are misleading,
especially when expressed as a percent of the dry matter. Therefore, to
alleviate differences in dry matter content, the kilograms of a nutrient
per tonne of material as produced were calculated by the following equation:
67
-------
1001
80
Oo
H
Z
UJ
O
O
a:
UJ
i-
H
60|
40|
20|
Q
o
o
CO
o
o
UJ
\A
UJ
a:
a:
UJ
UJ
CO
UJ*
UJ
5
o
CD
O
-------
1000 kg of material as processed x dry matter (1)
(%) x nutrients (%. of dry matter) = kilograms of
nutrient per 1000 kg of material as processed
The amino acid content (% of dry matter) of swine and laying hen ODML
and anaerobic digester effluent are comparable to protein feeds (soybean
and cottonseed meal), while the anaerobic digestor dried centrifuged cake
and Cereco protein. (CII) are lower than protein feeds (Figure 14). When
the amino acid content of the other processed animal manures is expressed
in kilograms per tonne of material as processed, they are all lower than
protein feeds (Figure 14). Although the quantity of amino acids in swine
and laying hen ODML is nominal, they are high in essential amino acids,
which suggests they may be more analogous to a protein feed than to an
energy feed (Table 35).
The crude protein content (% of dry matter) of swine ODML and anaerobic
digestor effluent is higher than protein feeds, and all other processed
manures are comparable to energy feeds (corn and sorghum grain) or forages
(Figure 15). When the crude protein content is expressed in kilograms per
tonne of material produced, all other processed animal manures are lower
than protein feeds. However, the anaerobic digestor dried centrifuge cake
is comparable to forages, and beef cattle manure screenings and Cereco
silage (CI) are comparable to corn silage.
The ADF and NDF contents of dairy manure screenings and Cereco silage
(Figure 16) are comparable to forages, steer and dairy cow manure and
anaerobic digestor effluent appear to be comparable to corn silage, and
the Cereco protein is comparable to protein feeds. The metabolizable
energy and TON content of anaerobic digestor wet centrifuge cake, and
Cereco silage and protein are comparable to silage and forages (Figure 17).
The classifications of feedstuffs as protein feeds, energy feeds or
silages and forages should be based upon their protein, energy and fiber
contents (Ensminger and Olentine, 1978). Unfortunately, this information
is lacking for most of the other processed animal manures, except the
Cereco products. Based upon the protein, metabolizable energy and ADF and
NDF content of the Cereco silage, it can be classified as silage and forage
feedstuff. Due to the lower metabolizable energy and TON content of the
Cereco protein when compared to protein feeds, it should not be considered
a "classical" protein feed.
ESTIMATION OF ECONOMIC VALUE
The previous section failed to delineate conventional feedstuffs that
were comparable to these processed animal manures, with the exception of
Cereco silage, due to the lack of reported nutrient characteristics. The
nutrient characteristics of Cereco silage indicated that it should be
classified as a silage or forage; therefore its economic value can be
estimated on the basis of market prices of silage and forages. Utilizing
the same calculations and assumptions for estimating the economic value of
as collected manures (Section 5), Cereco silage estimated economic value is:
69
-------
30
D
UJ
UJ
20
10
1
VTA
f
PROTEIN ENERGY SWINE
FEEDS FEEDS ODML
HEN ANAEROBIC ANAEROBIC CERECO
ODML DRIED CAKE EFFLUENT PROTEIN
STEER MANURE STEER MANURE
500
375
250
125
O
Ul
O
§
CC
Q_
UJ
8 s
O LU
j__
_
-------
TABLE 35. A COMPARISON OF THE AMINO ACID CONTENTS OF SOYBEAN MEAL, GROUND
CORN, AND AEROBICALLY DIGESTED LAYING HEN AND SWINE MANURES
Araino Acid, %
of Dry Matter
Alanine
Arginine §
Aspartic Acid
Cystine
Glutamic Acid
Glycine
Histidine §
Hydro xypro 1 ine
Isoleucine §
Leucine §
Lysine §
Methionine §
Phenylalanine §
Pro line
Serine
Threonine §
Tryptophan §
Tyros ine
Valine §
Total Amino Acids
Essential Amino Acids
% of Total
Soybean Meal
44%*
2.76
3.81
7.34
0.79
10.46
2.74
1.44
n/a
2.77
4.31
3.43
0.67
2.80
3.28
2.91
2.22
0.66
1.73
2.76
56.88
24.87
43.7
Ground
Corn*
0.91
0.46
0.23
0.11
3.19
0
0.23
0.11
0.46
1.03
0.23
0.11
0.46
1.03
0.11
0.34
0.11
0.46
0.34
9.92
3.77
38.0
Aerobically
Laying Hen
Manure t
1.83
1.70
2.46
0.17
3.34
1.57
0.74
n/a
1.20
1.86
1.80
0.51
1.17
1.00
0.86
1.26
n/a
0.80
1.68
23.95
11.92
49.8
Stabilized,
Swine
Manure*
2.83
1.28
3.73
n/a
5.06
2.29
0.47
n/a
1.49
2.79
1.42
0.77
1.48
1.29
2.55
1.96
0.28
1.17
2.06
32.92
14.0
42.5
* Atlas of Nutritional Data on United States and Canadian Feeds, 1971
t J. Martin, Jr., Unpublished data (1980)
* Harmon et^ al_. (1973; 1975)
§ Essential Amino Acids
71
-------
60
Dec
£45
IL
0.0
gfe
So5 15
0
O
-
•
-
CO
S
UJ
u.
1 PROTEIN
^
\
//
\
CO
0
UJ
UJ
U. UJ
o
>- <
Ci) J
s w UJ-
Z 2
L
J
S
or
o
o
ru
o
o:
o
u.
I
_J
O
o
UJ
z
CO
»7
UJ
or
Z~
)
p
<
UJ
or
z
2 S
or 5
UJ
UJ
h-
or
Iti
CO K-
•.
UJ
*
^
»
CO
Q
UJ
v^
S t
Q
UJ
Q_
o
H
UJ
•^
Q ^
e
5
, c
^ Q
2 U
— — iQ <
0 2
<
Z
UJ
I I —
>
)
)
^
i
c
c
c
L
<
4
<
J
D
C
u
1
?
I
—
a
•y
1 ANAEROBIC EFFLUEf
-,
CO
Vi/
Z
s s
ID UJ
z tr
< 0
tr u.
uj H M
t
c
1
j
-
iooo y
Q
o
r/^ l^_
750 M°-
ro o«
-> u» O
o o
CRUDE PROTEIN £
-------
LEGEND
80
tr
LU
60
or
o
u.
o
40
20
U.
O
• PROCESSED ANIMAL WASTES
IA. BEEF CATTLE ANAEROBIC EFFLUENT
IB. DAIRY COW ANAEROBIC EFFLUENT
2. DAIRY MANURE SCREENINGS
3. CERECO SILAGE
4. CERECO PROTEIN
• SILAGE AND FORAGES
5. CORN SILAGE
6. TIMOTHY HAY
7. ALFALFA HAY
8. BERMUDAGRASS HAY
O PROTEIN FEEDS
9. SOYBEAN MEAL
10. COTTONSEED MEAL
D ENERGY FEEDS
II. CORN, GRAIN
12. SORGHUM, GRAIN
- D
D'2
II
R = 0.96
Ys I.46(X)
10 20 30 40
ADF, % OF DRY MATTER
50
Figure 16. Relationship Between ADF and NDF Content for Con-
ventional Feedstuffs and Processed Animal
Manures
73
-------
LEGEND
100
cr
LU
80
o 60
u.
o
40
20
• PROCESSED ANIMAL WASTES
I. ANAEROBIC DIGESTOR WET CAKE
2. CERECO SILAGE
3. CERECO PROTEIN
• SILAGE 8 FORAGES
4. CORN SILAGE
5. TIMOTHY HAY
6. ALFALFA HAY
7. BERMUOAGRASS HAY
O PROTEIN FEEDS
8. SOYBEAN MEAL
9. COTTONSEED MEAL
D ENERGY FEEDS
10. CORN, GRAIN
II. SORGHUM, GRAIN
R" 0.97
Y» 29.1 (X)- 4.6
OL^-L_
o ^!o
2.5 3.0 3.5
METABOLIZABLE ENERGY, Mcai/kg DRY MATTER
Figure 17. . Relationship Between Metabolizable Energy and TON
Content for Conventional Feedstuffs and Processed
Animal Manures
74
-------
'$58 per tonne (100% dry matter) when compared to the cost of corn sil-'
age.
$80 per tonne (100% dry matter) when compared to the cost of forages.
$24 per tonne (42% dry matter, as processed) when compared to the cost
of corn silage.
$34 per tonne (42% dry matter, as processed) when compared to the cost
of forages.
Estimation of the economic values of the remaining other processed animal
manures in terms of equivalent conventional feedstuffs could not be deter-
mined 'from the existing data.
75
-------
SECTION 7
NUTRITIVE AND ECONOMIC VALUE OF DRIED POULTRY
WASTE (DPW) BASED ON THE RESULTS OF FEEDING TRIALS
INTRODUCTION
Previous sections compared animal manures and processed animal
manures to analogous conventional feedstuffs on the basis of their reported
nutrient characteristics. Such comparisons do not tell the whole story
since they do not identify how the manures are actually digested and utilized
by animals. Animal feeding trials do identify the actual utilization of
manures as feedstuffs and permit their nutritive and economic values to
be determined on the basis of animal productivity (i.e., egg and milk pro-
duction, body weight gain, etc.).
This section attempts to identify the value of DPW as a feedstuff based
upon information from reported feeding trials. An extensive review of the
literature was conducted with emphasis placed on the period of 1969 to 1979.
Where appropriate, earlier studies also were reviewed and included in the
evaluation. A total of 56 studies were identified that involved the direct
utilization of DPW as a feedstuff. All of these studies were not utilized
in this evaluation. The following criteria were used to select studies
appropriate for detailed evaluation:
1. An accurate description of the experimental design was stated.
2. A positive control group was utilized.
3. Feedstuffs utilized in ration formulation were conventional and
the percentages utilized were reported.
4. Sufficient animal performance data were reported to enable nutritive
evaluation.
The following methodology was used to evaluate the nutritive informa-
tion in the evaluated studies. If the composition of the rations fed in the
various studies was reported in the original study, the data were utilized
as presented. If the composition was not reported but International Reference
Numbers were reported for the ingredients, the ration composition was cal-
culated using the data given in the Atlas of Nutritional Data on United States
and Canadian Feeds (1971). If only the ration ingredients were reported, the
ration composition was calculated using the data of Ensminger and Olentine
(1978).
As collected manure composition, if reported in the original study, was
utilized as presented. If as collected manure composition was not reported,
the mean raw waste composition reported in Sections 5 and 6 was utilized
76
-------
to calculate ration composition of diets containing manure.
Animal performance results, if not reported in the original study, were
calculated utilizing the following:
- feed consumption per animal per day
- average daily gain
Average daily gain = final bod^ ^t - initial body weight
6 ' 6 trial length
Egg Production per total eggs produced 1nn
Unit of time (%) = trial length x
Feed consumption _ feed intake per day x 12
per dozen eggs ~ egg production
Total feed consumption = conventional feedstuffs consumed +
manure consumed
Total manure consumed = feed consumption per animal per day x trial
length x percent of manure in ration (on a
dry matter basis)
Body weight gain = final body weight - initial body weight or
= average daily gain x trial length
Feed consumption _ feed consumption per cow per day
per kilogram milk milk production per cow per day
= egg °r milk Production Per day x trial
Initial body weights, if not reported, were estimated from NRC tables,
based upon feed intake per day, average daily gain and ration composition
(NRC, 1976; 1977; 1978). Age of caged laying hens, if not reported, was
estimated based upon production stage as described by Scott et al . (1976) .
The following methodology was used to identify the economic costs and
benefits associated with the use of DPW as a feedstuff. Feed ingredient
costs shown in -Appendix E were used to compute total ration costs in the
evaluated studies. No cost was assumed for the manure. Ration costs were
computed by multiplying the percent of feedstuff in a ration by its cost,
summing all ingredient costs and converting to cost per tonne.
77
-------
Costs were calculated as follows:
Feed costs per ,. , . . n ,
, = feed intake per animal per day x ration cost
animal per day
Feed kilograms of feed
, ., = TT: B :—: r~~r— x ration cost
costs per kilogram kilograms body weight
weight gain.
Feed costs per , .. , , , , ...
= kilograms of feed per dozen eggs x ration cost
dozen eggs & r
Total feed costs = feed cost per animal per day x trial length
Steer costs and selling prices were based upon a market price of $154.32
per 100 kg live body weight (March 1979). Heifer costs and selling prices
of $165.35 per 100 kg live body weight (March 1979). Swine costs and selling
prices were based upon a market price of $81.50 per kg live body weight
(March 1979). The egg selling price was based upon a wholesale price of
$0.74 per dozen for washed, candled, graded, cartoned large white eggs
(March 1979). This egg price was discounted $0.20 to reflect the price that
a producer would receive for unwashed, ungraded, uncandled large white eggs
packed in 30 dozen cases.
Revenues were calculated as follows:
Egg sales = total dozens of eggs produced x $0.54
Milk value = total kilograms of milk produced x $0.242 (based on
$0.242 per kilogram of milk - March 1979)
Economic return = animal selling price minus animal cost minus total
feed cost
The estimates of the gross monetary value of manures listed as feedstuffs
was based on the difference between the economic returns in terms of dollars,
for: a) the control diet which contained no manure, and b) the experimental
diets or rations which contained manure. This difference was then divided
by the quantity of manure consumed to the gross monetary value determined,
dollars per tonne of manure consumed. As previously noted, it was assumed
in calculations of feed costs that manure had no cost.
78
-------
In the past, the gross value of animal manures has been calculated on
the basis of feed cost savings only. This practice is misleading. Calculat-
ing the gross value of animal manures on the basis of differences in economic
returns and relating this to the amount of manure consumed is a better method
because it reflects actual animal performance.
The theoretical response of manure ration content, expressed as a
percentage of the control, is shown in Figure 18. If the nutrient value of
the manure is greater than the nutrient value of the feedstuff replaced,
there should be an increase in animal performance, such as egg production,
milk production, weight gain, etc. If the nutrient value of the manure is
equal to that of the feedstuff replaced, there should be no change in animal
performance; and if the nutrient value of the manure is lower than the feed-
stuff replaced, animal performance should decrease.
In most of the evaluated feeding trials, more than one feedstuff was
replaced by manure. In addition, the replaced feedstuffs were not the
analogous feedstuffs indicated in Sections 5 and 6. The actual animal res-
ponse also is confounded by interactions between the ration metabolizable
energy, protein and minerals, which become critical as the manure content
increases. Therefore, the actual animal performance response of manures used
as feedstuffs may be more like that shown in Figure 19. Animal performance
may increase if the nutrient content of the manure is greater than the
nutrient value of the feedstuff replaced. However, as the manure content
increases, the metabolizable energy and/or protein content of the ration
becomes limited, the mineral content increases, and animal performance will
decrease.
In this report, the determination of "optimum" and maximum levels of
incorporating manure into a ration is based upon a graphical presentation
of the feeding trial results and a calculation of a linear regression of
what appeared to be the straight line portion of the results (Figure 19).
The identified -maximum level of incorporation, statistically, was where the
regression line crossed the "x" axis; nutritionally, It is the level that _
will neither enhance or adversely affect animal performance as compared to
the controls. In all subsequent figures, regression equations Tising the
actual reported data were used to identify the maximum level,
The "optimum" level is the manure ration content that would provide the
highest level of animal performance. If enough data were available, the
"optimum" level would be readily and accurately defined. However, in most
feeding trials only limited data were available and the identified "optimum"
level is a subjective estimate made by the authors.
A summary of the evaluated feeding trials, the composition of the
diets and manure utilized in these studies, and methods of handling or
processing the manure prior to feeding is presented in Appendix G.
DPW FED TO LAYING HENS
The utilization of dried poultry waste (DPW) as a feedstuff to laying
79
-------
NUTRITIONAL VALUE OF MANURE EQUAL
TO FEEDSTUFF REPLACED
MANURE RATION CONTENT
Figure 18. Theoretical Animal Response When Animal Manures Are
Used as Substitutes for Conventional Feedstuffs
80
-------
CO
Ul
01
o
or
H-
2
O
O
UJ
X
I-
(T
o
LL.
O
OPTIMUM
NUTRITIONAL
LEVEL
REGRESSION
RELATIONSHIP
MAXIMUM
NUTRITIONAL
LEVEL
MANURE RATION CONTENT
Figure 19. Actual Animal Response When Animal Manures Are Used
as Substitutes For Conventional Feedstuffs
81
-------
hens has been investigated in 23 studies. Only nine studies fulfilled the
selection criteria and were evaluated (Appendix G, Table G-l). In these
nine studies, DPW was utilized as a substitute for: (a) an energy feed
(corn); (b) protein and energy feeds (soybean meal and corn or sorghum);
or (c) a percentage of all control diet ingredients, with or without energy
supplementation utilizing lard or soybean oil.
The composition of the control and DPW diets is shown in Table G-2.
The composition of DPW and the sources and methods of dehydration are
shown in Tables G-3 and G-4. The crude protein content of the DPW diets
was believed to not accurately reflect the availability of nitrogen in
the diet (Swanson, 1975); therefore, the "available protein content" was
calculated using the amino acid content of DPW (10.23% dry matter basis).
When DPW was utilized as a substitute for protein or energy feeds, both the
available protein and metabolizable energy levels of the diets decreased in
a direct relationship with DPW diet content. However, when DPW was utilized
as a substitute for a portion of the diet and the resultant diet was sup-
plemented with lard or soybean oil, only the available protein content de-
creased in a direct relationship with DPW content.
The performance of laying hens fed various levels of DPW should be
predictable by utilizing the composition of the diets (Table G-2). It can
be hypothesized that as the diet metabolizable energy (ME) levels, available
protein levels (P) and the ME/P ratios decrease, feed consumption will in-
crease, and efficiency, productivity and economic benefits will decrease in
a direct relationship with DPW content.
Animal Performance Evaluation
The performance of laying hens (feed consumption per day, per dozen
eggs, total feed consumed, and egg production) fed DPW as a feedstuff is
shown in Table 36. Some of these results are expressed as a percent change
from the control and are shown in Table 37.
The effects of substituting 12.5 and 25% DPW or 22.5% DPW for similar
amounts of corn in the basal diets were investigated by Flegal et_ al. (1972)
and Nesheim (1972). All feed consumption parameters increased and product-
ivity decreased in the studies feeding 22.5 and 25% DPW. Conversely, hens
fed 12.5% DPW decreased feed consumption and increased productivity. The
poor, performance of the 22.5 and 25% DPW fed hens might be related to their
decreased dietary metabolizable energy levels (Table G-2).
The effects of utilizing 10 to 40% DPW as a substitute for soybean
meal and corn or sorghum grain in the basal diets were investigated by
Quisenberry and Bradley (1969), Flegal and Zindel (1970; 1971) and Biely
et_ al. (1972). Evaluation of these investigations is confounded because
of conflicting animal performance when similar levels of DPW were fed.
Generally, the feed consumption per day and total feed consumed of the 10%
DPW hens was comparable to that of controls. However, feed consumption
per dozen eggs decreased because of the increased egg production of the DPW
fed birds. Increasing the DPW content to 20% resulted in all feed consump-
tion parameters increasing, while productivity was variable. Increasing the
82
-------
TABLE 36. PERFORMANCE OF LAYING HENS FED DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF
Source
Quisenberry
and Bradley
(1969)
F legal and
Zindel
(1970)
F legal and
Zindel
(1971)
Hodgetts
(1971)
Pisone and
Begin
(1971)
Diet
Control
10% DPW
20% DPW
Control
10% DPW
20% DPW
30% DPW
Control
10% DPW
20% DPW
40% DPW
Control
10.45% DPW
Control
5% DPW +
lard
10% DPW +
lard
20% DPW +
lard
30° DPW +
lard
Feed
consumption
per hen-day
0.106
0.105
0.109
0.113
0.113
0.119
0.124
0.105
0.107
0.109
0.111
0.131
0.124
0.118
0.125
0.117
0.112
0.119
Feed Total
consumption feed
per doz eggs consumption
1.752
1.657
1.806
2.110
1.910
2.080
2.460
1.952
1.961
2.084
2.347
2.894
2.700
2.017
2.027
1.983
2.021
2.159
35.616
35 . 280
36.624
15.707
15.707
16.541
17.236
38.430
39.162
39.894
40.626
47.815
45.260
26.432
28.000
26.208
25.088
26.656
Total
DPW
consumed
3.528
•7.325
1.571
3.308
5.171
3.916
7.979
16.250
4.730
_
1.400
2.621
5.018
7.997
Egg
production
(%H-D)
72.3
76.3
72.6
64.0
71.1
68.7
60.3
64.7
65.4
62.8
57.0
54.4
54.9
70.2
74.0
70.8
66.5
66.1
Total eggs
produced
(dozens)
20.244
21.364
20.328
7.413
8.236
7.958
6.985
19.733
19.947
19.154
17.385
16.547
16.700
13.104
13.813
13.216
12.413
12.339
(continued)
-------
TABLE 36. (continued)
Source
Flegal
et al.
(1972)
Biely
et al.
(1972)
Nesheim
(1972)
Trackulchang
and Balloun
(1975)
Feed
consumption
Diet per hen-day
Control
12.5% DPW
25% DPW
Control
25% DPW
Control
22.5% DPW
Control
12.5% DPW +
SBO*
25% DPW +
SBO*
0.096
0.095
0.108
0.112
0.151
0.104
0.118
0.101
0.099
0.097
Feed . Total
consumption feed
per doz eggs consumption
1.796
1.683
1.990
1.780
2.500
1.360
1.620
1.750
1.782
1.838
39.552
39.140
44.496
11.200
15.100
8.008
9.086
15.150
14.850
14.550
Total Egg
DPW production
consumed (%H-D)
64.4
4.892 67.8
11.124 65.0
75.6
1.510 72.4
91.7
2.044 89.0
69.2
1.856 66.8
3.638 63.4
Total eggs
produced
(dozens)
22.111
23.278
22.317
6.300
6.033
5.884
5.711
8.650
8.350
7.925
Soybean oil
-------
TABLE 37. PERFORMANCE OF LAYING HENS FED DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF (percent change from the control)
oo
tn
Source
Quisenberry and
Bradley (1969)
Flegal and Zindel
(1970)
Flegal and Zindel
(1971)
Hodgetts (1971)
Pisone and Begin
(1971)
Flegal et al.
(1972)
Biely et^ ai_. (1972)
Nesheim (1972)
Trackulchang and
Balloun (1975)
Feed Consumption
Per Hen-Day and Total
Diet Feed Consumed
10% DPW
20% DPW
10% DPW
20% DPW
30% DPW
10% DPW
20% DPW
40% DPW
10.45% DPW
5% DPW § Lard
10% DPW § Lard
20% DPW $ Lard
30% DPW S Lard
12.5% DPW
25% DPW :
25% DPW
22.5% DPW
12.5% DPW S, SBO*
25% DPW S SBO*
- 0.9
+ 2.8
0
+ 5.3
+ 9.7
+ 1.9
+ 3.8
+ 5.7
- 5.3
+ 5.9
- 0.8
- 5.1
+ 0.8
- 1.0
+ 12.5
+ 34.8
+ 13.5
- 2.0
- 4.0
Feed Consumption
Per Dozen Eggs
- .5.4
+ 3.1
- 9.5
- 1.4
+ 16.6
+ 0.5
+ 6.8
+ 20.2
- 6.7
+ 0.5
- 1.7
+ 0.2
+ 7.0
- 6.3
+ 10.8
+40.4
+ 19.1
+ 1.8
+ 5.0
Percent Egg
Production and Total
Dozens of Eggs Produced
+ 5.5
+ 0.4
+ 11.1
+ 7.3
- 5.8
+ 1.1
- 2.9
-11.9
+ 0.9
+ 5.4
+ 0.9
- 5.3
- 5.8
+ 5.3
+ 0.9
- 4.2
- 2.9
- 3.5
- 8.4
"Soybean oil
-------
DPW content further (25, 30, and 40%) resulted in increased feed consump-
tion and decreased productivity. The poor performance of the laying hens
fed diets containing 20 to 40% DPW might be related to their reduced dietary
metabolizable energy levels.
The influence of substituting all dietary ingredients with 5 to 30%
DPW and equalizing dietary metabolizable energy levels by lard or soybean
oil supplementation was investigated by Pisone and Begin (1971) and
Trackulchang and Balloun (1975). Feed consumption per hen-day for all DPW
fed birds was generally comparable to that of controls. However, efficiency
and productivity decreased in a direct relationship with increasing DPW
content. The poor performance by hens fed high levels of DPW might be
related to their decreased dietary available protein contents (Table G-2).
The effect of substituting 10.5% DPW for a similar content of all
dietary ingredients (without energy supplementation) was investigated by
Hodgetts (1971). All feed consumption parameters decreased and productivity
increased for the DPW fed birds. The metabolizable energy content of the
DPW diet was slightly lower than the control diet (Table G-2). However,
this did not adversely affect bird performance.
The animal performance evaluation of utilizing DPW as a feedstuff for
laying hens revealed interesting correlations. When DPW is substituted for
typical feedstuffs, the maximum level of incorporation that will not adversely
affect productivity and efficiency is about 20 and 13.7%, respectively
(Figure 20). Supplementing DPW diets with lard or soybean oil reduces the
maximum levels of incorporation of DPW that will not adversely affect pro-
ductivity and efficiency to about 9.75 and 10.75%, respectively (Figure 21).
Economic Value Estimation
The economic estimation of the value of DPW as a feedstuff for laying
hens (based on feed costs, revenue from egg sales, and economic return) is
shown in Table 38. Some of these economic results are expressed as a percent
change from the controls in Table 39.
Studies substituting DPW for energy and/or protein feedstuffs (i.e.,
corn and soybean meal) or for a percentage of all basal ingredients were
evaluated together because of their similar animal performance results
(Quisenberry and Bradley, 1969; Flegal and Zindel, 1970, 1971; Hodgetts,
1971; Flegal e_t a^. , 1972; Nesheim, 1972; Biely et^ alL , 1972). Feed costs
per hen-day and per dozen eggs decreased when DPW was incorporated into the
various laying hen diets. However, the magnitudes of the reductions were
not similar to the reductions in ration costs per tonne. This difference
is attributed to increased feed consumption and decreased productivity
as the dietary DPW content increased. Generally, when DPW content was
10-12.5%, all feed costs were similarly reduced. However, when DPW content
was greater than 12.5%, decreases in feed costs per hen-day and per dozen
eggs were less than the decreases in ration cost per tonne.
Typically, a dietary DPW content of 10-12.5% resulted in increased egg
production and projected revenue from egg sales as compared to control
86
-------
LEGEND
• EGG PRODUCTION
• FEED PER DOZEN EGGS
+ 30 -J
20-1
o
o
o
oc
u.
UJ
o
+ 10-
0-
-10-
-20
FEED PER DOZEN EGGS
R = 0.74
.I6(X)- 16.0
EGG PRODUCTION
R=-0.8I
Y»-0.54(X)+ H.O
10 20 90
DPW DIET CONTENT, %
40
50
Figure 20. Relationships Between DPW Diet Content (without lard or soybean
oil. supplementation), Feed Consumption Per Dozen Eggs,
and Egg Production For Laying Hens Fed DPW
87
-------
f 10-1
o
+ 5-
-5-
LEGEND
• EGG PRODUCTION
• FEED PER DOZEN EGGS
FEED PER DOZEN EGGS
R=0.83
Y = 0.2800-27
EGG PRODUCTION
R= -0.88
Y = -0.47(X)45.2
-10-
10 20
DPW RATION CONTENT, %
30
Figure 21. Relationships Between DPW Diet Content(with lard
or soybean oil supplementation), Feed Consumption
Per Dozen Eggs, and Egg Production For Laying Hens
• Fed DPW.
-------
TABLE 38. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR LAYING HENS (dollar)
00
to
Source
Quisenberry
and Bradley
(1969)
Flegal and
Zindel (1970)
Flegal and
Zindel (1971)
Hodgetts
(1971)
Pisone and
Begin (1971)
Diet
Control
10% DPW
20% DPW
Control
10% DPW
20% DPW
30% DPW
Control
10% DPW
20% DPW
40% DPW
Control
10.45% DPW
Control
5% DPW §
Lard
10% DPW §
Lard
20% DPW §
Lard
30% DPW. a
Lard
Ration
Cost
Per
Tonne
122.80
107.40
92.10
134.60
120.02
109.50
99.00
137.20
123.50
113.10
90.90
130.10
116.50
132.30
128.80
125.60
122.10
118.90
Feed
Cost
Per H-DT
.0130
.0113
.0100
.0152
.0136
.0130
.0123
.0144
.0132
.0123
.0101
.0170
.0144
.0156
.0161
.0147
.0137
.0141
Feed 'Cos t
Per Dozen
Eggs
0.2152
0.1780
0.1664
0.2840
0.2292
0.2278
0.2435
0.2678
0.2422
0.2357
0.2133
0.3765
0.3146
0.2668
0.2611
0.2491
0.2468
0.2567
Total
Feed
Cost.
4.368
3.797
3.360
2.113
1.890
1.807
1.710
5.270
4.831
4.502
3.697
6.205
5.256
3.494
3.606
3.293
3.069
3.158
Revenue
From
Egg
Sales
10.93
11.54
10.98
4.00
4.45
4.30
3.77
10.66
10.77
10.34
9.39
8.94
9.02
7.08
7.46
7.14
6.70
6.66
Economic
Return
6.56
7.74
7,62
1.89
2.56
2.49
2.06
5.39
5.94
5.84
5.69
2.73
3,76
3.59
3.85
3.85
3.63
3.57
Gross
Value per
Tonne of DPW
334.47
144.71
,
426.48
181.38
32.88
T
140.45
56.40
18.46
_
217.76
_
185.71
99,20
7,97
- 2.50
continued
-------
TABLE 38. (continued!)
VD
O
Source
Flegal et al.
(1972)
Biely et al .
(1972)
Nesheim
(1972)
Trackulchang
and Balloun
(1975)
Diet
Control
12.5% DPW
25% DPW
Control
25% DPW
Control
22.5% DPW
Control
12.5% DPW 1
SBO*
25% DPW £
SBO*
Ration
Cost
Per
Tonne
134.90
121.60
108.30
139.10
98.40
131.90
103.90
137.50
j
132.10
126.70
Feed
Cost , t
Per H-D
.0130
.0116
.0117
.0156
.0149
.0137
.0123
.0139
.0131
.0123
Feed Cost
Per Dozen
Eggs
0.2423
0.2047
0.2155
0.2476
0.2460
0.1794
0.1683
0.2406
0.2354
0.2329
Total
Feed
Cost
5.356
4.779
4.820
1.56
1.49
1.055
0.947
2.085
1.965
1.845
Revenue
From .
Egg
Sales
11.94
12.57
12,05
3.47
3.26
3.18
3.08
4.67
4.58
4.28
Economic
Return
6.58
7.79
7.23
1.91
1.77
2.12
2.13
2.58
2.61
2.43
Gross
Value
DPW/Tonne
247.34
58,43
_
•r 92.72
_
4.89
_
16.16
- 41,23
*Soybean oil
tJH-D = Hen Days
-------
TABLE 39. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR LAYING HENS
(Percent change from the control)
Source
Quisenberry and
Bradley (1969)
F legal and
Zindel (1970)
F legal and
Zindel (1971)
Hodgetts (1971)
Pisone and
Begin (1971)
Flegal et al .
(1972)
Biely et al
(1972)
Nesheim (1972)
Trackulchang and
Balloun (1975)
Feed Cost
Diet Per Tonne
10% DPW
20% DPW
10% DPW
20% DPW
30% DPW
10% DPW
20% DPW
40% DPW
10.45% DPW
5% DPW $ Lard
10% DPW $ Lard
20% DPW § Lard
30% DPW S Lard
12.5% DPW
25% DPW
25% DPW
22.5% DPW
12.5% DPW § SBO*
25% DPW § SBO*
-12.5
-25.0
-10.8
-18.6
-26.4
-10.0
-17.6
-33.7
-10.4
- 2.6
- 5.1
- 7.7
-10.1
- 9.9
-19.7
-29.3
-21.2
- 3.9
- 7.9
Feed Cost Per Feed Costs
Hen-Day and Total Per Dozen
Feed Costs Eggs
-13.1
-23.1
-10.5
-14.5
-19.1
- 8.3
-14.6
-29.9
-15.3
+ 3.2
- 5.8
-12.2
- 9.6
-10.8
-10.0
- 4.5
-10.2
- 5.8
-11.5
-17.3
-22.7
-19.3
-19.8
-14.3
- 9.6
-12.0
-20.4
-16.4
- 2.1
- 6.6
- 7.5
- 3.8
-15.5
-11.1
- 0.6
- 6.2
- 2.2
- 3.2
Revenue
From Egg
Sales
+ 5.6
+ 0.4
+11.2
+ 7.5
- 5,7
+ 1.0
- 3.0
-11.9
+ 0.9
+ 5.4
+ 0.8
- 5.4
T 5T9
+ 5.3
+ 0.9
- 6,1
- 3.1
- 1.9
- 8.4
Economic
Return
+18,0
+16.2
+35.4
+31.7
+ 9.0
+10.2
+ 8.3
+ 5.6
+37,7
+ 7.2
+ 7.2
+ 1.1
- 0.6
+18;4
+ 9.9
- 7.3
- 0,5
+ 1,2
- 5.8
^Soybean oil
-------
groups. As diet DPW content increased beyond this level, egg production and
projected revenue decreased significantly (R=-0.80) as DPW content increased.
At dietary DPW levels of 20% or more projected revenues from egg sales were
generally less than those for controls.
The economic return, which accurately reflects feed costs and product-
ivity, similarly decreased as DPW content increased. The increased economic
return for the birds fed 10-12.5% DPW reflects both feed cost savings and
increased revenue from egg sales, whereas the increased returns for the 20%
DPW groups generally reflects feed cost savings. The diminished economic
return for DPW diets containing more than 20% DPW reflects feed cost savings
only, which were largely offset by reductions in revenues from egg sales.
The gross estimated value of DPW decreased (R = -0.85) as the DPW
content increased. This value is highest for the 10-12.5% DPW diets
($279.79). However there is considerable variation in the individual gross
values ($140.45 to $426.48). Increasing the DPW diet content to 20% dim-
inished the gross value ($127.50), and when diet content exceeded 20%, the
gross value became minimal ($3.24).
The supplementation of DPW diets with lard or soybean oil (Pisone and
Begin, 1971; Trackulchang and Balloun, 1975) reduced all feed cost parameters,
but to a lesser degree than unsupplemented DPW diets. This difference is
attributed to the high costs of lard and soybean oil ($408.96 and $655.88
per tonne, respectively). Results of the economic assessment of supplemented
DPW diets are comparable to unsupplemented DPW diets previously evaluated.
The maximum level of incorporating supplemented DPW into laying hen rations,
however, is 10% rather than the 10-12.5% level for unsupplemented DPW diets.
This economic assessment of the practice of utilizing DPW as a feedstuff
for laying hens has revealed several correlations. When DPW (without lard
or soybean oil supplementation) is substituted for typical feedstuff in a
laying hen ration, the maximum level of DPW incorporation that will not
adversely affect egg revenues is 20% and for supplemented DPW diets the
maximum level is about 16% (Figure 22). Similarly, when DPW is added to
laying diets without lard or soybean oil supplementation, the maximum
level of incorporation that will adversely affect the economic return is
about 35%, and for supplemented DPW diets the maximum level is about 16%
(Figure 23). Therefore, the maximum economic level of incorporating DPW
into unsupplemented laying hens diets is 20-35%, and 12-16% for supplemented
diets.
Discussion
This evaluation of animal performance indicates that DPW is not of
value as a protein or energy supplement in laying hen diets, especially
when it is incorporated at high levels. DPW could be considered as a
source of calcium and phosphorus, and possibly some amino acids, but this
is highly dependent upon what conventional feedstuff is replaced. The maxi-
mum animal response level of incorporating DPW into laying hen diets is
about 20%, which is similar to the 20-25% levels reported by Ousterhout and
Presser (1971), Young and Nesheim (1972) and Blair (1974). The "optimum"
92
-------
+ 30-
LE6ENO
• WITHOUT SUPPLEMENTATION
• WITH SUPPLEMENTATION
+ 20-
o
I
-HO -
0-
r WITHOUT
'R= -0.60
Y = -0.67(X)+ 21.7
-10 -
WITH
R =-0.86
Y =-0.4600*7 2
-20
10 . 20 30
DPW DIET CONTENT, %
40
50
Figure 22. Relationship Between DPW Diet Content and
Revenue From Egg Sales For Laying Hens Fed
DPW
93
-------
1 2
2 (-
< Z
23
LlJ
(T O
LU Z
Q. <
Q O
UU
4- 60
+ 40-
-20
R = 0.70
Y = 1.57 (X)-6.45
15 30
OPW RATION CONTENT, %
45
Figure 25. Relationship Between DPW Diet Content and Economic
Return for Laying Hens Fed DPW
94
-------
animal response level is about 10-12.5%.
The economic assessment of utilizing DPW as a feedstuff in laying hen
diets clearly indicates the fallacy of estimating the value of animal
manures based upon savings in diet costs, because such estimates do not
reflect differences in animal performance. Calculating the value of animal
manures on the basis of differences in economic returns and relating this
to the amount of manure consumed is a better method because it reflects
actual animal performance. The maximum economic level of incorporating DPW
into laying hen diets is about 20-35%. The "optimum" economic level may be
the same as the "optimum" animal response level (10-12.5%), on the basis of
calculated gross value of DPW at those levels (Table 40).
TABLE 40. MAXIMUM AND OPTIMUM LEVELS OF INCORPORATING DPW INTO LAYING HEN
DIETS
Maximum "Optimum" Maximum "Optimum"
Animal Response Animal Response Economic.,. Economic,
Level, % * Level, % * Level, %"' Level, %T
Manure
DPW
14-20
10-12.5
20-35
10-12.5
DPW §
Supplementation
3-11
16
* Figures 20 and 21
t Figures 22 and 23
$ Lard or soybean oil
The gross value of DPW does not reflect its actual value because col-
lection, storage, processing (drying), transportation, mixing and market-
ing costs must be subtracted. The actual value of DPW as a feedstuff to
laying hens is much lower than the gross value. Forsht et_ al_. (1974)
estimated the actual value to be $21-35 per tonne, depending upon geograph-
ical location, and Quisenberry and Bradley (1969) estimated the actual value
to be $80 per tonne when utilized at the 10% level. The calculated gross
values of DPW probably do not reflect its value today. Formulation of
laying hen diets has changed in the past decade.
DPW FED TO STEERS
(
Feeding DPW to ruminants has been a subject of interest for several years
because of the ability of ruminants to utilize undigested nutrients from the
waste of monogastrics. DPW has been utilized as a protein supplement for
growing and wintering cattle, and as a protein source for finishing cattle.
This section evaluates the feeding of DPW to growing and finishing steers.
95
-------
The utilization of DPW as a feedstuff to growing and finishing steers
has been investigated in 15 studies. Only five studies fulfilled the
selection criteria and were evaluated (Table G-5). In the evaluated studies,
DPW was utilized as a substitute for: (1) a protein feed (soybean meal);
(2) protein and energy feeds (soybean meal and corn); or (3) a percentage
of all control diet ingredients.
The composition of the rations utilized in the studies is shown in
Table G-6. The crude protein content of rations containing DPW was believed
not to accurately reflect nitrogen availability; therefore, digestible
protein levels were calculated using the digestible protein content of DPW
as 12.6% (Section 5). The incorporation of DPW into rations for growing
and finishing steers generally resulted in a decrease in digestible protein,
metabolizable energy, ether extract and TON, and an increase in ash, cal-
cium and phosphorus content. The composition of DPW utilized in the evaluated
studies, and sources and methods of dehydration are shown in Tables G-7 and
G-8. The extreme range in protein and ash content should be noted and is
further evidence that the composition of DPW should be determined for each
study prior to initiation of a feeding trial.
Animal Performance Evaluation
The performance of finishing steers (initial and final body weight,
weight gain, average daily gain and feed consumption) fed DPW as a feedstuff
is shown in Table 41. Some of these results are expressed as a percent
change from the control and are shown in Table 42.
The effects of replacing the soybean meal in the control ration with
5% DPW was studied by Long et al. (1969) . Feed consumption per day and
total feed consumed decreased slightly for the DPW fed steers, while feed
per unit gain increased. Similarly, final body weight, total weight gain
and average daily gain also decreased for the DPW fed steers. These results
suggest that the 5% DPW was merely a diluent in the ration, as reflected
in the approximately 6% decreased weight gains and efficiency of the DPW
fed steers.
Reducing or eliminating shelled corn and soybean meal content in the
control ration and replacing them with 10.5 or 32% DPW was studied by
Bucholtz et^ al. (1971). Feed consumption per day and total feed consumed
increased slightly and feed per unit gain greatly increased for the 10.5%
DPW fed steers. Similar feed consumption trends were noted for the 32%
DPW fed steers, except that the increases were amplified. Body.-w.eight gains
and average daily gains were decreased for both levels of DPW. The decrease,
however, was greatest for the 32% DPW fed steers. Bucholtz et_ al_. (1971)
attributed the p'oor performance of the DPW fed steers to the low crude pro-
tein content of the DPW utilized (Table G-7), and stated that DPW must con-
tain more than 25% crude protein to compete with supplemental nitrogen
sources for ruminants. However, all rations had comparable crude and
digestible protein contents (Table G-6), and the poor performance of the
DPW fed steers (Table 42) might be attributed to a combination of protein,
96
-------
TABLE 41. PERFORMANCE OF FINISHING STEERS FED DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF (kilograms)
Source
Long et al.
Control
5% DPW
Bucholtz et
Control
10.5% DPW
32% DPW
Initial
Body
Weight
(1969)
301.4
307.3
al. (1971)
313.4
314.8
312.5
Final
Body
Weight
470.5
466.8
517.1
489.9
479.9
Total
Weight
Gain
169.1
159.5
203.7
175.1
167.4
Average
Daily
Gain
1.22
1.15
1.52
1.31
1.25
Feed
Consumption
Per Day
12.530
12.450
10.573
10.632
13.014
Feed
Consumption
Per kg gain
10.27
10.83
6.96
8.14
10.43
Total
Feed
Consumed
1741.7
1730.6
1416.7
1424.7
1743.9
Total
DPW
Consumed
-
84.6
-•
149.6
558.0
Oliphant (1974)
Control
15% DPW
Control
14.8% DPW
Cullison et
Control
13% DPW
163.0
163.0
167.0
§ Urea 163.0
al. (1976)
241.4
241.9
428.7
422.6
417.2
415.3
403.6
373.9
265.7
259.6
250.2
252.3
162.2
132.0
1.29
1.26
1.18
1.19
1.13
0.90
7.100
7.100
6.600
6.400
7.920
8.490
5.50
5.64
5.59
5.38
7.07
9.33
1462.6
1462.6
1399.2
1356.8
1093.0
1290.5
-
219.4
-
200.8
-
167.8
Oltjen and Dinius (1976)
Control
15% DPW-A
15% DPW-B
238.0
259.0
248.0
292.0
350.8
325.4
54.0
91.8
77.4
0.60
1.02
0.86
8.508
9.384
8.875
14.18
9.20
10.32
765.9
844.6
799.2
-
126.7
119.9
-------
TABLE 42. PERFORMANCE OF FINISHING STEERS FED DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF(percent change from the control)
Source
Long et al.
5% DPW
Bucholtz et
10.5% DPW
32% DPW
Initial
Body Weight
(1969)
+ 2.0
al. (1971)
+ 0.4
- 0.3
Oliphant (1974)
15% DPW 0
14.8% DPW
Cullison et
13% DPW
$ Urea - 2.4
al. (1976)
+ 0.2
Oltjen and Dinius (1976)
15% DPW-A +8.8
15% DPW-B
+ 4.2
Final
Body Weight
- 0.8
- 5.3
- 7.2
- 1.4
- 0.5
- 7.4
+20.1
+11.4
Weight Gain and
Average Daily
Gain
- 5.7
-14.0
-17.8
- 2.3
+ 0.8
-18.6
+70.0
+43.3
Feed Per Day
and Total Feed
Consumed
- 0.6
+ 0.6
+23.1
0
- 3.0
+ 7.2
+10.3
+ 4.3
Feed Consumed
per kilogram
of gain
+ 5.5
+ 17.0
+49.9
+ 2.4
- 3.8
+32.0
-35.1
-27.2
-------
ash and metabolizable energy or other dietary imbalances. It is clear that
rations must be balanced both for protein and energy if similar animal per-
formance is expected.
Oliphant (1974) studied the effects of replacing the soybean meal and
fish meal in the concentrate portion of the control rations and incorporated
15% DPW or 14.8% DPW plus urea (percent of total diet) in two experimental
feeding trials. Feed consumption per day and total feed consumed for the
15% DPW fed steers was similar to the control steers, but feed per unit gain
increased slightly for the DPW fed steers. Conversely, the 14.8% DPW plus
urea fed steers decreased feed consumption per day, total feed consumed and
feed per unit gain. Final body weight, total weight gain and average daily
gain was slightly reduced for the 15% DPW fed steers. The weight parameters
for the 14.8% DPW plus urea fed steers were similar to controls. It is dif-
ficult to interpret the performance of the DPW fed steers because the ration
characteristics, with the exception of crude protein, were not reported and
the studies were not conducted simultaneously. It can only be concluded
that the 15% DPW fed steers performed slightly poorer than the control
steers, while the 14.8% DPW plus urea fed steers performed slightly better
than the controls.
The effects of eliminating soybean meal, reducing the peanut hull and
molasses content of the control ration and replacing them with 13% DPW was
studied by Cullison et^ al. (1976). Performance of the DPW fed steers was
adversely affected; feed consumption increased and weight parameters were
greatly reduced. The authors attributed the inefficient performance of
the DPW fed steers to something present in the hen manure, either as a
result of natural phenomena or as the result of the drying process.
Oltjen and Dinius (1976) studied the effects of eliminating the peanut
hulls and urea, reducing the corn content in the control ration and replac-
ing them with 15% DPW. The only difference between the DPW rations A and
B are their nutrient characteristics (Table G-6). Both groups of DPW fed
steers outperformed the control group. These results, however, were con-
founded by two factors: (1) the poor performance of the control steers; and
(2) the pretrial diet fed the DPW steers. The authors concluded that the
control steers poorly utilized the urea in their ration, ruminal fill was
lowered and the peanut hulls had a depressing influence on weight gains.
Therefore, any comparisons to the control group would be invalid and would
bias any observed increased performance of the DPW fed steers. Prior to
the study, the DPW fed steers were on a maintenance diet, and the authors
believed that compensatory growth occurred during the first half of the
trial, as evidenced by 40% greater gains during that period.
The evaluation of utilizing DPW as a feedstuff in growing and finishing
steer rations has revealed several trends. However, because of the extreme
variation in performance of the DPW steers and of control animals, signifi-
cant correlations were not obtained. Nevertheless, the results suggested
that the maximum animal response level of incorporating DPW into steer
rations may be 5%, on the basis of feed consumption per kilogram of gain
(Figure 24).
99
-------
+ 60
1 i
2 I-
< Z
1-40
u.
O 3
tS
LJ
-------
Economic Value Estimation
The economic estimation of the value of DPW as a feedstuff for finish-
ing steers (based on feed costs, animal costs and selling prices, and
economic return) are shown in Table 43. Some of these economic results are
expressed as a percent change from the control in Table 44.
The incorporation of 5% DPW into a steer ration (Long et_ al., 1969)
reduced feed costs (per tonne, per day and total feed). The magnitude
was less for feed costs per kilogram of gain and is attributed to the lower
body weight gains of the DPW steers. The slightly increased economic return
for the DPW group reflects only feed cost savings, because animal growth
was depressed and therefore selling prices were lower. Although the cal-
culated gross value of DPW was positive ($33.73 per tonne), when drying and
other costs are considered, the value will be lower.
Steer rations containing 10.5% and 32% DPW (Bucholtz et_ a^., 1971),
reduced feed costs (per tonne, per day and total feed). Feed costs per
kilogram of gain were slightly increased for the 10.5% DPW group because of
lower weight gains not completely offset by the reduced feed costs. Con-
versely, the 32% DPW group feed costs per kilogram of gain were reduced,
because the greatly reduced feed costs offset the lowered weight gains. The
economic return for both DPW groups was lower than the control group, which
is attributed to the lower weight gains of the DPW steers. Although feed
costs were reduced for the DPW groups, they were unable to offset the
reduced economic returns, and therefore the gross value of DPW per tonne
was negative.
All feed costs for steer rations containing 15% DPW or 14.8% plus urea
(Oliphant, 1974) were reduced. Although body weight gains were slightly
lower for the 15% DPW group, feed cost savings offset them, and the economic
return was increased. Conversely, the body weight gains of the 14.8% DPW
plus urea group were slightly increased and therefore the increased economic
return reflects both feed cost savings and improved animal performance of
this group. Because of the increased economic returns for both DPW groups,
the gross value of DPW per tonne is positive.
The incorporation of 14% DPW into steer rations (Cullison ^t_ al., 1976)
decreased some feed costs (per tonne, per day and total feed). However,
feed costs per kilogram of gain increased because of reduced body weight
gains by the DPW fed steers. Similarly, the reduced body weight gains caused
the animal selling prices to decrease and this, in turn, greatly reduced
the economic return. The reduced economic return, which was not offset by
feed cost savings, caused the gross value of DPW per tonne to be negative.
Incorporating 15% DPW from two sources into growing steer rations
decreased all feed costs (per tonne, per day, total feed and per kilogram
of gain)(Oltjen and Dinius, 1976). Due to the inefficient performance of
the control group, any economic comparisons to the DPW groups are highly
biased.
The economic assessment of the practice of utilizing DPW as a feedstuff
101
-------
TABLE 43. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR FINISHING STEERS (dollars)
o
KJ
Source
Long et al. (1969)
Control
5% DPW
Bucholtz et al. (1971)
Control
10.5% DPW
32% DPW
Oliphant (1974)
Control
15% DPW
Control
14.8% DPW $ Urea
Cullison et al. (1976)
Control
13% DPW
Oltjen and Dinius
(1976)
Control
15% DPW-A
15% DPW-B
Feed
Cost
Per
Tonne
103.00
93.60
94.10
81.00
54.30
119.70
89.80
119.70
89.60
103.90
85.80
80.10
67.50
67.50
Feed
Cost
Per
Day
1.2906
1.1653
0.9949
0.8612
0.7067
0.8499
0.6376
0.7900
0.5734
0.8229
0.7284
0.6817
0,6334
0,5994
Feed
Cost
Per Kg
Gain
1.0578
1.0137
0.6549
0.6593
0.5663
0.6588
0.5060
0.6695
0.4819
0.7346
0.8005
1.1358
0.6210
0.6966
Total
Feed
Cost
179.39
161.97
133.32
115.40
94.70
175.08
131.35
167.48
.121.56
113.56
110.72
61,35
57.01
53.95
Animal
Cost
465.12
474.24
483.64
485.80
482.25
251.54
251.54
257.71
251.54
372.53
373.30
367.28
399.69
382.71
Animal
Selling
Price
726.08
720.38
797.99
756.01
740.58
661.57
652.16
643.82
640.89
622.84
577.00
450.61
541.35
502.16
Economic
Return
81.57
84.17
181.03
154.81
163.63
234.95
269.27
218.62
267.79
136.75
92.98
21.9.8
84,66
65,50
Gross
Value per
Tonne of
DPW
30.73
-175.27
- 31.18
156.43
-
244.87
-262.22
494.71
362,97
-------
TABLE 44. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR FINISHING STEERS (percent
change from the control)
Feed Cost
Source Per Tonne
Long et al. (1969)
5% DPW - 9.1
Bucholtz e* a^. (1971)
10.5% DPW -13.9
32% DPW -42.3
h- •
S Oliphant (1974)
15% DPW -25.0
14.8% DPW £ Urea -25.1
Cullison et al. (1976)
13% DPW -17.4
Oltjen and Dinius (1976)
15% DPW-A -15.7
15% DPW-B -15.7
Feed Cost
Per Day and Feed Cost
Total Feed Per Kg Animal
Cost Gain Cost
- 9.7 - 4.2 + 2.0
-13.4 + 0.8 + 0.4
-29.0 -13.5 - 0.3
-25.0 -23.2 0
-27.4 -28.0 - 2.4
-11.5 + 9.0 + 0.2
- 7.1 -45.3 + 8.8
-12.1 -38.7 + 4.2
Animal
Selling
Price
- 0.8
- 5.3
- 7.2
+ 1.4
- 0.5
- 7.4
+20.1
+11.4
Economic
Return
+ 3.2
-14.5
- 9.6
+ 14.6
+22.5
-32.0
+285.2
+198;0
-------
in growing and finishing steer rations did not delineate any maximum economic
level for its incorporation into a ration. This may be attributed to the
extreme variation in performance of DPW fed steers and the lack of repeat-
ability between studies. Maximum or "optimum" economic levels of incorporat-
ing DPW into steer rations cannot be determined at this time and must await
results from future feeding trials that are independently confirmed.
In summary, the utilization of DPW as a feedstuff for finishing steers
decreased animal performance, as reflected by increased feed consumption
and decreased weight gains, when compared to control animals. Although the
economic returns were generally decreased for the DPW fed steers, they
were offset in some studies by feed cost per tonne savings, which resulted
in a positive gross value. The animal performance evaluation and the
economic assessment of the practice of utilizing DPW as a feedstuff for
finishing steers failed to clearly delineate its value, due to the lack of
repeatability between studies and abnormal animal performance by control
steers. The delineation of the possible benefits must await future feeding
trials that are independently confirmed.
DPW FED TO DAIRY COWS
The utilization of DPW as a feedstuff in dairy cow rations has been
investigated in 11 studies. Only four studies met the selection criteria
and were evaluated (Table G-9).
The composition'of the rations utilized in the evaluated studies is
shown in Table G-10. Crude protein levels were reported in the original
studies by Thomas et_ a±. (1972), Silva et_ al. (1976) and Smith e_t al^. (1976),
and all other characteristics were calculated. The incorporation of DPW
into dairy cow rations generally increased ash, calcium, phosphorus, and
decreased TON and metabolizable energy levels.
The study by Thomas et^ a^. (1972) incorporated 30.2% DPW into the
concentrate portion of the ration. However, when considering the hay, corn
silage and concentrate consumption, DPW composed 4.7% of the total ration
and was evaluated at that level.
Similarly, Kneale and Garstang (1975) incorporated 10 and 20% DPW into
the concentrate portion of the ration in the first of two studies. Consider-
ing the total daily consumption of hay and concentrate, DPW composed 8.5
and 17% of the total ration, and was evaluated at those levels. In the
second study, DPW was incorporated at 20% into the concentrate portion of
the ration. Considering the total daily consumption of hay and concentrate,
DPW composed 10.9% of the total ration and was evaluated at that level.
Smith et_ aJL (1976) also incorporated 30.2% DPW into the concentrate
portion of the ration. When considering the hay, corn silage and concen-
trate consumption, DPW composed 15.9% of the total ration and was evaluated
at that level.
The study by Silva et_ al^. (1976) was a direct substitution of 10, 20, or
104
-------
30% DPW for citrus pulp and was evaluated at those levels.
The composition of the DPW utilized in the studies by Kneale and
Garstang (1975) and Silva et^ al^. (1976) is shown in Table G-ll. Sources of
manure and dehydration methods of the DPW utilized in the feeding trials are
shown in Table G-12.
Animal Performance Evaluation
The performance of dairy cows (feed consumption, feed conversion and
milk production) fed DPW as a feedstuff is shown in Tables 45 and 46.
The effects of feeding 4.7% DPW to lactating dairy cows were studied
by Thomas et^ al_. (1972). In comparison to the control group, feed consump-
tion per day and total feed consumed increased, feed efficiency decreased,
and milk production increased for the DPW group. Milk fat percentages were
higher for the DPW group than the control group (3.87 versus 3.30%).
In the first of two studies, Kneale and Garstang (1975) studied the
effects of feeding 8.5 and 17% DPW to lactating cows. Feed consumption per
day for the DPW cows was restricted to that of the control cows. In compar-
ison to the control group, the feed conversion ratio improved and milk
production increased for the 8.5% DPW group, whereas the opposite performance
was observed for the 17% DPW group. In the second study, the effects of
feeding 10.9% DPW to dairy cows were studied. Feed consumption per day for
the DPW cows again was restricted to that of the control cows. The feed
conversion ration and milk production for the DPW group was the same as the
control group.
Silva et_ a.U (1976) investigated the effects of substituting 10, 20,
or 30% DPW for citrus pulp in dairy cow rations. Feed consumption per day
and total feed consumed for the 10% DPW group was comparable to controls,
although the feed conversion ratio for the DPW group was poorer and milk
production was slightly decreased. All parameters for the 20 and 30% DPW
groups were lower than the control group. Milk fat percentages for the
control, 10, 20 and 30% DPW groups were 3.41%, 3.19%, 3.45% and 3.36% res-
pectively, and were not influenced by DPW content.
Smith et_ al_. (1976) studied the effects of feeding 15.9% DPW to lac-
tating cows. Feed consumption per day and total feed consumed decreased,
the feed conversion ration improved, and milk production decreased for the
DPW fed cows. The milk fat percentages for the control and DPW groups were
comparable (3.7% and 3.6%, respectively), as were the birth weight of calves
(45 and 46 kg, respectively).
The animal performance evaluation of the practice of utilizing DPW as
a feedstuff in dairy cow rations revealed correlations between DPW and the
animal response parameters. Feed consumption per day and milk production
(expressed as a percent change from the control) were inversely correlated
to DPW content (Figure 25). Utilizing the data in Figure 25, the maximum
animal response level of incorporating DPW into dairy cow rations is
approximately 10-12% or less.
105
-------
TABLE 45. PERFORMANCE OF DAIRY COWS FED DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF (kilograms)
Source
Thomas et al.
(1972)
Kneale and
Garstang
(1975)
Silva et al.
(1976)
Smith et al .
(1976)
Ration
Control
4.7% DPW
Control
8.5% DPW
17% DPW
Control
10.9% DPW
Control
10% DPW
20% DPW
30% DPW
Control
15.9% DPW
Feed
Consumption
Per Day
38.3
46.6
11.235
11.235
11.235
11.235
11.235
25.3
25.4
20.3
15.4
14.1
12.5
Feed
Consumption
Per Kg. Milk
1.982
2.262
0.864
0.824
0.878
0.735
0.735
1.193
1.233
1.187
1.108
0.825
0.812
Total
Feed
Consumed
3255.5
3961.0
1887.5
1887.5
1887.5
786.5
786.5
2125.2
2133.6
1705.2
1293.6
1269
1125
Total
DPW
Consumed
186.2
_
160.4
320.9
85.7
_
213.4
341.0
388.1
_
178.9
Milk
Production
Per Day
19.3
20.6
13.0
13.63
12.79
15.29
15.29
21.2
20.6
17.1
13.9
17.1
15.4
Total
Milk
Production
1640.5
1751
2184
2289.8
2148.7
1070.3
1070.3
1780.8
1730.4
1436.4
1167.6
1539
1386
\
-------
Table 46. PERFORMANCE OF DAIRY COWS FED DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF (percent change from the control)
Source
Feed Consumption .
Per Day § Total
Feed
Feed Consumption
Per Kg. Milk
Milk Production
Per Day and
Total
Thomas et al. (1972)
4.7% DPW
+21.7
+14.1
6.7
Kneale and Garstang (1975)
8.5% DPW
17% DPW
10.9% DPW
Silva et al_. (1976)
10% DPW
20% DPW
30% DPW
-
-
-
+ 0
-19
-39
.4
.8
.1
- 4.
+ 1.
0
+ 3.
- 0.
- 7.
6
6
4
5
1
+ 4.
- 1.
0
- 2.
-19.
-34.
8
6
8
3
4
Smith £t aj_. (1976)
15.9% DPW
-11.3
- 1.6
- 9.9
-------
LEGEND
• FEED INTAKE PER DAY
• MILK PRODUCTION
+ 40 -
+ 20-
o
IT
I-
o
o
2
O
tr
i
o
FEED INTAKE PER
R=-0.99
= -2.3l(X)
DAY
0-
-20-
-40-
MILK PRODUCTION
= -0.95
= -I.65(X) + I7.I
10
20
DPW RATION CONTENT, %
30
Figure 25. Relationships Between DPW Ration Content, Feed
Consumption Per Day, and Milk Production for Dairy
Cows Fed DPW
108
-------
Economic Value Estimation
The economic evaluation of the value of DPW as a feedstuff for dairy
cows (based on feed costs, milk revenue, and economic returns) is shown in
Tables 47 and 48.
In the study by Thomas £t aJL (1972), utilizing DPW as a feedstuff
decreased all feed costs for the DPW group. In contrast to the control
group, the milk revenue was increased for the DPW group due to their in-
creased mil.lt production. The economic return for the DPW group was larger
than the controls and reflected both feed cost savings and increased milk
revenue. The high gross value of DPW is a reflection of the increased
economic return of that group.
In the first study by Kneale and Garstang (1975), all feed costs were
reduced for both DPW groups, with, the magnitude being largest for the 17%
DPW ration. In contrast to the control group, milk revenues were increased
for the 8.5% DPW group, but decreased for the 17% DPW group. The economic
returns for both DPW groups were larger than for the control group. The
economic return for the 8.5% DPW group reflects both feed cost savings and
increased milk revenue, whereas the economic return for the 17% DPW group
reflects only feed cost savings. The calculated gross value of the DPW for
the 8.5% group is larger than the 17% group. The 17% DPW group consumed twice
as much DPW to maintain a comparable economic return as did the 8.5% DPW
group. In the second study, all feed costs were lower for the DPW group
than for the control group, and milk revenues were similar. The economic
return for the 10.9% DPW group was slightly increased and reflects only
feed cost savings. The calculated gross value of DPW is lower than those
in the first study, due to the lower cost of the control ration and the
absence of improved milk production.
The substitution of 10, 20, and 30% DPW for citrus pulp (Silva et al.,
1976) reduced all feed costs and also reduced milk revenues, in a direct
relationship with DPW content. The economic returns reflect only feed cost
savings and were diminished by lowered milk revenues as the DPW content
increased. The calculated gross values of DPW decreased in a direct relation-
ship with DPW content. This decrease may be attributed to the decreases in
milk revenues that were not offset by decreasing feed costs.
In the study by Smith et al^. (1976), the utilization of DPW as a feed-
stuff decreased all feed costs. Milk revenues, however, also were decreased.
The economic return for the DPW group was slightly increased and reflects
only feed cost savings that were diminished by lowered milk revenues. The
low calculated gross value of the DPW is attributed to poor animal performance
that was not offset by feed cost savings.
The economic assessment of the practice of utilizing DPW as a feedstuff
in dairy cow rations revealed correlations between economic parameters and
DPW ration content. Milk revenues (when expressed as a percent change from
the control) were highly correlated (R= -0.95) with DPW ration content
(Figure 26). Similarly, the economic return also correlated with DPW ration
content (Figure 26). When DPW is utilized at 10% or less, milk revenues
109
-------
TABLE 47. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR DAIRY:COWS (DOLLARS)
Source
Thomas et al.
(1972J
Control
4.7% DPW
Kneale § Garstang
(1975)
Control
8.5% DPW
17% DPW
Control
10.9% DPW
Silva et al.
(1976)
Control
10% DPW
20% DPW
30% DPW
Smith et al.
(1976)~
Control
15.9% DPW
Feed Cost
Per Tonne
49.70
31.60
120.50
104.80
87.00
104.90
90.30
114.40
100.50
89.30
78.10
86.40
53.00
Feed
Cost
Per Day
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
0.
9035
4726
3538
1774
9774
1786
0145
8943
5527
8128
2027
2182
6625
Feed
Cost Per
kg Milk
0.0986
0.0715
0.1041
0.0864
0.0764
0.0771
0.0664
0.1365
0.1239
0.1060
0.0865
0.0712
0.0430
Total
Feed
Cost
161.80
125.17
227.44
197.80
164.20
82.50
71.01
243.12
214.43
152.28
101.03
109.64
59.62
Milk
Revenue
Per Day
4.68
5.00
3.15
3.30
3.10
3.71
3.71
5.14
5.00
4.15
3.37
4.14
3.73
Total
Milk
Revenue
397.80
425.00
529.62
555.28
521.06
259.55
259.55
431.84
419.62
348.33
283.14
373.21
336.10
Economic
Return
236.
299.
302.
357.
356.
177.
188.
188.
205.
196.
182.
263.
276.
00
83
18
48
86
05
54
72
19
05
11
57
48
Gross
Value Per
Tonne of
DPW
342.
-
344.
170.
-
134.
-
77.
21.
-17.
-
72.
80
76
40
07
18
50
03
16
-------
TABLE 48. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR DAIRY COWS (percent change from
the control)
Source
Feed cost
per tonne
Feed cost per
day and total
feed cost
Feed cost
per kg
milk
Milk revenue per
day and total
milk revenue
Economic
return
Thomas et al. (1971)
4.7% DPW -36.4
Kneale § Garstang (1975)
8.5%. DPW -13.0
17% DPW -27.8
10.9% DPW -13.9
Silva et_ aL (1976)
10% DPW -12.1
20% DPW -21.9
30% DPW -31.7
Smith et^ aL (1976)
15.9% DPW -38.7
-22.6
-13.0
-27.8
-13.9
-11.8
-37.4
-58.4
-45.6
-27.5
-17.0
-26.6
-13.9
- 9.2
-22.3
-36.6
-39.6
+ 6.8
+ 4.8
- 1.6
0
- 2.8
-19.3
-34.4
- 9.9
+ 27.0
+ 18.3
+ 18.1
+ 6.5
+ 8.7
+ 3.9
- 3.5
+ 4.9
-------
+ 30-
LEGENO
• MILK REVENUE
• ECONOMIC RETURN
+ 15-
o
-------
appear to be similar or improved when compared to those from control animals.
However, DPW can be utilized at 25% or less and the economic return will be
similar or improved when compared to control cows.
Discussion
The animal performance evaluation and the economic assessment of the
study by Thomas et^ al_. (1972) suggest incentives exist for feeding 4.7% DPW
to dairy cows. However, close scrutiny of the feed consumption data indicates
that the DPW group increased feed consumption by 22% per day. This increased
consumption was not the concentrate portion of the ration (which contained
the DPW), but was an increase in corn silage intake. This drastic increase
in corn silage consumption confounds the evaluation of the study, and the
benefits observed may have been caused by the increased corn silage consump-
tion and not the DPW.
The drastic increase in feed consumption by DPW fed cows in the above
study was circumvented by Kneale and Garstang (1975), who restricted feed
consumption of the DPW fed cows to that of the control cows and evaluated
the influence of various levels of DPW on feed conversion ratios and milk
production. The results indicate that incorporating 8.5% DPW into a dairy
cow ration resulted in improved performance and indicates that a large
economic incentive may exist for its utilization at this level. The results
also indicate that feeding rations containing 10.9 or 17% DPW result in no
improved animal performance and the economic incentive is reduced. The
authors attributed the poor performance of cows fed these rations to an
energy-related problem in the rations, but because no ration characteristics
were reported in these studies, this attribution could not be evaluated.
Based upon the results of these studies, the maximum level of incorporating
DPW into dairy cow rations is about 11%. At this level milk production is
not diminished (Figure 25), and although economic incentives exist for the
utilization of DPW at higher levels (Table 47), milk production decreases
and causes fixed costs to increase, which results in reduced or negligible
economic incentives.
The negative results of the study by Silva et_ al. (1976) can be attri-
buted to a palatability problem. The authors noted that the higher ash
content and degree of fineness of the DPW had a marked effect on ration
density and caused the 20 and 30% DPW rations to be unpalatable. The ash
content of the DPW utilized in this study was 60.3% (Table G-ll). Utiliz-
ing this material as a feedstuff would be comparable to feeding "ground
rocks" as described by Whetstone e_t^ al. (1974). The results of this study
dramatically indicate the problem encountered when DPW is treated with
excessive heat; organic matter is destroyed and the resultant product has a
very low nutritive value.
The negative results of the study by Smith et_ al_. (1976) also can be
attributed to a palatability problem. The authors suggest that when the
concentrate containing DPW came into contact with the corn silage, an odor
was emitted which depressed intake and adversely affected animal performance.
The authors reported a calculated value of $30 per tonne (based upon 1973
prices) for the DPW utilized in their study. However, based upon 1979 prices,
the calculated value of the DPW was higher ($72.16).
113
-------
In summary, the evaluation of animal performance and the economic assess-
ment of utilizing DPW as a feedstuff for lactating dairy cows indicated
that benefits can be realized when low levels (10-12%) of DPW are incorporated
into a ration. If the DPW content is increased above 10-12% the benefits will
be diminished or negated.
DPW FED TO HEIFERS
The utilization of DPW as a feedstuff in heifer rations has been
investigated in seven studies but only one study fulfilled the selection
criteria. A second study was included in the evaluation because it illus-
trated the effects of feeding different levels of DPW and different ration
compositions upon animal performance. Unfortunately this study (Keys and
Smith, 1978) had no control group. The studies evaluated and the composi-
tion of the rations utilized in the studies are shown in Tables G-13 and
G-14.
Animal Performance Evaluation
The performance of heifers (body weights, feed consumption and feed
conversion) fed DPW as a feedstuff are shown in Tables 49 and 50. Cooper
et_ al. (1974) examined the effect of replacing soybean meal with DPW. The
level of DPW in the experimental ration was 21.9%. All feed consumption
parameters increased significantly for the DPW fed heifers with increased
feed consumption partially offset by slightly improved weight gains.
The effect of incorporating DPW into three different types of heifer
rations was studied by Keys and Smith (1978). The three ration compositions
were: Ration 1 - 11.1% DPW, 27.9% corn stover and 61% corn silage; Ration 2
- 11.6% DPW and 88.4% ground-corn; and Ration 3 - 25.3% DPW, 25% corn stover
and 49.7% ground corn. The heifers fed Ration 2 performed most efficiently
having the best feed conversion efficiency and the highest weight gains.
The most inefficient level of animal performance was produced by Ration 3.
The results indicate that incorporating DPW into a ground corn ration can
result in efficient animal performance when compared to rations containing
corn stover or corn silage. This improved performance possibly is related
to the increased digestible protein and metabolizable energy levels of the
DPW plus ground corn ration (Table G-14).
Economic Value Estimation
The economic estimation of the value of DPW as a feedstuff for heifers
(based on feed costs, animal cost and selling prices, and economic returns)
is shown in Table 51 and 52.
The substitution of DPW for soybean meal (Cooper et^ al., 1974) signifi-
cantly reduced all feed costs. The slightly improved body weight gains of
the DPW fed heifers resulted in decreased feed conversion costs. The
increased economic return reflects both feed cost savings and improved animal
performance. The calculated gross value of DPW ($222.53 per tonne) may
accurately reflect its worth as a feedstuff for heifers.
114
-------
TABLE 49, PERFORMANCE OF HEIFERS FED DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF (kilograms)
Source
Cooper et al .
(1974)
Control
21.9% DPW
Keys and
Smith (1978)
11.1% DPW
11.6% DPW
25.3% DPW
Initial
Weight
216
216
398
398
398
Final
Weight
306.7
307.8
433.7
449.1
428.8
Weight
Gain
90.7
91.8
35.7
51.1
30.8
Average
Daily
Gain
0.81
0.82
0.51
0.73
0.44
Feed
Consumption
Per Day
5.953
6.388
8.00
8.20
9.40
Feed
Consumption
Per Kg Gain
7.35
7.79
15.686
11.233
21.364
Total
Feed
Consumed
666.7
715.5
560
574
658
Total
DPW
Consumed
-
156.7
62.2
66.6
166.5
TABLE 50. PERFORMANCE OF HEIFERS FED DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF (percent change from the control)
Source
Initial
Weight
Final
Weight
Weight Gain and
Average Daily
Gain
Feed Consumption
Per Day and
Total Feed Consumption
Feed
Consumption
Per Kg Gain
Cooper et al. (1974)
21.9% DPW
0.4
•«- 1.2
7.3
6.0
-------
TABLE SI. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR HEIFERS (dollars)
Feed
Cost
Per
Source Tonne
Cooper trt al. (1974)
Control 62.00
21.9% DPW 11.60
Keys and Smith (1978)
11.1% DPW 13.80
11.6% DPW 94.30
25.3% DPW 57.20
Feed
Cost
Per
Day
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
3691
0741
1104
7733
5377
Feed
Cost
Per Kg
Gain
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
4557
0904
2165
0593
2220
Total
Feed
Cost
41.35
8.30
7.73
54.13
37.64
Animal
Cost
357.
357.
658.
658.
658.
16
16
09
09
09
Animal
Selling
Price
.
507.
508.
717.
742.
709.
13
95
12
59
02
Gross
Value per
Economic Tonne of
Return DPW
108.
143.
51.
30.
13.
62
49 222.53
30
37
29
TABLE 52. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR HEIFERS (percent change from the
control)
Source
Feed Cost
Per Tonne
Feed Cost Per
Day and 'Total
Feed
Feed Cost
Per Kg Gain
Animal
Cost
Animal
Selling
Price
Economic
Return
Cooper et al. (1974)
21.9% DPW
-81.3
-79.9
-80.2
0.4
+32.1
-------
The lack of a control group confounded the economic assessment of the
feeding trial by Keys and Smith (1978). However, economic assessment of the
three DPW rations can be performed if any calculated values of DPW are
excluded. All feed cost parameters were very low for Ration 1 heifers (DPW,
corn stover and silage), which may be attributed to the low costs of corn
stover and corn silage. The economic return for Ration 1 heifers is the
highest, which reflects the feed cost savings. Heifers fed Ration 2 (DPW
and ground corn) had the best animal performance, which was reflected in
their selling price. However, feed costs were the highest for Ration 2,
.which may be due to the high cost of ground corn. Heifers fed Ration 3 (DPW,
ground corn and corn stover) had intermediate feed costs and their economic
return was the lowest due to the poor animal performance.
Discussion
The review of the literature revealed few studies concerning the feeding
of DPW to growing heifers; therefore, "optimum" animal response .and economic
levels of feeding DPW cannot be ascertained. A study by Cooper et_ al. (1974)
indicating that approximately 22% DPW can be utilized as a protein supple-
ment with corn silage in a wintering ration for heifers agrees with the work
by Clanton and Jones (1975) and Essig et_ a^. (1977).
The results of the study by Keys and Smith (1978) indicate that when
approximately 11-2535 DPW is incorporated into a ground corn based ration,
animal performance is superior to those fed rations containing DPW and corn
silage or DPW, corn stover and ground corn. However, because of the higher
price of ground corn, when compared to corn silage or corn stover, the
economic benefits for feeding DPW and ground corn to heifers are reduced.
The concept of utilizing corn silage and DPW as a wintering ration for
heifers is believed to be nutritionally and economically sound and should be
further investigated.
SUMMARY OF DPW FEEDING TRIAL EVALUATIONS
The results of the evaluation of animal performance and the economic
assessment of the utilization of DPW as a feedstuff in laying hen diets
and ruminant rations are summarized in Table 53. Maximum animal response
and economic levels of incorporation (that level which will neither enhance
or adversely affect animal performance) of DPW into rations range from 5
to 35%. "Optimum" levels of incorporation (that level which will elicit the
best animal performance) range from 5 to 12.5%.
The value of DPW is related to its ability to supplement rations with
phosphorus, calcium and some amino acids. The limited "optimum" levels of
incorporating DPW- into rations emphasize the unrealistic values placed on
DPW as primary energy sources.
The calculated gross value of DPW shown in Table 53 is variable and
reflects its value at the "optimum" levels of incorporation into a ration.
The actual value of DPW is lower because collection, storage, processing
(drying), transportation, mixing and marketing costs must be taken into
117
-------
TABLE 53. A SUMMARY OF THE MAXIMUM AND "OPTIMUM" ANIMAL RESPONSE AND ECONOMIC LEVELS OF INCORPORAT-
ING DPW INTO LAYING HEN DIETS AND RUMINANT RATIONS
Estimated Gross Value,
Dollars per Tonne
Species
Fed
Laying Hen
Laying Hen*
Steers
Heifers
Dairy Cows
Maximum
Animal Response
Level, %
14-20
8-11
5
t
10-12
"Optimum"
Animal Response
Level, %
10-12.5
5
<5
t
<11^12
Maximum
Economic
Level, %
20-35
12-16
<5
t
10-25
"Optimum"
Economic
Level, %
10-12.5
5
t
t
5-10-
Maximum
Level
48
16
31
t
166
"Optimum"
Level
280
186
t
t
225
* Diets supplemented with lard or soybean oil
t Cannot be determined from existing data
-------
consideration. Due to the escalating energy costs, the cost of drying
(Appendix F) poultry waste may exceed its value as a feedstuff. If this
occurs, there must be a substantial environmental incentive to utilize
machine drying as a poultry waste management alternative in order to make
the continued use of DPW as a feedstuff attractive.
119
-------
SECTION 8
NUTRITIVE AND ECONOMIC VALUE OF BROILER
LITTER ON THE BASIS OF FEEDING TRIALS
INTRODUCTION
This section attempts to identify the value of broiler litter as a
feedstuff based upon information from reported feeding trials. A total of
27 studies were identified that involved the direct utilization of broiler
litter as a feedstuff for cattle. Sixteen of these studies fulfilled the
evaluation criteria stated in Section 7 and were evaluated in this Section.
The methodology described in Section 7 was used to evaluate the nutritional
information and to identify the economic costs and benefits. The only devia-
tion in methodology was the estimation of the gross value of composted
broiler litter. The gross value of composted broiler litter was calculated
on a basis of feed cost savings because no product other than weight gain
was produced (i.e., no milk or calves).
The calculation was: Total kilograms of litter consumed by the litter
fed animals divided by the difference in feed costs between control and litter
fed animals. It was assumed that the litter was available at no cost.
AS COLLECTED BROILER LITTER FED TO STEERS
The utilization of as collected broiler litter (litter that has not
been subjected to any chemical, mechanical or biological treatment), as a
feedstuff for growing and finishing steers has been investigated in six
studies. Four met the selection criteria and were evaluated (Table G-15).
The composition of the rations utilized in various studies is shown
in Table G-16. The composition of the broiler litter reported in the various
studies is shown in Table G-17. Generally, the incorporation of broiler
litter into the rations increased ash, calcium, phosphorus, and decreased
TON and metabolizable energy levels.
Animal Performance Evaluation
The performance of steers (body weights, feed consumption per day, per
kilogram of gain and total feed consumed) fed as collected broiler litter as
a feedstuff are shown in Tables 54 and 55.
Noland et_ al. (1955) studied the effect of substituting broiler litter
for cottonseed meal and a portion of the molasses and corn in the control
120
-------
TABLE 54. PERFORMANCE OF STEERS FED AS COLLECTED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF (kilograms)
K)
Source
Noland et al.
(1955)
Southwell
et al^. (1958)
Fontenot
et al_. (1966)
Lowrey et al .
(1975)
Ration
Control
18.72%
Control
18.75%
Control
18.77%
Control
9.9%
19.8%
Control
25% Hulls
25% Wood
Control- 1
20%
Control- 2
20%
Initial
Weight
305.7
305.7
350.6
360.2
397.8
393.7
313.4
314.8
317.5
391
379
376
330
330
330
330
Final
Weight
360.2
351.7
397.8
393.7
437.4
430.3
449.3
446.2
447.7
550.9
536.4
523.6
456.4
445.8
443.7
445.8
Weight
Gain
54.5
46.0
47.2
33.5
39.6
36.6
135.9
131.4
130.2
159.9
157.4
147.6
126.4
115.6
113.7
115.6
Average
Daily
Gain
0.971
0.821
0.844
0.599
0.943
0.871
0.971
0.939
0.930
1.30
1.28
1.20
1.29
1.18
1.16
1.18
Feed
Consumption
Per Day
10.
10.
11.
11.
13.
16.
10.
11.
11.
14.
12.
12.
10.
10.
9.
10.
478
478
793
793
970
556
945
340
308
50
90
90
03
05
90
05
Feed Total
Consumption Feed
Per Kg Gain Consumed
10
12
13
19
14
19
11
12
12
11
10
10
7
8
8
8
.79
.76
.97
.69
.81
.01
.27
.08
.16
.15
.08
.75
.78
.52
.53
.52
586.8
586.8
660.4
660.4
586.7
695.4
1532.3
1587.6
1583.1
1783.5
1586.7
1586.7
982.9
984.9
970.2
984.9
Total
Litter
Consumed
109.8
123.8
-
130.5
_
157.2
313.5
_
396.7
396.7
197.0
_
197.0
-------
TABLE 55. PERFORMANCE OF STEERS FED AS COLLECTED BROILER LITTER (percent change from the control)
Source
No land et al.
(1955)
Southwell et al .
(1958)
Fontenot et al.
(1966)
Lowrey et al .
(1975)
Ration
18.72%
18.75%
18.77%
9.9%
19.8%
25% Hulls
25% Wood
20% vs 1
20% vs 2
Initial
Weight
0
+2.7
-1.0
+0.4
+1.3
-3.1
-3.8
0
0
Final
Weight
-2.4
-1.0
-1.6
-0.7
-0.4
-2.6
-5.0
-2.4
+0.5
Weight Gain §
Average Daily
Gain
-15.5
-29.0
- 7.6
- 3.3
- 4.2
- 1.6
- 7.7
- 8.5
+ 1.7
Feed Consumption
Per day § Total
Feed
0
0
+18.5
+ 3.6
+ 3.3
-11.0
-11.0
+ 0.2
+ 1.5
Feed Consumption
Per Kg Gain
+ 18.3
+40.9
+ 28.4
+ 7.2
+ 7.9
- 9.6
- 3.6
+ 9.5
- 0.1
-------
ration. Broiler litter constituted 25% of the concentrate portion of the
ration. However, when the concentrate and hay intakes are considered,
broiler litter constituted 18.72%, 18.75%, and 18.77% of the total ration
for trials 1, 2 and 3, respectively, and was evaluated at those levels. The
first trial period lasted 56 days. The second trial was a double-reversal
trial, the control steers from trial 1 were fed the litter ration and the
litter fed steers from trial 1 were fed the control ration. The feed con-
sumption of the litter-fed steers was restricted to that of the control
group during trials 1 and 2. In the third trial, the litter-fed steers
from trial 2 were given 15% more feed to equalize the energy intake of the
litter-fed and control groups. For all trial periods the litter-fed steers
gained less efficiently and at a slower rate than the control steers. When
the energy intakes were equalized for both groups (trial 3), average daily
gains were only slightly lower for the litter-fed steers.
Southwell et_ al. (1958) studied the effect of reducing or replacing
cottonseed and corn in the control ration. Snapped corn was fed to the
controls and the 9.9% litter groups, and ground, shelled corn was fed to the
19.8% litter group. Feed consumption per day and per kilogram of gain
increased for the litter-fed steers with the increases similar for both
litter-fed groups. Average daily gains were slightly lower for the litter-
fed steers; however, the increases were again similar for both litter groups.
The substitution of 25% peanut hull or wood shaving broiler litter for
hay and soybean meal in the control ration was studied by Fontenot et_ al.
(1966). Feed consumption per day was reduced for both litter fed groups.
The peanut-hull litter-fed steers were more efficient than either the controls
or the wood-shaving litter^fed steers. Average daily gains were only slightly
reduced for the peanut-hull, litter-fed steers, but they were greatly reduced
for the wood-shaving litter-fed steers. These results suggest the nutritive
value of peanut-hull litter may be greater than wood^shaving litter.
Lowrey et^ al. (1975) studied the effect of substituting 20% broiler
litter for peanut hulls and reducing the soybean meal in the control ration.
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 G-16). When the performance of the litter-fed steers was con-
trasted to control 1 steers, feed consumption per day increased. Feed
efficiency, however, was decreased and average daily gain was reduced. Con-
trasting the litter group to control group 2, feed consumption per day
slightly increased, feed efficiency was similar, and average daily gain was
improved.
There were no significant correlations between any of the animal per-
formance parameters and broiler litter ration content when all the studies
were statistically analyzed. If the study by Noland et^ al. (1955) is
excluded from statistical calculations, however, because feed consumption
was restricted, correlations were determined. Both feed consumption per
day and per kilogram of weight gain were inversely correlated with broiler
litter ration content (Figure 27). These animal performance results are
very limited and highly variable and only include six data points. There-
fore, additional studies are required to clearly determine any animal
123
-------
LEGEND
• FEED INTAKE PER DAY
• FEED PER UNIT OF GAIN
+ 10 H
5-
o
CE
O
O
2
O
cc
UJ
O
X
O
PER UNIT OF GAIN
-0.67
-0.92(X) + 20.2
0-
-5-
FEED INTAKE PER DAY
R = -0.78
Y=-0.97(X) + I7.I
-10-
5 10 15 20
BROILER LITTER RATION CONTENT, %
25
Figure 27. Relationships Between Broiler Litter Ration Content,
Feed Consumption Per Day, and Feed Consumption Per
Unit of Body Weight Gain For Steers Fed As Collected
Broiler Litter
124
-------
performance benefits from utilizing as collected broiler litter as a feed'
stuff for steers. The maximum animal response level of incorporating broiler
litter into a steer ration that will neither improve or decrease animal per-
formance may be approximately 18-22%. The "optimum" animal response level
of incorporation may be less than 19%, but cannot be determined from the
existing data.
Economic Value Estimation
The economic estimation of the value of as collected broiler litter as
a feedstuff for steers (based on feed costs, animal cost and selling price,
and economic return, is shown in Tables 56 and 57.
Feed costs per tonne, per day and per kilogram of gain were reduced
for the broiler-litter fed steers in all three trials of the study by
Noland et_ a^. (1955). Although selling prices of the litter-fed steers
were slightly decreased, this was offset by feed cost savings, and the
economic return was increased for all three trials. This increased economic
return reflects feed cost savings only and not improved animal performance.
The poor performance of the litter-fed steers in trial 2 is reflected by
the low calculated gross value of the litter ($27.30 per tonne). The gross
values of broiler litter for trials 1 and 3 were similar ($78.69 and $88.97,
respectively).
In the study by Southwell et_ a^. (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 19.8% group. Animal selling prices
for the litter-fed steers were slightly lower than the controls. The
economic return was increased for the litter groups. This increase, however,
reflected only feed cost savings and was the largest for the 19.8% litter
group. Similarly, the higher calculated gross value of litter for the 19.8%
group 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 peanut hull litter group than the wood
shaving group and may be due to the improved average daily gains made by
peanut^hull litter-fed steers. However, the animal selling prices were
lower for both litter-fed groups when compared to the control group. The
economic return was increased for both litter groups which reflects feed
costs savings only. The increase was largest for the peanut hull litter
group. Similarly, the calculated gross value of litter was higher for the
peanut hull litter ($136.85 per tonne) than the wood shaving litter ($98.74
per tonne).
In the study by Lowrey et_ al_, (1975), all feed costs were reduced for
the broiler litter-fed steers. The decrease was largest when compared to
control 1 group steers, due to their higher ration cost. The animal selling
price of the litter group was reduced when compared to control 1 group steers;
however, it was slightly increased when compared to control 2 group steers.
The economic return of the litter group was decreased when compared to the
control 1 group, reflecting the lower animal selling price that was not
125
-------
TABLE 56. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF AS COLLECTED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR STEERS
(dollars)
Source
No land et al.
(1955)
Southwell et al.
(1958)
Fontenot et al .
(1966)
Lowrey et al .
(1975)
Ration
Control
18.72%
Control
18.75%
Control
18.77%
Control
9.9%
19.8%
Control
25% Hulls
25% Wood
Control -1
20%
Control -2
20%
Feed
Cost
Per
Tonne
101.81
64.74
101,94
64.82
104.57
64.85
105.50
89.'10
73.60
102.80
78.90
78.90
102.00
89.40
94.40
89.40
Feed
Cost
Per
Day
1.0668
0.6783
1.2022
0.7644
1.4608
1.0737
1.1547
1.0104
0.8323
1.4906
1.0178
1.0178
1.0231
0.8985
0.9346
0.8985
Feed
Cost
Per Kg
Gain
1.0987
0.8262
1.4244
1.2761
1.5491
1.2327
1.1892
1 . 0760
0.8949
1.1466
0.7952
0.8482
0.7931
0.7614
0.8057
0.7614
Total
Feed
Cost
59.74
37.98
67.32
42.81
61.35
45.10
161.66
141.46
116.52
183.34
125.19
125.19
100.26
88.05
91.59
88.05
Animal
Cost
471.76
471.76
541.05
555.86
613.88
607.56
483.64
485.80
489.97
603.39
584.87
580.24
509.26
509.26
509.26
509.26
Animal
Selling
Price
555.86
542.74
613.88
607.56
675.00
664.06
693.36
688.58
690.89
850.15
827.77
808.02
704.32
687.96
684.72
687.96
Economic
Return
24.36
33.00
5.51
8.89
- 0.23
11.38
48.06
61.32
84.40
63.42
117.71
102.59
94.80
90.65
83.87
90.65
Gross
Value per
Tonne of
Litter
...
78.69
-
27.30
-
88.97
_
84.35
115.92
_
136.85
98.74
-
-21.07
34,32
-------
M
TABLE 57. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF AS COLLECTED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR STEERS
(percent change from the control)
Source
Noland et al.
(1955)
Southwell et al.
(1958)
Fontenot et al .
(1966)
Lowrey et al .
(1975)
Ration
18.72%
18.75%
18.77%
9.9%
19.8%
25% Hulls
25% Wood
20% vs 1
20% vs 2
Feed
Cost
Per
Tonne
-36.4
-36.4
-38.0
-15.5
-30.2
-23.2
-23.2
-12.4
- 5.3
Feed Cost Per
Day £. Total
Feed Cost
-36.4
-36.4
-26.5
-12.5
-27.9
-31.7
-31.7
-12.2
- 3.9
Feed Cost
Per- Kg Gain
-24.8
-10.4
-20.4
- 9.5
-24.7
-30.6
-26.0
- 4.0
- 5.5
Animal
Cost
0
+2.7
-1.0
+0.4
+ 1.3
-3.1
-3.8
0
0
Animal
Selling
Price
-2.4
-1.0
-1.6
-0.7
-0.4
-2.6
-5.0
-2.3
+0.5
Economic
Return
+35.9
+61.3
N/A*
+ 27.6
+75.6
+85.6
+61.8
- 4.4
+ 8.1
* N/A - not calculated due to negative economic return of control group
-------
offset by feed cost savings. The economic return, however, was increased
when compared to the control 2 group and reflects both feed cost savings and
increased animal selling prices. The calculated gross value of litter was
negative (-$21.07) when compared to the control 1 group and positive ($34.42)
when compared to control 2 steers.
There were no significant correlations between any of the economic
parameters and broiler litter content. Therefore, any maximum or "optimum"
economic levels of incorporating broiler litter into growing, finishing
steer rations cannot be determined. Based upon the maximum animal response
level determined for these studies, the maximum level of incorporation may
be about 20%.
Discussion
The benefits of utilizing broiler litter as a feedstuff are a factor
of its nutrient composition which, in turn, are influenced by type of
litter base, number of batches of birds raised on the litter, and method of
handling the litter prior to its utilization as a feedstuff. In the four
studies evaluated in this section, similar litter bases were not utilized^
This 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 known to be
highly variable (Table 58). Pine shavings have the lowest nutritive value
due to its relative indigestibility. Although soybean hulls and cane
bagasse have higher nutrient characteristics, their higher cost would need
to be closely evaluated in any specific economic evaluation.
Utilization of broiler litter as a feedstuff in steer rations seems to
be a feasible practice on the basis of nutrient value. However, the meta-
bolizable energy of rations containing broiler litter will decrease and feed
consumption per day may increase. The optimum utilization of broiler litter
would appear to be in rations that are low in protein, as indicated by the
study of Lowrey et_ al. (1975) .
Palatability of rations containing cane bagasse litter was similar to
controls (Noland et_ al. 1955). Southwell et al. (1958) reported a pala-
tability problem using corn cob litter at high levels. On the basis of
palatability and animal performance, the maximum animal response level
incorporating broiler litter into steer rations was about 19%. However,
only four studies were evaluated to determine the maximum level of incorpora-
tion and there was considerable variation between studies.
The mean economic value of as collected broiler litter determined in
this section for all the evaluated studies was $71.57, which is similar to
the value of $65.29 reported by Free (1977) and $77.18 reported by Fontenot
(1977). These results suggest that cattle producers located near poultry
producers could utilize broiler litter as a feedstuff and reduce feed costs,
as long as the litter price reflects short-distance transportation, handling
and storage costs.
128
-------
TABLE 58. COMPOSITION AND COST OF VARIOUS TYPES OF LITTER
ID
True Dry
Matter
Type Digestibility, %
Peanut Hulls t 35.5
Cane Bagasse t 46,7
Corn Cobs,
Ground t 60.0
Soybean Hullst 93.0
Pine Wood
Shavings * 14.5
Crude Cost Per
Lignin Hemicellulose Protein TON Tonne*
18.0 9.0 8.4 22.5 $ 24.91
k
14. Ok 26.7 1.1 33.7 $175.30
4,5s 43.7 2.0 47.9 $ 13.78
2.0s 17.7 11.0 80.0 $ 88.18
22.4, 17.4 0.7 1.5 $ 55.12
K
15.8
* Agway, Inc., Ithaca, New York (1979)
t Van Soest and Robertson (1976)
* Chandler (1980)
s-sulfuric acid method
k-permanganate method
-------
DRIED BROILER LITTER FED TO STEERS
The utilization of dried broiler litter (DEL) as a feedstuff for grow-
ing and finishing steers has been investigated in nine studies. Four studies
fulfilled selection criteria and were evaluated (Table G-18).
The composition of the rations utilized in the evaluated studies are
shown in Table G-19, and the composition, sources and dehydration methods of
broiler litter fed in the studies are shown in Table G-20. Generally, the
incorporation of dried broiler litter into steer rations increased crude
and digestible protein, ash, calcium and phosphorus, and decreased TON and
metabolizable energy levels.
Animal Performance Evaluation
The performance of steers (body weights, feed consumption per day, per
kilogram of gain and total feed consumed) fed dried broiler litter as a
feedstuff are shown in Tables 59 and 60.
The substitution of 25% dried broiler litter for portions of the hay,
corn, alfalfa meal and soybean meal in the control steer ration did not sig-
nificantly affect animal performance (Fontenot et_ aj^., 1971). Feed consump-
tion per day, efficiency and average daily gain were reduced slightly for the
litter fed steers. When litter content was increased to 50%, all animal
performance parameters decreased.
Substitution of 25% dried broiler litter or 25% dried broiler litter plus
10% molasses for soybean meal and portions of ear corn in the control ration
significantly decreased animal performance (Webb et^ al., 1973). Feed con-
sumption per day, efficiency and animal body weights decreased for both
groups of litter fed steers. The molasses was added to the ration in an
attempt to overcome palatability problems associated with rations containing
high levels of dried broiler litter, but was unsuccessful. The study by
Fontenot et al. (1971) utilizing 25% dried litter did not significantly
affect animal performance, but the same level significantly lowered animal
performance in the study by Webb et_ al. (1973).
Ol.iphant (1974) studied the effects of substituting either 17.5%, 18.8%
or 27.6% dried broiler litter for the soybean and fish meal and portions of
the barley in a control steer ration. When the hay intakes are considered,
dried broiler litter constituted 14.7%, 16.1%, and 23.1% of the total ration
and was evaluated at those levels. All the steers receiving litter were
fed for additional time periods (20 to 50 days) to allow the steers to attain
similar final body weights as the control steers. Feed consumption per day
decreased. However, total feed consumed increased for the litter-fed steers
because of the extended trial period. Similarly, feed 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
decreased, and attributed their poor performance to the lowered energy con-
tent of the ration, their reduced intake and decreased efficiency.
130
-------
TABLE 59. PERFORMANCE OF STEERS FED DRIED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF (kilograms)
Source
Fontenot
e_t aK (1971)
Webb et al.
(1973)
Oliphant
(1974)
Cullison et al.
(1976)
Ration
Control
25%
50%
Control
25%
25% 6
Molasses
Control
14.7%
Control
16.1%
Control
23.1%
Control
20% (hood)
20% (Hulls)
Neg. Cont.
Control
5.8%
13%
Initial
Weight
370.9
377.7
373.6
319.3
309.4
312.1
167
167
163
161
137
136
241.4
240.6
240.3
243.0
219
219.8
219.5
Final
Weight
450.2
458.8
418.4
471.2
434.1
435.7
405
407
397
404
398
396
403.6
409.6
396.9
396.9
401.2
399.3
. 388.4
Weight
Gain
88.3
81.1
44.8
151.9
124.7
.123.6
258
240
234
243
261
260
162.2
169.0
156.6
153.9
182.2
179.5
168.9
Average
Daily
Gain
0.73
0.67
0.37
1.266
1.039
1.030
1.12
1.03
1.23
1.16
1.12
0.92
1.12
1.166
1.08
1.06
1.20
1.18
1.11
Feed
Consumption
Per Day
9.54
9.00
7.18
10.51
9.59
9.94
6.6
6.3
7.1
7.0
6.6
6.2
7.92
8.76
8.61
7.94
8.74
8.89
8.77
Feed
Consumption
Per Kg Gain
13.068
13.433
19.405
8.30
9.23
9.65
S.89
6.12
5.77
6.03
5.89
6.74
7.07
7.51
7.97
7.49
7.28
7.53
7.90
Total
Feed
Consumed
1154.3
1089.0
868.8
1261.2
1150.8
1192.8
1399.2
1474.2
1349.0
1470.0
1544.4
1760.8
1148.4
1270.2
1248.4
1151.3
1332.8
1355. 7
1337.4
Total
Litter
Consumed
272.2
434.4
_
287.7
298.2
_
216.7
-
236.7
-
406.7
_
254.0
249.7
-
_
78.6
173.9
-------
TABLE 60. PERFORMANCE OF STEERS FED DRIED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF (percent change from the
control)
Source
Fontenot et al.
(1971) ~
Webb et al.
(1973)
Oliphant
(1974)
Cullison et al .
(1976)
Initial
Ration Weight
25% litter +1.8
50% litter +0.7
25% litter -3.1
25% litter £
Molasses -2.3
14.7% litter 0
16.1% litter -1.2
23.1% litter -0.7
Vs Pos. Control
20% Wood
litter -0.3
20% hull
litter -0.5
Vs Neg. Control
20% Wood
litter -1.0
20% Hull
litter -1.1
5.8% litter +0.4
13% litter +0.2
Final
Weight
-0.1
-8.9
-7.9
-7.5
+0.5
+1.8
^0.5
+1.5
-1.7
+3.2
0
-0.5
-3.2
Weight Gain
§ Average
Daily Gain*
- 8.2
-49.3
-17.9
-18.6
+ 0.8(-8.0)
+ 3.8(-5.7)
- 0.4(-17.9)
+ 4.2
- 3.5
+ 9.9
+ 1.9
- 1.6
- 7.4
Feed Consumption
Per Day § Total
Feed Consumed*
- 5.7
-24.7
- 8.8
- 5.4
- 4.5(+5.4)
- 1.4 (+9.0)
+10.6
+ 8.7
+ 10.3
+ 8.4
+ 1.7
+ 0.3
Feed
Per
Kg Gain
+ 2.8
+48.5
+ 11.2
+16.3
+ 3.9
+ 4.5
+14.4
+ 6.2
+ 12.7
+ 0.3
+ 6.4
+ 3.4
+ 8.5
* ( ) average daily gain and total feed consumption different due to different trial lengths.
-------
In the first of two studies, Cullison et_ a^. (1976) substituted either
20% wood shavings or 20% peanut hull-based dried litter for soybean meal,
peanut hulls and minerals in two control rations. The positive control
ration contained 8% soybean meal, which was omitted in the negative control
ration. When compared to the positive control group, feed consumption per
day increased for both litter-fed groups and feed efficiency decreased.
However, the average daily weight gain of the wood shaving litter-fed steers
increased, while it decreased for the peanut-hull litter-fed steers. In
comparison to the negative control group, feed consumption per day increased
for both litter groups. Feed 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 decreased feed efficiency and an only slightly
increased average daily gain. Because of their lower average daily gains,
in comparison to the wood shaving litter group, the peanut-hull litter group
was supplemented with 0.45 kilograms of peanut hulls per day from day 71
until the study terminated thus increasing average daily gains. However,
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^ a^. (1976) substituted 5.8% or 13%
dried broiler litter for some of the corn and soybean meal in the control
ration. Feed consumption per day increased, and feed 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 controls; however,
feed efficiency and average daily gain decreased. The authors attributed
the poorer performance of the 13% litter group to a lower level of total
concentrate in the ration and concluded the poor performance was not related
to protein source.
When all the animal response parameters were statistically analyzed,
some correlations were obtained. Both feed consumption per kilogram of gain
and average daily gain were correlated to dried broiler litter ration con-
tent (Figure 28). The maximum animal response level of incorporating dried
broiler litter into steer rations that will neither enhance nor depress feed
efficiencywas 11%, and the level that will neither enhance nor depress
average daily gain was 15.5%. The "optimum" animal response level of incor-
porating dried broiler litter into steer rations may be less than 14-18%, but
cannot be determined from the available data.
Economic Value Estimation
The economic estimation of the value of dried broiler litter as a
feedstuff for steers (based on feed costs, animal cost and selling price
and economic return) are shown in Tables 61 and 62.
Feed costs per tonne, per day, and total feed costs decreased for both
groups of litter-fed steers in a direct relationship with litter content in
the study by 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 of the 50% steers. The economic returns were tremen-
dously increased for both litter groups and reflect both feed cost savings
and the poor animal performance of the control group, due to the improved
animal performance when compared to the 50% litter-fed steers.
133
-------
LEGEND
• AVERAGE DAILY GAIN
• FEED PER UNIT OF GAIN
^•50^
+ 25-
o
cr
o
u
2
O
UNIT OF GAIN
0-
-25-
u
3s
FEED PER
R = 0.87
1.0500-H.7
AVERAGE
R = -0.82
Y =-l.22(X)
-50-
10 20 30 40
DRIED BROILER LITTER RATION CONTENT, %
50
Figure 28. Relationships Between Dried Broiler Litter Ration Content,
Feed Consumption Per Unit of Body Weight Gain, and Average
Daily Gain for Steers Fed Dried Broiler Litter
134
-------
TABLE 61. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF DRIED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR STEERS (dollars)
Ul
Source
Fontenot et al .
(1971)
Webb et al.
(1973)
Oliphant (1974)
Cullison et al.
(1976)
Ration
Control
25%
50%
Control
25%
25% 5 Molasses
Control
14.7%
Control
16.1%
Control
23.1%
Control
20% (Wood)
20% (Hulls)
Neg. Control
Control
5.8%
13%
Feed Cost
Per Tonne
117.00
87.70
58.50
86.80
64.30
68.00
120.70
90.80
120.70
89.60
120.70
80.80
104.80
85.20
85.20
96.10
119.60
110.90
99.80
Feed Cost
Per Day
$1.1162
0.7893
0.4200
0.9123
0.6166
0.6759
0.7966
0.5720
0.8570
0.6272
0.7966
0.5010
0.8300
0.7464
0.7336
0.7630 .
1.0453
0.9859
0.8752
Feed Cost
Per Kg Gain
$1.5290
1.1781
1.1351
$0.7206
0.5935
0.6562
0.7112
0.5553
0.6967
0.5407
0.7112
0.5446
0.7411
0.6401
0.6793
.0.7198
0.8711
0.8355
0.7885
Animal
Cost
$572.37
582.87
576.54
$492.74
477.47
481.63
257.71
257.71
251.54
248.46
211.42
209.88
372.53
371.29
370.83
375.00
337.96
339.20
338.73
Total
Feed
Cost
135.06
95.51
50.82
109.48
73.99
81.11
168.88
133.85
162.83
131.71
186.40
142.28
120.35
108.23
106.37
110.63
159.41
150.35
133.47
Animal
Selling
Price
708.63
708.02
654.67
727.16
669.90
672.37
625.00
628.08
612.65
623.45
614.19
611.11
622.84
632.11
612.50
612.50
619.13
616.20
599.38
Economic
Return
1.20
29.64
27.31
124.94
118.44
109.63
198.41
236.52
198.28
243.28
216.37
258.95
129.96
152.59
135.30
126.87
121.76
126.65
127.18
Gross Value
Per Tonne
of Litter
104.48
60.11
-22.59
-51.34
175.87
190.11
104.70
89.09
21.39
62.21
31.17
-------
TABLE 62. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF DRIED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR STEERS
(percent change from the control)
Source
Fontenot et al.
(1971) -~~~
Webb et al.
(1973)
Oliphant (1974)
Cullison et al.
(1976)
Ration
25%
50%
25%
25% §
Molasses
14.7%
16.1%
23.1%
Vs Control
20% (Wood)
20% (Hulls)
Feed
Cost
Per
Tonne
-25.0
-50.0
-25.9
-21.7
-24.8
-25.8
-33.1
-18.7
-18.7
Feed
Cost
Per
Day
-29.3
-62.4
-32.4
-25.9
-28.2
-26.8
-37.1
-10.1
-11.6
Feed
Cost
Per Kg
Gain
-22.
-25.
-17.
- 8.
-21.
-22.
-23.
-13.
- 8.
9 •
8
6
9
9
4
4
6
3
Animal
Cost
+1.
+0.
-3.
-2.
0
-1.
-0.
-0.
-0.
8
7
1
3
2
7
3
5
Total
Feed
Cost
-29.3
-62.4
-32.4
-25.9
-20.7
-19.1
-23.7
-10.1
-11.6
Animal
Selling
Price
-0.1
-7.6
-7.9
-7.5
+0.5
+ 1.8
-0.5
+1.5
-1.7
Economic
Return
2370.
2175.
- 5.
-12.
+ 19.
+22.
+119.
+17.
+ 4.
0
8
2
3
2
7
7
4
1
Vs Neg. Control
20% (Wood)
20% (Hulls)
5.8%
13%
-11.3
-11.3
- 7.3
-16.6
- 2.2
- 3.9
- 5.7
-16.3
-11.
- 5.
- 4.
- 9.
1
6
1
5
-1.
-1.
+0.
+0.
0
1
4
2
- 2.2
- 3.9
- 5.7
-16.3
+3.2
0
-0.5
-3.2
+20.
+ 6.
+ 4.
+ 4.
3
6
0
5
-------
In the study by Webb et_ al. (1973), all feed costs were reduced for
both litter groups, but due to the cost of molasses the feed cost savings
were lower for the litter plus molasses group. Because of the poor animal
performance of both litter groups, animal selling prices and economic returns
were negative, due to the inability of feed cost savings to offset reduced
performance, Therefore, the gross values of litter for both groups were
negative.
Feed costs per tonne and per day were reduced in proportion to the lit-
ter ration content 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.
Animal selling prices for the 14.7 and 16.1% litter-fed groups were increased,
but slightly reduced for the 23.1% group. The economic return for all three
litter fed groups was increased. The increases for the 14.7% and 16.1%
groups reflect both feed cost savings and increased animal selling prices,
while the increased economic return for the 23.1% group represents only
feed cost savings. The estimated gross value of the litter for all three
groups was positive and the meanwas $156.91 ± 45.78.
All feed costs were reduced for the 20% 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 is 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% litter group. Animal selling prices were less for both litter fed
groups and reflects their reduced weight gains. Economic returns were
similarly increased for both litter-fed groups, but reflect feed cost savings
only. The calculated gross value of dried broiler litter was positive for
both litter-fed groups, but was highest for the 5.8% litter group.
Therewere no significant correlations between any of the economic
parameters and dried broiler litter ration content. Maximum or "optimum"
economic levels of incorporating dried broiler litter into growing and
finishing steer rations could not be determined. The maximum level "of
incorporation may be 14-18%, based upon the maximum animal response level
determined for these studies.
Discussion
The variable results delineated in the animal performance evaluation and
the economic assessment of the four feeding trials did not clearly demon-
strate 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 hours caused a 19% decrease in crude protein, a 59% decrease
in ether extract, and a 20% increase in crude fiber.
137
-------
The results of the study by Fontenot et_ al. (1971) indicated that incor-
porating dried broiler litter into a steer ration at 50% seriously reduced
animal performance. The economic incentive that appeared to exist for
utilizing litter at this level is more due to the reduced performance of
the control group than to the use of DBL. In contrast to the study by
Fontenot et_ aJ^. (1971), the study by Webb et_ a^. C1973) indicated that due
to poor animal performance, no incentives existed for the utilization of 25%
dried broiler litter in steer rations, even if molasses were added. Con-
versely, the study by Fontenot et^ al. (1971) indicated that economic incen-
tives existed for the utilization of dried broiler litter as a feedstuff for
steers.
The economic assessment of the study by Oliphant (1974) revealed a pos-
sible artificial benefit for utilizing dried broiler litter as a feedstuff
at 14.7 to 23.1% due to the extended trial periods. If animal performance
and economic assessment are calculated for the same trial length as the
controls, the economic incentive for utilizing dried broiler litter as a
feedstuff for steers is greatly reduced. The average calculated gross value
of litter becomes $35/tonne, instead of $157/tonne.
In the first study by Cullison et_ al. (1976), the evaluation revealed
that wood-shaving litter was worth more as a feedstuff than peanut-hull lit-
ter. This is opposite to what the nutrient composition of the two litter
bases suggests (Table 58). The digestibility of untreated wood pine shavings
is 14.5% versus 35.5% for peanut hull litter (Van Soest and Robertson, 1976).
Also, Fontenot et_ al. (1966) reported that as collected peanut hull litter
utilized as a feedstuff to steers outperformed wood shaving litter. It is
unclear why the wood-shaving litter-fed steers outperformed the peanut hull
litter in the study by Cullison et_ aJL (1976).
The evaluation of the feedstuff value of dried broiler litter for steers
indicated that 11-16% was about the maximum animal response level of incor-
poration. This is in agreement with the studies of Wooden and Algeo (1976)
and the second trial by Cullison e_t_ al. (1976). The calculated gross values
of litter do not account for any drying costs. Due to the cost of drying
broiler litter, the noted economic incentives for its utilization as a feed-
stuff for steers will be less.
ENSILED BROILER LITTER FED TO RUMINANTS
The utilization of ensiled broiler litter as a feedstuff for growing and
finishing steers and growing heifers has been considered in seven studies.
Three studies met the selection criteria and were evaluated (Table G-21).
The composition of the rations used in the evaluated studies are shown in
Table G-22. The composition, source and ensiling methods used in the evalu-
ated studies are shown in Table G-23. Generally, the incorporation of
ensiled broiler litter into ruminant rations increased crude and digestible
protein, ash, calcium and decreased TON and metabolizable energy levels.
138
-------
Animal Performance Evaluation
The performance of ruminants (body weights, feed consumption per day,
per kilogram of gain, total feed consumed, and total litter consumed) fed
ensiled broiler litter as a feedstuff are shown in Tables 63 and 64.
McClure et_ al. (1977) combined 17% broiler litter and 83% corn silage
and ensiled the mixture to yield a 30% broiler litter content (dry matter
basis). When considering the grain, soybean meal, silage and litter intake
as-fed, broiler litter constituted 12.8% of the total ration and was evaluated
at that level. Similarly, McClure et_ aK (1978) added 19% broiler litter to
81% corn silage and ensiled the mixture to yield a 30% broiler litter con-
tent (dry matter basis). When considering the grain, soybean meal, silage
and litter intake as-fed, broiler litter constituted" 22.3% of the total
ration. In both studies a negative control (corn silage plus grain) and a
positive control (corn silage plus grain plus soybean meal) were utilized.
The negative control group in the 1977 study performed poorly. This
may be attributed to the low crude and digestible protein content of the
ration (Table G-22). When the animal performance of the 12.8% litter group
was compared to the negative control group, the performance of the litter
group was improved. The litter group was able to utilize the ensiled broiler
litter as a supplement, and no palatability problems were encountered. When
the animal performance of both litter-fed groups was compared to the positive
control group, weight gains were reduced for the 12.8% litter group and
increased for the 12.8% litter plus soybean meal group. Feed consumption per
day increased for both litter groups and the increase was comparable to the
litter content of the ration, which suggests that the litter had a diluting
effect. Feed efficiency was decreased for both groups of litter-fed heifers,
with the decrease being the largest for the litter without soybean meal
group. The authors suggested that the concentrates required per unit of
gain were similar for the positive control group and both litter groups.
This comparison is of little significance because the total ration required
per unit of gain increased 15.2% for the litter without soybean meal group
and 7.1% for the litter plus soybean meal group.
In the 1978 study, the negative control group again performed poorly.
The poor performance was attributed to the low crude and digestible protein
content of the ration (Table G-22). The 22.3% litter group outperformed the
negative control group in terms of weight gains. However, feed consumption
per day greatly increased, and feed efficiency slightly decreased. In com-
parison to the positive control group, both litter groups gained more weight,
but feed consumption per day greatly increased and feed efficiency decreased.
The increase in feed consumption per day was similar to the litter content
in the rations, suggesting that the litter might have been a diluent in the
ration.
There were no significant correlations between any of the animal response
"parameters of heifers (expressed as a percent change from the control) and
ensiled broiler ration content. However, when the comparisons to the negative
control groups were deleted, several significant correlations resulted. Feed
consumption per kilogram of gain increased in a direct relationship with
ensiled broiler litter content. The maximum level of incorporation that will
139
-------
TABLE 63. PERFORMANCE OF RUMINANTS FED ENSILED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF (kilograms)
Initial
Source Weight
Heifers
McClure et al. (1977)
Negative Control 199
12.8% Control 219
Positive Control 198
12.8% litter §
SBM* 215
McClure et al_. (1978)
Negative Control 251.3
22.3% litter 252.7
Positive Control 255.8
22.3% litter $
SBM* 250.8
Steers
Cross et al. (1978)
Control 228
10% litter 238
30% litter 233
70 to 44% litter 220
50% litter 223
Final
Weight
306
402
385
413
389.2
425
416.4
426.8
372
418
421
388
349
Weight
Gain
107
183
187
198
137.9
172.3
160.6
176
144
180
188
168
126
Average
Daily
Gain
0.535
0.915
0.935
0.990
0.806
1.008
0.939
1.029
0.72
0.90
0.94
0.84
0.63
Feed
Consumption
Per Day
8.437
14.878
13.200
14.969
12.247
15.559
12.564
15.558
8.1
8.9
9.1
5.4
6.7
Feed
Consumption
Per Kg Gain
15.77
16.26
14.12
15.12
15.19
15.44
13.38
15.12
11.25
9.89
9.68
6.43
10.63
Total
Feed
Consumed
1687.4
2975.6
2640.0
2993.8
2094.2
2660.6
2148.4
2660.4
1620
1780
1820
1080
1340
Total
Litter
Consumed
-
380.9
-
383.2
-
593.3
-
593.3
-
178
546
475.2
670
Soybean meal
-------
TABLE 64. PERFORMANCE OF RUMINANTS FED ENSILED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF (percent change from
the control)
Source
Heifers
McClure et al. (1977)
12.8% litter vs 1*
12.8% litter vs 2t
12.8% litter £ SBM*
McClure et al. (1978)
22.3% litter vs 1 *
22.3% litter vs 2 t
22.3% litter $ SBM*
Steers
Cross et al. (1978)
10% litter
30% litter
70 to 44% litter
50% litter
Initial
Weight
+ 10.0
+10.6
+ 8.6
+ 0.6
- 1.2
- 2.0
+ 4.4
+ 2.2
- 3.5
- 2.2
Final
Weight
+31.4
+ 4.4
+ 7.3
+ 9.2
+ 2.1
+ 2.5
+ 12.4
+13.2
+ 4.3
- 6.2
Weight Gain
arid Average
Daily Gain
+71.0
- 2.1
+ 5.9
+ 25.0
+ 7.3
+ 9.6
+25.0
+30.6
+ 16.7
-12.5
Feed Consumption
Per Day and Total
Feed Consumed
+76.3
+ 12.7
+ 13.4
+27.0
+23.8
+23.8
+ 9.9
+ 12.3
-33.3
-17.3
Feed Consumption
Per Kilogram
Gain
+ 3.1
+15.2
+ 7.1
+ 1.6
+15.4
+13.0
-12.1
-14.0
-42.8
- 5.5
*1 Negative control group
t2 Positive control group
* Soybean meal
-------
neither increase nor decrease feed consumption is 1.3% (Figure 29), indicat-
ing that ensiled broiler litter fed at any level will decrease feed efficiency
and that the litter may be acting as a diluent. In terms of average daily
gain, the maximum animal response level that will neither enhance nor
adversely affect gains is 10%. As the litter content increased about 13.4%,
average daily gain appeared to increase. These statistical analyses are for
four data points only and additional studies are required to clearly deter^
mine any animal performance benefits for utilizing ensiled broiler litter
as a feedstuff for heifers,
In the study by Cross et^ al. (1978) utilizing ensiled broiler litter as
a feedstuff for growing steers, the original experimental design was modi-
fied. On day 35 of the trial the 70% broiler litter ration was changed due
to extremely poor animal performance. Instead of feeding broiler litter
silage at a certain percentage of the ration, the steers were allowed to con-
sume it free choice, in addition to ground corn. For the entire period of
study, this group consumed 44% broiler litter silage. This value was used
in the evaluation for this group. Weight gains were increased for the 10 to
44% groups; however, they decreased for the 50% litter silage-fed steers.
Feed consumption per day increased for the 10 and 30% litter groups and
decreased for the 44 and 50% litter groups. Although all litter groups had
improved feed 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 is lower than all the other rations (Table G-22).
There were no significant correlations between any of the animal response
parameters of steers and ensiled broiler litter ration content when expressed
in kilograms. However, when expressed as a percent change frnm the control,
both feed consumption per day and average daily gain were correlated to litter
content (Figure 30). These animal performance results are very limited and
variable and only include four data points. Therefore, additional studies
are required to clearly determine any animal performance benefits for utiliz-
ing ensiled broiler litter as a feedstuff for steers. The maximum animal
response level of incorporating broiler litter silage into steer rations that
will neither increase nor decrease feed consumption per day may be 25%, and
the maximum level for average daily gain may be 52%. There is insufficient
information at this time to determine any "optimum" levels for ensiled
broiler litter.
Economic Value Estimation
The economic estimation of the value of ensiled broiler litter as a
feedstuff for ruminants (based on feed costs, animal cost and selling price,
and economic return) is shown in Tables 65 and 66.
Feed costs per tonne and per kilogram of gain were reduced for both
litter groups in the study by McClure et_ al. (1977). In contrast to the
negative control group, feed costs per day and total feed costs increased
for the 12.8% litter group. This may be attributed to the large increase in
feed consumption per day for the litter group. In contrast to the positive
control group, the 12.8% litter group had lower feed costs per day and total
142
-------
+ 301
o
IT
z +20
o
o
tu
V)
o
a.
O
-------
+ 30-
o
(E
o + 15
O
(T
o
X
u
5?
o-
-15-
-30
LEGEND
• FEED INTAKE PER DAY
• AVERAGE DAILY GAIN
AVERAGE DAILY GAIN
R« -0.71
Y- -0.77U) + 40.6
FEED INTAKE PER
ft = -0.78
Y « -0.96(X)
25.1
10 20 30 40
ENSILED BROILER LITTER RATION CONTENT,0/.
50
Figure 30. Relationships Between Ensiled Broiler Litter Ration
Content, Average Daily Gain, and Feed Consumption
Per Day For Steers Fed Ensiled Broiler Litter
144
-------
TABLE 65. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF ENSILED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR RUMINANTS (dollar)
Source
Heifers
McClure et al,
(1977) '
Negative
Control
12.8% litter
Positive
Control
12.8% litter (
SBM *
McClure et al .
(1978)
Negative
Control
22.3% litter
Positive
Control
22.3% litter
$ SBM *
Feed
Cost
Per Tonne
48,90.
35,60
47,00
i
42.50
43,00
35,00
51.90
41.30
Feed
Cost
Per Day
0,4126
0.5297
0.6204
0,6362
0:5266
0.5446
0.6521
0.6425
Feed Cost
Per Kilogram
Gain
0,7712
0.5789
0.6635
0.6426
0,6533
0.5403
0.6945
0.6244
Animal
Cost
329.05
362,12
327.39
355.50
415.52
417.84
422.97
414.70
Total
Feed
Cost
82,52
105.94
124.08
127.24
90.05
93.13
111.51
109.87
Animal
Selling
Price
505,97
664.71
636.60
682.90
643.54
702.74
688.52
705.71
Gross Value
Economic Per Tonne of
Return Litter
94.40
196.65 268.44*
30.24t
185.13
200.16 39.22
137.97
191.77 90.68*'
63.59t
154.04
181.14 45.68
(continued)
-------
TABLE 65, (continued)
Source
Steers
Cross et al,
(1978)
Control
10% litter
30% litter
70 to 44%
litter
50% litter
Feed
Cost
Per Tonne
59
58
37
57
35
.90
,40
,90
,60
,00
Feed Feed Cost
Cost Per Kilogram Animal
Per Day Gain Cost
0.4852
0,5198
0,3449
0,3110
0,2.345
0.6739
0.5776
0.3669
0.3702
0.3722
351,85
367.28
359.57
339.50
344,13
Total
Feed
Cost
97,04
103.96
68.98
62.20
46.90
Animal
Selling
Price
574,07
645.06
649.69
598.76
538.58
Gross Value
Economic Per Tonne of
Return Litter
125
173
221
197
147
.18
.82
.14
.06
.55
-
273
175
151
33
-
.26
.75
.26
.39
*1 Compared to negative control group
t2 Compared to positive control group
* Soybean meal
-------
TABLE 66. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF ENSILED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR RUMINANTS
(percent change from the control)
Source
Heifers
McClure et al .
(1977)
McClure et al.
(1978)
Steers
Cross et al.
(1978)
Ration
12.8% litter
vs 1*
12.8% litter
vs 2t
12.8% litter
§ SBM *
22.3% litter
vs 1*
22.3% litter
vs 2t
22.3 litter £
SBM *
10% litter
30% litter
70 to 44% litter
• 50% litter
Feed Feed Cost
Cost Per Day and
Per Total Feed
Tonne Cost
-27.2
-24.3
- 9.6
-18.6
-32.6
-20.4
- 2.5
-36.7
- 3.8
-41.6
+28
-14
+ 2
+ 3
-16
- 1
+ 7
-28
-35
-51
.4
.6
.5
.4
.5
.5
.1
.9
.9
.7
Feed Cost
Per Kilogram Animal
Gain Cost
-24
-12
- 3
-17
-22
-10
-14
-45
-45
-44
.9
.7
.1
.3
.2
.1
.3
.6
.1
.8
+10
+10
+ 8
+ 0
- 1
- 2
+ 4
+ 2
- 3
- 2
.0
.6
.6
.6
.2
.0
.4
.2
.5
.2
Animal
Selling
Price
+31
t 4
+ 7
+ 9
+ 2
+ 2
+12
+ 13
+ 4
- 6
.4
.5
.3
.2
.1
.5
.4
.2
.3
.2
Economic
Return
+108 ;-3
+ 8.1
+ 6.2
+39.0
+24.5
+ 17.6
+38.9
+ 76.7
+57.4
+ 17.9
*1 Compared to negative control group
t2 Compared to positive control group
* Soybean meal
-------
feed costs. However, these costs increased slightly for the 12.8% litter
plus soybean meal group. Both the animal selling price and economic return
are increased for both litter groups. In contrast to the negative control
group, the large increase in economic return for the 12.8% litter group
reflects the increased animal selling prices and not feed cost savings. In
contrast to the positive control group, the increased economic return for
the 12.8% litter group reflects both feed cost savings and increased animal
selling prices. The increased economic return for the 12.8% litter plus
soybean meal group reflects only increased animal selling prices and not feed
cost savings. The calculated gross value of litter is artificially high due
to the poor performance of the negative control group and does not reflect
its true value. The calculated value should be computed on the performance
of the positive control group and the value of $30-39 per tonne reflects the
value of ensiled broiler litter used in this study.
Similarly, feed costs per tonne and per kilogram of gain were lower for
both litter groups in the study by McClure et_ al. (1978). Feed costs per
day and total feed costs were higher for the 22.3% litter group, when com-
pared to the negative control group, but were lower for both litter groups
when compared to the positive control group. Both the animal selling price
and economic return were greater for the litter groups. The increased
economic return for the 22.3% litter group, in contrast to the negative con-
trol group, reflects the increased animal selling price and not feed cost
savings. In comparison to the positive control group, the higher economic
return for both litter groups reflects both increased animal selling prices
and feed cost savings. The calculated gross value of $46-64 per tonne, when
computed against the performance of the positive control group, reflects the
value of ensiled broiler litter utilized as a feedstuff for heifers for this
study.
The economic assessment results were statistically analyzed, but the
data base is insufficient to determine any significant maximum or "optimum"
levels of incorporating ensiled broiler litter into heifer rations.
The economic assessment of the study by Cross et_ al. (1978) is confounded
by the poor performance of the control group which was attributed to the low
protein availability of their ration. Therefore, feed cost savings, increased
animal selling prices and increased economic returns are artificially high,
and the calculated gross value of the ensiled litter does not reflect its
true value.
Discussion
The practice of ensiling broiler litter with corn silage has been sug-
gested as a method to: (1) increase palatability; (2) increase the protein
content of the corn silage; (31 reduce nutrient losses; (4) permit stock-
piling of litter and thereby reduce handling costs; (5) control harmful
pathogens; (6) deodorize the litter; and (7) increase economic returns.
The protein content of ensiled broiler litter silage has been reported
to be approximately double that of corn silage (Couch, 1974). Studies by
McClure et_ al^., (_1977, 1978) reported a 48% increase in protein content of
148
-------
corn-litter silage. McClure et_ a^. (1977, 1978) suggested that feeding lit-
ter silage to heifers will result in similar animal performance as heifers fed
a typical silage ration plus a protein supplement.
The evaluation of animal performance in this section indicated that
heifers fed ensiled litter will have an increase in all feed consumption
parameters and usually increase their total weight, gains. The increase in
feed consumption per day was equivalent to the litter content in the rations
and suggests that the litter may have had a dilution effect. However, body
weights generally increased for the litter fed-heifers indicating that they
were able to utilize some of the nutrients in the litter. Therefore, the
ensiled broiler litter acted as more than a diluent.
The economic assessment indicated that the increased feed consumption
reduced and in some cases negated potential feed cost savings. The sub-
stantial feed cost savings suggested by the authors were not realized and
this is reflected in the low gross value of the litter ($30-64 per tonne).
The gross value does not reflect any handling, transportation or ensiling
costs.
The evaluation of animal performance and the economic assessment of
utilizing 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 or 70% litter silage into a ration resulted in
palatability problems. The authors suggest that broiler litter can be a
replacement for corn silage up to and including at least 30%, with no
deleterious effects upon carcass or organoleptic quality. The animal res-
ponse indicates that the maximum level of utilizing litter silage is 30%, on
the basis of feed efficiency. However, on the basis of average daily gain,
the maximum level is 43%. Additional investigations are needed to fully
evaluate the practice of utilizing ensiled broiler litter as a feedstuff in
steer rations because the current state of the art prohibits delineation of
its benefits.
In summary, any benefits from utilizing ensiled broiler litter as a
feedstuff for heifers and steers cannot be clearly delineated at this time.
Although animal response indicates that possible benefits exist, they are
confounded by the abnormal performance of the control groups and the limited
data base. Identifying maximum and "optimum" levels of incorporating ensiled
broiler litter into ruminant rations must await the results of future feed-
ing trials.
COMPOSTED BROILER LITTER FED TO RUMINANTS
Composted broiler litter used as a feedstuff for beef heifers and brood
cows has been extensively studied by Webb et_ al_. (1974, 1975, 1977, and 1978)
and these studies were evaluated (Table G-r24), The composition of the various
control and litter rations is shown in Table G-25, Generally, incorporation
of composted broiler litter into the rations increased crude and digestible
protein, ether extract, ash, calcium, phosphorus, and TON, and decreased
crude fiber and metabolizable energy levels. Copper (Cu) was added to one
litter ration in each study to determine if copper toxicity would be
encountered. The litter used was removed from broiler houses bedded with
149
-------
wood shavings and was stacked in an open shed for an unspecified time
period prior to feeding.
Two-thirds of the original 42 beef heifers in the study by Webb et al.
(1974) were fed the litter ration during the winter months and placed on
pasture the remainder of the year. The study with the original 33 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 sup-
ply the TON requirements for growing heifers and pregnant cows. Additional
hay was added to the litter rations in 1977^-1978 due to a poor grazing season
and the cows entered the winter in a thin condition. The additional hay is
calculated into the feed intake data in the animal performance evaluation.
Animal Performance Evaluation
The performance of beef heifers (feed consumption per day, per kilogram
of gain and total feed, average daily gain, total weight gain, and calving)
fed composted broiler litter is shown in Tables 67 and 68. The performance
of brood cows (feed consumption per day and total feed, calving and calf
weights) fed composted broiler litter is shown in Tables 69 and 70.
There were no significant differences between rations containing composted
litter or composted litter plus copper in any of the seven studies. Copper
content in the liver of the copper supplementation animals was higher than
that of the animals fed litter with no supplementation or the control ani-
mals. The copper levels decreased during the summer when all animals were
on pasture.
The utilization of composted broiler litter in growing beef heifer
wintering rations significantly improved feed efficiency and body weight gains
and had no harmful effects upon calving or calf birth weights (Tables 67
and 68). This increased performance is not unexpected because the nutrient
content of their ration was higher than the control rations (Table G-25).
The control ration composition was high in hay while the litter rations con-
tained ear or shell corn. The rations were fed in such amounts as to sup-
ply the TON requirements. However, this practice is questionable (Ensminger
and Olentine, 1978; Van Soest, 1980). Furthermore, the daily intake of
digestible protein was 41-66% greater for the litter fed heifers than the
controls. To evaluate the value of composted broiler litter, the control
rations should be 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
significantly affect their performances, according to the authors (Tables
69 and 70). These results indicate that pregnant brood cows were able to
utilize the nutrients in composted litter when they constitute as much as
67 to 80% of the ration.
No correlations between any of the animal response parameters and the
composted litter ration were apparent. Therefore, any maximum or "optimum"
animal response levels of incorporation into a ration cannot be determined.
150
-------
TABLE 67, PERFORMANCE OF BEEF HEIFERS FED COMPOSTED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF (kilograms)
Source
Webb et al_. (1974)
Control
50% litter
50 % Utter 6 Cu*
Control
75% litter
75% litter 6 Cu*
Webb et al_. (1975)
Control
75% litter
75% litter 6 Cu*
Feed
Consumption
Per Day
5.579
5.171
6.078
7.484
7.303
7.802
6.577
5.897
5.806
Feed Per
Ki logram
Of Gain
21.213
13.572
14.897
31.183
15.183
15.794
_
-
-
Average
Daily
Gain
0.263
0.381
0.408
0.240
0.481
0.494
-0.562
-0.617
-0.508
Total Number Calf
Weight Of Calves Percent Birth
Gain Born Calving Weight
34.2 ...
49.5
53.0
23.5 ...
47.1
48.4 ...
11 78.6 29.03
12 85.7 29.94
14 100 30.39
Total
Feed
Consumed
725.3
672.2
790.1
733.4
715.7
764.6
920.8
825.6
812.8
Total
Litter
Consumed
-
336.1
395. 0
-
536.8
573.4
_
619.2
609.6
* Copper
TABLE 68. PERFORMANCE
OF BEEF HEIFERS FED COMPOSTED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF (percent change from the
Feed
Consumption
Per Day and Total
Source
Webb et al. (1974)
50% litter
50% litter 3 Cu*
75% litter
75% litter 5 Cu
Webb e_t al. (1975)
75% litter
75% litter f, Cu*
Feed
_
+
-
+
_
-
Consumed
7.3
8.9
2.4
4.2
10.3
11.7
Feed Per
Ki logram
Gain
-36.0
-29.8
-51.3
-49.4
. _
-
Average Daily Number of Calves
Gain and Total Born and Percent
Weight Gain Calving
+ 44.9
+ .55.1
+100.4
+105.8
- 9.8 + 9.1
+ 9.6 +27.3
control)
Calf
Birth
Weight
_
-
-
-
+3.1
+4.7
* Copper
-------
TABLE 69. PERFORMANCE OF BROOD COWS FED COMPOSTED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF (kilograms)
Source
Webb et al . (1974)
Control
80% litter
80% litter $ Cu*
Webb et al_. (1977)
Control
80% litter
80% litter $ Cu*
Control
72.4% litter
72.4% litter § Cu*
Webb e_t al_. (1978)
Control
66.7% litter
66.7% litter $ Cu*
Feed
Consumption
Per Day
8.165
7.484
7.484
7.802
6.260
7.076
9.843
9.480
9.979
9.117
7.983
8.346
Number
Of Calves
Born
7
6.4
7.7
14
13
14
10
10
7
-
-
-
Percent
Calving
63.6
58.5
69.7
100
91.7
100
83.3
83.3
58.3
-
-
-
Calf
Birth
Weight
32.7
34.5
33.6
30.4
32.2
31.7
31.7
31.7
32.2
-
-
-
Total
Feed
Consumed
1102.3
1010.3
1010.3
928.4
744.9
842. '0
1092.6
1052.3
1107.7
1084.9
950.0
993.2
Total
Litter
Consumed
-
808.2
808.2
-
595.9
673.6
-
761.9
802.0
-
633.6
662.5
Copper.
-------
in
TABLE 70. PERFORMANCE OF BROOD COWS FED COMPOSTED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF (percent change
from the control)
Source
Webb et al^. (1974)
80% litter
80% litter § Cu*
Webb £t a^. (1977)
80% litter
80% litter S Cu*
72.4% litter
72.4% litter § Cu*
Webb et al. (1978)
66.7 litter
66.7% litter § Cu*
Feed Consumption
Per Day and Total
Feed Consumption
- 8.3
- 8.3
-19.8
- 9.3
- 3.7
+ 1.4
-12.4
- 8.5
Number of Calves
Born and Percent
Calves
- 8.6
+10.0
- 7.1
0
0
-30.0
-
Calf
Birth
Weight
+5.5
+2.8
+6.0
+4.5
0
+ 1.4
-
Copper
-------
Economic Value Estimation
The economic estimation of the value of composted broiler litter as a
feedstuff for beef heifers and brood cows (based on feed cost per tonne,
per day, per kilogram of gain, per calf and total, and feed cost savings)
is shown in Tables 71 and 72.
All feed cost parameters were lower for the composted^litter-fed heifers
and cows, in a direct relationship with litter content in the ration. Feed
cost savings were higher for the cows than the heifers ($51.46 versus $35.49),
which is attributed to the higher litter content in the cow rations. The
estimated gross value of composted broiler litter for all the evaluated
studies was similar for both the heifers and the cows ($80.69 and $72.24,
respectively). The results of the economic evaluation of utilizing composted
broiler litter as a feedstuff for beef heifers and brood cows indicate that
economic incentives may exist to reduce feed costs.
Discussion
The utilization 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 indepently confirmed.
The evaluation of these studies has been hampered because of incomplete
and/or confusing reported results. The nutrient composition of the composted
broiler litter, the composting duration and the influence of composting on
litter nutritive value were not reported. Also, from a nutritional basis,
comparing the performance of cattle fed a 100% forage ration to the performance
of cattle fed forage and corn grain ration, may be inappropriate.
Despite the problems encountered in the evaluation of these studies,
the utilization of composted broiler litter appears to offer animal performance
benefits and economic incentives. Beef heifers and brood cows fed composted
broiler litter appear to have an enhanced or at least similar animal per-
formance as cattle fed a hay ration. In the cited studies (Webb et_ al.
(1974, 1977, and 1978) no detrimental effects were observed.
The economic incentive offered by this practice is substantially reduced
feed costs. Transportation, handling and composting costs must be sub-
tracted from the estimated gross value of composted broiler litter determined
by this section.
SUMMARY OF BROILER LITTER FEEDING TRIAL EVALUATIONS
The results of the evaluation of animal performance and the economic
assessment of the utilization of broiler litter as a feedstuff for ruminants
are summarized in Table 73. Maximum levels of incorporation that will
neither enhance or adversely affect animal performance vary with respect to
the type of processing used for the litter (as collected, dried, ensiled, or
composted). Economic levels of incorporation could not be determined
because of conflicting animal performance results and limited data bases.
154
-------
TABLE 71. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF COMPOSTED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR BEEF HEIFERS
AND BROOD COWS (dollars)
en
tn
Source
Heifers
Webb et al.
(1974)
Webb et al.
(1975)
Cows
Webb et al.
(1974)
Webb et al.
(1977)
Webb et al .
(1978)
Ration
Control
50% litter
50% litter § Cu*
Control
75% litter
75% litter £ Cu*
Control
75% litter
75% litter $ Cu*
Control
80% litter
80% litter £ Cu*
Control
80% litter
80% litter § Cu*
Control
72.4% litter
72.4% litter § Cu*
Control
66.7% litter
66.7% litter § Cu*
Feed
Cost
Per
Tonne
79.80
35.80
35.80
71.60
17.90
17.90
71.60
17.90
17.90
71.60
21.30
21.30
71.60
21.30
21.30
71.60
26.10
26.10
71.60
29.70
29.70
Feed
Cost
Per
Per Day
0.4452
0.1851
0.2176
0.5359
0.1307
0.1397
0.4709
0.1056
0.1039
0.5846
0.1594
0.1594
0.5586
0.1333
0.1507
0.7048
0.2474
0.2605
0.6528
0.2371
0.2479
Feed Cost Total
Per Kilogram Feed
Gain Cost
1.6928 57.88
0.4858 24.06
0.5333 28.29
2.2329 52.52
0.2718 12.81
0.2828 13.69
65.93
14.78
14.55
78.92
21.52
21.52
66.47
15.86
17.93
78.23
27.46
28.92
77.68
28.21
29.50
Feed
Cost
Per Calf
.
-
-
-
-
-
83.91
17.25
14.55
124.02
36.99
30.74
66.47
17.08
17.93
93.88
32.95
49.58
_
-
-
Feed
Cost
Savings
33.82
29.59
-
39.71
38.83
_
51.51
51.38
57.40
57.40
_
50.61
48.54
-
50.77
49.31
_
49.47
48.18
Gross Value
Per Tonne of
Litter
100.62
74.91
-
73.98
67.72
_
82.61
84.28
71.02
71.02
_
84.93
72.06
-
66.64
61.48
_
78.08
72.72
* Copper
-------
TABLE 72. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF COMPOSTED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR BEEF HEIFERS
AND BROOD COWS (percent change from the control)
Source
Heifers
Webb et al.
(1974)
Webb et al .
(1975)
Cows
Webb et al.
(1974)
Webb et al .
(1977)
Webb et al.
(1978)
Feed Cost Per Day, Feed Cost
Feed Cost Total Feed Cost, and Per Kilogram Feed Cost
Ration Per Tonne Feed Cost Savings Of Gain Per Calf
50% litter
50% litter § Cu *
75% litter
75% litter § Cu *
75% litter
75% litter § Cu *
80% litter
80% litter § Cu *
80% litter
80% litter $ Cu *
72.4% litter
72.4% litter § Cu *
66.7% litter
66.7 $ litter § Cu *
-55.1
-55.1
-75.0
-75.0
-75.0
-75.0
-70.3
-70.3
-70.3
-70.3
-63.5
-63.5
-58.5
-58.5
-58.4
-51.1
-75.6
-73.9
-77.6
-77.9
-72.7
-72.7
-76.1
-73.0
-64.9
-63.0
-63.7
-62.0
-71.3
-68.5
-87.8
-87.3
-79.4
-82.7
-70.2
-75.2
-74.3
-73.0
-64.9
-47.2
— -
— -
Copper
-------
TABLE 73. SUMMARY OF THE MAXIMUM ANIMAL RESPONSE LEVELS OF INCORPORATING
BROILER LITTER INTO RUMINANT RATIONS AND THE ESTIMATED ECONOMIC
VALUE OF THE LITTER
Treatment
As Collected
Dried
Ensiled
Composted
Species
Fed
Steers
Steers
Steers
Heifers
Heifers
Cows
Maximum
Animal Response
Level, %
18-22
11-16
25-52
1-10
-V75
^80
Estimated
Gross Value
Per Tonne
$72
$90
_
$90*
$81
$72
* Estimated gross value compared to positive control groups equals $45 per
tonne; value compared to negative control groups equals $180 per tonne;
the $90 per tonne represents the mean of all the observations.
157
-------
SECTION 9
NUTRITIVE AND ECONOMIC VALUE OF DAIRY COW
AND BEEF CATTLE MANURE BASED ON THE RESULTS
OF FEEDING TRIALS
INTRODUCTION
This section attempts to identify the value of dairy cow and beef cattle
manure as a feedstuff based on information from reported feeding trials. The
methodology delineated in Section 7 was used to evaluate the nutritional
information and to identify the economic costs and benefits.
DAIRY COW MANURE FEEDING TRIALS
An intensive review of the literature revealed few investigations utiliz-
ing dairy cow manure as a feedstuff. Some investigators reported feeding
dried or ensiled dairy cow manure, but due to the lack of experimental design
data and incomplete animal performance data, evaluation of the studies could
not be done. A brief summary of these studies is shown in Table 74.
Palafox and Rosenberg (1951) included 0, 5, 10 or 15% dried cow feces
into laying hen diets and concluded that feed consumption per hen day increased
for all manure diets, and egg production decreased for the birds fed the 15%
cow feces diet. Smith et_ al_. (1969, 1971) conducted digestibility studies
with dried cow manure, chemically treated or as collected, and concluded
that nitrogen utilization decreased and intake was depressed for sheep receiv-
ing the manure rations. Smith and Gordon (1971) fed dried cow manure to
heifers and reported depressed animal performance. Williams et_ a^. (1974)
ensiled fresh cow manure with corn and concluded that although efficiency
costs were reduced for the manure fed steers, decreased body weight gains
and lower resultant selling prices caused the economic return to be less than
the control steers. Goering and Smith (1977) ensiled liquid cow manure with
corn silage and reported improved animal performance for lambs fed this
mixture.
The nutrient content of dairy cow manure is highly variable, and is
influenced by the level of intake and the roughage to concentrate ratio
in the ration (Fisher, 1974). Before the benefits for utilizing dairy cow
manure as a feedstuff can be determined additional digestibility studies
and feeding trials must be conducted.
158
-------
TABLE 74. SUMMARY OF THE STUDIES UTILIZING DAIRY COW MANURE AS A FEEDSTUFF
Source
Type of
Manure
Species
Fed Animal Performance Results
Palafox and Rosenberg Dried Laying Hens
(1951)
Smith e_t al. (1969) Dried Sheep
Smith et_ al. (1971) Dried Sheep
Smith and Gordon Dried Heifers
(1971)
Williams et_ al_. Ensiled Steers
(1974)
Goering and Smith Ensiled Lambs
(1977)
5,10 and 15% increased
feed consumption per bird-
day. 15% decreased egg
production.
Poor nitrogen utilization.
Depressed intake.
Decreased animal perfor-
mance.
Depressed body weight
gains.
Improved animal perfor-
mance when compared to
ration containing corn
silage, urea and soybean
meal.
BEEF CATTLE MANURE
A total of 35 studies were identified that involved the direct utiliza^
tion of beef cattle manure as a feedstuff for cattle. Twelve of these
studies fulfilled the evaluation criteria stated in Section 7 and were evalu-
ated in this section.
AS COLLECTED OR DRIED BEEF CATTLE MANURE FED TO STEERS AND HEIFERS
The utilization of as collected or dried beef cattle manure as a feed-
stuff to growing and finishing ruminants has been investigated in 13 studies.
Only four studies fulfilled the selection criteria and were evaluated
(Table G-26). The composition of the rations utilized in the four studies
is shown in Table G-27. The composition, source and method of handling the
cattle manure used in the four studies are noted in Table G-28. Generally,
the incorporation of beef cattle manure into ruminant rations increased
crude protein, ash, calcium and phosphorus, and decreased digestible protein,
TON and metabolizable energy levels.
159
-------
Animal Performance Evaluation
The performance of steers and heifers (body weights, feed consumption
and waste consumption) fed as collected or dried beef cattle manure as a
feedstuff is shown in Tables 75 and 76.
In the first of three trials, Anthony (1966) added fresh, unwashed cattle
manure to a high energy fattening steer ration at the ratio of 60 parts
concentrate to 40 parts manure. Feed consumption per day, per kilogram of
gain and total feed consumed was higher for the manure-fed steers, while
their average daily gain and total body weight gain significantly decreased
when compared to the controls. In the second trials, 28.7% fresh unwashed
manure was added to a silage-concentrate steer ration. All feed consumption
parameters increased and weight gain parameters decreased for the manure-fed
steers. In the third trial, the manure-fed animals from trial 2 were fed
a concentrate manure steer ration at a ratio of 60 parts concentrate to 40
parts manure. All feed consumption parameters significantly increased.
Weight gain parameters significantly decreased for the manure-fed steers.
In the first of two trials, Anthony (1971) added feedlot manure to a
concentrate fattening steer ration at the ratio of 60 parts concentrate to
40 parts manure and compared the performance of steers fed the manure ration
to control steers fed a concentrate ration supplemented with cottonseed meal
and molasses. All feed consumption parameters were significantly higher,
while body weight parameters were slightly lower for the manure-fed steers.
In the second trial, the same manure ration was fed, but the control ration
was supplemented with urea. Feed consumption per day was slightly higher,
feed efficiency was similar, and body weight gains were greater for the manure
fed steers when compared to the controls. This improved performance by the
manure fed steers is misleading due to a reduced animal performance of the
control steers. The urea-supplemented control ration was unpalatable and
the steers drooled excessively throughout the trial.
There were no significant correlations between any of the animal response
parameters and manure content. From an animal response basis, the feeding of
as collected beef cattle manure to steers decreased body weight gains,
lowered feed efficiency, increased feed consumption per day, and appears
not to be a sound nutritional practice,
The performance of yearling calves (4 heifers and 2 steers per group)
fed dried feedlot manure was reported by Johnson et_ al. (1975a), Animal
performance results are expressed as the average of the heifers and steers
in each group. In the first experimental group, 15% manure replaced all
of the cottonseed hulls in the control ration; in the second group, 10%
manure replaced two-thirds of the cottonseed hulls; and in the third group
15% manure replaced two-thirds of the cottonseed hulls and most of the soybean
meal in the control ration. Feed consumption per day decreased for all
manure-fed calves, indicating a possible palatability problem. Both feed
efficiency and body weight gains were significantly lower for all three
manure-fed groups.
160
-------
TABLE 75. PERFORMANCE OF STEERS AND HEIFERS FED AS COLLECTED OR DRIED BEEF CATTLE MANURE AS A FEEDSTUFF (kilograms)
Source
As Collected
Anthony (1966)
Anthony (1971)
Dried
Johnson et al.
(1975a)
Lowrey et al .
(1975)
Ration
Control
40% Manure
Control
28.7% Manure
Control
40% Manure
Control
40% Manure
Control
40% Manure
Control
15% Manure
w/o hulls t
10% Manure
15% Manure
w/o SBM t
Control 1
Control 2
20% Manure
Initial
Weight
250
250
250
250
340
327.8
285
283
337
336
250
250
250
250
330
330
330
Final
Weight
434.7
411.2
340
327.8
432.1
386.6
410
405
444
448
359.8
316.1
340.4
326.8
456.4
445.6
431.9
Weight
Gain
184.7
161.2
90.0
77.8
92.1
58.8
125
122
107
112
109.8
66.1
90.4
76.8
126.4
115.6
101.9
Average
Daily
Gain
0.957
0.83S
0.703
0.608
0:98
0.626
1.225
1.196
0.793
0.83
1.207
0.726
0.993
0.844
1.29
1.18
1.04
Feed
Consumption
Per Day
9.962
10.245
12.267
15.668
7.693
10.861
8.991
12.733
10.649
11.097
8.664
8.165
7.802
8.074
10.03
9.90
9.95
Feed
Consumption
Per Kg Gain*
10.41
12.27
17.45
25.77
7.85
17.35
7.34
10.61
13.48
13.37
7.18
11.25
7.86
9.57
7.76
8.39
9.57
Total
Feed
Consumed
1922.7
1977.3
1570.2
2005.5
723.1
1020.9
917.1
1298.8
1437.6
1478.1
788.4
743.0
710.0
734.7
982.9
970.2
975.1
Total
Waste
Consumed
_
790.9
_
575.6
-
408.4
_
519.5
_
599.2
111.4
71.0
110.2
_
-
195.0
* Calculated: feed consumption per day
t without cottonseed hulls
* without soybean meal
average daily gain
-------
TABLE 76. PERFORMANCE OF STEERS AND HEIFERS FED AS COLLECTED OR DRIED BEEF
CATTLE MANURE AS A FEEDSTUFF (percent change from the control)
Source
As Collected
Anthony
(1966)
Anthony
(1971)
Dried
Johnson et al .
(1975a)
Lowrey et al.
(1975)
Ration
40% Manure
28.7% Manure
40% Manure
40% Manure
40% Manure
15% Manure
w/o hulls*
10% Manure
15% Manure
w/o SMB t
20% Manure vs 1
vs 2
Initial
Weight
0
0
-3.6
-0.7
-0.3
0
0
0
0
0
Final
Weight
- 5.4
- 3.6
-10.5
- 1.2
+ 0.9
-12.1
- 5.4
- 9.2
- 5.4
- 3.1
Total Weight
Gain and
Average Daily
Gain
-12.7
-13.6
-36.2
- 2.4
+ 4.7
-39.8
-17.7
-30.1
-19.4
-11.9
Feed
Consumption
Per Day and
Total Feed
Consumed
+ 2.8
+27.7
+41.2
+41.6
+ 4.2
- 5.8
- 9.9
- 6.8
- 0.8
+ 0.5
Feed
Consumption
Per Kilogram
Gain
+ 17.9
+ 47.7
+121.0
+ 44.6
- 0.8
+ 56.7
+ 9.5
+ 33.3
+ 23.3
+ 14.1
* without cottonseed hulls
t without soybean meal
-------
Lowrey et_ al, (1975) added 20% dried cattle feedlot manure to a yearling
steer ration and compared their performance to two control rations. Control
ration (1) was supplemented with 8% soybean meal, and control ration (2) was
supplemented with 4% soybean meal. Feed consumption per day for the manure
group was similar to that of both control groups. Feed efficiency and weight
gains were significantly reduced for the manure group and were most reduced
when compared to control group (1).
Correlations were not determined for feed efficiency or average daily
gain (expressed as a percent change from the control) and dried manure ration
content (Figure 31) due to variation between the evaluated studies. Correla-
tions were determined for both parameters when they are expressed in kilo-
grams. As the dried manure ration content increased, kilograms of feed per
kilogram of gain increased, and average daily gain decreased (Figure 32). The
evaluation of the practice of utilizing dried_beef cattle manure as a feed-
stuff indicates that the performance of steers and heifers is likely to be
adversely affected by any level of manure added to the ration.
Economic Value Estimation
The economic estimation of the value of as collected or dried beef cattle
manure as a feedstuff for steers and heifers (based on feed costs, animal cost
and economic return) is presented in Tables 77 and 78.
In the first of three trials by Anthony (1966), all feed costs were
reduced for the manure-fed steers. The economic return for these steers
was larger than that of the control group and reflects only feed cost savings
because the animal selling price was reduced. In the second trial, feed
costs per tonne, per day and total feed costs were lower for the manure-fed
steers. Efficiency costs were slightly higher than that of the controls.
The decreased economic return by the manure-fed steers reflects the lower
animal price that was not offset by feed cost savings. The economic results
of the third trial were similar to those of the second trial. The calculated
gross value of manure for all three trials was negative (-$27), indicating
that economic benefits or incentives were not realized in this study.
All feed cost parameters were reduced for the manure-fed steers in the
two trials reported by Anthony (1971) . Because the controls in the second
trials performed abnormally, any benefits determined for the manure-fed group
are biased. The animal selling price was slightly lower for the manure-fed
steers in trial 1 but were offset by feed cost savings, and the economic
return increased. The estimated gross value of as collected cattle manure
for trial 1 was $22.21. The $109.10 value for trial 2 represents an arti-
ficially high value due to the factors discussed above.
No correlations between any of the economic parameters and the as col-
lected cattle manure content in the rations were observed. The average gross
value of as collected cattle manure is negative (-$15/tonne, excluding trial 2
in 1971), and indicates no economic incentives or benefits for utilizing this
type of manure as a feedstuff.
163
-------
LEGEND
• FEED PER KILOGRAM GAIN
• AVERAGE DAILY GAIN
60
+ 40 •
+ 20 -
o
(T
h-
Z
O
o
-------
LEGEND
• F{:ED PER KILOGRAM GAIN
• AVERAGE DAILY GAIN
12 n
r2.4
10-
• 2.0
e>
o
(T
UJ
Q.
O
Ul
UJ
u.
u.
o
to
2
<
cc
o
o
FEED PER KILOGRAM GAIN
R = 0.76
Y = O.I25(X) f 7.73
4 -
AVERAGE DAILY GAIN
R = -0.78
Y = -0.02(X) + 1.2
2 •
5 10 15 20
DRIED MANURE RATION CONTENT,%
•1.6
•1.2
-0.8
•0.4
25
CO
-------
TABLE 77, ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF AS COLLECTED OR DRIED BEEF CATTLE MA.VURE AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR STEERS AND HEIFERS (dollars)
ON
ON
Source
As Collected
Anthony (1966)
Anthony (1971)
Dried
Johnson et al.
(197Sa)
Lowrey e£ a^. (1975)
Ration
Control
40% Manure
Control
28.7% Manure
Control
40% Manure
Control
40% Manure
Control
40% Manure
Control
15% Manure w/o hulls*
10% Manure
15% Manure w/o SBMt
Control 1
Control 2
20% Manure
Feed Cost
Per Tonne
87.20
52. JO
44.30
31.50
114.40
68.60
117.30
70.40
106.80
64.00
101.10
89.20
93.10
92.40
102.00
94.40
89.40
Feed Cost
Per Day
0. 8687
0.5358
0.5434
0.4935
0.8801
0.7451
1.0546
0.8964
1.1373
0.7102
0.8759
0.7283
0.72.64
0.7460
1.0231
0.9346
0.8895
Feed Cost
Per Gain
0.9078
0.6417
0.7730
0.8118
0.8980
1.1902
0.8610
0.7469
1.4397
0.8557
0.7259
1.003S
0.7318
0.8843
0.7915
0.7920
0.8556
Animal
Cost
38S.80
385.80
385.80
385.80
524.69
505.86
439.81
436.73
520.06
518.52
385.80
385.80
385.80
385.80
509.26
S09.26
509.26
Total
Feed
Cost
167.66
103.41
69.56
63.17
82.72
70.03
107.57
91.40
153.54
95.88
79.71
66.28
66.10
67.89
100.26
91.59
87.17
Aninal
Selling
Price
670.83
634.56
524.69
505.86
666.82
596.60
632.71
625.00
685.18
691.35
555.24
487.81
525.31
504.32
704 . 32
687.65
666.51
Economic
Return
117.37
145.35
69.33
56.89
59.41
20.71
85.33
96.87
11.58
76.96
89.73
35.73
73.41
50.63
94.80
86.80
70.08
Gross Value
Manure Per
Tonne
.
35.38
.
-21.61
-
-94.76
_
22.21
-
109.10
_
-484.74
-229.86
-354.81
-
-
vsl-126.77
vs2- 85.74
* Without cottonseed hulls
t Without soybean Deal
-------
TABLE 78. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF AS COLLECTED OR DRIED BEEF CATTLE MANURE AS A FEEDSTUFF
TO STEERS AND HEIFERS (percent change from the control)
Source
As Collected
Anthony (1966)
Anthony (1971)
Dried
Johnson et al .
(1975a)
Lowrey et al .
(1975)
Ration
40% Manure
28.6% Manure
40% Manure
40% Manure
40% Manure
15% Manure
w/o hulls*
10% Manure
15% Manure
w/o SBMt
20% Manure
vs 1
vs 2
Feed Cost
Per Tonne
-40.0
-28.9
-40.0
-40.0
-40.1
-11.8
- 7.9
- 8.6
-12.4
- 5.3
Feed Cost
Per Day and
Total Feed Cost
-38.3
- 9.2
-15.3
-15.0
-37.6
-16.9
-17.1
-14.8
-13.1
- 4.8
Feed Cost
Per Kg -
Gain
-29.3
+ 5.0
+32.5
-13.3
-40.6
+38.2
+ 0.8
+21.8
+ 8.1
+ 8.0
Animal
Cost
0
0
-3.6
-0.7
-0.3
0
0
0
0
0
Animal
Selling
Price
- 5.4
- 3.6
-10.5
- 1.2
+ 0.9
-12.1
- 5.4
- 9.2
' - 5.4
- 3.1
Economic
Return
+23.8
-17.9
-65.1
+13.5
+564.6
-60.2
-18.2
-43.6
-26.1
-19.3
* Without cottonseed hulls
t Without soybean meal
-------
In the study by Johnson et al. (1975a), all feed costs were reduced for
the dried manure-fed calves as compared to the control group, except that
feed efficiency costs increased. The economic returns were lower for all
three manure-fed groups, because the feed cost savings were unable to offset
the reduced animal selling prices. Because of poor animal performance, the
gross values of the dried manure utilized in this study were negative.
In the study by Lowrey et_ al. (1975), all feed costs for the manure-fed
steers were lower than that of controls, with the exception of feed efficiency
costs. The economic return of the manure-fed steers, in comparison to both
control groups, was decreased because the feed cost savings did not offset
the reduced animal selling prices. Because of poor animal performance by
the manure-fed steers, the gross value of the dried manure was negative.
There were no correlations between any of the economic parameters and
the dried cattle manure content in the ration. The average estimated gross
value of dried cattle manure in all the evaluated studies was negative
(-$256 per tonne) and indicated that no economic incentives or benefits
appear to exist for utilizing this type of manure as a feedstuff.
Discussion
The reduced animal performance in the study by Anthony (1966) was
attributed to a possible growth-inhibiting property in fresh cattle manure
that could be removed by washing the manure prior to its incorporation into
a ration. However, Anthony (1970) reported similar reduced animal performance
when steers were fed rations containing washed or autoclaved cattle manure,
suggesting that beef cattle,manure is of low nutritive value as indicated
by its nutrient characteristics.
In a later study, Anthony (1971) concluded that steers fed beef cattle
manure consumed less of the basal ration and therefore feed cost savings could
be realized. The evaluation of animal response revealed that more total
ration (basal plus manure) was consumed by the manure-fed steers. When only
the basal portion is considered, the manure-fed steers consumed less of
the basal ration. However, the reduced weight gains and resultant selling
price of the steers decreased the feed cost savings. This is reflected in
the economic return of the manure-fed steers. The gross value of manure for
this group, which reflects the differences in economic returns of the control
and manure-fed steers, was only $22.21. When the cost of handling the manure
and incorporating it into a ration is considered, the value of this manure
may become negative.
The reduced animal performance reported in studies utilizing as collected
cattle manure as a feedstuff might be attributed to its low digestibility,
as reported by Albin and Sherrod (1975), Lucas et^ al_. (1975), and Richter and
Shirley (1977). The utilization of dried beef cattle manure as a feedstuff
for calves indicated that it is not a good source of either roughage or
nitrogen (Johnson et_ al. 1975a). Animal performance by the manure-fed steers
in the study by Lowrey et_ al^. (1975) was not comparable to control steers.
Similar reduced animal performance has been reported by Westing et al. (1978).
168
-------
In summary, the evaluation of animal performance and the economic assess-r
ment indicated that there are no apparent benefits or incentives for the
utilization of as collected beef cattle manure as a feedstuff for ruminants.
Similarly, from a nutritive and economic point-of-view, the utilization of
dried beef cattle manure as a feedstuff for ruminants offers no benefits
or incentives. This manure on a dry matter basis appears to have more value
as a source of plant nutrients ($24 per tonne; Smith and Wheeler, 1979) than
as a feedstuff.
I
ENSILED BEEF CATTLE MANURE FED TO RUMINANTS
The utilization of ensiled or composted beef cattle manure as a feed-
stuff for growing and finishing steers and heifers has been investigated in
22 studies. Only eight studies fulfilled the criteria and were evaluated
(Table G-29). The composition of the rations fed in the evaluated studies
is presented in Table G-30. Generally, the incorporation of cattle manure
in rations increased crude protein, ash, calcium, phosphorus and crude fiber,
and decreased TON and metabolizable energy levels. The composition, source
and treatment of the cattle manure utilized in the evaluated studies are
shown in Table G-31.
Animal Performance Evaluation
The performance of ruminants (body weight gains, feed consumption,
and manure consumption) fed ensiled beef cattle manure as a feedstuff, com-
pared to corn silage fed controls, is shown in Tables 79 and 80.
The term "wastelage" has been developed by Anthony to describe an
ensiled product containing 57 parts beef cattle manure and 43 parts ground
coastal bermudagrass hay. The effects of substituting 40% wastelage for the
corn silage in the control ration was studied by Anthony (1968). The ear
corn content of the manure^fed steers was increased from 24% to 57% of the
total ration. The manure content was 28% of the total ration and was evaluated
at that level. The manure-fed steers, in contrast to the controls, had a
higher feed consumption per day and total feed consumption, and lower feed
efficiency. The final body weight, total weight gain and average daily gain
were higher for the manure-fed steers.
Harpster et al. (1975) studied the effects of eliminating corn silage
and soybean meal in the control ration and replacing them with 24, 41.7% or
60% cattle waste ensiled with timothy hay. The 60% manure ration contained
no high moisture corn, the 41.7% manure ration corn content was comparable
to that of the control, and the 24% manure ration had double the corn con-
tent of the control ration. All weight gain parameters decreased in an
inverse relationship with the cattle waste content. Feed consumption per day
was higher for the 24% manure fed group, but the increases diminished as the
manure content increased suggesting a possible palatability problem. Feed
efficiency decreased for all manure-fed steers in a direct relationship with
the manure ration content.
169
-------
TABLE 79. PERFORMANCE OF RUMINANTS FED ENSILED BEEF CATTLE MANURE AS A FEEDSTUFFS COMPARED TO CORN SILAGE FED CONTROLS (kilograms)
Source
Anthony (1968)
Harpster et al.
(1975)
Harpster et al.
(1978)
Ration
Control
22.8% Manure
Control
24% Manure
41.7% Manure
60% Manure
Control
24% Manure
30% Manure
45% Manure
Initial
Weight
300
300
258
258
258
258
258
258
258
258
Final
Weight
427.4
437.2
530
516
502
408
460
453
446
395
Height
Gain
127.4
137.2
272
258
244
150
202
195
188
137
Average
Daily
Gain
0.91
0.98
1.36
1.29
1.22
0.75
1.10
1.07
1.03
0.75
Feed
Consumption
Per Day
7. 544
8.879
6.37
7.06
6.83
6.28
7.14
8.26
8.16
7.76
Feed Per
Kilogram
Of Gain
8.29
9.06
4.68
5.47
5.60
8.37
6.49
7.72
7.92
10.35
Total
Feed
Consumed
1056.2
1243.1
1274
1412
1366
1256
1306.6
1511.6
1493.3
1420.1
Total
Manure
Consumed
283.4
338.9
569.6
753.6
362.8
448
639
TABLE 80. PERFORMANCE OF RUMINANTS FED ENSILED BEEF CATTLE MANURE AS A FEEDSTUFF COMPARED TO CORN SILAGE FED CONTROLS (percent change
from the control)
Source
Anthony (1968)
Harpster et al.
(1975)
Harpster et al.
(1978)
Ration
22.8% Manure
24% Manure
41.7% Manure
60% Manure
24% Manure
30% Manure
45% Manure
Initial
Weight
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Final
Weight
+ 2.3
- 2.6
- 5.3
-23.0
- 1.5
- 3.0
-14.1
Weight Gain
and Average
Daily Gain
+ 7.7
- S.I
-10.3
-44.9
- 3.5
- 6.9
-32.2
Feed Consumption
Per Day and Total
Feed Consumed
+ 17.7
+ 10.8
+ 7.2
- 1.4
+ 15. 7
+ 14.3
+ 8.7
Feed Consumption
Per Kilogram of
Gain
+ 9.3
+ 16.9
+ 19.7
+ 78.8
+ 19.0
+22.0
+59.5
-------
In a second study, Harpster et_ al. (1978) eliminated the corn silage and
soybean meal in the control ration and replaced them with three levels (24,
30 and 45%) of cattle manure ensiled with hay. For the 24% manure ration,
the corn content was slightly higher than that of the control ration. For
the 30% manure ration, the corn content was similar to that of the control
ration and for the 45% manure ration the corn content was one half of that
in the control ration. Animal performance was similar to that observed in
the 1975 study. Weight gain and feed efficiency decreased as the manure
ration increased, and feed consumption per day increased for all the manure
rations. The increases were inversely related to the manure ration content.
There'were no correlations between any of the animal response parameters
(expressed in kilograms) and manure content. However, when the parameters
are expressed as a percent change from the control, all the animal response
parameters are significantly correlated to manure ration content. The utili-
zation of ensiled cattle manure as a feedstuff significantly reduced average
daily gain and total weight gains and significantly decreased feed efficiency
(Figure 33). The maximum animal response level that will neither enhance
nor adversely affect animal performance was 16-24%. However, this is
purely mathematical because no evaluated studies utilized this level of cat-
tle manure. From an animal response standpoint, the utilization of cattle
manure ensiled with hay as a feedstuff for steers can depress animal perfor-
mance and can cause palatability problems. Further experimentation is merited
utilizing low levels of cattle manure (5 to 20%) ensiled with hay as a replace-
ment for com silage.
The performance of ruminants (body weight gains, feed consumption, and
manure consumption) fed ensiled beef cattle manure as a feedstuff, compared
to corn grain fed controls, are presented in Tables 81 and 82.
Anthony et_ al^. (1969), in the first of two trials, mixed wastelage with
whole shelled corn in the ratio of 2:3. This mixture contained 20.6% manure
and was evaluated at this level. The manure-fed steers outperformed the
controls in attaining higher final body weights, total weight gain and
average daily gain, although their feed consumption per day increased sig-
nificantly and their feed efficiency decreased. The control steers suffered
from rumen parakeratosis, which might have biased the improved performance of
the manure-fed group. In the second trial, the performance of steers fed
rations containing 20, 40, or 60% wastelage (11.4, 22.8, or 34.2% manure)
plus whole shelled corn and 40% wastelage (22.8% manure) plus ground shelled
corn was compared to that of control steers. The performance of the wastelage-
fed steers was not comparable to the controls because they attained lower
body weight gains, had decreased feed consumption per day and a variable
feed efficiency.
Anthony (1971), in the first of three trials, investigated the effects
of feeding a 40% wastelage (21.1% manure) plus corn and cottonseed meal ration
and a 40% wastelage (22.8% manure) plus corn ration to yearling steers. Per-
formance of the manure-fed steers was comparable or superior to the controls
in respect to body weight parameters. Their feed consumption per day signifi-
cantly increased and feed efficiency significantly decreased. In the second
trial, several wastelage rations were fed to steers, but there was no control
171
-------
LEGEND
• AVERAGE DAILY GAIN
• FEED PER UNIT OF GAIN
+ 80-
-J + 40-
O
ac
z
o
u
o
-------
TABLE 81. PERFORMANCE OF RUMINANTS FED ENSILED BEEF CATTLE MANURE AS A FEEDSTUFF COMPARED TO CORN GRAIN FED CONTROLS (kilograms)
Source
Anthony (1969)
Anthony (1971)
Westing and
Brandenberg (1974)
Hill et al.
(1975F
Newton et al.
(1975)
Initial
Ration Weight
Control
20.6% Manure
Control
11.4% Manure
22.8V Manure
22.8% Manure & G.C.*
34.2 % Manure
Control
21.1% Manure 6 CSM t
22.8 Manure
Control
22.8% Manure
21.5% Manure « CSM t
21.9% Manure 6 Suppl.
16.4% Manure
22.8% Manure
23% Manure
Control
14% Manure
Control
20% Manure
40% Manure
60% Manure
Control
40% Manure
2SO
250
250
250
250
250
250
285
284
285
337
343
346
342
346
342
337
238
238
300
300
300
300
212
212
Final
Weight
388.6
397.4
371
354.5
356.7
362.2
333.6
410
419
410
444
475
479
475
479
466
477
443
441
435.5
443.4
447.8
410.9
362.1
354.2
Weight
Gain
138.6
147.4
121
104.5
106.7
112.2
83.6
125
135
125
107
132
133
133
133
124
140
205
203
135.5
143.4
147.8
110.9
150.1
142.2
Average
Daily
Gain
1.10
1.17
1.10
0.95
0.97
1.02
0.76
1.225
1.32
1.225
0.79
0.97
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.92
1.04
.11
.10
.21
.28
.32
0.99
1.34
1.27
Feed
Consumption
Per Day
8.195
10.858
12.54
7.98
11.271
10.70
10.26
8.991
11.444
11.587
10.649
12.397
11.715
12.250
11.133
11.513
13.60
8.25
8.66
9.39
9.60
9.28
7.465
7.571
11.062
Feed Per
Kilogram
Of Gain
7.45
9.28
11.40
8.40
11.62
10.49
13.50
7.34
8.67
9.46
13.48
12.78
11.95
12.50
11.36
12.51
13.08
7.43
7.87
7.76
7.50
7.03
7.54
5.65
8.71
Total
Feed
Consumed
1032.6
1368.1
1379.4
877.8
1239.8
1177.0
1128.6
917.1
1167.3
1181.9
1437.6
1686.0
1593.2
1666.0
1514.1
1544.3
1836.0
1518.0
1593.4
1051.7
1075.2
1039.4
836.1
848.0
1239.9
Total
Manure
Consumed
.
281.8
-
100.1
282.7
268.4
386.0
_
246.3
269.5
-
384.4
342.5
364.9
248.3
354.4
422.3
-
223.1
.
215.0
415.8
501.7
_
495.6
* G.C. - ground corn
t CSM - cottonseed meal
-------
TABLE 82. PERFORMANCE OF RUMINANTS FED ENSILED BEEF CATTLE MANURE AS A FEEDSTUFF, COMPARED TO CORN
GRAIN FED CONTROLS (percent change from the control)
Source
Anthony (1969)
Anthony (1971)
Westing and
Brandenberg (1974)
Hill et al.
(1975)
Newton et al .
(1975)
Ration
20.6% Manure
11.4% Manure
22.8% Manure
22.8% Manure
34.2% Manure
21.1% Manure
CSM}
22.8% Manure
22.8% Manure
21.5% Manure
21.9% Manure
16.4% Manure
22.8% Manure
23% Manure
14% Manure
20% Manure
40% Manure
60% Manure
40% Manure
Initial
Weight
0
0
0
£ GC* 0
0
§
-0.4
0
+ 1.8
$CSM-t+2.7
+1.5
+2.7
+1.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
Final
Weight
+2.3
-4.4
-3.9
-2.4
-10.1
+ 2.2
0
+ 7.0
+ 7.9
+ 7.0
+ 7.9
+ 5.0
+ 7.4
- 0.5
+ 1.8
+ 2.8
- 5.6
- 2.2
Weight Gain
and Average
Daily Gain
+ 6.3
-13.6
-11.8
- 7.3
-30.9
+ 7.9
0
+23.4
+24.3
+24.3
+24.3
+15.9
+30.8
- 1.0
+ 5.8
+ 9.1
-18.2
- 5.3
Feed Consumption
Per Day and Total
Feed Consumed
+32.5
-36.4
-10.1
-14.7
-18.2
+27.3
+28.9
+ 16.4
+ 10.0
+15.0
+ 4.5
+ 8.1
+27.7
+ 5.0
+ 2.2
- 1.2
-20.5
+46.1
Feed Consumption
Per Kilogram Of
Gain
+24.6
-26.3
+ 1.9
- 8.0
+ 18.4
+ 18.1
+28.9
- 5.2
-11.4
- 7.3
-15.7
- 7.2
- 3.0
+ 5.9
- 3.3
- 9.4
- 2.8
+54.2
-
* Ground corn
t Cottonseed meal
-------
group. Therefore, the control group from the third trial was utilized for
making comparisons. Four wastelage rations were fed; (1} 40% wastelage
(22.8% manure) plus corn; (2} 40% wastelage C21.5% manure) plus corn and
soybean meal; (3) 40% wastelage (21.9% manure) plus corn and a commercial
supplement; and (4) 30% wastelage (16.4% manure) plus corn and a commercial
supplement. The control ration contained ground corn supplemented with urea
and was unpalatable, because the steers drooled excessively throughout the
study. Therefore, comparisons to this group may be biased. Performance
of all wastelage-fed steers was superior to that of controls for all animal
performance parameters, except their feed consumption per day increased. In
the third trial, a 40% wastelage (22.8% manure) plus ground corn ration and
23% cattle manure plus corn and hay ensiled mixture was fed to steers.
Although both groups outperformed the controls with respect to weight gains
and feed efficiency, their feed consumption per day increased.
Westing and Brandenberg (1974) studied the effects of substituting com-
posted cattle manure for portions of the corn and alfalfa in a control ration.
The performance of the manure-fed steers was not comparable to the control
steers because their feed consumption increased and feed efficiency and body
weight gains decreased.
Hill et^ al^. (1975) studied the effects of substituting 20, 40 or 60%
wet manure ensiled with ground shelled corn, ground hay and a liquid supple-
ment for portions of the corn and ground bermudagrass hay in the control
ration. In comparison to the control group, the body weight gains increased
for the 20 and 40% manure groups and decreased for the 60% group. Feed con-
sumption per day decreased as the manure content in the ration increased,
which indicates a possible palatability problem at high levels.
Newton et_ al, (1975} studied the effects of substituting 40% cattle
manure ensiled with ground corn, bermudagrass pellets and urea for portions
of the shelled corn and bermudagrass in the control heifer ration. The per-
formance of the manure-fed heifers was not comparable to the controls. Body
weight gains were lower and feed consumption increased.
No correlations were observed between ensiled cattle manure content and
any of the animal response parameters when expressed either in kilograms or
as a percent change from the control. The lack of any correlation is attri-
buted to variation within and between studies, poor performance of controls
and the lack of repeatability.
Economic Value Estimation
The economic estimation of the value of ensiled beef cattle manure as a
feedstuff for ruminants (based on feed costs, animal cost and selling price,
and economic return), compared to corn silage fed controls, is shown in
Tables 83 and 84,
All feed costs significantly increased for the manure-fed steers in
the study by Anthony (1968). due to the increased corn content of the feed.
Although the animal selling price of the manure-fed steers also increased,
175
-------
TABLE 83. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF ENSILED BEEF CATTLE MANURE AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR
RUMINANTS COMPARED TO CORN SILAGE FED CONTROLS (dollars)
Source
Anthony
(1968)
Harpster
£t_ £l_. (1975)
Harpster
£t aK (1978)
Ration
Control
22.5% Manure
Control
24% Manure
41.7% Manure
60% Manure
Control
24% Manure
30% Manure
45% Manure
Feed
Cost
Per
Tonne
40.00
70.60
55.10
75.40
52.40
28.60
73.10
75.40
67.60
48.10
Feed
Cost
Per
Day
0.3018
0.6269
0.3510
0.5323
0.3579
0.1796
0.5219
0.6228
0.5516
0.3733
Feed Cost
Per Kilogram
Of Cain
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.3316
.6396
.2579
.4124
.2934
.2394
.4744
.5821
.5354
.4978
Total
Animal Feed
Cost Cost
462
462
398
398
398
398
398
398
398
398
.96 42.
.96 87.
.15 70.
.15 106.
.15 71.
.15 35.
.15 95.
.15 113.
.15 100.
.15 68.
25
77
20
46
58
92
51
97
94
31
Animal
Selling
Price
659.56
674.69
817.90
796.29
774.69
629.63
709.87
699.07
688.27
609.56
Economic
Return
190.35
123.96
349.55
291.68
304.96
195.56
216.21
186.95
189.18
143.10
Gross
Value
Per Tonne
of Manure
-234.96
-170.76
- 78.28
-204.34
- 80.65
- 60.33
-114.41
TABLE 84. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE
COMPARED TO CORN
OF THE VALUE OF
ENSILED BEEF
SILAGE FED CONTROLS
(percent
CATTLE MANURE AS A
change
from the
FEEDSTUFF FOR RUMINANTS
control)
Source
Anthony (1968)
Harpster et al.
(1975)
Harpster et al.
(1978)
Ration
Feed Cost
Per Tonne
22.8% Manure +76
24% Manure +36
41.7% Manure - 4
60% Manure -48
24% Manure
30% Manure
45% Manure
+ 3
- 7
-34
.5
.8
.9
.3
.1
.5
.2
Feed
Cost Per
Day and Total
Feed Costs
Feed Cost
Per Kilogram
Of Gain
+107.7
+
+
+
+
51.7
2.0
48.8
19.3
5.7
28.5
+92.9
+59.9
+13.8
- 7.2
+22.7
+12.9
+ 4.9
Animal
Cost
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Animal
Selling
Price
+ 2.3
- 2.6
- 5.3
-23.0
- 1.5
- 3.0
-14.1
Economic
Return
-34.9
-16.6
-12.8
-44.1
-13.5
-12.5
-33.8
-------
increased feed costs offset any economic benefits and the economic return and
the gross value of the manure were negative.
In the studies by Harpster et_ al^. (1975, 1978), all feed costs were
higher for the 24% manure ration due to its higher corn content, thus caus-
ing the economic return to be negative. Although feed costs per tonne were
lower for the 41.7 and 60% manure rations, any economic benefits were negated
by the decreased animal selling prices. The economic return was negative for
both groups. The gross values of manure were highly negative for all three
manure groups, but were not correlated to ration manure content because of
differences in ration costs per tonne.
The economic estimation of the value of ensiled beef cattle manure as a
feedstuff for ruminants (based on feed costs, animal cost and selling price,
and economic, return), compared to corn grain fed controls, are presented in
Tables 85 and 86.
In the study by Anthony (1969), feed costs per tonne were reduced for
the manure rations, and although animal selling prices were generally decreased,
they were offset by the feed cost savings and an economic benefit was realized
as indicated by the increased economic return. The gross value of the manure
in these studies varied widely but average $115 per tonne.
In a second study by Anthony (1971), all feed costs were lower for the
manure rations, the animal selling prices were higher, and an economic benefit
was realized as indicated by the increased economic returns. The gross value
of the manure in these studies was variable and averaged $153 per tonne.
The performance of the control group for trials 2 and 3 were reduced because
of a palatability problem and therefore the estimated value of the manures
may be biased.
All feed costs were reduced for the manure^fed steers in the study by
Westing and Brandenberg (1974). The animal selling price was slightly
reduced, and thus the increased economic return reflects feed cost savings
only. The gross value of the manure was low ($27.25 per tonne) and may be
due to the lack of an increase in animal performance and the increased feed
consumption by the manure-fed steers.
In the study by Hill et^ al^. (1975), all feed costs decreased in propor-
tion to the manure content in the ration. The economic return increased for
all the manure rations. The return for the 20 and 40% manure groups reflect
both feed cost savings and increased animal selling prices, but the return
for the 60% manure group reflects feed cost savings only. The gross value
of the manure varied and averaged $126 per tonne.
The results of Newton et^ al. (1975) indicated reduced feed costs for
the ensiled-cattle manure rations. However, the selling price of the heifers
was reduced. The negative economic return reflects reduced animal performance
that was not offset by feed cost savings. The gross value of the manure was
negative (^$2,38 per tonne) because of reduced animal performance and the
significantly increased feed consumption by manure-fed heifers.
177
-------
TABLE 85. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF ENSILED BEEF CATTLE MANURE AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR RUMINANTS COMPARED TO CORN GRAIN FED
CONTROLS (dollars)
-4
00
Source •
Anthony (1969)
Anthony (1971)
Westing and
Brandenberg (1974)
Hill et al.
(1975)
N'ewton et al .
(1975)
Ration
Control
20.6% Manure
Control
11.4% Manure
22.8% Manure
22.8% Manure §
ground corn
34.2% Manure
Control
21.1% Manure *
22.8% Manure
Control
22.8% Manure
21.5% Manure *
21.9% Manure
16.4% Manure
22.8% Manure
23 % Manure
Control
14% Manure
• Control
20% Manure
40% Manure
60% Manure
Control
40% Manure
Feed Cost
Per Tonne
116.90
95, 20
107.40
97.10
87.60
87.60
78.20
117.30
86.40
76.30
106.80
76.30
83.50
81.00
88.50
76.30
76.10
116.80
105.70
104.70
83.80
62.90
42.00
113.50
68.10
Feed Cost
Per Day
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
• o
.9580
.0337
.3468
.7749
.9873
.9373
.8023
.0546
.9888
.8841
.1373
.9459
.9782
.9923
.9853
.8784
.0350
.9636
.9154
.9831
.8045
.5837
.3135
.8593
.7533
Feed Cost
Per Kilogram
Of Gain
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.8709
.8835
.2244
.8156
.0179
.9189
.0557
.8610
.7491
.7218
.4397
.9751
.9978
.0125
.0054
.9545
.9954
.8678
.8319
.8125
.6285
.4422
.3167
.6413
.5932
Animal
Cost
385.80
385.80
385.80
385 . 80
385.80
385.80
385.80
439.81
438.27
439.81
520.06
529.32
533.95
527.77
533.95
527.77
520.06
367.28
367.28
462.96
462.96
462.96
462.96
350.22
350.22
Total
Feed
Cost
120.71
130.25
148.15
85.24
108.60
103.10
88.25
107.57
100.86
90.18
153.54
128.64
133.04
134.95
134.00
118.58
139.72
177.30
168.43
110.11
90.10
65.37
35.11
96.24
84.37
Animal
Selling
Price
599.69
613.28
572.53
547.06
550.46
558.95
514.81
632.71
646.60
632.71
685.18
733.02
739.19
733.02
739.19
719.13
736.11
683.34
680.55
672.06
684.25
691.04
634.10
598.19
585.14
Economic
Return
93.18
97.23
38.58
76.02
56.06
70.05
40.76
85.33
107.47
102.72
11.58
75.06
72.20
70.30
71.24
72.78
76.33
138.76
144.84
98.99
131.19
162.71
136.03
15i:73
150.55
Gross Value
Per Tonne
of. Manure
_
14.37
_
374.03
61.83
117.25
5.65
_
89.89
64.53
_
165.14
176.99
160.92
240.27
172.69
153.33
.
27.25
_
149.77
153.25
73.73
_
-2.38
plus cottonseed meal
-------
TABLE 86. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF ENSILED BEEF CATTLE MANURE AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR RUMINANTS
COMPARED TO CORN GRAIN FED CONTROLS (percent change from the control)
Source
Anthony (1969)
Anthony (1971)
Westing and
Brandenberg
(1974)
Hill et al.
(1975)
Newton et al .
(1975)
Feed Cost
Ration Per Tonne
20.6% Manure
11.4% Manure
22.8% Manure
22.8% Manure*
34.2% Manure
21.1% Manure t
22.8% Manure
22.8% Manure
21.5%* Manure t
21.9% Manure
16.4% Manure
22.8% Manure
23% Manure
14% Manure
20% Manure
40% Manure
60% Manure
40% Manure
-18.6
- 9.6
-18.4
-18.4
-27.2
-26.3
-35.0
-28.6
-21.8
-24.2
-17.1
-28.6
-28.7
- 9.5
-20.0
-39.9
-59.9
-40.00
Feed Cost Per
Day and Total
Feed Costs
+ 7.9
-42.5
-26.6
-30.4
-40.4
- 6.2
-16.2
-16.8
-14.0
-12.7
-13.3
-22. '8
- 9.0
- 5.0
-18.2
-40.6
-68.1
-12.3
Feed Cost
Per Kilogram
Of Gain
+ 1.4
-33.4
-16.9
-25.0
-13.8
-13.0
-16.2
-32.3
-30.7
-29.7
-30.2
-33.7
-30.9
- 4.1
-22.6
-45.6
-61.0
- 7.5
Animal
Cost
0
0
0
0
0
-0.4
0
+1.8
+2.7
+ 1.5
+2.7
+ 1.5
0
0
0
0
0
0
Animal
Selling
Price
+ 2.3
- 4.4
- 3.9
- 2.4
-10.1
+ 2.2
0
+ 7.0
+ 7.9
+ 7.0
+ 7.9
+ 5.0
+ 7.4
- 0.4
+ 1.8
+ 2.8
- 5.6
- 2.2
Economic
Return
+ 4.3
+ 97.0
+ 45.3
+ 81.6
+ 5.7
+ 25.9
+ 20.4
+548.2
+523.5
+507.1
+515.2
+528.5
+559.2
+ 4.4
+ 32.5
+ 64.4
+ 37.4
- 0.8
* plus ground corn
t plus cottonseed meal
-------
There were no correlations between any of the economic parameters and
the ensiled manure ration content and no maximum economic level of incor^-
porating ensiled beef cattle manure into ruminant rations could be determined.
The average gross value of the manure utilized in all the evaluated studies
is $122 per tonne, which suggests that economic incentives and benefits may
exist for the utilization of this manure as a feedstuff.
Discussion
Ensiling cattle manure from a feedlot with a roughage source, such as
bermudagrass hay, has been suggested as a process of enhancing a low value
feedstuff (Anthony, 1966; Harpster et _al., 1978; McClure et_ a^., 1973).
Cattle readily consume such silages, and the ensiling process tends to
inactivate bacterial pathogens (Vetter and Burroughs, 1974; Fontenot and
Webb, 1975). Palatability problems have been reported when high levels of
ensiled cattle waste are incorporated into steer rations (Harpster et al.,
1975, 1978; Hill et a^., 1975).
Three studies utilizing ensiled cattle manure as a feedstuff for steers
were evaluated and compared to corn silage fed steers. The rations contain-
ing 22.8 to 24% ensiled cattle manure had higher corn contents than the
rations of the controls. Any increased animal performance therefore might
be attributed to the corn and not the manure. The evaluation indicated that
steers fed ensiled cattle manure generally had decreased body weight gains,
increased feed consumption, and decreased feed efficiency. Statistical
evaluation of these results revealed that 16-24% ensiled manure was about
the maximum level of incorporation. This level is purely mathematical because
no studies have used such a low level.
The economic assessment revealed that feed cost savings per tonne were
realized for the ensiled manure rations that had no increased corn content
when compared to corn silage fed controls. However, reduced animal performance
negated any savings, and no economic benefits were realized. When the corn
content in the ensiled manure rations was increased, there were no feed cost
savings and no economic benefits were realized. The price of corn silage
($14.88 per tonne) is affected by geographical location. Due to the low
value of ensiled cattle waste determined in this evaluation (-$135), the two
feedstuffs are not economically comparable, even if corn silage increases in
cost by a factor of nine. From an animal response and economic basis, the
utilization of ensiled beef cattle manure as a ruminant feedstuff appears
to offer no economic incentive when compared to corn silage controls.
Five studies utilizing ensiled beef cattle manure as a feedstuff for
steers and heifers were evaluated and compared to corn grain fed control
animals. The evaluation was severely confounded by the lack of repeatability
within and between studies, abnormal performance by control animals, and the
lack of nutritionally balanced studies feeding rations of comparable nutrient
composition. In some studies, animal performance was increased, while in
others utilizing similar levels of ensiled manure, performance was decreased.
The economic assessment revealed that feed cost savings were realized
when ensiled cattle manure was utilized as a feedstuff. The economic
180
-------
assessment did not reveal any maximum levels of incorporation due to variation
within and between the studies. However, the average estimated gross value
($122 per tonne) for all the evaluated studies indicates that economic incen-
tives and benefits may exist for the utilization of ensiled cattle wastes to
ruminants. The gross value does not reflect any collection, ensiling, incor-
poration or transportation costs that must be considered before the true value
of ensiled cattle waste can be determined.
Ensiled cattle manure is a variable product and economic benefits are
difficult to delineate. Further studies are required to delineate maximum
and "optimum" levels of incorporation of ensiled cattle manure into ruminant
rations.
In summary, the utilization of ensiled beef cattle manure as a feedstuff
for ruminants decreased weight gains, increased feed consumption and decreased
feed efficiency when compared to corn silage-fed controls. Therefore, animal
performance suggests that there are no economic incentives for the utiliza-
tion of ensiled beef cattle manure as a feedstuff for ruminants.
When the performance of ensiled beef cattle manure is compared to corn
grain-fed controls, definite benefits could not be clearly determined due to
the lack of repeatability between studies. The economic assessment indicated
that economic benefits might be realized; however, additional feeding studies
must be conducted to determine the validity of such possible benefits.
SUMMARY OF BEEF CATTLE MANURE FEEDING TRIAL EVALUATIONS
The utilization of beef cattle manure as a feedstuff for ruminants is
summarized in Table 87. The incorporation of both as collected and dried
cattle manure is unfeasible because of the reduced animal performance of
ruminants fed these manures.
The incorporation of ensiled beef cattle manure as a feedstuff for
ruminants, when compared to corn silage controls, also appears unfeasible
because of reduced animal performance. Body weight gains and feed efficiency
are significantly reduced when steers are fed ensiled cattle manure. It also
appears uneconomical because any feed cost savings are negated by poor animal
performance. The ensiled cattle manure is unable to compete economically
with the low cost of corn silage.
In contrast, the incorporation of ensiled beef cattle manure as a feed-
stuff for steers and heifers, when compared to corn grain-fed control animals,
may be nutritionally and economically feasible. Due to the variation in the
animal performance evaluation, definite benefits cannot be determined.
However, the gross value of ensiled cattle manure indicates it has economic
benefits which provide incentives for its utilization as a feedstuff.
181
-------
TABLE 87. SUMMARY OF THE MAXIMUM ANIMAL RESPONSE AND ECONOMIC LEVELS OF INCORPORATING BEEF CATTLE INTO
RUMINANT RATIONS, AND THE ESTIMATED ECONOMIC VALUE OF THE MANURE
00
NJ
Maximum Animal
Estimated Level of Manure
Kind of Response Level, Maximum Economic Gross Value Incorporation That The
Cattle % Dry Matter Level, % Dry of the Manure Estimated Gross Value
Waste Basis Matter Basis Per Tonne Was Based Upon, %
As Collected 0 0
Dried 0 0
Ensiled
vs corn silage
fed controls 16-24 0
vs corn grain
fed controls
-$ 15 29-40
-$256 10-20
-$135 22-r60
$122 11-60
-------
SECTION 10
NUTRITIVE AND ECONOMIC VALUE OF
PROCESSED ANIMAL MANURES BASED ON THE
RESULTS OF FEEDING TRIALS
INTRODUCTION
Sections 7-9 evaluated as collected, dried, composted and ensiled
manures as feedstuffs based upon reported feeding trials. This section con-
tinues such evaluations by considering the results of feeding trials in
which aerobically and anaerobically digested manures and cattle manure
screenings have been evaluated. Trials in which the Cereco products have
been used as feedstuffs also have been included and evaluated.
The selection criteria and animal performance and economic assessment
methodology identified in Section 7 were used to evaluate information in
this section.
AEROBICALLY DIGESTED ANIMAL MANURES
The utilization of aerobically digested animal manures as feedstuffs
can be divided into three categories: (1) dried settled solids; (2) liquid
oxidation ditch mixed liquor (ODML) incorporated into rations; and (3) liquid
ODML utilized as a tap water substitute. Due to a lack of data on nutrient
characteristics, complete results on animal performance, and economic para-
meters ; the normal evaluation of animal performance and economic assessment
could not be conducted. However, each of the three categories will be
evaluated utilizing what information has been reported.
Early studies were conducted by Harmon et_ aJ^. (1969, 1973) utilizing
dried swine ODML settled solids as a feedstuff for rats. These studies
indicated that the settled solids were of low nutritive value and depressed
animal performance. It was concluded that the nutritive portion of ODML
was located in the liquid fraction of the ODML, which was substantiated by
Chastain et_ al. (197S~)• Beef ODML settled solids have been used as a feed-
stuff for steers (Hegg et_ al^. 1974, 1975). The beef settled solids also
adversely affected animal performance. It can be concluded from these
studies that ODML settled solids are of low nutritive value.
Harmon et al. (1973) utilized swine ODML as a feedstuff and the feed- .
ing trials are summarized in Table G-32. The performance of swine (body
weights, feed consumption, and ODML consumption) fed aerobically digested
swine manure as a feedstuff, is shown in Tables
183
-------
88 and 89. The performance of the liquid fed hogs was enhanced. Although
feed consumption per day increased, average daily gains also increased and
feed efficiency was improved. All feed costs were reduced for the ODML fed
hogs, their animal selling prices were increased, and therefore the economic
return for the ODML fed hogs was greatly increased (Tables 90 and 91). The
estimated economic value of the ODML averaged $296.22 per .tonne, but its
actual value will be lower due to capital investments, operating costs, and
feed mixing costs.
The utilization of ODML as a substitute for tap water to swine also has
been studied by Harmon and Day (1974, 1975) and the feeding trials are sum- •
marized in Table G-32. In the first study, the performance of the hogs re-
ceiving swine ODML was enhanced (Tables 92 and 93). Average daily gain was .
greater than for the controls and feed efficiency was improved. In the
second study (1975), two groups of hogs received ODML as a water source,
but a control group was lacking. Thus, comparisons of performance are not
possible. It can be concluded that feed consumption, average daily gain,
and feed efficiency were normal. The economic estimate of the value of
swine ODML as a substitute for tap water is shown in Tables 94 and 95. All
feed costs were reduced for the ODML hogs, the selling price was increased,
and the large increase in economic returns reflect both reduced feed costs
and increased animal performance. Care must be taken to insure that proper
aerobic conditions are maintained because ammonia and nitrates could reach
toxic levels and depress the performance of animals receiving ODML as a
tap water substitute.
The utilization of ODML as the source of drinking water to .laying hens
has occurred (Martin et_ aK, 1976 and Martin, 1980). The results of these
studies are shown in Table 96. No significant differences were observed
in final body weights, mortality, egg weights, or shell strength. Egg
production, however, was significantly increased by 2% (P=0.01) in the 1976
study and 2.6% (P=0.01) in the 1980 study. The increased egg production
represents an economic incentive for utilizing this method of recycling
nutrients. The economic value of the increased egg production was reported
to be $24,000 (for a 2% increase) or $31,200 (for a 2.6% increase), for a
100,000 bird operation (Martin, 1980). Although the net economic value
would be less due to capital and operating costs associated with the aeration
system operation, it appears that the economic incentive would still exist.
Care must be taken in the operation of the oxidation ditch because over-
aeration has been reported to cause nitrate toxicity and depressed bird
performance (Johnson et_ al., 1977).
In summary, the utilization of ODML as a substitute for tap water to
swine and poultry seems to have benefits. Further studies are needed to
delineate the nutrient characteristics of ODML, to determine how much
microbial enhancement occurs, and to develop the operating procedures neces-
sary to maximize the nutrient composition of ODML.
184
-------
TABLE 88. PERFORMANCE OF SWINE FED AEROBICALLY DIGESTED SWINE MANURE (ODML) AS A FEEDSTUFF (kilograms)
00
en
Source
Harmon
et al.
(1973)
Initial Final
Ration Weight Weight
Control
6% ODML
Control
5.7% ODML
43
43
43
43
72.12
74.36
60.92
62.04
Weight
Gain
29.12
31.36
17.92
19.04
*
Average Feed
Daily Consumption
Gain Per Day
0.52
0.56
0.32
0.34
2.09
2,11
1.79
1.83
Feed Per
Kilogram
Of Gain
4.02
3.77
5.59
5.38
Total ODML
Total Consumed ,
Feed Dry Matter
Consumed Basis
117.04
118.16 7.09
100.24
102.48 5.84
TABLE 89.
PERFORMANCE
CHANGE FROM
OF
THE
SWINE FED AEROBICALLY
CONTROL)
DIGESTED SWINE MANURE
(ODML) AS A
FEEDSTUFF (PERCENT
Source
Harmon et
(1973)
Ration
al. 6% ODML
5.7% ODML
Initial
Weight
0
0
Final
Weight
+ 3.1
+ 1.8
Weight Gain
and Average
Daily Gain
+ 7.7
+ 6.2
Feed Consumption
Per Day and Total
Feed Consumed
+
+
1.0
2.2
Feed Consumption
Per Kilogram of
Gain
- 6.2
- 3.8
-------
TABLE 90. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF AEROBICALLY DIGESTED SWINE MANURE (ODML) AS A FEEDSTUFF
FOR SWINE (DOLLARS)
Source
Feed Feed Feed Cost Gross Value
Cost Cost Per Total Animal pej, T0nqe of
Per Per Kilogram Animal Feed Selling Economic OWL
Ration Tonne Day Of Gain Cost Cost Price Return ^ J
Harmon e aK Control 127.90 0.2673 0.5142 35.15 14.97 58.83 8.71
6.0%
ODML 120.10 0.2534 0.4528 35.15 14,19 60.66 11.32 368.12
Control
5.7%
ODML
106.60
100.50
0.
0.
1908
1839
0.
0.
5959
5407
35.15
35.15
10.69
10.30
49.69
50.61
3
5
X
.85
.16
--
224.32
00
TABLE 91, ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF AEROBICALLY DIGESTED SWINE MANURE (ODML) AS A FEEDSTUFF
FOR SWINE (PERCENT OF THE CONTROL)
Source
Ration
Feed Cost Per Feed Cost Animal
Feed Cost Day and Total Per Kilogram Animal Selling Economic
Per Tonne Feed Costs Of Gain Cost Price Return
Harmon et_ al^. 6% ODML - 6.1
(1973)
5.7% ODML - 5.7
- 5.2
- 3.6
* 11,9
* 9.3
0
0
•*• 3.1
+ 1.9
+ 30.0
+ 34.0
-------
TABLE 92. PERFORMANCE OF ShINE RECEIVING AEROBICALLY DIGESTED SWINE MANURE (ODML) AS A SUBSITUTE FOR TAP KATER (KILOGRAMS)
Source
Harmon and Day
(1974)
Harmon and Day
(197S)
Ration
Cont ro 1
5% ODML
2.8% ODML
2.8% ODML
Initial
Weight
40
40
45
26
Final
Weight
100
106.4
83.1
79.9
Keight
Gain
60
66.4
38.1
53.9
Average
Daily
Gain
0.66
0.73
0.68
0.70
Feed
Consumption .
Per Day
2.41
2.40
2.43
2.18
Feed Per
Kilogram
Of Gain
3.65
3.29
3.57
3.11
Total
Feed
Consumed
219.3
218.4
136.1
167.9
Total ODML
Consumed ,
Dry
Matter Basis
20.4
7.4
10.1
00
TABLE 93. PERFORMANCE OF SWINE RECEIVING AEROBICALLY DIGESTED SWINE MANURE (ODML) AS A SUBSTITUTE
FOR TAP WATER (PERCENT CHANGE FROM THE CONTROL)
Source
Initial
Ration Weight
Final
Weight
Weight Gain
and Average
Daily Gain
Feed Consumption
Per Day and Total
Feed Consumed
Feed Consumption
Per Kilogram of
Gain
Harmon and Day 5% ODML
(1974)
6.4
10.7
- 0.4
- 9.9
-------
TABLE 94. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF AEROBICALLY DIGESTED SWINE MANURE (ODML) AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR TAP WATER FOR SWINE (DOLLARS)
Feed Cost
Source
Harmon and Day
(1974)
Feed
Ration Per
Control 127
5% ODML 127
Cost
Tonne
.90
.90
Feed Cost
Per Day
0.3082
0.3070
Per Kilogram
Of Gain
0.
0.
4668
4208
Animal
Cost
32.60
32.60
Total
Feed
Cost
28.05
27.93
Animal
Selling
Price
81.50
86.72
Economic
Return
20,
26,
.85
.19
Gross Value
ODML, Per
Tonne Dry Matter
261.76
oo
00
TABLE 95. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF AEROBICALLY DIGESTED SWINE MANURE (ODML) AS A SUBSTITUTE
FOR TAP WATER FOR SWINE (PERCENT CHANGE FROM THE CONTROL)
Source
Ration
Feed Cost
Per Tonne
Feed Cost Per
Day and Total
Feed Costs
Feed Cost
Per Kilogram
Of Gain
Animal
Cost
Animal
Selling
Price
Economic
Return
Harmon and Day
(1974)
5% ODML
- 0.4
- 9.9
6,4
+ 25.6
-------
TABLE 96. PERFORMANCE OF CAGED LAYING HENS RECEIVING AEROBICALLY DIGESTED LAYING HEN MANURE
(ODML) AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR TAP WATER
ID
Source
Martin et al.
(1976)
Martin (1980)
Group -
Tap Water
ODML
Tap Water
ODML
Number
Of Birds
108
108
325
325
Liquid
Consumption
(mil)
226
273
283
311
Egg
Production
(%Hen-day)
66.6
68.6
73.5
76.1
Egg
Weight
(gm)
54.4
54.7
57.0
57.8
Shell
Strength
(Kg)
3.12
3.14
3.12
3.14
Final
Body
Weight
(Kg)
1.91
1.90
1.94
1.91
Mortality
(n)
11
11
20
23
-------
ANAEROBICALLY DIGESTED ANIMAL MANURES
The utilization of anaerobic digester products (dried cake, wet cake,
and digester effluent) as feedstuffs for ruminants has been studied and
several digestibility trials have been conducted (Table 97).
The substitution of 5, 10 or 20% dried centrifuge cake for alfalfa in
sheep rations resulted in decreased digestibility as the dried cake content
increased, decreased feed consumption per day and increased fecal nitrogen
(Hashimoto et_ al_., 1978). In a second digestibility trial, substituting 5,
10 or 20% driecfcake for a similar percent of all the ingredients in control
steer rations also resulted in decreased digestibility and significantly
increased fecal nitrogen. In addition, feed consumption per day increased.The
authors suggested that a component of the nitrogen in the dried cake was
less digestible than the nitrogen in the alfalfa hay and that the relatively
ineffective utilization of ash may present a major problem in effectively
utilizing dried cake as a feedstuff, particularly when more than one cycle of
the refeeding process occurs.
Utilizing wet centrifuge cake, obtained from the Hamilton Standard
Mobile Animal Waste Processing System, as a feedstuff for steers has been
reviewed by Prior and Hashimoto (1980). The digestibility of the dry and
organic matter for the wet cake ration was slightly decreased, nitrogen
digestibility was comparable to the controls, and feed consumption per day
decreased. The large decrease in feed consumption (21%) suggests a possible
palatability problem. Richter (unpublished data, 1979) stated that the wet
cake is of low palatability when incorporated at levels above 20% and con-
cluded that it cannot substitute the entire protein supplement in a steer
ration although it may replace part of it.
Digestibility studies utilizing digester effluent as a feedstuff for
sheep were conducted by Hashimoto et_ al. (1978) and as a feedstuff for
steers by Prior and Hashimoto (1980). The digestibility of the 6.5% effluent
sheep ration decreased, fecal nitrogen increased, and feed consumption per
day increased (Table 97). Feed consumption per day increased 8.1% when
6.5% effluent was added to the sheep rations, which indicates it may have
acted as a diluent. The addition of 6.5% digester effluent to a steer
ration similarly decreased dry matter digestibility and increased feed con-
sumption per day 4% when compared to positive controls (Table 97). The
authors suggest that a portion of the organic nitrogen in the effluent
appeared to be undigestible, and the effluent may have adversely affected
the rumen microbial metabolism, or perhaps the rate of turnover of rumen
contents. However, later studies have shown that the rate of turnover of
the rumen contents was not significantly different (Prior et_ al., 1980).
The results of the digestibility studies indicate that digester products
contain organic nitrogen that appears to be indigestible by ruminants and
that palatability problems may occur when these products are utilized at
high levels as ruminant feedstuffs. Animals fed these products did not
perform as well as controls, and the products tended to function as fillers
or diluents.
190
-------
TABLE 97. PERFORMAXCE OF RUMINANTS OS DIGESTIBILITY TRIALS FED ANAEROBICALLY DIGESTED ANIMAL MANURES AS A FEEDSTUFF
Percent Apparent
Feedstuff
Dried Cake
(to sheep)
Dried Cake
(to steers)
Ket Cake
(to steers)
Effluent
(to sheep)
Effluent
(to steers)
% in
Ration,
Source Dry Hatter
Hashimoto et al.
(1978)
Hashimoto et al .
(1978)
Richter (1979)
Hashimoto et al.
(1978)
Prior and Hashimoto
(1980)
0
5
10
20
0
5
10
20
0
30
0
6.5
0
6.5
Neg. 0
Dry
Matter
72.5
71.6
72.2
68.0
77.2
71.1
72.1
62.9
69.9
67.1
81.4
75.4
76.1
73.9
77.6
Digestibility
Organic
Matter Ash
73.5
73.5
75.2
71. S
78.5
72.7
73.7
65.4
69.9
67.9
82.8
77.1
-
-
-
59.5
46.3
40.0
28.4
51.2
31.5
50.6
28.0
_
-
66.2
39.8
-
-
-
Gross
Energy
70.2
70.0
71.4
68.1
75.4
70.1
70.8
63.8
_
-
81.3
74.4
.
-
-
Nitrogen
58.5
55.1
63.9
51.4
63.4
60.3
61.8
54.2
52.5
52. 6
72.6
58.8
61.5
61.5
70.5
Kg Feed
Consumed
Per Day
1.027
0.970
0.866
0.947
4.85
5.37
4.91
5.36
11.7
9.2
0.777
0.840
5.291
5.495
5.404
Feedstuff Replaced
or Eliminated
in Ration
Alfalfa Hay
Hay, Corn, Soybean
Meal 6 Limestone
Cottonseed Meal
Soybean Meal
Soybean Meal
-------
Two feeding studies have been conducted utilizing digester products as
a feedstuff for steers (Table G-33). The complete nutrient composition of
the rations utilized in these studies were not reported and cannot be cal-
culated because of the lack of information pertaining to the nutrient com-
position of the digester products.
Animal Performance Evaluation
The performance of ruminants (body weights, feed consumption,. and
digestor product consumption) fed anaerobically digested animal manures as
a feedstuff is presented in Tables 98 and 99.
The effects of substituting 18% (as-fed) wet centrifuged digester
effluent cake for the cottonseed meal, straw and limestone in the control
finishing steer ration were studied by Burford and Varani (1978). Body
weight gains and feed consumption per day were significantly lower, and
feed consumption per kilogram of gain was higher for the wet cake-fed steers.
The decreased daily feed consumption indicates that a possible palatability
problem may have occurred for the wet cake ration, similar to that observed
in the digestibility study.
The effects of substituting 6.45% (dry matter basis) digester effluent
for the soybean meal in a positive control ration (containing protein sup-
plement) were studied by Prior and Hashimoto (1980). The effects were also
compared to a negative control group receiving no protein supplement. Body
weight gains were significantly reduced, feed consumption per day increased,
and feed efficiency significantly decreased for the effluent-fed steers.
The poorer animal performance of the effluent-fed steers did not appear as
great when compared to the negative control group. However, the steers
that were not fed a protein supplement outperformed the effluent-fed steers.
The evaluation of animal performance of both the wet digester centri-
fuged cake and the digester effluent as a feedstuff for finishing steers
indicated that both products have a negative effect upon animal performance.
Body weight gains and feed efficiency were significantly depressed. No
benefits appear to exist when anaerobic digester products are used as feed-
stuffs .
Economic Value Estimation
The economic estimation of the value of anaerobically digested animal
manures as a feedstuff for ruminants (based on feed costs, animal cost and
selling price, and economic return) is shown in Tables 100 and 101.
All feed costs were lower for the steers fed the wet cake in the study
by Burford and Varani (1978). Although a feed costs savings was realized,
it was negated by a lower animal selling price, and the economic return was
negative. The estimated value of the wet cake was negative (-$102.39 per
tonne) due to the reduced animal performance.
In the study by Prior and Hashimoto (1980), feed costs per tonne and
per day were reduced for the effluent-fed steers. However, feed efficiency
192
-------
TABLE 98. PERFORMANCE OF RUMINANTS FED ANAEROBICALLY
(kilograms)
DIGESTED ANIMAL MANURES AS A FEEDSTUFF
Source
Initial
Weight
Final
Weight
Total
Weight
Gain
Average
Daily
Gain
Feed
Consumption
Per Day*
Feed Per
Kilogram
Of Gain*
Total
Total Digester
Feed Product
Consumed* Consumed
Burford and Varani (1978)
Control
18% Wet Cake
Prior and Hashimoto
Positive Control
6.45% Effluent
Negative Control
294.8
294.8
(1980)
293.1
285.9
294.2
423.4
398.7
459.4
418.6
450.4
128.6
103.9
166.3
132.7
156.2
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
67
35
99
79
93
14
11
5
5
5
.225
.916
.291
.495
.404
8.
8.
5.
6.
5.
50
85
344
956
811
1095
917
888
923
907
.3
.5 165.15
(77.07)t
.9
.2 59.55
.9
* "as fed" basis
t Dry matter basis
TABLE 99. PERFORMANCE OF RUMINANTS FED ANAEROBICALLY DIGESTED ANIMAL MANURES AS A FEEDSTUFF (percent
change from the control)
Source
Initial
Weight
Final
Weight
Total Weight
Gain and Average
Daily Gain
Feed Consumption
Per Day and Total
Feed Consumed
Feed Per
Kilogram
Of Gain
Burford and Varani (1978)
18% Wet Cake 0
Prior and Hashimoto (1980)
6.45 Effluent
vs Positive Control -2.5
vs Negative Control -2.8
-5.8
-19.2
-16.2
+4.1
-8.9
-7.1
-20.2
-15.0
+ 3.9
+ 1.7
+30.2
+19.7
-------
vo
TABLE 100. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF ANAEROBICALLY STABILIZED ANIMAL MANURES AS A FEEDSTUFF
FOR RUMINANTS (dollars)
Source
Feed Cost
Per Tonne
Feed Cost
Per Day
Feed Cost
Per Kilogram
Of Gain
Total
Feed
Cost
Animal
Cost
Animal
Selling
Price
Economic
Return
Gross Value
Per Tonne of
Digester Product
Burford and Varani (1978)
Control
18% Wet
Prior and
Positive
trol
Cake
85.80
79.40
1.2205
0.9461
0
0
.7293
.7027
93.98
72.85
454.94
454.94
653.39
615.35
104.47
87.56
-102
_
.39
Hashimoto (1980)
Con-
6.45% Effluent
Negative
trol
Con-
105.60
92.18
99.00
0.5587
0.5065
0.5350
0
0
0
.5643
.6412
.5753
93.96
85.09
89.88
452.31
441.20
454.01
708.95
645.98
695.06
162.78
119.69
151.17
-723
-528
-
.59*
.63t
*Gross value compared to positive control group
tGross value compared to negative control group
-------
to
en
TABLE 101. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF ANAEROBICALLY STABILIZED ANIMAL MANURES AS A FEEDSTUFF
FOR RUMINANTS (percent change from the control)
Feed
Source Per
Burford and Varani
18% Wet Cake
Prior and Hashimoto
6.45% Effluent
vs Positive
Cost
Tonne
(1978)
7.5
(1980)
Control -12.7
vs Negative
Control
6.9
Feed Cost Per Feed Cost
Day and Total Per Kilogram Animal
Feed Cost Of Gain Cost
-22.5 - 3.6 0
- 9.3 +13.6 -2.5
- 5.3 +11.5 -2.8
Animal
Selling
Price
-5.8
-8.9
-7.1
Economic
Return
-16.2
-26.5
-20.8
-------
costs increased due to the poor feed conversion by the effluent fed steers.
Due to the decreased body weight gains, the animal selling prices were
reduced, significantly reducing the economic return. The estimated gross
value of the effluent was -$723.59 per tonne when compared to the positive
control group and -$528.63 per tonne when compared to the negative control
group. These large negative values are attributed to the increased feed
efficiency costs and the decreased animal selling prices.
The economic assessment of the utilization of the centrifuged digester
cake and the digester effluent as feedstuffs for finishing steers indicated
that both products have a negative economic value. Feed efficiency decreased
significantly and animal selling prices decreased; thus no economic
benefits are realized for the utilization of anaerobic digester effluent
products as a feedstuff.
Discussion
The evaluation of utilizing anaerobic digester products (dried cake,
wet cake or effluent) as a feedstuff for ruminants indicated they are of
limited value based upon the poor performance of animals receiving them in a
ration. In both the digestibility studies and the feeding trials, animals
fed digester products did not perform as well as control animals, even
negative control animals. The economic assessment indicated that digester
products are not an economic feedstuff for ruminants. There appear to be no
benefits or incentives for the utilization of digester products as feedstuffs.
BEEF CATTLE AND DAIRY COW MANURE SCREENINGS
The utilization of manure screenings as a feedstuff for ruminants has
been studied to a limited extent and a few studies have reported the results
from feeding trials. Because most of these reports were published as
abstracts, accurate, descriptive information pertaining to experimental
design, ration characteristics, and complete animal performance were not
reported. The evaluation of animal performance and the economic assessment
of these studies could not be as thorough as previous evaluations due to
the lack of reported animal response results.
Two studies utilizing beef cattle manure screenings as a feedstuff for
steers and brood cows are summarized in Table G-34. The performance of
ruminants (body weight gains, feed consumption, and screening composition)
fed beef cattle manure screenings as a feedstuff is presented in Tables 102
and 103.
In the study by Richter and Shirley (1977), only body weight gain and
average daily gain were reported for the control and steers fed screenings.
All steers fed screenings significantly increased their body weight gains,
with the largest increase occurring at 40% screenings. Although feed con-
sumption data were not reported, it was noted that as the screening content
increased, the ration digestibility decreased. The authors reported that
utilizing screenings as a feedstuff resulted in significant concentrate
savings per kilogram of gain. This statement cannot be evaluated due to the
lack of feed consumption data.
196
-------
TABLE 102. PERFORMANCE OF RUMINANTS FED BEEF CATTLE MANURE SCREENINGS AS A FEEDSTUFF (kilograms)
ID
Source
Richter and
Shirley (1977)
Schake et al.
(1977)
Ration
Control
20% Screenings
40% Screenings
60% Screenings
Control
39% (18%)*
60.5% (35%)*
74.5% (50%)*
74.5% (50%)*
86.5% (68.6%)*
Initial
Weight
-
-
394.5
399.1
390.9
398.0
392.6
420.5
Final
Height
-
-
474.1
462.8
457.0
462.9
420.5
429.2
Average
Weight Daily
Gain Gain
136.4
189.7
195.9
184.8
79.6
63.7
66.1
.10
.53
.58
.49
.35
.08
.12
64.9 1.10
27.9 0.93
8.7 0.38
Feed
Consumption
Per Day
-
-
10.6
11.1
9.0
9.2
8.7
8.2
Feed Consumption Total Total Screenings
Per Kilogran Feed Consumed Dry
Of Gain Consumption Matter Basis
-
-
7.9
10.3
8.1
8.4
9.4
27.3
-
-
625
654
531
542
261
237
.4
.9
.0
.8
. 0(513. 3)t
.8(483. 8)t
-
-
_
117
185
271
130
163
9
8
4
5(256. 6)t
1(331. 9)t
* Numbers in parenthesis represent dry matter values
t Calculated consumption for a 59-day trial
-------
TABLE 103. PERFORMANCE OF RUMINANTS FED BEEF CATTLE MANURE SCREENINGS AS A FEEDSTUFF (percent
change from the control)
Source
00 Richter and
Shirley (1977)
Schake et al .
_ (1977)
Initial
Ration Weight
20% Screenings
40% Screenings
60% Screenings
39% Screenings +1.2
60.5% Screenings -0.9
74.5% Screenings +0.9
74.5% Screenings +0.5
86.5% Screenings +6.6
Final
Weight
_
-
—
- 2.4
- 3.6
- 2.4
-11.3
- 9.5
Total Weight
Gain and Average
Daily Gain
+39.1
+43.6
+35.5
-20.0
-17.0
-18.5
-31.1
-71.9
Feed Consumption
Per Day and Total
Feed Consumed
_
-
—
+ 4.7
-15.1
-13.2
-24.5
-22.6
Feed Consumption
Per Kilogram
Of Gain
-
—
+ 30.4
+ 2.5
+ 6.3
+ 19.0
+245.6
-------
Schake et_ al. (1977) fed beef cattle screenings to brood cows at various
levels ranging from 39 to 86.5% (18 to 68.6%, dry matter basis). The screen-
ings eliminated the sudangrass hay and reduced the sorghum grain and molasses
in the control ration. All body weight parameters and feed consumption para-
meters decreased for the cows fed the screenings. The results suggest that
beef cattle screenings can decrease the performance of brood cows.
Two studies utilizing dairy cow manure screenings as a feedstuff for
steers and heifers are summarized in Table G-34. The performance of steers
and heifers (body weight gains, feed consumption, and screening consumption)
fed dairy cow manure screenings as a feedstuff are shown in Tables 104 and
105.
In the first of two trials, Johnson et_ al_. (1975b) fed two screening
rations to steers. The first ration contained 33% screenings, 27% corn
silage, and 40% concentrates, and the second ration contained 45% screenings,
5% corn silage and 50% concentrates. The performance of steers fed 45%
screenings was significantly reduced. Body weight gains were much lower and
feed efficiency was extremely poor when compared to the steers fed 33%
screenings. Due to the lack of a control group, the performance of the
screening fed groups cannot be evaluated. In the second trial, steers were
fed a ration containing 30% screenings, and 70% concentrates, and their per-
formance was compared to control steers fed a ration containing 58% corn
silage and 42% concentrates. Body weight gains and feed consumption per
day were slightly reduced, but feed efficiency was improved for the st.eers
fed the screenings. The results indicate: (1) utilizing approximately 30%
screenings in a steer ration may not significantly decrease animal perform-
ance and feed efficiency may be improved, and (2) higher levels of screenings
may have a negative effect on animal performance.
Olivera £t al. (1977) fed heifers a ration containing 50% ensiled
screenings plus alfalfa hay and concentrates, and compared their performance
to heifers on pasture, supplemented with corn silage and concentrates. Body
weight gains were slightly decreased for the heifers fed the screenings but
there were no adverse effects related to the dates of first heat or final
service. In a second trial, two groups of steers were fed rations containing
either 30% fresh or ensiled screenings, 20% corn silage and 50% concentrates.
There were no significant differences for weight gains or feed consumption
for either group of steers fed the screenings. These results suggest that
ensiling dairy manure screenings does not enhance its nutritive value, which
is in agreement with the study by Mercio and Johnson (1978).
The evaluation of the practice of utilizing manure screenings as a feed-
stuff for ruminants indicates that the screenings contain nutritive
value that can be utilized for maintenance and/or growth, 'This area of re-
feeding requires further sutdy to identify the nutrient composition of
screenings, the influence of the ration on screening characteristics, the
digestibility of screenings and maximum and "optimum" levels of utilization.
The economic evaluation of the use of screenings as a feedstuff is
confounded by the lack of animal performance results. Ration costs and feed
199
-------
TABLE 104. PERFORMANCE OF RUMINANTS FED DAIRY COW MANURE SCREENINGS ASA FEEDSTUFF (kilograms)
Source
Johnson et
(1975b)
Olivera et
(1977)
0
o
Initial
Ration Weight
al. 33% Screenings
45% Screenings
Control
30% Screenings
al. Control 188
50% ensiled 189
30% 212
30% ensiled 208
Average Feed Feed Consumption Total Total
Final Weight Daily Consumption Per Kilogram Feed Screenings
Weight Gain Gain Per Day Of Gain Consumption Consumed
25. 2 0.9
11.2 0.4
66.7 0.89
63.7 0.85
271 83.0 0.48
264 75.0 0.42
303 91.0 0,89
297 89.0 0.87
4.8
4.4
6.4
6.0
-
6.6
6.8
5.33 134.4
11.00 123.2
7.25 480
7.03 450
-
7.4 673.2
7.8 693.6
44.4
55.4
135
-
202.0
208.1
TABLE 105.
PERFORMANCE OF RUMINANTS FED DAIRY
COW MANURE SCREENINGS AS A FEEDSTUFF
(percent change from the control)
Source
Johnson et
(1975b)
Olivera et
(1977)
Initial
Ration Weight
aK 30% Screenings
aK 50% ensiled +0.5
Total
Final Gain and
Weight Daily
-4
-2.6 -9
Weight
Average
Gain
.5
.6
Feed Consumption
Per Day and Total
Feed Consumed
-6.2
-
Feed Consumption
Per Kilogram
Of Gain
-3.0
-
-------
consumption data. Therefore, an estimated economic value cannot be assigned
to screenings until further studies are conducted and the results reported
in detail. The screenings have an apparent value as a feedstuff, as indi-
cated by the feeding trials, and may also have value as a source of bedding
and as a product for horticultural use.
CERECO PRODUCTS AS FEEDSTUFFS
The utilization of Cereco products (CI - high fiber silage and Cll -
dried protein product) as feedstuffs has been investigated by a few experi-
menters. A digestibility trial was conducted by Ward et_ al. (1975) util-
izating both Cereco products and the results are presented in Tables 106
and 107. The control steers were fed a ration of corn silage. Both groups
received a protein-vitamin supplement. Average daily feed consumption was
higher for the control steers than those fed CI (17.0 versus 11.5 kg, dry
matter basis). The digestibility of the nutrients in the CI product were .
similar to the digestibility of corn silage.
The same steers used in the CI digestibility trial were utilized in
the CII digestion trial. The control steers received a ration of 41.5%
corn silage, 48.9% cracked corn and 6% soybean meal. The other steers were
fed a ration of 42.6% corn silage, 46.1% cracked corn and 11.3% CII product.
Average daily feed consumption was higher for the control steers than those
fed CII (7.7 versus 7.2 kg). The digestibility of the CII is slightly
lower than the digestibility of soybean meal, and the CII fed steers had a
lower nitrogen balance and less nitrogen retained than the controls (Table
107). Fecal samples collected from both groups of steers were similar in
composition with the exceptions of an increased ash and crude fiber content
for the Cll-fed steers. The increased fecal ash content may pose a problem
in a continuous recycled system unless a part of the ash is removed prior to
refceding manure from the Cll-fed steers.
TABLE 106. PERFORMANCE OF STEERS, ON A DIGESTIBILITY TRIAL, FED CERECO HIGH
FIBER SILAGE (CI) AS A FEEDSTUFF
Nutrient
Protein
Crude Fiber
Ether Extract
NFE
Organic Matter
°,
High Fiber
Silage (CI)
55.2
65.3
90.6
67.1
65.6
Corn
Silage
51.0
66.9
84.2
71.5
68.5
201
-------
TABLE 107. PERFORMANCE OF STEERS, ON A DIGESTIBILITY TRIAL, FED CERECO DRIED
PROTEIN.PRODUCT (CII) AS A.FEEDSTUFF
Nutrient
Dried Protein
Product (CII)
-% Digestibility
Soybean
Meal
Dry Matter
Organic Matter
Protein
Nitrogen
Digestible Nitrogen
Nitrogen Balance (g/day)
65
68.6
50
16.2
31.8
21.2
% Retained
72.9
74.5
60.9
25.3
41.5
39.0
Two other studies utilizing Cereco products as a feedstuff for steers
have been reported and are summarized in Table G-35. The reported composi-
tion of the rations utilized in these two studies is presented in Table G-36.
Animal Performance Evaluation
The performance of ruminants (body weight gains, feed consumption, and
Cereco product consumption) fed Cereco CI and CII products as a feedstuff
is presented in Tables 108 and 109.
Lambeth et_ al. (1974) replaced portions of the corn silage and the
protein supplement in the control rations with 8% CII or 4% CII plus urea.
A negative control group, containing no supplemental protein, was also
used. The negative control group outperformed the positive control group.
When compared to the positive control group, the body weight gains and feed
consumption per day of the steers fed 8% CII were slightly decreased and
the feed efficiency was similar. The steers fed 4% CII plus urea gained
more weight, feed consumption per day was comparable to controls, and feed
efficiency was improved. When compared to the negative control group,
body weight gains, feed consumption per day and feed efficiency of the steers
fed 8% CII were reduced. Body weight gains for the steers fed 4% CII plus
urea were slightly less than the negative controls, and feed consumption
per day decreased and feed efficiency was improved. The animals utilized in
this study were mature steers whose protein requirements were low. The
authors suggested that the 8% CII ration was too high in protein, causing the
feed consumption per day to decrease.
In the second study, the influence of substituting 8.3% CI or 3.9% CII
for the corn silage or corn in the control ration of steers was investigated
202
-------
TABLE 108. PERFORMANCE OF RUMINANTS FED CERECO PRODUCTS AS A FEEDSTUFF (kilograms)
NJ
O
Initial Final
Body Body
Source Weight Weight
Lambeth et al. (1974)
Control 377
8% CII 368
4% CII § Urea 375
Negative Control 375
Lambeth (1975)
Control 356
8.3% CI 351
3.9% CII 356
.8 508.5
.3 497.6
.4 512.5
.8 513.7
.1 547.3
.5 546.4
.1 540.6
Body
Weight
Gain
130.7
129.3
137.1
137.9
191.2
194.9
184.5
Average Feed Feed Con- Total
Daily Consumption sumption Feed
Gain Per Day Per kg Consumed
Gain
1.436 11.458 7.98 1042.7
1.419 11.299 7.96 1028.2
1.506 11.553 7.67 1051.3
1.514 11.871 7.84 1080.3
1.416 9.380 6.624 1266.3
1.444 9.552 6.615 1289.5
1.367 9.125 6.675 1231.9
Total
Product
Consumed
-
82.3
42.1
-
_
107.0
48.0
TABLE 109. PERFORMANCE
OF RUMINANTS
FED CERECO
PRODUCTS AS A FEEDSTUFF (percent change
from the control)
Initial
Body
Source Weight
Lambeth et al. (1974)
vs Positive Control
8% CII
4% CII £ Urea
vs Negative Control
8% CII
4% CII § Urea
Lambeth (1975)
8.3% CI
3.9% CII
-2.4
-0.6
-2.0
-0.1
-1.3
0
Final
Body
Weight
-2.1
+0.8
-3.1
-0.2
-0.2
-1.2
Weight Gain Feed Per Day Feed Consumption
and Average and Total per kg
Daily Gain Feed Consumed Gain
-1.1 -1.4
+4.9 +0.8
-6.2 -4.8
-0.6 -2.7
+1.9 +1.8
-3.5 -2.7
-0.2
-3.9
+ 1.5
-2.2
-0.1
+0.8
-------
by Lambeth Q-975). Body weight gains were slightly increased for the CI
steers, but decreased for the CII steers. Feed consumption per day and feed
efficiency for the CI group was similarly increased, but decreased for the
CII group.
The animal response evaluation indicated that the CI product is a good
substitute for corn silage and will result in comparable or slightly improved
animal performance. When the CII product was substituted for corn or a
commercial protein supplement, animal performance was not comparable to
control steers.
Economic Value Estimation
The economic estimation of the value of Cereco products CI and CII as
a feedstuff for ruminants (based on feed costs, animal cost and selling
price, and economic returns) are shown in Tables 110 and 111.
All feed costs were reduced for both groups of CH-fed steers in the
study by Lambeth et_ a^. (1974). Due to differences in body weight gains,
the selling price of 8% CH-fed steers was reduced, while the selling price
of the 4% CII plus urea steers was slightly increased. The increased
economic return for the 8% CII group reflects feed cost savings only, while
the increased economic return for the 4% CII group reflects both feed cost
savings and improved animal performance.
The calculated gross value of the CII product utilized in the 8% ration
was lower than the value of the CII in the 4% ration. This difference is
attributed to the improved animal performance by the 4% steers. If the
economic parameters are compared to the negative control steers, feed cost
savings are still realized, although they are less, and the animal selling
prices for both groups of CII fed steers are decreased. The economic
return of the 8% CII group is negative because the feed cost savings are
negated by the decreased animal performance and thus the gross value of
the CII was negative. The economic return of the 4% CII group is slightly
increased because the feed cost savings are able to offset the slightly
decreased animal performance and thus the gross value of the CII is positive.
In the second study by Lambeth (1975) , all feed costs increased for
the Cl-fed steers, because the corn content of their ration increased and
the resultant ration cost more than the control ration. The animal selling
price of the Cl-fed steers was comparable to the control group. However,
economic return was decreased due to the increased feed costs that were not
offset by improved animal performance. The calculated gross value of the
CI product was negative (-$5.51 per tonne). All feed costs were reduced
for the Cll-fed steers, but animal selling price was slightly decreased by
lower performance. The calculated gross value of the CII product therefore
was low ($19.98 per tonne). Lambeth (1975) utilizing least-cost computer
ration formulation, derived the values of $80 per ton for the CI product and
$50 per ton for the CII product, with their nutrient values being equal to
conventional feedstuffs. However, on the basis of animal performance, the
Cereco products are worth less than the noted $80 and $50 per ton.
204
-------
TABLE HO, ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF CERECO PRODUCTS AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR RUMINANTS (dollars)
o
Cn
Source
Feed
Cost
Per
Tonne
Feed
Cost
Per
Day
Feed
Cost
Per Kg
Gain
Total
Feed
Cost
Animal
Cost
Animal
Selling
Price
Gross
Value Per Tonne
Economic of
Return Cereco Product
Lambeth et al. (1974)
Control
8% CII
4% CII § Urea
Negative Con-
trol
Lambeth (1975)
Control
8.3% CI
3.9% CII
99.32
86.77
90.02
90.77
96.50
99.70
90.07
1.1380
0.9804
1.0400
1.0775
0.9056
0.9523
0.8219
0.7926
0.6907
0.6905
0.7116
0.6392
0.6595
0.6012
103.56
89.22
94.64
98.05
122.26
128.56
110.96
583.02
568.36
579.32
579.93
549.53
542.43
549.53
784.72
767.90
790.89
792.74
844.59
843.20
834.25
98.14
110.32 148.00 (-53.95)*
116.93 446.32 (51.54)*
114.76
172.80
172.21 -5.51
173.76 19.98
Gross value compared to negative control
-------
ISJ
O
TABLE 111. ECONOMIC ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF CERECO PRODUCTS AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR RUMINANTS (percent
change from the control)
Source
Lambeth et al . (1974)
vs Positive Control
8% CII
4% CII 5 Urea
vs Negative Control
8% CII
4% CII § urea
Lambeth (1975)
8.3% CI
3.9% CII
Feed
Cost
Per Tonne
-12.6
- 9.4
- 4.4
- 0.8
+ 3,3
- 6.7
Feed Cost
Per Day
and Total
Feed Cost
-13.5
- 4.0
- 9.0
- 3.5
+ 5.2
- 9.2
Feed
Cost
Per Kg
Gain
-1279
-12.9
- 2.9
- 3.0
+ 3.2
- 5.9
Animal
Cost
-2.5
-0.6
-2.0
-0.1
-1.3
0
Animal
Selling
Price
-2.1
+0.8
-3.1
-0.2
-0.2
-1.2
Economic
Return
+12.4
+ 19.1
- 3.9
+ 1.9
- 0.3
+ 0.6
-------
The economic assessment revealed that the CI product cannot be economi-
cally utilized as a corn-silage substitute if the ground corn content in
the ration is increased. The evaluation of the CII product is confusing
because of differences in animal performance. Further studies are required
to determine its economic value.
Discussion
The utilization of CI as a substitute for corn silage in steer rations
is a nutritionally feasible practice on the basis of results of reported
digestibility and feeding trials. However, economically CI may not be an
appropriate substitute for corn silage when the corn content in the ration
is increased. Further studies are required utilizing CI as a direct sub-
stitute for corn silage to evaluate its economic value. The economic value
of CI has been estimated to range from $73 (Seckler and Ward, 1974) to $88
per tonne (Lambeth, 1975). It must be emphasized that these values reflect
nutrient value and not animal performance.
The CII product has been suggested to be comparable to typical protein
feedstuffs in its nutritive value (Lambeth, 1975). However, the digestibility
and feeding trials indicated that CII cannot be substituted for typical
protein feedstuffs on a 1:1 basis without adversely affecting animal per-
formance. As indicated by the estimation of economic value, the value of
CII is variable and ranges from -$53.95 to $446.32 but its true economic
value cannot be determined because of the variation in animal response.
The greatest economic value of CII may be realized when utilized as
a feedstuff for monogastrics (Lambeth, 1975). The utilization of CII as
a feedstuff in broiler rations has been reported by Ward et_ al. (1975) and
Kienholz et_ al/ (1975). Ward et_ al^. (1975) concluded that 5% CH-stimulated
broiler growth, but 10 and 15% depressed growth rate. Kienholz £t_ al. (1975)
calculated the value of CII as a replacement for typical feedstuffs. At
1979 prices the value is $100.20 per tonne.
The utilization of CII as a feedstuff in laying hen diets has been
reported by Ward et_ al_. (1975). The authors concluded that 30% CII could
be incorporated into laying hen diets without a decrease in egg production.
Feed efficiency of the De Kalb birds decreased by 3% and by 14% for the
Hy-Line birds. The authors calculated the replacement value for the CII
in the laying diets to be $165.37 per tonne (1974 prices).
Production costs of the Cereco process have been reported to be $65 per
tonne (Seckler and Ward, 1974). Adjusting this for inflation (Delury, 1978),
the cost is approximately $85 per tonne (1978 prices). Due to the high
production costs, the Ceres Ecology Corporation discontinued the process in
1977, although the products are still being produced in France (P. Oriot,
personal communication). Recently a pilot study was conducted in California
utilizing a new energy-saving process to produce Cereco products from cat-
tle, swine and poultry wastes. Results are unavailable at this time. It
can be concluded that Cereco process products have nutritive value, although
their economic value cannot be determined at this time.
207
-------
SUMMARY OF PROCESSED MANURES
The utilization of processed animal manures as a feedstuff and
as a tap water substitute for ruminants, swine, and laying hens is summarized
in Table 112. The use of aerobically digested swine and laying hen manures
as a feedstuff or as a source of drinking water may result in animal per-
formance that is comparable to or better than control animals receiving
tap water, and economic benefits might be realized. The utilization of
anaerobically digested animal manures as a feedstuff is inappropriate
due to poor animal performance. The use of beef cattle and dairy cow manure
screenings as a ruminant feedstuff appears to be a sound nutritional prac-
tice; however, further studies are required to clearly determine its
nutritional and economic values. The Cereco products (CI and CII) have
feedstuff value as substitutes for corn silage and protein supplements, but
their estimated economic value could not be clearly determined due to varia~
tion in animal response.
208
-------
TABLE 112. SUMMARY OF ANIMAL RESPONSE AND ECONOMIC LEVELS OF UTILIZING PROCESSED ANIMAL MANURES
AS A FEEDSTUFF AND AS A TAP WATER SUBSTITUTE FOR RUMINANTS, SWINE AND LAYING HENS AND THEIR
ESTIMATED ECONOMIC VALUE
l-o
O
Kind of Maximum Animal
Processed Response Level,
Manure (?« Dry Matter Basis)
Aerobic Digestion
Swine ODML (in feed) *
Swine ODML *
(as water source)
Laying Hen ODML *
(as water source)
Anaerobic Digestion
Ket Cake *
Effluent 0
Manure Screenings
Beef Cattle *
Dairy Cow *
Cereco Products
CI *
Cll *
Maximum
Economic
Level
(% Dry
Matter Basis)
*
Ik
*
0
0
*
*
it
Estimated Gross Level of Waste
Value of Processed Incorporation That The
Manure Per Tonne Estimated Gross Value
Dry Matter l"as Based Upon
(dollars) (%)
296-1- 5.7 to 6
262* 4.7 to 5.3
2735 1.4
-102« 18
-626# 6.45
* *
* *
- 6** 8.3
122" 3.9 to 8.0
* Cannot be determined from existing data
- See Table 90
* See Table 94
§ Value based upon 0.275L ODML consumed per hen-day; ODML at 1.49» dry matter; 2,3% increased egg produc-
tion; egg value at S0.55/do;en;
Calculations: 1- 0.2751. ODML x 1.4% DM = 0.00385 kg DM ODML/hen-day
2- 2.5:: increased eggs x SO. 55/12 = SO. 00105
5- 0.00585 kg DM ODML = SO.00105
4- 1000 kg DM ODML = $272.75
= See Table 100
*" See Table 110
-------
SECTION 11
SUMMARY
The overall objective of this study was to characterize the value of
animal manures as feedstuffs. This was done by comparing the nutrient com-
position of animal manures to conventional feedstuffs, by evaluating the
animal performance resulting from feeding trials, and by preparing an
economic assessment.
The nutrient evaluation of animal manures indicated that, generally,
they are more comparable to corn silage and typical forages (alfalfa,
timothy and bermudagrass hay) for ruminants than to energy or protein feed-
stuffs and are a source of amino acids and minerals for laying hens. The
estimated economic value of these manures, based upon their nutrient content,
was $58 per tonne when used to replace corn silage and $80 per tonne when
used to replace forages in ruminant rations and $117 per tonne when DPW is
used to replace a portion of the cost of meat and bone meal in laying hen
diets (Section 5).
Evaluation of animal performance resulting from feeding trials indi-
cated that animal manures have nutritive value as a feedstuff; however, the
method used to prepare manures as feed constituents (drying, composting,
ensiling, etc.) influences their value. The maximum and "optimum" levels of
incorporating animal manures into laying hen diets and ruminant rations, on
the basis of animal performance, are summarized in Table 113. Generally,
the "optimum" level of incorporating animal manures into diets is less than
20%. Broiler litter, however, is an exception and can be incorporated at
higher levels without adversely affecting animal performance.
The economic assessment evaluation of utilizing DPW as a feedstuff is
summarized in Table 114. The "optimum" economic level of incorporation is
5 to 12.5% and the maximum economic level is 5 to 35%. The estimated gross
value of DPW as a substitute for meat and bone meal or silage and forages,
when incorporated at the "optimum" level, exceeds its fertilizer value.
However, when incorporated at the maximum level the estimated gross value
of DPW is greatly decreased.
The economic assessment evaluation of utilizing broiler litter as a
feedstuff for ruminants is summarized in Table 115. The maximum level of
incorporation depends upon the treatment utilized prior to use as a feedstuff
and varies considerably. "Optimum" levels of incorporation could not be
determined from the existing data. The estimated gross value of broiler
litter is about two times its fertilizer value, and comparable to the gross
value of corn silage and forages (dry matter basis).
210
-------
TABLE 113. SUMMARY OF THE MAXIMUM AND'DPTIMUM "LEVELS OF INCORPORATING ANIMAL MANURES
INTO LAYING HEN DIHTS AND RUMINANT RATIONS, BASED ON ANIMAL PERFORMANCE
Type of
Manure
DPW
Broiler Litter
As Collected
Dried
Ensiled
Composted
Beef Cattle Manure
As Collected
Dried
Ensiled
vs corn silage
vs corn grain
Species
Fed
Laying Hen
Laying Hen*
Steers
Heifers
Dairy Cows
Steers
Steers
Steers
Heifers
Beef Heifers
Brood Cows
Steers
Steers
Steers
Ruminants
Maximum
Level,
%
14-20
8-11
5
t
10-12
18-22
11-16
25-52
1-10
75
80
0
0
16-24
t
"Optimum"
Level,
%
10-12.5
5
<5
t
<11-12
<18-22
< 10
10-30
< 10
t
t
0
0
t
t
* With lard or soybean oil supplementation
t Cannot be determined from existing data
-------
TABLE 114. SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED ECONOMIC VALUE OF DPW
to
f
to
Species
Fed
Laying Hen
Laying Hen 5
Steers
Heifers
Dairy Cows
Estimated Value
of DPW Based Fertilizer Value
Conventional on Nutrient Content of DPW (dollars
Feedstuff (Dollars per Tonne of)* per Tonne of dry
Comparable to dry matter matter)t
Meat and Bone Meal 117 47
Meat and Bone Meal 117 47
Silage and Forages 58 and 80 47
Silage and Forages 58 and 80 47
Silage and Forages 58 and 80 47
Economic Level
of Incorporation,
Maximum "Optimum
20-35 10-12.5
12-16 5
< 5 #
# »
10-25 5-10
Estimated Gross Value of
DPW Based on Animal
Performance (dollars per
Tonne of dry matter) $
Maximum Optimum
" Level Level
48 280
16 186
31 #
166 225
* See Table 17 for Estimated Value Based on Nutrient Content
+ See Appendix D for Fertilizer Value Determination
t See Table 53 for Estimated Value Based on Animal Performance
§ With Lard or Soybean Oil Supplementation
H Cannot be Determined From Existing Data
TABLE 115. SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED ECONOMIC VALUE OF BROILER LITTER
Treatment
of Litter
As Collected
Dried
Ensiled
Composted
Estimated Value
of Litter Based Fertilizer Value
Conventional on Nutrient Content of Litter (dollars
Species Feedstuff (dollars per tonne per Tonne of dry
Fed Comparable to of dry matter)* matter)t
Steers Silages and Forages 58 and 80
Steers Silages and Forages 58 and 80
Steers Silages and Forages 58 and 80
Heifers Silage and Forages 58 and 80
Beef Heifers Silage and Forages 58 and 80
Brood Cows Silage and Forages 58 and 80 .
40
40
40
40
40
40
Estimated Gross- Value
Maximum Of Litter Based
Economic On Animal Performance
Level of (dollars per tonne of
Incorporation, % dry matter) t
18-22 72
11-16 90
25-52 §
1-10 90
75 81
80 72
* See Table 17 For Estimated Value Based on Nutrient Content.
t See Appendix D for Fertilizer Value Determination
* See Table 73 for Estimated Value Based on Animal Performance
§ Cannot be Determined from Existing Data
-------
The economic assessment evaluation of utilizing beef cattle manure as
a feedstuff for ruminants is summarized in Table 116. The utilization of as
collected or dried beef cattle manure is inappropriate because of adverse
animal performance. This type of beef cattle manure has more value as a
fertilizer than as a potential feedstuff. The use of ensiled beef cattle
manure as a feedstuff can be a sound nutritional practice; however, econ-
omically it appears not to compete with the low cost of corn silage or
forages. An economic savings might be realized when ensiled beef cattle
manure is utilized at low levels as a substitute for corn grain.
The evaluation of using other processed animal manures as feedstuffs
is summarized in Table 117. Economic benefits may be realized by using
liquid aerobically digested animal manures as the source of drinking water
for poultry or swine. However, the nutrient value of this material and
enhancement methods are poorly defined. Use of anaerobically stabilized
animal manures as feedstuffs is inappropriate because of poor animal per-
formance results. The utilization of dairy cow and beef cattle manure
screenings requires further investigation to delineate their nutritive,
economic and environmental value. Cereco products are not commercially
available in the United States today; however, plans exist for the products
to be manufactured by a new process and the utilization of these products
as feedstuffs may be feasible in the future.
The utilization of animal manures as feedstuffs does not appear to
be an efficient waste management practice to reduce potential environmental
quality problems caused by the discharge of animal manures. Only a low
level of such manures will be incorporated into animal rations and the
potential pollution abatement impact will be minimal.
213
-------
TABLE llo. SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED ECONOMIC VALUE OF BEEF CATTLE MANURE
Treatment
of Manure
As Collected
Dried
Ensiled
Species
Fed
Steers
Steers
SteersS
Ruminant s£
Conventional
Feedstuff
Comparable to
Silage and Forages
Silage and Forages
Silage and Forages
Silage and Forages
Estimated Value
of Manure Based
on Nutrient Content
(Dollars per tonne
of dry matter)*
58 and 80
58 and 80
58 and 80
58 and 80
Fertilizer Value
of Manure (dollars
per tonne of dry
matter) -
25
25
25
25
Maxinuc
Economic
Level of
Incorporation,"*
0
0
0
**
Estimated Gross Va:
of Manure Based
on Animal Perforr.an
(dollars per tonne
dry matter)*
- 15
-256
-135
122
ue
ce
of
* See Table 17 for estimated value based on nutrient content
t See Appendix D for fertilizer value determination
* Estimated value represents mean of all studies evaluated, see Table 87
t Compared to corn silage fed controls
* Compared to corn grain fed controls
** Cannot be determined from existing data
-------
TABLE 117. SUMMARY OF THE ESTIMATED ECONOMIC VALUE OF PROCESSED
ANIMAL MANURES
Type of
Processed
Manure
Species
Fed
Estimated Gross Value
of Manure per Tonne,
Dry Matter Basis (dollars)
Aerobically Digested
Anaerobically Digested
Wet Centrifuge Cake
Dry Centrifuge Cake
Effluent
Manure Screenings
Beef Cattle
Dairy Cow
Cereco Process
CI
CII
Swine
Laying Hens
Steers
Steers
Ruminants
Ruminants
Steers
Steers
262-296
273
- 102
O.
1
- 626
T
t
6
122
* See Table 112
t Value cannot be determined at this time
215
-------
REFERENCES
Adriano, B.C. 1975. Chemical Characteristics of Beef Feedlot Manures
as Influenced by Housing Type. In; Managing Livestock Wastes.
p. 347-350.
Albin, R.C., and L.B. Sherrod. 1975. Nutritional Value of Cattle Feedlot
Waste for Growing-Finishing Beef Cattle. In; Managing Livestock
Wastes, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
Michigan, p. 109-112.
Anthony, W.B. 1966. Utilization of Animal Waste as a Feed for Runinants.
In; Management of Farm Animal Wastes, American Society of Agricultural
Engineers. St. Joseph, Michigan, p. 109-112.
Anthony, W.B. 1968. Wastelage - A New Concept in Cattle Feed. J. Anim.
Sci., 27(1):289, (Abstract).
Anthony, W.B.. 1969. Cattle Manure: Re-use Through Wastelage Feeding.
In; Animal Waste Management. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
p. 105-113.
Anthony, W.B. 1970. Feeding Value of Cattle Manure for Cattle. J. Anim.
Sci., 30(2):274-277.
Anthony, W.B. 1971. Cattle Manure As Feed For Cattle. In; Livestock
Waste Management and Pollution Abatement. American Society of Agri-
cultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, p. 293-296.
Atlas of Nutritional Data on United States and Canadian Feeds. 1971.
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, B.C. 772 p.
Bhargava, K. K. and J.B. O'Neil. 1975. Evaluation of Dehydrated Poultry
Waste from Cage Reared Broilers as a Feed Ingredient for Broilers.
Poultry Sci., 54 (5):1506-1511.
Bhattacharya, A.N. and J.P. Fontenot. 1965. Utilization of Different
Levels of Poultry Litter Nitrogen by Sheep. J. Anim. Sci., 24(4):
1174-1178.
Bhattacharya, A.N. and J.P. Fontenot. 1966. Protein and Energy Value
of Peanut Hull and Wood Shaving Poultry Litter. J. Anim. Sci.,
25(2):367-371.
216
-------
Bhattacharya, A.N. and J.C. Taylor. 1975. Recycling Animal Waste as
a Feedstuff: A Review. J. Anim. Sci., 41(5):1438-1457.
Biely, J., R. Soong, and L. Seier. 1972. Dehydrated Poultry Waste in
Poultry Rations. Poultry Science, 51(5):1502-1511.
Blair, R. 1974. Evaluation of Dehydrated Poultry Waste as a Feed
Ingredient for Poultry. Federation Proceedings, 33(8):1934-1936.
Braman, W.L. 1975. Nutritional Potential of Cattle Feedlot Wastes.
J. Anim. Sci., 41(1):239-240 (Abstr.).
Brugman, A.H., H.C. Dickey, P.E. Plummer and B.R. Poulton. 1964.
Nutritive Value of Poultry Litter. J.Anim. Sci., 23(3):869, (Abstr.).
Bucholtz, H.F., H.E. Henderson, J.W. Thomas, and H.C. Zindel. 1971. Dried
Animal Waste as a Protein Supplement for Ruminants. In: Livestock
Waste Management and Pollution Abatement, American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, p. 308-310.
Bull, L.S. and J.T. Reid. 1971. Nutritive Value of Chicken Manure for
Cattle. In: Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement,
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan.
p. 297-300.
Burford, J., Jr., and F.T. Varani. 1978. The Lamar Bio-conversion Plant
Design. In; Proc. Great Plains Extension Seminar on Methane Produc-
tion from Livestock Manure. Texas Agric. Ext. Service, College
Station, Texas, p. 77-101.
Chandler, J.A. 1979. Unpublished Data. Department of Agricultural
Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Chandler, J.A. 1980. Predicting Methane Fermentation Biodegradability.
Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Department of Agricultural Engineering,
Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 234 pp.
Chastain, R.M., A.L. Sutton, and T.D. Wang. 1975. Performance of Rats
Fed Various Animal Wastes. J. Anim. Sci., 41(1) 240 (Abstr.).
Clanton, D.C., and L.E. Jones. 1975. Dried Poultry Waste Supplement for
Cows and Calves. Nebraska Beef Cattle Report EC 75-208. 18 p.
Cooper, D.P., R.D. Goodrich, and J.C. Meiske. 1974. Soybean Meal, Urea
and Chicken Manure as Protein Sources for Growing Beef Calves. J.
Anim. Sci., 39(4):997 (Abstr.).
Couch, J.R. 1974. Evaluation of Poultry Manure as a Feed Ingredient.
World's Poultry Sci., J., 30(4):279-289.
217
-------
Crampton, E.W., and L.E. Lloyd. 1959. Fundamentals of Nutrition. W.H.
Freeman and Co., Publ., San Francisco, Calif. 494 p.
Cross, D.L. 1977. Fermented Poultry Wastes for Cattle. In; Alternate
Nitrogen Sources for Ruminants. National Fertilizer Development
Center, Muscle Shoals, Ala., Bulletin Y-130. p. 48-53.
Cross, D.L., G.C. Skelly, C.S. Thompson, B.F. Jenny. 1978. Efficacy
of Broiler Litter Silage for Beef Steers, J. Anim. Sci., 47(2):
544-551.
Cullison, A.E., H.C. McCampbell, A.C. Cunningham, R.S. Lowrey, E.P. Warren,
B.D. McLendon, and D.H. Sherwood. 1976. Use of Poultry Manure in
Steer Finishing Rations. J. Anim. Sci., 42(1):219-228.
Delury, G.E. 1978. The World Almanac and Book of Facts. Newspaper
Enterprise Assoc., Inc., New York, N.Y., p. 57.
Ensminger, M.E., and C.G. Olentine, Jr. 1978. Feeds and Nutrition-
Complete. The Ensminger Publishing Co., Clovis, Calif., p. 1417.
Essig, H.W. 1977. Caged Layer Waste in Ruminant Nutrition. In;
Alternative Nitrogen Sources for Ruminants. National Fertilizer
Development Center, Muscle Shoals, Ala., Bulletin Y-130. p. 40-44.
Essig, H.W., F.T. Withers, and L.J. Smithson. 1977. DPW as a Protein
Source for Cattle. Mississippi Agric. and Forestry Exp. Sta. Research
Report, 3(7).
Evans, E., E.T. Morgan, Jr., and J.P. Walker. 1978. Laying Hen Excreta
as a Ruminant Feedstuff. I. Influence of Practical Extremes in Diet,
Waste Management Procedure and State of Production on Composting.
J. Anim. Sci., 46(2):520-526.
Feedstuffs. 1979. The Ingredient Market. January 22, p. 98.
Fisher. L.J. 1974. Influence of Feeding System, Digestibility of Ration
and Proportion of Concentrate Consumed on the Quantity and Quality
of Excreta Voided by Lactating Cows. In; Processing and Management
of Agricultural Waste. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. p. 283-290.
Flegal, C.J. and H.C. Zindel. 1969. The Utilization of Dehydrated Poultry
Waste by Laying Hens. Poultry Science, 48(5):1807 (Abstr.).
Flegal, C.J., and H.C. Zindel. 1970. Results of Feeding Dried Poultry
Waste by Laying Hens on Egg Production and Feed Conversion. Michigan
Agric. Exp. Sta. Research Report 117:29-31.
218
-------
Flegal, C.J. and H.C. Zindel. 1971. The Use of Dehydrated Poultry Waste
in Poultry Rations. In; Livestock Waste Management and Pollution
Abatement. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
Michigan, p. 305-307.
Flegal, C.J., C.C. Sheppard, and D.A. Dorn. 1972. The Effects of Con-
tinuous Recycling and Storage on Nutrient Quality of Dehydrated
Poultry Waste (DPW). In; Waste Management Research. Cornell Univer-
sity, Ithaca, N.Y. p. 295-300.
Fontenot, J.P. 1977. Broiler Litter as a Feed Ingredient for Ruminants.
In: Alternate Nitrogen Sources for Ruminants. National Fertilizer
Development Center, Muscle Shoals, Ala. Bulletin Y-130. p. 34-39.
Fontenot, J.P., A.N. Bhattacharya, C.L. Drake, and W.H. McClure. 1966.
Value of Broiler Litter as Feed for Ruminants. In; Management of
Farm Animal Wastes. American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
St. Joseph, Michigan, p. 105-112.
Fontenot, J.P., C.L. Drake, W.H. McClure, F.S. McClaugherty,
A.N. Bhattacharya, R.F. Kelly, and G.W. Litton. 1964. The Value of
Poultry Litter as a Feed for Ruminants. In; Livestock Research
1963-64, Progr. Rep. Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.
Fontenot, J.P., K.E. Webb, Jr., B.W. Harmon, R.E. Tucker, and W.E.C.
Moore. 1971. Studies of Processing, Nutritional Value, and Palata-
bility of Broiler Litter for Ruminants. In; Livestock Waste
' Management and Pollution Abatement. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, p. 301-304.
Fontenot, J.P. and K.E. Webb, Jr. 1975. Health Aspects of Recycling
Animal Wastes by Feeding. J. Anim. Sci., 40(6):1267-1277.
Forsht, R.G., C.R. Burbee, and W.M. Crosswhite. 1974. Recycling Poultry
Waste as Feed: Will it Pay? Agricultural Economic Report No. 254,
ERS-USDA, Washington, D.C. 20001
Free, W.J. 1977. Economic Aspects of Feeding Waste to Ruminants. In:
Alternative Nitrogen Sources for Ruminants. National Fertilizer Develop-
ment Center, Muscle Shoals, Ala. Bulletin Y-130. p. 86-90.
Goering, H.K. , and L.W. Smith. 1977. Composition of Corn Plant Ensiled
with Excreta or Nitrogen Supplements and its Effects on growing
Wethers. J. Anim. Sci., 44(3):452-461.
Goering, H. K., and P.J. Van Soest. 1970. Forage Fiber Analysis (Apparatus,
Reagents, Procedures and Some Applications). Agricultural Research
Service Handbook 379. ARS-USDA, Washington, D.C. p. 20.
Hammond, J.C. 1942. Cow Manure as a Source of Certain Vitamins for
Growing Chickens. Poultry Science, 21:554-559.
219
-------
Harmon, E.G., and D.L. Day. 1974. Nutritive. Value of Amino Acid Produced
in an Oxidation Ditch from Waste. In; Processing and Management of
Agricultural Wastes. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. p. 375-381.
Harmon, B.C., and D.L. Day. 1975. Nutrient Availability from Oxidation
Ditches. In; Managing Livestock Wastes. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, p. 199-202.
Harmon, B.C., D.L. Day, D.H. Baker and A.H. Jensen. 1973. Nutritive
Value of Aerobically or Anaerobically Processed Swine Waste. J.
Anim. Sci., 37(2):510-513.
Harmon, B.D., D.L. Day, A.H. Jensen, and D.H. Baker. 1972. Nutritive
Value of Aerobically Sustained Swine Excrement. J. Anim. Sci.,
34(3):403-407.
Harmon, B.W., J.P. Fontenot, and K.E. Webb, Jr. 1975. Ensiled Broiler
Litter and Corn Forage. 1. Fermentation Characteristics. J. Anim.
'Sci., 40(1): 144-160.
Harmon, B.W., A.H. Jensen, and D.H. Baker. 1969. Nutritive Value of
Oxidation Ditch Residue. J. Anim. Sci., 29(1):136 (Abstr).
Harpster, H.W., C.M. LaLonde, and W.W. Saylor. 1975. Nutritive Value of
Ensiled Cattle Waste. J. Anim. Sci., 41(1) .-240-241 (Abstr.).
Harpster, H.W., T.A. Long, and L.L. Wilson. 1978. Comparative Value of
Ensiled Cattle Waste for Lambs and Growing-Finishing Cattle.
J. Anim. Sci., 46(1):238-248.
Harris, L.E. 1970. Nutritional Research Techniques for Domestic and
Wild Animals, Volume 1. Utah State Univ., Logan, Utah.
Hashimoto, A.G., Y.R. Chen, and R.L. Prior. 1978. Thermophilic Anaerobic
Fermentation of Beef Cattle Residue. In; Energy From Biomass and
Waste. Institute of Gas Technology, Chicago, IL.
Hasimoto, A.G., Y.R. Chen, and R.L. Prior. 1979. Methane and Protein
Production from Animal Feedlot Wastes. J. Soil and Water Conserva-
tion, 34(1):16-19.
Hegg, R.O., R.E. Larson, J.A. Moore, R.D. Goodrich, and J.C. Meiske. 1975.
Recycling Solids from an Aerated Beef Slurry For Feed. In; Managing
Livestock Wastes. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St.
Joseph, Michigan, p. 197-202.
Hegg, R.O., J.C. Meiske, R.E. Larson, and. J.A. Moore. 1974. Beef Oxida-
tion Ditch Settled Solids Fed to Steers. In; Processing and Manage-
ment of Agricultural Waste. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
p. 382-386.
220
-------
Hill, R.C., W.B. Anthony, J.P. Cunningham, Jr. 1975. Cattle Waste for
Cattle Feed. J. Anim. Sci. 40(1):199-200 (Abstr.).
Hodgetts, B. 1971. The Effects of Including Dried Poultry Wastes in
The Feed of Laying Hens. In; Livestock Waste Management and Pollution
Abatement, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
Michigan, p. 311-313.
Holland, M.R., E.T. fornegay, and J.D. Hedges. 1975. Nutritive Value of
Swine Feces for Swine. In; Managing Livestock Wastes. American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, p. 214-217.
Jewell, W.J., H.R. Capener, S. Dell'Orto, K.J. Fanfoni, T.D. Hayes,
A.P. Leuschner, T.L. Miller, D.F. Sherman, P.J. Van Soest, M.J.
Wolin, and W.J. Wujcik. 1978. Anaerobic Fermentation of Agri-
cultural Residue: Potential for Improvement and Implementation,
Report No. EY76S022981F, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.
20001 427 p.
Jewell, W.J., H.R. Davis, W.W. Gunkel, D.J. Lathwell, J.H. Martin, Jr.,
T.R. McCarty, G.R. Morris, D.R. Price, and D.W. Williams. 1976.
Bioconversion of Agricultural Wastes for Pollution Control and Energy
Convervation. Report No. TID-27164, Energy Research and Development
Administration, Division of Solar Energy, Washington, D.C. 20001 321 p.
Johnson, H.S., D.L. Day, C.S. Byerly, and S. Prawirokusomo. 1977. Recycl-
ing Oxidation Ditch Mixed Liquor to Laying Hens. Poultry Sci., 56(4):
1339-1341.
Johnson, R.R., R. Panciera, H. Jordan, and L.R. Shuyler. 1975a. Nutri-
tional, Pathological and Parasitological Effects of Feeding Feedlot
Waste to Beef Cattle. In: Managing Livestock Wastes. American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, p. 203-205.
Johnson, W.L., M.R. Overcash, and J.C. Wilk. 1974. Vibrating-Screen
Separation of Dairy Cattle Waste. J. Anim. Sci., 39(1):138-139
(Abstr).
Johnson, W.L., J.C. Wilk, and A.H. Rakes. 1975b. Refeeding Value of
Screened Dairy Manure Solids. J. Anim. Sci., 41(1):241-242 (Abstr).
Keys, J.E., and L.W. Smith. 1978. Effect of Corn Silage Diets Supplemented
with Corn Stover and Two Levels of Nitrogen from Poultry Excreta on
Dry Matter Intake and Growth of Yearling Holstein Heifers. American
Dairy Science Association, 73rd Annual Meeting, Michigan State Uni-
versity, East Lansing, Mich. p. 199. (Abstr.).
Kienholz, E.W., G.M. Ward, J.M. Navallo, and M.C. Pritzl. 1975. Nutrition-
al Value of Cereco for Poultry. Feedstuffs, 47(11):23-24.
221
-------
Kieale, W.A., and J.R. Garstang. 1975. Milk Production from a Ration
Containing Dried Poultry Waste. Experimental Husbandry, 28:18-24.
Kbrnegay, E.T., M.R. Holland, K.E. Webb, Jr., K.P. Bovard, and J.D. Hedges.
1977. Nutrient Characterization of Swine Fecal Waste and Utilization
of These Nutrients by Swine. J. Anim. Sci., 44(2):608-612.
Lambeth, C. 1975. Nutritional Values of Cereco Silage (CI) and Cereco
Protein (CII) in Steer Fattening Rations. Ceres Ecology Corporation
Report, New York, N.Y. 7 p.
Lambeth, C., D. Seckler, and W. Hale. 1974. Practical Evaluation of
Recycled Animal Waste Protein in Feedlot Steers. Ceres Ecology
Corporation Report, New York, N.Y. 8 p.
Lamm, W.D., K.E. Webb, Jr., G.R. Dana, and J.P. Fontenot. 1977. Ensiling
Cattle Waste and Hay Treated with Alkali. Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State Univ. Livestock Research Report 172:43-45.
Lamoreux, W.F. and A.E. Schumacker. 1940. Is Riboflavin Synthesized in
the Feces of Fowl? Poul. Sci. 19:418-423.
Lauer, D.A. 1975. Limitations of Animal Waste Replacement for Inorganic
Fertilizers. In; Energy, Agriculture and Waste Management. Ann
Arbor Science Publ., Ann Arbor, Mich. p. 409-433.
Long, T.A., J.W. Bratzler, and D.E.H. Frear. 1969. The Value of Hydro-
lyzed and Dried Poultry Waste as a Feed for Ruminant Animals.
In; Animal Waste Management. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
p.98-104.
Lowman, B.C., and D.W. ftiight. 1970. A Note on the Apparent Digestibility
of Energy and Protein in Dried Poultry Excreta. Animal Production,
12(3):525-528.
Lowrey, R.S., A.E. Cullison, H.C. McCampbell, N.O. Watson, and D.H. Sherwood.
1975. Cattle and Poultry Waste for Finishing Steers. J. Anim. Sci.,
40(1):201 (Abstr.)
Lucas, D.M., J.P. Fontenot, and K.E. Webb, Jr. 1975. Digestibility of
Untreated and Sodium Hydroxide Treated Steer Fecal Waste. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State Univ. Livestock Research Report
163:115-122.
Martin, J.H., Jr. 1980. Performance of Caged White Leghorn Laying Hens
Fed Aerobically Stabilized Poultry Manure. Poul. Sci. 59(6):1178-1182.
Martin, J.H., Jr. 1980. Unpublished Data. Agricultural Engineering Depart-
ment, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
222
-------
Martin J.H., Jr., D.F. Sherman, and R.C. Loehr. 1976. Refeeding of Aerated
Poultry Wastes to Laying Hens. Paper No. 76-4513, American Society
of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich. 11 p.
Maynard, L.A., and J.K. Loosli. 1969. Animal Nutrition. 6th Edition.
McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., New York, N.Y. 613 p.
McClure, W.H., J.P. Fontenot, and K.E. Webb, Jr. 1978. Ensiled Corn
Forage and Broiler Litter for Finishing Heifers. Virginia Poly-
technic Institute and State Uhiv. Livestock Research Report,
174:131-134.
McClure, W.H., R.L. Preston, and E.W. KLosterman. 1973. Digestibility
and Palatibility of Fermented Cattle Manure Fed to Cattle. J. Anim.
Sci., 37(1):350 (Abstr.).
McClure, W.H., T.W. Westing, J.P. Fontenot, and K.E. Webb Jr. 1977.
Ensiled Corn Forage and Broiler Litter for Finishing Heifers.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ. Livestock Research
Report 172:68-71.
Mercio, T.A.P., and W.L. Johnson. 1978. Digestibility and Intake of
Rations With Fresh, Ensiled, or Sodium Hydroxide-Treated Screened
Manure Solids. J. Anim. Sci., Supplement 1, 47:463 (Abstr.).
Nesheim, M.C. 1972. Evaluation of Dehydrated Poultry Manure as a Potential
Poultry Feed Ingredient. In: Waste Management Research. Cornell
University, Ithaca, N.Y. p. 301-309
New York Times. 1979. Cash Prices. January 24, 1979, p. D10.
Newton, G.L., P.R. Utley, R.J. Ritter, and W.C. McCormick. 1975. Feeding
Wastelage and Digestibility of Wastelage and Dried Waste Diets.
J. Anim. Sci., 41(1):242 (Abstr.).
Noland, P.R., B.F. Ford, and M.L. Ray. 1955. The Use of Ground Chicken
Litter as a Source of Nitrogen For Gestating-Lactation Ewes and Fatten-
ing Steers. J. Anim. Sci., 14(3):860-865.
NRG. 1976. Nutrient Requirements of Beef Cattle. Fifth Revised Edition.
National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Washington,
B.C. 55 p.
NRC. 1977. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. Seventh Revised Edition.
National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Washington,
D.C. 62 p.
NRC. 1978. Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. Fifth Revised Edition.
National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Washington,
D.C. 76 p.
223
-------
Oliphant, J.M. 1974. Feeding Dried Poultry Waste for Intensive Beef
Production. Animal Production, 18(2):211-217.
Olivera, A.E., W.L. Johnson, and J.C. Wilk. 1977. Screened Manure
Solids in Rations for Replacement Heifers and Finishing Steers. J.
Anim. Sci., Supplement 1, 45:6-7.
Oltjen, R.R., and D.A. Dinius. 1976. Processed Poultry Waste Compared
«ith Uric Acid, Sodium Urate, Urea, and Biuret as Nitrogen Supple-
ments for Beef Cattle Fed Forage Diets. J. Anim. Sci., 43(1):201-208.
Oltjen, R.R., D.A. Dinius, M.I. Poos, and E.E. Williams. 1972. Na Urate,
25% Urate and Uric Acid as NPN Sources for Beef Cattle. J. Anim. Sci.,
35(1):272 (Abstr.).
Orr, D.E., E.R. Miller, P.K. Ku, W.G. Bergan, and D.E. Ullrey. 1971.
Recycling of Dried Waste in Swine. J. Anim. Sci., 33(3):1152
(Abstr.).
Ousterhout, L.E., and R.H. Presser. 1971. Increased Feces Production
From Hens Fed Poultry Manure. Poultry Sci., 50(5):1614 (Abstr.).
Overcash, M.R., F.J. Humenik, and L.B. Driggers. 1975. Swine Production
and Waste Management. In; Managing Livestock Wastes. American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich. p. 154-159,
163.
Pain, B*F., R.Q. Hepherd, and R.J. Pittman. 1978. Factors Affecting
the Performances of Four Slurry Separating Machines. J. Argicultural
Engineering Research, 23(3):231-242.
Palafox, A.L., and M.M. Rosenberg. 1951. Dried Cow Manure as a Supple-
ment in a Layer and Breeder Ration. Poultry Sci., 30(1):136-142.
Pearce, G.R. 1975. The Inclusion of Pig Manure in Ruminant Diets. In;
Managing Livestock Wastes. American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
St. Joseph, Mich. p. 218-219,221.
Pisone, U., and J.J. Begin. 1971. Recycling Animal Waste Through Poultry:
II. Dried Poultry Waste. Kentucky Agricultural Exp. Sta. Progress
Report 196:34-35.
Polin, D., S. Varghese, M. Neft, M. Gomez, C.G. Flegal, and H. Zindel.
1971. The Metabolizable Energy Value of Dried Poultry Waste.
Research Report No. 152. Michigan Agric. Exp. Sta., East Lansing,
Michigan, p. 32-44.
Prior, R.L., R.A. Britton, and A.G. Hashimoto. 1981. Nutritional Value of
Anaerobically Fermented Beef Cattle Wastes in Diets for Beef Cattle
and Sheep. In; Proc. Fourth International Symposium on Livestock
Wastes. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich.
224
-------
Prior, R.L. , and A.G. Hashimoto. 1981. Potential for Fermented Cattle
Residue as a Feed Ingredient For Livestock. In: Fuel Gas Production
From Biomass, CRS Press, Boca Rotan, Fla.
Quisenberry, J.H. and J.W. Bradley. 1968. Nutrient Recycling. Second
National Poultry Litter and Waste Management Seminar, College Station,
Texas, p. 96.
Quisenberry, J.H., and J.W. Bradley. 1969. Nutrient Recycling by Laying
Hens. Feedstuffs, 41 (5): 19.
Richter, M.F. 1979. Unpublished Data. University of Florida Agricultural
Research Center, Ona, Fla.
Richter, M.F., and R.L. Shirley. 1977. The Effects of the Roughage
Fraction of Feedlot Cattle Manure on the Metabolizable Energy of
Rations Fed Cattle. J. Anim. Sci., Supplement 1., 45:446-447.
Robinson, K., J.R. Saxon, and S.H. Baxter. 1971. Microbiological Aspects
of Aerobically Treated Swine Wastes. In; Livestock Waste Management
and Pollution Abatement. American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
St. Joseph, Mich. p. 225-228.
Rubin, M., H.R. Bird, and I. Rothchild. 1946. A Growth Promoting Factor
for Chicks in the Feces of Hens. Poultry Science, 25(2):526-528.
Schake, L.M., B.W. Pinkerton, C.E. Donnell, J.K. Riggs, and R.E. Lichten-
walner. 1977. Utilization of Cattle Excrement for Growth and Mainte-
nance of Beef Cattle. J. Anim. Sci., 45(1):166-179 .
Scott, M.L., M.C. Nesheim, and R.J. Young. 1976. Nutrition of the Chicken.
M.L. Scott and Assoc., Ithaca, N.Y. 555 p.
Seckler, D.W., and J.M. Harper. 1978. Cereco Process - U.S. Patent
3,875,319 and 4,018,899. In; Animal Feeds From Waste Materials.
Noyes Data Corp., Park Ridge, N.J. p. 199-207.
Seckler, D.W., and G.M. Ward. 1974. The Creco Process of Converting
Animal Wastes Into Valuable Livestock Feeds. Ceres Ecology Corp.
Report. New York, N.Y. 12 p.
Silva, L.A., H.H. VanHorn, E.A. Olaloka, C.J. Wilcox, and B. Harris, Jr.
1976. Complete Rations for Dairy Cattle. VII. Dried Poultry Waste
For Lactatitxg Cows. J. Dairy Sci., 59(2)-.2071-2076.
Smith, L.W. 1971. Feeding Value of Animal Wastes. In; Animal Waste
Reuse - Nutitional Value and Potential Problems from Feed Additives.
ARS 44-224. Agricultural Research Service. U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, p. 5-13.
225
-------
Smith, L.W. 1973a. Recycling Animal Wastes as Protein Sources. ISBN
0-309-2114-6. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., p.
146-173.
Smith, L.W. 1973b. Nutritive Evaluations of Animal Manures. In;
Processing Agricultural and Municipal Wastes, G.E. Inglett, Ed.
Avi Publishing Co., Westport, Conn. p. 55-74.
Smith, L.W., and C.C. Calvert. 1976. Dehydrated Broiler Excreta Versus
Soybean Meal as Nitrogen Supplements for Sheep. J. Anim. Sci.,
43(6):1286-1292.
Smith, L.W., G.F. Fries, and B.T. Weinland. 1976. Poultry Excreta Contain-
ing Polychlorinated Biphenyls as a Protein Supplement for Lactating
Cows. J. Dairy Sci., 59(3):465-474.
Smith, L.W., H. K. Goering, and C.H. Gordon. 1969. Influence of Chemical
Treatment Upon Digestibility of Ruminant Faces. In; Animal Waste
Management. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. p. 88-97.
Smith, L.W., H.K. Goering, and C.H. Gordon. 1971. Nutritive Evaluations
of Untreated and Chemically Treated Dairy Cattle Wastes. In; Live-
stock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement. American Society
of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich. p. 314-318.
Smith, L.W., H. K. Goering, and C.H. Gordon. 1969. Influence of Chemical
Treatment Dairy Cattle Wastes. In; Livestock Waste Management and
Pollution Abatement. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, .
St. Joseph, Mich. p. 314-318.
Smith, L.W., and C.H. Gordon. 1971. Dairy Cattle Manure-Cornmeal
Rations for Growing Heifers. Anim. Sci., 33(1):300 (Abstr.).
Smith, L.W., and W.E. Wheeler. 1979. Nutritional and Economic Value of
Animal Excreta, J. Anim. Sci., 48(1):144-156.
Southwell, B.L., D.M. Hale, and W.C. McCormick. 1958. Poultry House
Litter as a Protein Supplement in Steer Fattening Rations. Georgia
Agric. Exp. Sta. Mimeo Series N.S. 55. 6 p.
Swanson, M.H. 1975. "Should DPW Be Used in Poultry Rations?" Poultry
Digest, November, p. 438.
Thomas, J.W., P. Tinnimit, and H.C. Zindel. 1972. Dehydrated Poultry
Waste as a Feed for Milking Cows and Growing Sheep. J. Dairy Sci.,
55 (9):1261-1265.
Tinnimit, P., Y. Yu, K. McGuffy, and J.W. Thomas. 1972. Dried Animal
Waste as a Protein Supplement for Sheep. J. Anim. Sci., 33(2):
431-435.
226
-------
Trackulchang, N. , and S.L. Balloun. 1975. Use of Dried Poultry Waste in
Diets for Chickens. Poultry Sci., 54(2):609-614.
Van Dyne, D.L., and C.B. Gilbertson. 1978. Estimating U.S. Livestock
and Poultry Manure and Nutrient Production. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.
ESCS-J.,2. 145 pp.
Van Soest, P.J. 1980. Nutritional Ecology of Ruminant. W.H. Freeman
and Company, San Francisco, Calif. (In Preparation).
Van Soest, P.J., and R.B. Robertson. 1976. Composition and Nutritive
Value of Uncommon Feedstuffs. In; 1976 Cornell Nutrition Conference,
Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. p. 102-111.
Van Soest, P.J., and R.B. Robertson. 1978. Nutritive Analysis of Animal
Residues Before and After Anaerobic Fermentation. In; Anaerobic
Fermentation of Agricultural Residue: Potential for Improvement and
Implementation. U.S. Dept. of Energy Report. No. EY76S0229817,
Washington, D.C. p. 318-329.
Vetter, R.L., and W. Burroughs. 1974. Nutritive Value of Cattle Excreta
Silage. J. Anim. Sci., 39(5):1003 (Abstr.).
Wallick, J., J.M. Harper, R.P. Tengerdy, and V.G. Murphy. 1978. Anaerobic
Fermentation of Manure Into Single Cell Protein. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers Technical Paper No. 78-4009, St. Joseph, Mich.
17 p.
Ward, G.M., D.E. Johnson, and E.W. Kienholz. 1975. Nutritional Properties
of Feedlot Manure Fractionated by Cereco Process. In; Managing
Livestock Wastes. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St.
Joseph, Mich. p. 208-210.
Ward, G.M., and T. Muscato. 1976. Processing Cattle Waste for Recycling
As Animal Feed. World Animal Review, 20:31-35.
Webb, K.E. , Jr., J.P. Fontenot, and B.W. Harmon. " 1973. Effect of Molasses
Addition to Rations Containing Processed Broiler Litter Performance
and Carcass Characteristics of Steers. Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State Univ. Livestock Research Report 153:148-150.
Webb, K.E., Jr., J.P. Fontenot, and H.W. McClure. 1974. Broiler Litter
as a Wintering Feed For Beef Cows and Heifers. Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State Univ. Livestock Research Report 158:125-128.
Webb, K.E., Jr., J.P. Fontenot, and H.W. McClure. 1975. Performance and
Liver Copper Levels of Beef Heifers Fed Broiler Litter. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State Univ. Livestock Research Report 163:
128-131.
227
-------
Webb, K.E., Jr., J.P. Frontenot, and H.W. McClure. 1977. Performance and
Liver Copper Levels of Beef Cows Fed Broiler Litter. Virginia Poly-
technic Institute and State Univ. Livestock Research Report 172:
91-94.
Webb, K.E., Jr., J.P. Fontenot, and H.W. McClure. 1978. Performance and
Liver Copper Levels of Beef Cows Fed Broiler Litter. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State Univ. Livestock Research Report
174:81-84
Westing, T.W., and B. Brandenberg. 1974. Beef Feedlot Waste in Rations
for Beef Cattle. In; Processing and Management of Agricultural Waste.
Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. p. 336-341.
Westing, T.W., J.E. Trei, B.C. Fjellstrom, M.E. Lottie, and K.E. Yelle.
1978. Beef Feedlot Waste for Finishing Steers. J. Anim. Sci.,
Supplement 1., 47:151.
Whetstone, G.A., H.W. Parker, and D.M. Wells. 1974. Study of Current
and Proposed Practices in Animal Waste Management. Report No. EPA-
430/9-74-003, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
84 p.
Williams, M.C., R.L. Francis, and D.D. Lee, Jr. 1974. Ensiled Corn-Manure
for Yearling Steers. J. Anim. Sci., 39(5):1004 (Abstr.).
Wooden, G.R., and J.W. Algeo. 1976. Dried Broiler Litter for Finishing
Steers. J. Anim. Sci., 43(1) :338 (Abstr.)..
Yokoyama, M.T. and W.R. Nummy, Jr. 1976 Inclusion of Livestock Feces
Into Corn Silage. J. Anim. Sci., 43(1):211 (Abstr.).
Yoshida, M., and H. Hoshii. 1963. Nutritive Value of Poultry Manure.
Japanese Poultry Science. 5:37.
Young, R.J., and M.C. Nesheim. 1972. Dehydrated Poultry Waste as a Feed
Ingredient. Cornell University Nutrition Conference, Ithaca, N.Y.
p. 46-55.
228
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES FOR THE NUTRIENT, MINERAL AND
AMINO ACID COMPOSITION OF ANIMAL MANURES
In the following tables, the references for the nutrient, mineral
and amino acid composition of animal manures are presented:
TABLE A-l. REFERENCES FOR DRIED POULTRY WASTE (DPW)
TABLE A-2. REFERENCES FOR BROILER LITTER
TABLE A-3. REFERENCES FOR DAIRY COW MANURE
TABLE A-4. REFERENCES FOR BEEF CATTLE MANURE
TABLE A-5. REFERENCES FOR CERECO PRODUCTS
229
-------
TABLE A-l. REFERENCES FOR NUTRIENT, MINERAL, AND AMINO ACID COMPOSITION
OF DRIED POULTRY WASTE (DPW), TABLES 4, 5, and 6
Source
Reference
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2,6
27
Biely £t al_. (1972)
Bucholtz et a^. (1971)
Bull and Reid (1971)
Capar et al. (1978)
Chang and Rible (1975)
Cullison et_ al_. (1976)
El-Sabban et al_. (1969)
Ensminger and Olentine (1978)
Essig (1977)
Fairbain (1970)
Flegal and Zindel (1971)
Goering and Smith (1977)
Hodgetts (1971)
Kali et al_. (1975)
Long ejt al. (1969)
Lowman and Knight (1970)
Nesheim (1972)
Oliphant (1974)
011jen and Dinius (1976)
Perez-Aleman et^ al. (1971)
Polin et al_. (1971)
Price (1972)
Smith (1973)
Surbrook et_ a^. (1971)
Tinnimit et al. (1972) I
Van Soest and Robertson (1976)
Zindel et al. (1977)
230
-------
TABLE A-2. REFERENCES FOR NUTRIENT AND MINERAL COMPOSITION OF BROILER
LITTER, TABLES 7, 8 and 9
Source Reference
1 Ammerman et al. (1966)
2 Bhargava and O'Neil (1975)
3 Bhattacharya and Fontenot (1965)
4 Bhattacharya and Fontenot (1966)
5 Brugman e_t al. (1964)
6 Capar et^ al. (1978)
7 Caswell et al. (1978)
8 Cross (1977)
9 Cross et al. (1978)
10 Cullison et_ al. (1973)
11 Cullison et_ al_. (1976)
12 El-Sabban et al. (1969)
13 Fairbairn (1970)
14 Fontenot (1977)
15 Fontenot e_t al_. (1971)
16 Free (1977)
17 Galmez et al_. (1970)
18 Harmon et_ al^. (1975)
19 Kali et al_. (1975)
20 Oliphant (1974)
21 Ruffin (1977)
22 Smith and Calvert (1976)
23 Stuedemann et_ al. (1975)
24 Van Soest (1980)
231 '
-------
TABLE A-3. REFERENCES FOR NUTRIENT AND MINERAL COMPOSITION OF DAIRY COW
MANURE, TABLES 10, 11 and 12
Source Reference
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Chang and Rible (1975)
Fenner and Archibald (1959)
Goering and Smith (1977)
Grant (1975)
Kali et al. (1975)
Magdoff et al. (1978)
Randall et al. (1975)
Smith et al. (1970)
Smith et al. (1971)
Surbrook et al. (1971)
Thomas et al . (1970)
Tinnimit et al. (1972)
Van Soest and Robertson (1976)
Whetstone et al . (1974)
Van Soest (1980)
TABLE A-4. REFERENCES FOR NUTRIENT, MINERAL, AND AMINO ACID COMPOSITION
OF BEEF CATTLE MANURE, TABLES 13, 14, and 15
Source Reference
1 Adriano (1975)
2 Anthony (1969)
3 Anthony (1971)
4 Blair and Knight (1973)
5 Braman (1975)
6 Bucholtz et al. (1971)
7 Capar et al. (1978)
8 Chang and Rible (1975)
9 Ensminger and Olentine (1978)
10 Harpster et_ a±. (1978)
11 Johnson (1972)
12 Kali et_ a^. (1975)
13 Lipstein and Borstein (1973)
14 Lucas e_t al_. (1974)
15 iMcClure et_ al_. (19J1)
16 Newton et_ a^. (.1977),
17 Schake et_ al_. (1974)
18 Schake ejt a^. (1977).
19 Tinnimit et jil_. (19.72).
20 Van Soest' and Robertson (1976.)
21 Westing and Brandenberg (1974).
22 Whetstone et al, (19741
232
-------
TABLE A-5. REFERENCES FOR NUTRIENT CHARACTERISTICS OF CERECO SILAGE AND
CERECO.PROTEIN, TABLES 28, 29, and 30
Source Reference
1 Kienholz et_ al_. (1975)
2 Lambeth (1975)
3 Lambeth et_ al_. (1974)
4 Seckler and Ward (1974)
5 Wallick et_ a^. (1978)
6 Ward et_ al_. (1975)
7 Post and Ward (1975)
8 Van Soest (1980)
233
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX A
Adriano, D.C. 1975. Chemical Characteristics of Beef Feedlot Manures
as Influenced by Housing Type. In: Managing Livestock Wastes.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich.,
p. 347-350.
Ammerman, C.B., P.M. Waldrop, L.R. Arrington, P.L. Shirley, and R.H. Harms.
1966. Nutrient Digestibility in Ruminants of Poultry Litter Con-
taining Dried Citrus Pulp. J. Agric. Food Chemistry, 14(2):279-281.
Anthony, W.B. 1969. Cattle Manure: Re-use Through Wastelage Feeding.
In; Animal Waste Management. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
p. 105-113.
Anthony, W.B. 1971. Cattle Manure As Feed For Cattle. In: Livestock
Waste Management and Pollution Abatement. American Society of Agri-
cultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich. p. 293-296.
Bhargava, K.K., and J.B. O'Neil. 1975. Evaluation of Dehydrated Poultry
Waste From Cage Reared Broi rs As a Feed Ingredient For Broilers.
Poultry Sci., 54(5):1506-151x.
Bhattacharya, A.M., and J.P. Fontenot. 1965. Utilization of Different
Levels of Pountry Litter Nitrogen by Sheep. J. Anim. Sci., 24(4):
1174-1178.
Bhattacharya, A.M., and J.P. Fontenot. 1966. Protein and Energy Value
of Peanut Hull and Wood Shaving Poultry Litter. J. Anim. Sci.,
25(2):367-371.
Biely, J. P. Soong, and L. Seier. 1972. Dehydrated Poultry Waste In
Poultry Rations. Poultry Sci., 51(5):1502-1511.
Blair, R., and D.W. Knight. 1973. Recycling Animal Wastes. Part I.
The Problems of Disposal and Regulatory Aspects of Recycled Manures.
Feedstuffs: 45(10):32, 34.
Braman, W.L. 1975. Nutritional Potential of Cattle Feedlot Wastes.
J. Anim. Sci., 41(1):239-240, (Abstr.).
Brugman, A.H., H.C. Dickey, P.E. Plummer, and B.R. Poulton. 1964.
Nitritive Value of Poultry Litter. J. Anim. Sci., 23(3):869,
(Abstr.).
234
-------
Bucholtz, H.F., H.E. Henderson, J.W. Thomas, and H.C. Zindel. 1971. Dried
Animal Waste as a Protein Supplement for Ruminants. In; Livestock
Waste Management and Pollution Abatement. American Society of Agri-
cultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich. p. 308-310.
Bull, L.S., and J.T. Reid. 1971. Nutritive Value of Chicken Manure For
Cattle. In; Livestock Waste Management And Pollution Abatement.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich. p. 297-
300.
Capar, S.G., J.T. Tanner, M.H. Friedman, and K.W. Boyer. 1978. Multi-
element Analysis of Animal Feed, Animal Wastes and Sewage Sludge.
Environ. Sci. and Technology, 12(7):785-790.
Caswell, L.F., J.P. Fontenot, and K.E. Webb, Jr. 1978. Fermentation and
Utilization of Broiler Litter Ensiled At Different Moisture Levels.
J. Anim. Sci., 46(2):547-561.
Chang, A.G., and J.M. Rible. 1975. Particle-Size Distribution of Live-
stock Wastes. In; Managing Livestock Wastes. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich. p. 339-343.
Cross, D.L. 1977. Fermented Poultry Wastes For Cattle. In; Alternate
Nitrogen Sources For Ruminants. National Fertilizer Development
Center, Muscle Shoals, Ala. Bulletin Y-130. p. 48-53.
Cross, D.L., G.C. Skelley, C.S. Thompson and B.F. Jenny. 1978. Efficacy
of Broiler Litter Silage For Beef Steers. J. Anim. Sci., 47(2):
544-551.
Cullison, A.E., H.C. McCampbell, and E.P. Warren. 1973. Use of Dried
Boiler Feces in Steer Rations. J. Anim. Sci., 36(1):218-219, (Abstr.)
Cullison, A.E., H.C. McCampbell, A.C. Cunningham, R.S. Lowrey, E.P. Warren,
B.D. McLendon, and D.H. Sherwood. 1976. Use of Poultry Manure In
Steer Finishing Rations. J. Anim. Sci., 42(1):219-228.
El-Sabban, F.F., T.A. Long, R.F. Gentry, and D.E.H. Frear. 1969. The
Influence of Various Factors on Poultry Litter Composition. In:
Animal Waste Management. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. P. 340-346.
Ensminger, M.E., and C.G. Olentine, Jr. 1978. Feeds and Nutrition -
Complete. The Ensminger Publishing Co., Clovis, Calif. 1417 pp.
Essig, H.W. 1977. Caged Layer Waste In Ruminant Nutrition. In; Alter-
nate Nitrogen Sources For Ruminants. National Fertilizer Development
Center, Muscle Shoals, Ala. Bulletin Y-130. p. 40-44.
Fairbain, C.D. 1970. Dried Poultry Manure as Cattle Feed. Poultry Digest,
29(341):331-364.
235
-------
Fenner, H., and J.C. Archibald. 1959. A Critical Study of Energy Determina-
tion in Fresh and Dried Cow Feces. J. Dairy Sci., 429(12):1995-2001.
Flegal, C.J. and H.C. Zindel. 1971. The Effect of Feeding Dehydrated
Poultry Waste on Production, Feed Efficiency, Body Weight, Egg Weight,
Shell Thickness, and Haugh Score. Research Report No. 117, Michigan
Agric. Exp. Sta., East Lansing, Mich. p. 31-33.
Fontenot, J.P. 1977. Broiler Litter As a Feed Ingredient For Ruminants.
In; Alternate Nitrogen Sources For Ruminants. National Fertilizer
Development Center, Muscle Shoals, Ala. Bulletin Y-130. p. 34-39.
Fontenot, J.P., K.E. Webb, Jr., B.W. Harmon, R.E. Tucker, and W.E.C. Moore.
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, Mich. p. 301-304.
Free, W.J. 1977. Economic Aspects of Feeding Waste to Ruminants. In;
Alternate Nitrogen Sources For Ruminants. National Fertilizer Devel-
opment Center, Muscle Shoals, Ala. Bulletin Y-130. p. 86-90.
Galmez, J., E. Santiseban, E. Hoardt, C. Crempien, L. Villata, and
D. Torell. 1970. Performance of Ewes and Lambs Fed Broiler Litter.
J. Anim. Sci., 31(1):241, (Abstr.).
Goering, H.K., and L.W. Smith. 1977. Composition of Corn Plant Ensiled
With Excreta or Nitrogen Supplements and Its Effects On Growing
Wethers. J. Anim. Sci., 44(3):452-461.
Grant, F.A. 1975. Liquid Composting of Dairy Manure. In: Managing
Livestock Wastes. American Society of Agricultural. Engineers,
St. Joseph, Mich. p. 497-500.
Harmon, B.W., J.P. Fontenot, and K.E. Webb, Jr. 1975. Ensiled Broiler
Litter and Corn Forage. 1. Fermentation Characteristics. J. Anim.
Sci., 40(1):144-160.
Harpster, H.W., T.A. Long, and L.L. Wilson. 1978. Comparative Value of
Ensiled Cattle Waste For Lambs and Growing-Finishing Cattle. J. Anim.
Sci., 46(1):238-248.
Hodgetts, B. 1971. The Effects of Including Dried Poultry Wastes in
The Feed of Laying Hens. In: Livestock Waste Management and Pol-
lution Abatement, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St.
Joseph, Mich. p. 311-313.
Johnson, R.P. 1972. Digestibility of Feedlot Wastes. Misc. Publication
.No. 87. Agric. Exp. Sta.. Oklahoma State University, p. 62-65.
236
-------
Kali, J., W.G. Merrill, G.B. Lake, and C.E. Coppock. 1975. Feeding
Dairy Cattle Complete Rations Based On Corn Silage or Field Crop
Residues, and Poultry or Cattle Manure. Bulletin No. 27. Animal
Science Mimeo Series, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 57 pp.
Kienholz, E.W., G.M. Ward, J.M. Navallo, and M.C. Pritzl. 1975. Nitri-
tional Value of Cereco for Poultry. Feedstuffs, 47(11):23-24.
Lambeth, C. 1975. Nutritional Values of Cereco Silage (CI) and Cereco
Protein (CII) in Steer Fattening Rations. Ceres Ecology Corporation
Report, New York, N.Y. 7 pp.
Lambeth, C., D. Seckler, and W. Hale. 1974. Practical Evaluation of
Recycled Animal Waste Protein in Feedlot Steers. Ceres Ecology
Corporation Report, N Iw York, N.Y. 8 pp.
Lipstein, B., and S. Borstein. 1973. Value of Dried Cattle Manure as
a Feedstuff for Poultry. Feedstuffs, 45(24):22-23.
Long, T.A., J.W. Bratzler, and D.E.H. Frear. 1969. The Value of Hydrolyzed
and Dried Poultry Waste as a Feed For Ruminant Animals. In; Animal
Waste Management. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. p. 98-104.
Lowman, B.C., and D.W. Knight. 1970. A Note on the Apparent Digestibility
of Energy and Protein in Dried Poultry Excreta. Animal Production,
12(3):525-528.
Lucas, D.M. , J.P. Fontenot, and K.E. Webb, Jr. 1974. Composition and
Digestibility of Cattle Fecal Waste. In: Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University Livestock Research Report No. 158.
Blacksburg, Va. p. 110-118.
McClure, K.E., R.D. Vance, E.W. Klosteraan, and R.L. Preston. 1971.
Digestibility of.Feces From Cattle Fed Finishing RM:ions. J. Anim.
Sci., 33(1):292.
Magdoff, F.R., G.D. Wells, A.E. Smith, G. Goldberg, and J. Amadon. 1978.
Alternate.Methods of Manure Handling. EPA-600/2=78-078. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta, Ga.
Nesheim, M.C. 1972. Evaluation of Dehydrated Poultry Manures as a
Potential Poultry Feed Ingredient. In; Waste Management Research.
Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
Newton, G.L., D.P. Utley, R.J. Ritter, and W.C. McCormick. 1977.
Performance of Beef Cattle Fed Wastelageand Digestibility of
Wastelage and Dried Waste Diets. J. Anim. Sci., 44(3):447-451.
Oliphant, J.M. 1974. Feeding Dried Poultry Waste For Intensive Beef
Production. Animal Production, 18(2):211-217.
237
-------
Oltjen, R.R., and D.A. Dinius. 1976. Processed Poultry Waste Compared
With Uric Acid, Sodium Urate, Urea, and Biuret as Nitrogen Supple-
ments For Beef Cattle Fed Forage Diets. J. Anim. Sci., 43(1):201-208.
Perez-Aleman, S., D.G. Dempster, P.R. English, and J.H. Topps. 1971.
A Note on Dried Poultry Waste in the Diet of the Growing Pig.
Animal Production, 13(2):361-364.
Polin, D., S. Varghese, M. Neft, M. Gomez, C.G. Flegal, and H. Zindel.
1971. The Metabolizable Energy Value of Dried Pountry Waste. Research
Report No. 152, Michigan Agric. Exp. Sta., East Lansing, Mich. p. 32-
44.
Post, G., and G.M. Ward. 1975. Use of Cereco II in Rainbow Trout Rations.
Feedstuffs, March 24, p. 24.
Price, F. 1972. Dried Poultry Waste as Feed. Poultry Digest, 31(363:
248-249.
Randall, G.W., R.H. Anderson, and P.R. Goodrich. 1975. Soil Properties
and Future Crop Production as Affected By Maximum Rates of Dairy
Manure. In; Managing Livestock Wastes. American Society of Agri-
cultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich. p. 611-613, 621.
Ruffin, E.G. 1977. Broiler Litter in Cattle Feed. In: Alternate
Nitrogen Sources For Ruminants. National Fertilizer Development
Center, Muscle Shoals, Ala. Bulletin Y-130. p. 69-71.
Schake, L.M., C.E. Donnell, and R.E. Lichtenwalner. 1974. Sorghum Grain
Reconstituted with Cattle Excretement. J. Anim. Sci., 39(1) :139,
(abstr.).
Schake, L.M., B.W. Pinkerton, C.E. Donnell, J.K. Riggs, and R.E.
Lichtenwalner. 1977. Utilization of Cattle Excretement For Growth
and Maintenance of Beef Cattle. J. Anim. Sci., 45(1):166-179.
Seckler, D., and G.M. Ward. 1974. The Cereco Process of Converting Animal
Wastes Into Valuable Livestock Feeds. Ceres Ecology Corporation
Report, New York, N.Y. 12 pp.
Smith, L.W. 1973. Recycling Animal Wastes As Protein Souces. In: Alterna-
tive Sources of Protein For Animal Production. ISBN 0-309-2114-6,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. p. 146-173.
Smith, L.W., H.K. Goering, and C.H. Gordon. 1970. Invitro Digestibility
of Chemically Treated Feces. J. Anim. Sci., 31(6):1205-1209.
Smith, L.W., H.K. Goering, and C.H. Gordon. 1971. Nutritive Evaluations
of Untreated and Chemically Treated Dairy Cattle Wastes. In: Live-
stock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich., p. 314-318.
238
-------
Studemann, J.A., S.R. Wilkinson, D.J. Williams, H. Ciordin, J.V. Ernst,
W.A. Jackson, and J.B. Jones, Jr., 1975. Long-time Broiler Litter
Fertilization of Tall Fescue Pastures and Health and Performance of
Beef Cows. In: Managing Livestock Wastes. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich. p. 264-268.
Surbrook, T.C., C.C. Sheppard, J.S. Boyd, B.C. Zindel, and C.J. Flegal.
1971. Drying Poultry Waste. In: Livestock Waste Management and
Pollution Abatement. American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
St. Joseph, Mich. p. 192-194.
Thomas, J.W., Y. Yu, and J.A. Hoffer. 1970. Digestibility of Paper and
Dehydrated Feces. J. Anim. Sci., 31(1):255.
Tinnimit, P., Y. Yu, K. McGuffy, and J.W. Thomas. 1972. Dried Animal Waste
As A Protein Supplement For Sheep. J. Anim. Sci., 35(2):431-435.
Van Soest, P.J. 1980. In; Atlas of Nutritional Data on United State
and Canadian Feeds. Second Revision, Publication No. 1684. National
Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C. (In Preparation).
Van Soest, P.J., and R.B. Robertson. 1976. Composition and Nutritive Value
of Uncommon Feedstuffs. In: 1976 Cornell Nutrition Conference,
Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. p. 102-111.
Wallick, J., J.M. Harper, R.P. Tengerdy, and V.G. Murphy. 1978. Anaerobic
Fermentation of Manure into Single Cell Protein. Paper No. 78-4009,
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich. 17 p.
Ward, G.M., D.E. Johsnon, and E.W. Kienholz. 1975. Nutritional Properties
of Feedlot Manure Fractionated by Cereco Process. In; Managing
Livestock Wastes. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St.
Joseph, Mich. p. 208-210.
Westing, T.W. and B. Brandenberg. 1975. Beef Feedlot Waste In Rations
For Beef Cattle. In: Processing and Management of Agricultural
Waste. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. p. 336-341.
Whetstone, G.A., H.W. Parker, and D.M. Wells. 1974. Study of Current
and Proposed Practices in Animal Waste Management, EPA-430/9-74-003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 564 p.
Zindel, H.C., T.S. Chang, C.J. Flegal, D. Polin, C.C. Sheppard, B.A. Stout,
J.E. Dixon, M.L. Esmay, and J.B. Gerrish. 1977. Poultry Excreta
Dehydration and Utilization: System Development and Demonstration.
EPA 600/2-77-221, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Ga.,
163 p.
239
-------
APPENDIX B
COMPOSITION OF CONVENTIONAL FEEDSTUFFS
The composition of energy feeds (corn and sorghum grain), protein feeds
(soybean and cottonseed meal), and silage and forages (corn silage, timothy,
alfalfa and bermudagrass hay) used in the comparison of as collected and
other processed animal manures (Sections 5 and 6) is presented in Table B-l.
240
-------
TABLE B-l. COMPOSITION OF CONVENTIONAL FEEDSTUFFS*
Feedstuff
ENERGY FEEDS:
Corn, grain
(all analyses)
Sorghum, grain
(all analyses)
PROTEIN FEEDS:
Soybean meal (49%)
Cottonseed meal (41%)
FORAGES:
Corn silage
(all analyses)
Timothy hay (mid-bloom)
Alfalfa hay (mid-bloom)
Bermudagrass hay
(sun-cured)
Crude
Protein
10.9
12.6
47.6
44.0
7.0
9.5
18.8
9.8
Digestible Ami no
Protein Acids
8.0 6.37
8.8 6.66
39.7 29.05
35.2 28.80
3.6 1
5.4 1
14.0 8.81
5.0 f
- Percent
Ether
Extract
4.5
3.1
1.5
5.0
2.8
2.6
3.2
2.0
of Dry
Total
Ash
1.4
1.9
6.9
6.6
5.3
6.5
8.6
7.9
Crude
Fiber NFE TON ADF
2.4 81.4 93 3.2
2.7 79.6 89 5
4.7 39.4 84 5.1
12.1 32.3 75 20
25.5 59.3 68 27
34.1 47.4 59 37.3
28.8 40.6 56 36.1
28.2 52 49 38
D.M.
Mctabol izahle
NDF Lignin Energy
20.3 1.0 3.36
23 2 3.21
14 1 3.02
28 5.8 2.71
45 5 2.47
68.2 4 2.14
47.5 9 2.24
78 12 1.77
•Ensminger and Olentine (1978).
tVan Soest (1980).
rNot reported.
-------
APPENDIX C
FEEDING STUDIES NOT EVALUATED
In the following tables, feeding trials that could not be evaluated and
the reasons for not evaluating them are presented;
TABLE C-l. DRIED POULTRY WASTE (DPW) FED TO LAYING HENS
TABLE C-2. DRIED POULTRY WASTE (DPW) FED TO STEERS
TABLE C-3. DRIED POULTRY WASTE (DPW) FED TO DAIRY COWS
TABLE C-4. DRIED POULTRY WASTE (DPW) FED TO HEIFERS
TABLE C-5. BROILER LITTER FED TO RUMINANTS
TABLE C-6. CATTLE MANURE FED TO RUMINANTS
TABLE C-7. ENSILED OR COMPOSTED CATTLE MANURE FED TO RUMINANTS
242
-------
TABLE C-l. DRIED POULTRY WASTE (DPW) FED TO LAYING HENS
Source
Reason for Not Evaluating Study
Quisenberry and
Bradley (1968)
Flegal £ Zindel (1969)
Fairbairn (1970)
Ousterhouse § Presser
(1971)
Bergdoll (1972)
Price (1972)
Pryor § Connor (1974)
Waldroup 5 Hazen (1974)
Flegal S Zindel (1977)
Galal et al_. (1977)
Lee § Bolton (1977)
Auckland (1978)
Lee et al^. (1978)
Ogunmoder $ Afolabi (1978)
Reprint of study not available
Abstract only, insufficient data
Lack of egg production data
Abstract only, insufficient data
Lack of dietary ingredients
Lack of dietary ingredients and egg
production data
Lack of nutritional results
Lack of dietary ingredients
Lack of egg production data
Abnormal treatment (autoclaving) of DPW
Uncommon diet ingredients
Uncommon diet ingredients
Uncommon diet ingredients
Uncommon diet ingredients
243
-------
TABLE C-2. DRIED POULTRY WASTE (DPW) FED TO STEERS
Source
Reason for Not Evaluating Study
Bull and Reid (1971)
Smith (1974)
Clark et_ al_. (1975)
Anderson et^ al^. (1976)
Dethrow et a^. (1976)
Lamm et_ al. (1976)
Essig (1977)
Fairbrother e_t al_. (1978)
Koenig et_ al_. (1978)
Smith et al. (1979)
Lack of data on dietary ingredients
Abstract only, insufficient data
Abstract only, insufficient data
Reprint of study not available
Abstract only, insufficient data
Abstract only, insufficient data
Lack of data on dietary ingredients
Abstract only, insufficient data
Pretreatment with formalin altered
composition of DPW
Insufficient nutritional data
244
-------
TABLE C-3. DRIED POULTRY WASTE (DPW) FED TO DAIRY COWS
Source
Reason for Mot Evaluating Study
Bull and Reid (1971)
Kneale and Garstang (1973)
Smith and Fries (1973)
Clanton and Jones (1975)
Kali et_ a_l_. (1975)
Kristensen et_ al. (1976)
Calvert and King (1977)
Lack of data on dietary ingredients
Abstract only, insufficient data
Abstract only, insufficient data
Reprint of study not available
Lack of data on animal body weights
Reprint of study not available
Abstract only, insufficient data
TABLE C-4. DRIED POULTRY WASTE (DPW) FED TO HEIFERS
Source
Reason for Not Evaluating Study
Bucholtz e_t al. (1971)
Tinnimit and Thomas (1972)
Clanton and Jones (1975)
Kali et_ a_L_. (1975)
Essig et al. (1977)
Lack of data on dietary ingredients
Abstract only, insufficient data
Reprint of study not available
Lack of data on animal body weights
Abnormal performance of control group
245
-------
TABLE C-5. BROILER LITTER FED TO RUMINANTS
Source
Reason for Not Evaluating Study
Drake et_ al. (1965)
Cullison et_ al_. (1973)
Caswell et_ al^. (1974)
Fontenot e_t aJL (1975)
Tagari et_ al. (1976)
Wooden and Algeo (1976)
Cross (1977)
Cross et_ al. (1977)
Fontenot (1977)
Kelley et_ al_. (1977)
Chambers et al. (1978)
Abstract only, insufficient data
Abstract only, insufficient data
Abstract only, insufficient data
Results reported in an earlier study
Unusual feedstuff
Abstract only, insufficient data
More complete results reported in
later study
Abstract only, insufficient data
Results reported in earlier
study
Abstract only, insufficient data
Abstract only, insufficient data
246
-------
TABLE C-6. CATTLE MANURE FED TO RUMINANTS
Source
Reason for Not Evaluating Study
Anthony (1970)
Lucas et_ al_. (1974)
Albin and Sherrod (1975)
Braman (1975)
Ward and Muscato (1976)
Pinkerton et_ al. (1976)
Anthony (1977)
Richter and Shirley (1977)
Westing et al. (1978)
Manure washed and cooked
No animal performance data
No animal performance data
Abstract only, insufficient data
Insufficient nutritional data
Abstract only, insufficient data
Results reported in an earlier study
Abstract only, insufficient data
Abstract only, insufficient data
247
-------
TABLE C-7. ENSILED OR COMPOSTED CATTLE MANURE FED TO RUMINANTS
Source
Reason for Not Evaluating Study
Anthony (1968, 1971, 1973,
1974)
Blandel and Anthony (1969)
Moore and Anthony (1970)
Anthony et_ al_. (1973)
McClure et_ al_. (1973)
Vetter and Burroughs (1974)
Newton et_ al_ (1976)
Yokoyama and Mummy (1976)
Braman and Abe (1977)
Lamm et_ al. (1977)
Farguhar et_ al. (1978)
Lamm et al. (1979)
Abstracts only, or results reported
in earlier studies
Abstract only, insufficient data
Abstract only, insufficient data
Abstract only, insufficient data
Abstract only, insufficient data
Abstract only, insufficient data
Abstract only, insufficient data
Abstract only, digestibility trial
Abstract only, insufficient data
Cattle manure treated with alkali
Abstract only, insufficient data
No animal performance data
248
-------
REFERENCES FOR APPENDIX C
Albin, R.D. and L.B. Sherrod. 1975. Nutritional Value of Cattle Feedlot
Waste For Growing-Finishing Beef Cattle. In; Managing Livestock
Wastes, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
Michigan, p. 211-213, 217.
Anderson, H.R., M. Sorensen, J. Lykkeaa, and K. Kousgaard. 1976. Feed-
ing Dried Poultry Waste For Intensive Beef Production. Be Retnig
Fra Statens Husdyrburgs Forsog, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Anthony, W.B. 1968. Wastelage - A New Concept in Cattle Feed. J. Anim.
Sci., 27(1):289 (Abstr.).
Anthony, W.B. 1970. Feeding Value of Cattle Manure For Cattle. J. Anim.
Sci., 30(2):274-277.
Anthony, W.B. 1971. Animal Waste Value - Nutrient Recovery and Utiliza-
tion. J. Anim. Sci., 32(4):799-802.
Anthony, W.B. 1974. Nutritional Value of Cattle Waste For Cattle. Fed-
eration Proceedings, 33(8):1939-1941.
Anthony, W.B., 1977. Cattle Waste in Ruminant Nutrition. In: Alternative
Nitrogen Sources For Ruminants. National Fertilizer Development Cen-
ter, Muscle Shoals, Ala., Bulletin Y-130. p. 45-48.
Anthony, W.B., J.P. Cunningham, Jr., and J.C. Renfroe. 1973. Ensiling
Characteristics of Mixtures of Various Feedstuffs and Animal Wastes.
J. Anim. Sci., 36(1):208 (Abstr.).
Auckland, J.N. 1978. Diets for Laying Hens Containing Unusual Ingredients
And Varying Concentrations of Cereals Including No Cereals. British
Poultry Sci., 19(3):327-331.
Bergdoll, J.F. 1972. Drying Poultry Manure and Refeeding The End Product.
In; Waste Management Research. Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.
p. 289-293.
Blandel, L.S. and W.B. Anthony. 1969. Wastelage - Digestibility and Feed-
ing Value. J. Anim. Sci., 28(1) :152 (Abstr).
249
-------
Braman, W.L. 1975. Nutritional Potential of Cattle Feedlot Wastes. J.
Anim. Sci., 41(1):239-240 (Abstr.).
Braman, W.L. and R.K. Abe. 1977. Nutritional Evaluation of Cattle Feedlot
Waste For Ruminants. J. Anim. Sci., Suppl., 69th Annual Meeting,
July 23-27, Madison, Wise. p. 5 (Abstr.).
Bucholtz, H.F., H.E. Henderson, J.W. Thomas, and H.C. Zindel. 1971. Dried
Animal Waste as a Protein Suppliment for Ruminants. In: Livestock
Waste Management and Pollution Abatement, American Society of Agricul-
tural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan, p. 308-310.
Bull, L.S. and J.T. Reid. 1971. Nutritive Value of Chicken Manure For
Cattle. In; Livestock Waste Management and Pollution Abatement,
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan,
p. 297-300.
Calvert, C.C. and R.L. King. 1977. Dehydrated Caged Laying Hen Excreta
(DPE) As a Nitrogen Supplement For Lactating Cows. J. Dairy Sci.,
60(1):141 (Abstr.).
Caswell, L.F., J.P. Fontenot, and K.E. Webb, Jr. 1974. Ensiled High
Moisture Grain and Broiler Litter. J. Anim. Sci., 39(1) :138 (Abstr.)
Chambers, A.J., C.L. Benham, J.A. Robson, N. Trinder, and G.L.T. Hunt.
1978. Ensiled Broiler Litter as a Source of Protein for Beef Cattle.
Proc. British Society Anim. Production, 26(3):378 (Abstr.).
Clanton, D.C. and L.E. Jones. 1975. Dried Poultry Waste Supplement For
Cows and Calves. 1975 Nebraska Beef Cattle Report EC 75-208, 18 pp.
Clark, J.L., M.R. Dethrow, and J.M. Vandepopuliere. 1975 Dried Poultry
Waste as a Supplemental Nitrogen Source For Cattle. J. Anim. Sci.,
41(1):394-395 (Abstr.).
Cross, D.L. 1977. Fermented Poultry Wastes For Cattle. In: Alternate
Nitrogen Sources For Ruminants. National Fertilizer Development
Center, Muscle Shoals, Ala. Bulletin Y-130. p. 48-53.
Cross, D.L., B.F. Jenny, R.L. Edwards, and C.S. Thompson. 1977. Broiler
Litter Silage in Rations for Steers, J.Anim. Sci., 45:445 (Supp 1).
Cullison, A.E., H.C. McCampbell, and E.P. Warren. 1973. Use of Dried
Broiler Feces in Steer Rations. J. Anim. Sci., 36(1):218-219 (Abstr.).
Dethrow, M.R., J.L. Clark., J.M. Vandepopuliere, and D.P. Hutcheson. 1976.
Dried Poultry Waste as a Supplement for Beef Cattle. Poultry Science.
55(5):2028 (Abstr.).
Drake, C.L., W.H. McClure, and J.P. Fontenot. 1965. Effects of Level and
Kind of Broiler Litter for Fattening Steers. J. Anim. Sci., 24(4):
879 (Abstr.)
250
-------
Essig, H.W. 1977. Caged Layer Waste in Ruminant Nutrition. In: Alterna-
tive Nitrogen Sources for Ruminants. National Fertilizer Development
Center, Muscle Shoals, Ala. Bulletin Y-130. p. 40-44.
Essig, H.W., F.T. Withers, and L.J. Smithson. 1977. "DPW" as a Protein
Source for Cattle. Miss. Agric. and Forestry Exp. Sta. Research Report
Fairbain, C.B. 1970 Dried Poultry Manure as Cattle Feed. Poultry Digest,
29(341) :331-364.
Fairbrother, T.E., H.W. Essig, and C.E. Cantrell. 1978. Dried Poultry
Waste for Beef Cattle. J. Anim. Sci., 47 (Suppl. 1):108 (Abstr.).
Farguhar, A.S., W.B. Anthony, and J.V. Ernst. 1978. Destruction of Bovine
Coccidia by the Ensiling of Manure - Blended Rations. J. Anim. Sci.,
47 (Suppl. 1): 51-52 (Abstr.).
Flegal, C.J., and H.C. Zindel. 1969. The Utilization of Dehydrated Poultry
Waste by Laying Hens. Poultry Science, 48 (5): 1807 (Abstr.).
Flegal, C.J. and H.C. Zindel. 1977. Poultry Excreta Dehydration and Utili-
zation: System Development and Demonstration. EPA-600/2-77-221. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, Georgia. 162 p.
Fontenot, J.P. 1977. Broiler Litter as a Feed Ingredient for Ruminants.
In: Alternate Nitrogen Sources for Ruminants. National Fertilizer
Development Center, Muscle Shoals, Ala., Buttetin Y-130. p. 34-39.
Fontenot, J.P. , L.F. Caswell, B.W. Harmon, and K.E. Webb, Jr. 1975.
Ensiling Broiler Litter With Corn Forage, Corn Grian and Water. In:
Managing Livestock Wastes. American Society of Agricultural Engineers.
St. Joseph, Michigan, p. 222-226.
Gala, A.G.H., H.S. Johnson, and H.W. Norton. 1977. Feeding and Recycling
Dried Poultry Waste to Laying Hens. Poultry Science, 56(5) :1670-1673.
Kali, J., W.G. Merrill, G.B. Lake, and C.E. Coppock. 1975. Feeding Dairy
Cattle Complete Rations Based on Corn Silage or Field Crop Residues,
and Poultry or Cattle Manure. Bulletin No. 27, Animal Science Mimeo.
Series, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 57 pp.
Kelley, R.F., W.H. McClure, T.W. Westing, J.P. Fontenot, and K.E. Webb Jr.
1978. Carcass and Palatability Characteristics of Heifers Fed Broiler
Lansing, p. 465 (Abstr.).
Keale, W.A., and J.R. Garstang. 1973. Dried Poultry Waste in Dairy Rations.
Proc. British Society of Animal Production, 2:70-71 (Abstr.).
Koenig, S.E., E.E. Hatfield, and J.W. Spears. 1978. Animal Performance
and Microbial Adaptation of Ruminants Fed Formaldehyde Treated
Poultry Waste. J. Anim. Sci., 46(2) :490-498.
251 ;
-------
Kristensen, V.F., P.E. Andersen, G.K. Jensen, A.N. Fisker, and H.E. Birkkjaer.
1976. Feeding Value of Dried Poultry Waste for Dairy Cows. Faellesud-
valgetfur Statens Mejeri-og Husdyrburgsforsog. 2. Beretning, Helierod.
Denmark.
Lamm, D., L.E. Jones. D.C. Clanton, and J.K. Ward. 1976. Dehydrated Poultry
Waste as a Nitrogen Source for Cattle. J. Anim. Sci., 41(1):409
(Abstr.).
Lamm, W.D., K.E. Webb Jr., G.R. Dana, and J.P. Fontenot. 1977. Ensiling
Cattle Waste and Hay Treated with Alkali. Virginia Polytech Michigan
Institute and State University, Livestock Research Report 172:43-45.
Lamm, W.D., K.E. Webb, Jr., and J.P. Fontenot. 1979. Ensiling Character-
istics, Digestibility and Feeding Value of Ensiled Cattle Waste and
Ground Hay with and Without Sodium Hydroxide. J. Anim. Sci., 48(1):
104-112.
Lee, D.J.W., and W. Bolton. 1977. The Laying Performance of Two Strains
of Hens Offered Diets Containing Dried Poultry Manure During the Laying
Stage. British Poultry Science. 18(1):l-7.
Lee, D.J.W., W. Bolton, and W.A. Dewar. 1978. Effects of Battery Cage
Shape and Dietary Energy Regulation on the Performance of Laying Hens
Offered Diets Containing Dried Poultry Manure. British Poultry Science
19(5):607-622.
Lucas, D.M., J.P. Fontenot, and K.E. Webb, Jr. 1974. Composition and
Digestibility of Cattle Fecal Waste. Virginia Polytech. Institute and
State University Livestock Research Report No. 158:110-118.
Moore, J.D., and W.B. Anthony. 1970. Enrichment of Cattle Manure for Feed
by Anaerobic Fermentation. J. Anim. Sci., 30(2):324 (Abstr.).
McClure, K.E., R.L. Preston, and E.W. Klosterman. 1973. Digestibility and
Palatability of Fermented Cattle Manure Fed to Cattle. J. Anim. Sci.,
37(1):350 (Abstr.).
Newton, G.L., P.R. Utley, R.J. Ritter, and W.C. McCormick. 1976. Perfor-
mance of Beef Cattle Fed Wastelage and Digestibility of Wastelage and
Dried Waste Diets. J. Anim. Sci., 43(1):211-212 (Abstr.).
Ogunmodere, B.K., and S.O. Afolabi. 1978. Replacement of Ground Nut Cake
by Dried Poultry Manure in the Diets of Laying Hens. British Poultry
Science, 19(2):143-147.
Ousterhout, L.E., and R.H. Presser. 1971. Increased Feces Production From
Hens Fed Poultry Manure. Poultry Science, 50(5):1614 (Abstr.).
Pinkerton, B.W., L.M. Schake, J.K. Riggs, and R.E. Lichtenwalner. 1976.
Excretement Reconstituted Sorghum Grain for Cattle. J. Anim. Sci.,
43(1):330-331 (Abstr.).
252
-------
Price, F. 1972. Dried Poultry Waste as Feed. Poultry Digest, 31, (363):
248-249.
Pryor, W.J, and J.K. Conner. 1964. A Note on the Utilization by Chickens
of Energy from Feces. Poultry Science, 43(3):833-834.
Quisenberry, J.H., and J.W. Bradley. 1968. Nutrient Recycling. Second Na-
tional Poultry Litter and Waste Management Seminar. College Station
Texas, p. 96.
Richter, M.F., and R.L. Shirley. 1977. The Effect of the Roughage Fraction
of Feedlot Cattle Manure on the Metabolizable Energy of Rations Fed
Cattle. J. Anim., Sci., 45 (Suppl. l):446-447.
Smith, L.W. 1974. Dehydrated Poultry Excreta as a Crude Protein Supplement
for Ruminants. J. Anim. Sci., 39(1):139 (Abstr.).
Smith, L.W., and G.F. Fries. 1973. Dehydrated Poultry Manure as a Crude
Protein Supplement for Lactating Cows. J. Dairy Science, 56(5):668-
669 (Abstr.).
Smith, L.W., C.C. Calvert, and H.R. Cross. 1979. Dehydrated Poultry
Excreta Versus Cottonseed Meal as Nitrogen Supplements for Holstein
Steers. J. Anim. Sci., 48(3):633-640.
Tagari, H., D. Levy, Z. Holzer, and D. Ilan. 1976. Poultry Litter for In-
tensive Beef Production. Animal Production, 23(3):317-327.
Tinnimit, P., and J.W. Thomas. 1972. Percentage and Sources of Protein
for Calves. J. Dairy Science, 55(5):703 (Abstr.).
Vetter, R.L., and W. Burroughs. 1974. Nutritive Value of Cattle Excreta
Silage. J. Anim. Sci., 39(5):1003 (Abstr.).
Waldroup, P.W., and K.R. Hazen. 1974. Dried Poultry Manure Not Too Effect-
tive in Laying Hen Feeds. Feed Industry. Third Quarter, P. 10-12.
Ward, G.E., and T. Muscato. 1976. Processing Cattle Waste for Recycling as
Animal Feed. World Animal Review 20:31-35.
Westing, T.W., J.E. Trei, B.C. Fjellstrom, M.E. Lottie, and K.E. Yelle.
1978. Beef Feedlot Waste For Finishing Steers. J. Anim. Sci., 47
(Suppl. 1):151 (Abstr.).
Wooden, G.R., and J.W. Algeo. 1976. Dried Broiler Litter for Finishing
Steers. J. Anim. Sci., 43(1):338 (Abstr.).
Yokoyama, M.T., and W.R. Nummy Jr. 1976. Inclusion of Livestock Feces
Into Corn Silage. J. Anim. Sci., 43(1):211 (Abstr.).
253
-------
APPENDIX D
FERTILIZER VALUE OF ANIMAL MANURES
In the following tables, the fertilizer content of animal manures and
their monetary values are presented:
TABLE D-l. FERTILIZER COMPOSITION OF ANIMAL MANURES
TABLE D-2. NUTRIENT QUANTITY OF ANIMAL MANURES AS EXCRETED
AND FERTILIZER VALUE
TABLE D-3. NUTRIENT QUANTITY OF ANIMAL MANURES (DRY MATTER BASIS)
AND FERTILIZER VALUE
254
-------
TABLE D-l. FERTILIZER COMPOSITION OF ANIMAL MANURES* (percent of dry matter)
Nutrient
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Caged laying
hen manure
4.48
2.29
2.24
Broiler
litter
4.29
1.81
1.78
Dairy cow
manure
2.45
0.65
1.42
Beef Cattle
manure
2.64
0.80
2.25
*Plant nutrient content as reported in Section
TABLE D-2.
NUTRIENT QUANTITY
VALUE*
5.
OF ANIMAL MANURES AS EXCRETED
AND FERTILIZER
Nutrient
Nitrogent
Phosphorus!
Potassiumt
Fertilizer
value
Caged laying
hen manure,
25% dry
matter
11.20
5.72
5.60
11.72
Broiler
litter,
80% dry
matter
34.32
14.48
Dairy cow
manure ,
15.5% dry
matter
3.80
1.01
14.24 2.20
32.32 3.23
Beef cattle
manure ,
21% dry
matter
5.54
1.68
4.72
5.33
*Based upon prices from Agway, Inc., Ithaca, New York, February 1979. Cost
of N = $0.441/kg; P = $0.900/kg; K = $0. 292/kg.
tNutrient concentrations calculated utilizing raw waste characteristics
presented in Section 5.
255
-------
TABLE D-3. NUTRIENT QUANTITY OF ANIMAL MANURES (DRY MATTER BASIS) AND
FERTILIZER VALUE*
Caged Laying
Nutrient Hen Manure
Nitrogen 44.8
Phosphorus 22.9
Potassium 22.4
Fertilizer
Value 46.91
Broiler Dairy Cow
Litter Manure
42.9 24.5
18.1 6.5
17.8 14.2
40.41 20.80
Beef Cattle
Manure
26.4
8.0
22.5
25.41
Based upon prices from Agway, Inc., Ithaca, New York, February, 1979.
Cost of N - $0.441/kg; P = $0.900/kg; K = $0.292/kg
256
-------
APPENDIX E
MARKET PRICES OF FEEDSTUFFS
In the following tables, the market prices of the feedstuff utilized in
the economic assessment of the value of animal manures are presented:
TABLE E-l. MARKET PRICES REPORTED IN FEEDSTUFFS, JANUARY 15, 1979
TABLE E-2. MARKET PRICES OBTAINED FROM AGWAY INC., SYRACUSE, N.Y.
JANUARY 24, 1979
TABLE E-3. MARKET PRICES OBTAINED FROM CORNELL UNIVERSITY AND THE.
NEW YORK TIMES
257
-------
TABLE E-l. MARKET PRICES REPORTED IN FEEDSTUFFS, JANUARY 15, 1979
Feedstuff Dollars per tonne
Alfalfa meal, 17% 127.87
Barley, ground 112.88
Beet pulp 140.65
Bone meal 301.67
Citrus pulp 109.79
Corn, distillers solubles 155.87
Corn, gluten meal, 60% 275.58
Corn, grain, No. 2 106.70
Cottonseed meal, 41% 205.91
Fish meal, menhaden 438.50
Meat and bone meal 250.45
Molasses 102.07
Oats, rolled 207.68
Peanut meal 220.68
Poultry by-product meal 279.99
Rice, mill feed 42.44
Salt 40.79
Sorghum, grain 96.78
Soybean meal, 44% 198.86
Soybean meal, 49% 215.83
Tallow, prime 455.70
Urea 173.94
Wheat, bran 117.07
Wheat, ground 163.36
Wheat, middlings 115.96
Wheat, shorts 122.25
Yellow grease 408.96
258
-------
TABLE E-2. MARKET PRICES OBTAINED FROM AGWAY INC., SYRACUSE, N.Y.,
JANUARY 24, 1979
Feedstuff Dollars per tonne
Alfalfa hay 71.66
Bermudagrass hay 71.65
Bermudagrass pellets 137.79
Brewers yeast 716.62
Corn and cob meal 121.25
Corn, cobs 13.78
Corn, ears 71.65
Corn, silage 14.88
Corn, stover 17.09
Cottonseed hulls 79.92
Dicalcium phosphate 341.72
Limestone 55.12
Peanut hulls 24.91
Rice hulls 28.11
Salt, trace mineralized 88.41
Soybean hulls 88.18
Timothy hay 71.65
Vitamin premix 66.36
Wheat, straw 55.12
TABLE E-3. MARKET PRICES OBTAINED FROM CORNELL UNIVERSITY AND NEW YORK
TIMES
Feedstuff Dollars per tonne
Cornell University Cerelose, glucose 396.83
(January 24, 1979) Corn, starch 352.08
New York Times Corn Oil 727.S3
(March 29, 1979) Soybean oil 655.88
259
-------
APPENDIX F
COST ESTIMATES FOR DRYING LAYING HEN
AND DAIRY CATTLE MANURES
INTRODUCTION
Animal manures as produced are biologically active materials which are
bulky and difficult to handle as a solid due to high levels of moisture.
For example, moisture contents expressed on a wet basis (WB) of caged laying
hen and dairy cattle manures average 75% and 90% respectively. These high
moisture levels and the associated characteristics noted above preclude the
direct use of manures as components of manufactured feeds or the marketing
of manures as fertilizers/soil conditioners for horticultural activities.
In both instances, drying is a necessary prerequisite and the associated
costs represent an important factor in the assessment of the economic
feasibility of the utilization alternatives noted above.
Although several estimates of manure-drying costs are available in the
literature, a review of this information resulted in the conclusion that a
new cost analysis was necessary. First, updating of published estimates to
reflect the impacts of inflation and rising energy costs was not possible
due to the absence of detailed descriptions of assumptions and methodology.
Second, the effect of utilization, as related to dryer capacity, on unit
costs had not been examined. The objective of the following is to describe
the methodology and assumptions employed and to present and discuss this
analysis of the cost of drying caged laying hen and dairy cattle manures.
METHODOLOGY
To accurately reflect the cost of drying animal manures as a commercial
enterprise, this cost analysis was based on information obtained from manu-
facturers of equipment which is marketed for the drying of animal manures
and is designed to meet prevailing air quality standards. Three firms cur-
rently are active in this field: The Hamada Manufacturing Company, a
Japanese firm represented by the Wolverine Manufacturing Company, Grand
Haven, Michigan; The Heil Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Aeroglide
Corporation, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Each firm was requested to provide the following information for each
dryer model marketed for drying animal manures.
260
-------
A. Purchase price of the drying unit, including feed hoppers, conveyors,
etc., and air pollution control equipment.
B. Building site required to house drying units,
C. Evaporative capacity.
D. Fuel consumption.
E. Connected electrical load.
Response to this request by the Hamada representative and the Heil
Company was excellent. Unfortunately, it was not possible to obtain adequate
information from the Aeroglide Corporation to include their manure dryers in
this analysis. The information provided by Hamada and Heil is summarized in
Tables F-l and F-2. Structural costs were estimated from minimum building
size recommendations using a construction cost figure of $66.67 per m2
($6.00 per ft2) (Guest, 1979) (Table F-3).
Price quotations for the various sizes of dryers (Table Frl and F-2)
and the cost estimates for associated structures (Table F-3) were used to
calculate annual fixed costs for each dryer. The assumptions employed in
annual fixed-cost calculations are outlined in Table F-4. Operating costs
were determined from fuel consumption and electrical demand values presented
in Tables F-l and F-2. Prices used for No. 2 fuel oil and electricity were
$0.21 per £($0.79 per gal) and $0.0405 per kwhr, respectively. These prices
are average costs to consumers excluding taxes for Ithaca,...New York, August,
1979. Production estimates assumed input moisture 'content of caged laying
hen and dairy cattle manures at 75% WB and 90% WB respectively. For both"
types of manure, output moisture content was assumed to be 15% WB, The
thermal efficiency of each dryer was calculated from evaporative capacity
and fuel oil consumption values (Tables F-l and F-2) assuming the average
heat content of No. 2 fuel oil to be 40,583 kJ per £ (Mark's Standard Hand-
book for Mechanical Engineers, 1978),
RESULTS
Estimated annual fixed costs for various sizes of manure dryers manu-
factured by the Hamada and Heil Companies are presented in Tables F-5 and
F-6. These dryers range in evaporative capacity from 247 kg ^Q per hr to
8172 kg H20 per hr. Table F-7 contains estimated annual fixed costs for
the structures required to house the various sizes of manure dryers con-
sidered in this study. Total annual fixed costs for drying equipment and
building are summarized in Table F-8. Examination of total annual fixed
costs per unit of evaporative capacity versus evaporative capacities of
various size dryers considered (Figure F-l) shows a typical decrease in
unit costs as total capacity increases.
261
-------
TABLE F-l. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE.HAMADA COMPANY
Purchase Price
Model Quoted, $
FS-S3 55,100
to FS-1 68,460
NJ
FS-2 132,825
FS-3 185,950
FS-4 214,000
FS-5 280,000
Building, Size
Required, m^
90
90
243
291.6
382.5
594
Evaporative
Capacity, kg H?0/hr
247
424
635
1271
1906
3530
Fuel Consumption*
fc/hr
20
40
60
130
200
320
Connected Electrical
Load , kw
5
10
16
35
53
60
* No. 2 Fuel Oil
-------
TABLE F-2. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE HEIL COMPANY
Purchase Price Building, Size Evaporative Fuel Consumption* Connected Electrical
Model Quoted, $ Required, m2 Capacity, kg H 0/hr Jl/hr Load, kw
SD45-12 58,170 93 454 39 14.7
oj SD75-22 278,338 409 2724 234 39.7
SD85-25 357,071 447 4086 351 44.8
SD105-32 403,732 483 8172 702 90
* No. 2 Fuel Oil
-------
TABLE F-3. ESTIMATED STRUCTURAL COSTS FOR HOUSING HAMADA AND HEIL MANURE
DRYING UNITS.
Manufacturer Model
Hamada FS-S3
FS-1
FS-2
FS-3
FS-4
FS-5
Heil SD45-12
SD75-22
SD85-25
SD105-32
Building, Size
Required, m^
90
90
243
292
382
594
90
408
447
483
Construction*
Cost, $
6,000
6,000
16,200
19,500
25,500
39,600
6,000
27,200
29,800
32,200
*at $66.67 per m2 ($6.00 per ft2)
264
-------
TABLE F-4. ASSUMPTIONS USED IN CALCULATING ANNUAL FIXED COSTS FOR MANURE
DRYERS AND ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES
Estimated Useful Life
Dryer - 10 yr.
Structure - 20 yr.
Amortization Rate
10% per year assuming no salvage value
Taxes and Insurance
Dryer - 3.5% of initial investment per year
•Structure - 3.5% of initial investment per year
Maintenance and Repairs
Dryer - 2.0% of initial investment per year
Structure - 1.0% of initial investment per^-year
265
-------
TABLE F-5. ESTIMATED ANNUAL FIXED COSTS.FOR HAMADA MANURE DRYERS
Model
FS-S3
FS-1
FS-2
FS-3
FS-4
FS-5
Purchase Price,
Quoted, $
55,
68,
132,
185,
214,
280,
100
460
825
950
000
000
Annual
Cost
8,
11,
21,
30,
34,
45,
Capital*
, $
968
142
617
263
828
570
Taxes § i
Insurance, $
1,928
2,396
4,649
6,508
7,490
9,800
Maintenance * Annual
§ Repairs, $ Fixed Cost, $
1,102 11,998
1,369 14,907
2,656 28,922
3,719 40,490
4,280 46,598
5,600 60,970
* Amortized at 10% per year over an estimated useful life of 10 years with no salvage value,
t Estimated at 3.5% of initial investment per year.
$ Estimated at 2% of initial investment per year.
-------
TABLE E-6. ESTIMATED ANNUAL FIXED COSTS FOR HEIL MANURE DRYERS
Purchase Price, Annual Capital* Taxes § f Maintenance* Annual
Model Quoted, $ Cost, $ Insurance, $ $ Repairs, $ Fixed Cost, $
NJ
ON !
SD45-12 58,170
SD75-22 278,338
9,467
45,300
2,036
9,742
1,163
5,567
12,666
60,609
SD85-25 357,071
58,113
12,497
7,141
77,751
SD105-32 403,732
65,707
14,131
8,075
87,913
* Amortized at 10% per year over an estimated useful life of 10 years with no salvage value.
t Estimated at 3.5% of initial investment per year.
* Estimated at 2% of initial investment per year.
-------
TABLE P-7. ESTIMATED ANNUAL FIXED COSTS OF STRUCTURES FOR MANURE DRYERS
Manufacturer Model
Hamada FS-S3
FS-1
FS-2
FS-3
FS-4
oq
FS-5
Heil SD45-12
SD75-22
SD85-25
SD105-32
Investment, $
6,000
6,000
16,200
19,440
25,500
39,600
6,000
27,200
29,800
32,200
Annual Capital*
Cost, $
705
705
1,903
2,283
2,995
4,651
705
3,195
3,500
3,782
Taxes §t
Insurance, $
210
210
567
680
892
1,386
210
952
1,043
1,127
Maintenance*
§ Repairs , $
60
60
162
194
255
396
60
272
298
322
Annual
Fixed Cost, $
975
975
2,632
3,157
4,142
6,433
975
4,419
4,841
5,231
* Amortized at 10% per year over an estimated useful life of 20 years with no salvage value.
t Estimated at 3.5% of initial investment per year.
* Estimated at 1%' of initial investment per year.
-------
TABLE F.-8. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED ANNUAL FIXED COSTS FOR MANURE DRYERS AND
ASSOCIATED STRUCTURES
Annual Fixed Cost, $
Manufacturer Model
Hamada FS-S3
FS-1
FS-2
to FS-3
ID '
FS-4
FS-5
Heil SD45-12
SD75-22
SD85-25
SD105-32
Dryer
11,998
14,907
28,922
40,490
46,598
60,970
12,666
60,609
77,751
87,913
Building
975
975
2,632
3,157
4,142
6,433
975
4,419
4,841
5,231
Total Annual
Fixed Cost, $
12,973
15,882
31,554
43,647
50,740
67,403
13,641
65,028
82,592
93,144
-------
N) !
o
60
50
*« 30
u. a.
iu.
so.
is to
en
UJ
I
HAMAOA MANURE DRYERS
HEIL MANURE DRYERS
I
I
I
2000 4000 6000 8000
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE CAPACITY, kgH20/hr
Figure F-l. The Relationship Between Annual Fixed Costs per Unit Evaporative Capacity
and Total Evaporative Capacity For Hamada and Heil Manure Dryers
-------
Calculated rates of production of dried caged laying hen and dairy
cattle manures for Hamada and Heil manure dryers are presented in Tables
F-9 and F-10 respectively. The impact of the higher initial moisture con-
tent of dairy cattle manure as compared to laying hen manure should be
noted. Estimated unit fixed costs for drying caged laying hen and dairy
cattle manures (Table F-ll) were calculated from total annual fixed costs
and product output estimates for various sizes of drying units. The unit
fixed costs presented in Table F-ll show that the economies of scale with
respect to fixed costs are substantial in drying animal manures.
Estimates of operating costs per hour and per tonne of dried product
for both caged laying hen and dairy manure based on fuel consumption and
connected electrical load (Tables F-l and F-2) for various sizes of manure
dryers are summarized in Table F-12. Variation between individual units
reflects differences in thermal efficiencies. Calculated thermal efficiencies
based on evaporative capacity and fuel oil consumption ranged between 60.8%
and 78.8%.
Total estimated costs for drying caged laying hen and dairy cattle
manures are summarized in Table F-13. These values provide a basis for
assessing the economic feasibility of drying these manures for use as com-
ponents in manufactured feeds or for sale as fertilizers/soil conditioners.
Use of natural gas in place of No. 2 fuel oil will reduce operating costs
significantly but will result in only nominal reductions of total drying
costs for small units due to high unit fixed costs.
271
-------
TABLE F-9. ESTIMATED PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF HAMADA MANURE DRYERS
Evaporative
Model Capacity, kg H 0/hr
FS-S3 247
FS-1 424
FS-2 635
CO
fO
FS-3 1,271
FS-4 1,906
FS-5 3,530
Caged Laying
Input*
350
600
900
1,800
2,700
5,000
Hen Manure, kg/hr
Output t
103
176
265
529
794
1,470
Dairy Cattle
Input*
280
480
720
1,440
2,160
4,001
Manure, kg/hr
Output t
33
56
85
169
254
471
* 75% moisture, WB.
t 15% moisture, WB.
* 90% moisture, WB.
-------
TABLE F-10. ESTIMATED PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY OF,HEIL MANURE DRYERS
Model
SD45-12
SD75-22
SD85-25
SD105-32
Evaporative
Capacity, kg H 0/hr
454
2,724
4,086
8,172
Caged Laying
Input*
643
3,858
5,787
11,574
Hen Manure, kg/hr
Output t
189
1,134
1,701
3,402
Dairy Cattle
Input*
514
3,087
4,631
9,262
Manure, kg/hr
Output t
60
363
545
1,090
* 75% moisture, WB.
t 15% moisture, WB.
* 90% moisture, WB.
-------
TABLE F-ll. ESTIMATED UNIT FIXED COSTS FOR DRYING CAGED LAYING HEN AND DAIRY
CATTLE MANURES
K)
-•J .
Manufacturer Model
Hamada FS-S3
FS-1
FS-2
FS-3
FS-4
FS-5
Heil SD45-12
SD75-22
SD85-25
SD105-32
Unit Fixed Costs,
Caged Laying Hen
62.98
45.12
59.54
41.25
31.95
22.93
36.09
28.67
24.28
13.69
$/Tonne Output*
Dairy Cattle
196.56
141.80
185.61
129.13
99.88
71.55
113.68
89.57
75.77
42.73
*Assumes 2,000 hr. of dryer operation per year
-------
TABLE F-12. ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS FOR HAMADA AND HEIL MANURE DRYERS
Ol
Manufac-
turer
Hamada
Heil
Model
FS-S3
FS-1
FS-2
FS-3
FS-4
FS-5
SD45-12
SD75-22
SD85-25
SD105-
32
Fuel Oil
Cost, $/hr*
4.20
8.40
12.60
27.30
42.00
67.20
8.19
49.14
73.71
147.42
Electrical
Cost, $/hrt
0.20
0.40
0.65
1.42
2.15
2.43
0.60
1.61
1.81
3.64
Total Operating
Cost, $/hr
4.40
8.80
13.25
28.72
44.15
69.63
8.79
50.75
75.52
151.06
Unit Operating Costs,
Caged Laying Hen
42.72
50.00
50.00
54.29
55.60
47.37
46.51
44.75
44.40
44.40
$ per Tonne Output
Dairy Cattle
133.33
157.14
155.88
169.94
173.82
147.83
146.50
139.81
138.57
138.59
* No. 2 Fuel Oil at $0.21 per £
t Electricity at $0.0405 per kwhr.
-------
TABLE F-13. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR DRYING CAGED LAYING HEN AND^ DAIRY CATTLE MANURES
Manufac-
turer
Hamada
Heil
Model
FS-S3
FS-1
FS-2
FS-3
FS-4
FS-5
SD45-12
SD75-22
SD85-25
SD105-32
Laying
Fixed
62.98
45.12
59.54
41.25
31.95
22.93
36.09
28.67
24.28
13.69
Hen Manure
Drying Costs,
Operating
42
50
50
54
55
47
46
44
44
44
.72
.00
.00
.29
.60
.37
.51
.75
.40
.40
$/Tonne
Total
105.
95.
109.
95.
87.
70.
82.
73.
68.
58.
70
12
54
54
55
30
60
42
68
09
Dairy Cattle
Fixed
196.
141.
185.
129.
99.
71.
113.
89.
75.
42.
56
80
61
13
88
55
68
57
77
73
Manure Drying Costs,
Operating
133.
157.
155.
169.
173.
147.
146.
139.
138.
138.
33
14
88
94
82
83
50
81
57
59
$/Tonne
Total
329.89
298.94
341.49
299.07
273.70
219.38
260.18
229.38
214.34
181.32
-------
REFERENCES - MANURE DRYING
Guest, R.W. 1979. Department of Agricultural Engineering, Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York. Personal Communication.
Mark's Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, 1978. T. Baumeister, Ed.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
277
-------
APPENDIX G
SUMMARIES, RATION AND MANURE COMPOSITION, AND MANURE HANDLING METHODS
OF THE EVALUATED FEEDING TRIALS
In the following tables, summaries of the evaluated feeding trials,
ration composition, and manure composition and handling methods are presented.
Tables G-l through G-14 pertain to studies utilizing DPW as a feedstuff for
laying hens and ruminants. Tables G-15 through G-25 pertain to studies
utilizing broiler litter as a feedstuff for ruminants. Tables G-26 through
G-51 pertain to studies utilizing beef cattle manure as a feedstuff for
ruminants. Tables G-33 through G-36 pertain to studies utilizing
processed animal manures as feedstuffs for ruminants.
TITLE
Summary of Studies Used In the Evaluation of DPW as a Feedstuff
For Laying Hens
G-2 Composition of Diets Used in the Evaluation of DPW as a Feed-
stuff for Laying Hens
G-3 Composition of DPW Used in the Evaluation of DPW as a Feed-
stuff for Laying Hens
G-4 Source and Dehydration Method of DPW Used in the Evaluation
of DPW as a Feedstuff for Laying Hens
G-5 Summary of Studies Used in the Evaluation of DPW as a Feed-
stuff for Finishing Steers
G-6 Composition of Rations Used in the Evaluation of DPW as a
Feedstuff For Finishing Steers
G-7 Composition of DPW Used in the Evaluation of DPW as a Feed-
stuff For Finishing Steers
G-8 Source and Dehydration Method of DPW Used in the Evaluation
of DPW as a Feedstuff For Finishing Steers
G-9 Summary of Studies Used in the Evaluation of DPW as a Feed-
stuff for Dairy Cows
278
-------
TABLE TITLE
G-10 Composition of Rations Used in the Evaluation of DPW as a
Feedstuff for Dairy Cows
G-ll Composition of DPW Used in the Evaluation of DPW as a Feed-
stuff for Dairy Cows
G-12 Source and Dehydration Method of DPW Used in the Evaluation
of DPW as a Feedstuff For Dairy Cows
G-13 Summary of Studies Used in the Evaluation of DPW as a Feed-
stuff for Heifers
G-14 Composition of Rations Used in the Evaluation of DPW as a.
Feedstuff For Heifers
G-15 Summary of Studies Used in the Evaluation of as Collected
Broiler Litter as a.Feedstuff for Steers
G-16 Composition of Rations Used in the Evaluation of as Col-
lected Broiler Litter as a Feedstuff for Steers
G-17 Composition and Type of Litter Used in the Evaluation of
Collected Broiler Litter as a Feedstuff for Steers
G-18 Summary of Studies Used in the Evaluation of Dried Broiler
Litter as a Feedstuff for Steers
G-19 Composition of Rations Used in the Evaluation of Dried Broiler
Litter as a Feedstuff for Steers
G-20 Composition, Source, and Dehydration Method of Litter Used
in the Evaluation of Dried Broiler Litter as a Feedstuff for
Steers
G-21 Summary of Studies Used in the Evaluation of Ensiled Broiler
Litter as a Feedstuff for Ruminants
G-22 Composition of Rations Used in the Evaluation of Ensiled
Broiler Litter as a Feedstuff for Ruminants
G-23 Composition, Source, and Ensiling Method of Litter Used in
the Evaluation of Ensiled Broiler Litter as a Feedstuff
for Ruminants
G-24 Summary of Studies Used in the Evaluation of Composted Broiler
Litter as a Feedstuff for Beef Heifers and Brood Cows
G-25 Composition of Rations Used in the Evaluation of Composted
Broiler Litter as a Feedstuff for Beef Heifers and Brood Cows
279
-------
TABLE TITLE
G-26 Summary of Studies Used in the Evaluation of As Collected
Dried Beef Cattle Manure as a Feedstuff for Steers and
Heifers
G-27 Composition of Rations Used in the Evaluation of As Col-
lected or Dried Beef Cattle Manure as a Feedstuff for Steers
and Heifers
G-28 Composition, Source, and Handling Method of Manure Used in
the Evaluation of As Collected or Dried Beef Cattle Manure
as a Feedstuff for Steers and Heifers
G-29 Summary of Studies Used in the Evaluation of Ensiled Beef
Cattle Manure as a Feedstuff for Ruminants
G-30 Composition of Rations Used in the Evaluation of Ensiled
Beef Cattle Manure as a Feedstuff for Ruminants
G-31 Composition, Source, and Ensiling Method of Manure Used in
the Evaluation of Ensiled Beef Cattle Waste as a Feedstuff
for Ruminants
G-32 Summary of Studies Used in the Evaluation of Aerobically
Digested Swine Manure (ODML) as a Feedstuff and Tap Water
Substitute for Swine
G-33 Summary of Studies Used in the Evaluation of Anaerobically
Digested Animal Manures as a Feedstuff for Ruminants
G-34 Summary of Studies Used in the Evaluation of Beef Cattle
and Dairy Cow Manure Screenings as a Feedstuff for Ruminants
G-35 Summary of Studies Used in the Evaluation of Cereco Products
as a Feedstuff for Ruminants
G-36 Composition of Rations Used in the Evaluation of Cereco
Products as a Feedstuff for Ruminants
280
-------
TABLE G-l. SUMMARY OF STUDIES USED IN THE EVALUATION OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR LAYING HENS
K)
00 ,
Source
Quisenberry and
Bradley (1969)
Flegal and
Zindel (1970)
Flegal and
Zindel (1971)
Hodgetts (1971)
Pisone and Begin
(1971)
Flegal et al .
(1972)
DPW Fed,
% of
Total
Diet
0
10 .
20
0
10
20
30
0
10
20
30
40
0
10.45
0
5
10
20
30
0
12.5
25
Number
of Birds
per
Diet
40
40
40
32
32
32
32
18
18
18
18
18
900
1800
20
20
20
20
20
196
196
196
Initial
Age
of Hens,
Weeks
20*
20*
20*
34
34
34
34
26
26
26
26
26
18
18
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
Duration
of
Study,
Days
336
336
336
139
139
139
139
366
366
366
366
366
365
365
224
224
224
224
224
412
412
412
Mortal-
ity,
%
5.0
5.0
7.. 5
NAt
NAt
NAt
NAt
NAt
NAt
NAt
NAt
NAt
NAt
NAt
25
0
25
10
10
7.9
6.9
7.7
Feedstuffs Reduced
or Eliminated
From Diet
Soybean Meal §
Sorghum
Corn £ Soybean Meal
Corn 5 Soybean Meal
Corn § Soybean Meal ,
Wheat, and Barley
Corn, Wheat Middlings,
Soybean Meal, Alfalfa
Meal, Limestone §
Dicalcium Phosphate
Corn
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-l. (continued)
Source
Biely, et al .
(1972)
Nesheim (1972)
Trackulchang and
Balloun (1975)
DPW Fed,
% of
Total
Diet
0
25
0
22.5
0
12.5
25
Number
of Birds
Per
Diet
69
73
30
30
32
32
32
Initial
Age
Of Hens,
Weeks
28*
28*
28*
28*
32
32
32
Duration
of
Study,
Days
100
100
77
77
150
150
150
Mortal-
ity,
%
3.0
1.4
0
3.3
0
6.3
12.5
Feedstuffs Reduced
or Eliminated
From Diet
Soybean Meal § Corn
Corn
Corn, Soybean Meal,
Alfalfa Meal, Dicalcium
Phosphate § Limestone
* Estimate of age based on descriptive information
t NA = information not available
-------
TABLE G-2. COMPOSITION OF DIETS USED
THE EVALUATION OF PI'K AS A FtF.PSTUFF FOR-LAYING HENS
KJ
00
CM
Source
Quisenberrv and
Bradley (1969)
Flegal and
lindel (1970)
Flegal and
Zindel (1971)
llodgetts
(1971)
Pisone and
Begin (1971)
Flegal et al .
(1972)
Biely et al.
(1972)
N'esheim
(1972)
Trackulchang and
Balloun (1975)
Piet
Control
10% DPK
:o<* DPI;
Control
10% DPK
20% DPIV
30% DPW
Control
10% DPIV
20% DPK
40% DPK
Control
10.45% DPW
Control
5% DPK a Lard
10% DPK 6 Lard
20% DPW 6 Lard
30% DPK 6 Lard
Control
12.5% DPK
25% DPK
Control
25% DPK
Control
22.5% DPK
Control
12.5% DPW & SBO
25% DPK 6 SBO
Crude
Protein
17.6
17.8
18.1
18.2
19.8
21.4
23.0
17.9
19.5
21.1
24.2
15.2
15.9
16.2
16.0
16.1
16.1
16.2
18.5
20.6
22.8
16.4
16.4
IS. 3
15.4
16.0
16.0
16.0
Available
Protein
..
16.0
14.5
__
18.0
17.8
17.6
17.7
17.6
17.1
14.0
15.3
14.8
13.7
12.8
__
18.4
18.3
__
12.3
14.6
__
14.4
13.1
•'- nf
Ether
Extract
3.0
3.0
2.9
4.0
' 3.9
3.S
3.7
4.9
4.9
4.8
4.5
2.7
2.4
3.6
5.4
7.1
11.0
13.8
4.4
4.1
3.8
3.9
4.1
5.0
7.0
4.3
6.1
7.9
Dry Matte
Ash
14.8
16.5
18.2
9.6
11.4
12.4
13.4
10.5
9.9
9.7
15.9
8.6
10.4
11.8
12.2
12.2
12.7
13.3
10.5
13.7
17.0
10.2
9.7
13.1
12.2
12.9
12.2
11.6
Calcium
3.36
4.08
4.81
2.48
2.27
1.78
1.29
3.00
2.76
2.55
3.80
2.68
2.94
3.2
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.4
3.01
4.01
5.01
2.73
2.52
3.91
3.36
3.56
3.35
3.16
Phosphorus
0.87
1.06
1.25
0.43
0.63
0.83
1.03
0.-7
0.73
0.95
1.33
0.64
0.74
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.75
1.00
1.25
0.66
0.73
G.84
0.86
0.94
0.89
0.85
Crude
Fiber
15.3
13.7
11.9
5.3
5.3
5.9
7.0
3.1
4.2
5 . 3
7.4
2.8
3.2
3.9
4.2
4.6
5.4
6.2
3.1
4.5
S.8
2.3
4.8
3.1
5.5
3.0
4.3
5.5
Metabolizable
Energy, kcal/kg
3067
2756
2441
3446
3286
3096
2907
3471
3346
3205
2737
2993
2817
5082
3053
3042
5042
2988
3446
3130
2813
2996
3025
2866
2447
2850
2850
2845
-------
TABLE G--3. COMPOSITION OF DPW USED IN THE EVALUATION OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR LAYING HENS
K)
00
Source
Hodgetts (1971)
Biely et al.
Crude
Protein
32.6
31.08
Ether
Extract
1.75
1.62
% nf
Ash
27.55
23.76
Dry Matter
Calcium
7.88
8.27
Phosphorus
2.39
2.00
Crude
Fiber
11.9
10.7
---Kcal/Kg---
Metabolizable
Energy
--
2050
(1972)
Nesheim (1972) -- -- -- 7.8 2.6 -- 480
-------
TABLE G-4. SOURCE AND DEHYDRATION METHOD OF DPW USED IN THE EVALUATION OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF
FOR LAYING HENS
Study
Source and Dehydration Method
K)
00
Cn
Quisenberry and Bradley
(1969)
Flegal and Zindel
(1970, 1971)
Hodgetts (1971)
Pisone and Begin
(1971)
Flegal et al. (1972)
Biely et al. (1972)
Nesheim (1972)
Trackulchang and
Balloun (1975)
Manure from caged laying hens fed an unspecified diet. Dehydra-
tion method not specified.
Manure from pullets fed a standard laying hen diet. Dehydration
method not specified.
Fresh manure from battery caged laying hens fed an unspecified
diet. Manure dehydrated in a rotary drum type dryer to a moisture
content between 12 and 18%.
Manure from caged laying hens fed a standard laying hen diet.
Dehydration method not specified.
Manure from caged laying hens fed a typical caged-laying hen diet.
Dehydration method not specified.
Manure from caged laying hens fed a standard laying hen diet.
Dehydration method not specified.
Manure from caged laying hens fed a standard laying hen diet.
Dehydrated at 60°C in a force air oven.
Manure from caged laying hens fed an unspecified diet. Dehydrated
in a force air oven at 80°C for 72 hours.
-------
TABLE G-5. SUMMARY OF STUDIES USED IN THE EVALUATION OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR FINISHING STEERS
NJ
00
0\
Experimental Number Initial
Levels Steers Weight
of DPW, Per Steer of
Source % Ration Breed Steers, kg
Long et al.
(1969)
Bucholtz et al .
(1971)
Oliphant
(1974)
Cullison et al.
(1976)
Oltjen and Dinius
(1976)
0
5
0
10.5
32
0
15
0
14.8 (
0
13
0
15-A
15-B
6
6
9
9
9
8
8
8
i Urea 8
20
20
4
4
4
Angus 301.4
307.3
313.4
314.8
312.5
Friesian 163
167
163
163
241.4
241.9
238
259
248
Duration
of Study,
days
139
139
134
134
134
206
206
212
212
138
152
90
90
90
Feedstuffs Reduced
or Eliminated
in Ration
Soybean Meal §
Limestone
Shell Corn, Minerals
Vitamins £ Soybean
Meal
Soybean Meal, Barley
§ Fish Meal
>
Soybean Meal, Minerals
Peanut Hulls
Cracked Corn, Peanut
Hulls, Minerals § Urea
-------
TABLE G-6. COMPOSITION OF RATIONS USED IN THE EVALUATION OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR FINISHING STEERS
K)
CO
Source
Long et al.
(1969)
Bucholtz et al.
(1971)
Oliphant
(1974)
Cullison et al.
(1976)
01 t jen and Dinius
(1976)
Ration
Control
5% DPW
Control
10.5% DPW
32% DPW
Control
15% DPW
Control
14.8% DPW 5
Control
13% DPW
Control
15% DPW-A
15% DPW-B
Crude
Protein
10
9
11
11
12
14
14
14
Urea 14
11
11
11
11
12
.66
.65
.7
.6
.0
.5
.1
.5
.5
.5
.9
.5
.9
.0
Digestible
Protein
8.8
7.7
8.5
8.6
8.6
9.7
7.4
9.7
8.0
9.7
8.2
9.0
6.2
5.6
Ether
Extract
3.06
3.15
3.9
3.7
3.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
3.8
3.9
2.6
2.6
2.6
° nf Fli
Ash
2.15
3.26
4.3
7.1
12.6
4.7
7.1
4.7
7.8
3.2
4.6
7.1
8.6
10.3
ry Matter -•
Calcium
0.33
0.56
0.88
1.17
2.78
0.31
1.30
0.31
1.28
0.40
1.10
0.56
1.19
1.55
Phosphorus
0.30
0.39
0.40
0.58
0.97
0.44
0.63
0.44
0.62
0.40
0.54
0.38
0.48
0.49
Crude
Fiber
9.2
9.7
7.1
8.2
10.4
9.2
10.6
9.2
10.5
8.5
7.1
27.2
23.9
23.9
TDN
84.0
83.0
85.9
82.2
74.2
76.8
73.4
76.8
72.0
88.5
86.0
61.5
62.4
62.4
•Meal /kg --
M.E.
3.021
2.989
3.122
2.976
2.664
2.789
2.666
2.789
2.617
3.188
3.109
2.267
2.221
2.221
-------
TABLE G-7. COMPOSITION OF DPW USED IN THE EVALUATION OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR
FINISHING STEERS
K)
OO
00
Source
Long et al .
(1969)
Bucholtz et al.
(1971)
Oliphant 15% DPW
(1974) 14.8% DPW
Cullison et al.
(1976)
Oltjen and Dinius A
(1976) B
Crude Ether
Protein Extract Ash Calcium Phosphorus
24.88 2.23 27.17 9.15 2.57
17.0
31.8
26.3
40.4 0.5 27.0
26.88 -- 25.44 6.20 8.60
19.50 -- 37.10 2.00 2.10
Crude
Fiber
10.43
17.8
11.8
8.9
--
-------
TABLE 6-8. SOURCE AND DEHYDRATION METHOD OF DPW USED IN THE EVALUATION OF DPW
AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR FINISHING STEERS
Study Source and Dehydration Method
Long et^ a_l_. Commercial caged layer manure. Steamed under 30 Ibs.
(1969) pressure for 30 minutes. Dehydrated 1 minute at 427°c
to 10 - 15% moisture content.
Bucholtz et al. Caged layer manure. Dehydrated in a commercial dryer.
(1971)
Oliphant (1974) Source and dehydration method not specified.
Cullison et_ al. Commercial caged layer manure. Dehydrated in a commercial
(1976) dryer.
Oltjen and Dinius Commercial caged layer manure. Dehydration method not
(1976) specified.
-------
TABLE G-9. SUMMARY OF STUDIES USED IN THE EVALUATION OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR DAIRY COWS
Source
Thomas et al.
(1972)
Kneale and Garstang
(1975)
NJ
to
0
Silva et al.
(1976)
Smith et al .
(1976)
Experimental
Levels of
DPW , % .
0
4.7
0
8.5
17
0
10.9
0
10
20
30
0
15.9
Number of
Cows Per
Ration Breed
6 Holstein
6
16 Friesian
16
16
8
8
6 Holstein
6
6
6
12 Holstein
12
Duration
of Study,
Days
85
85
168
168
168
70
70
84
84
84
84
90
90
Feedstuffs Reduced
or Replaced in Ration
Oats and Soybean
Meal
Soybean Meal
^
Barley, Soybean Meal
and Peanut Meal
Citrus Pulp
Wheat Middlings, Gluten,
Corn, Molasses, Soybean
Meal, Barley, Oats, Bone
Meal and Salt
-------
TABLE G-10. COMPOSITION OF RATIONS USED IN THE EVALUATION OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR DAIRY COWS
Source
Thomas et al.
(1972)
Kneale and
Garstang (1975)
Silva et al.
(1976)
Smith et al.
(1976)
Ration
Control
4.7% DPW
Control
8.5% DPW
17% DPW
Control
10.9% DPW
Control
10% DPW
20% DPW
30% DPW
Control
IS. 9% DPW
Crude
Protein
19.0
19.0
14.3
13.8
12.5
12.8
14.4
13.32
12.91
13.41
14.39
17.7
17.3
Digestible
Protein
14.9
13.0
9.9
8.4
6.1
8.6
8.7
7.8
8.7
9.6
10.5
14.0
9.6
Ether
Extract
2.9
2.9
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.6
2.3
2.1
1.4
3.1
3.2
-- % of Dry Matter --
Ash Calcium
5.6
6.4
7.2
9.0
10.7
6.7
8.9
S.O
8.8
14.9
19.1
5.8
8.0
0.38
0.73
0.36
0.98
1.58
0.33
1.18
0.76
1.36
1.96
2.56
0.31
2.61
Phosphorus
0.30
0.39
0.35
0.50
0.63
0.31
0.51
0.23
0.45
0.66
0.88
0.36
0.94
Crude
Fiber
22.5
23.4
24.4
24.6
25.3
27.7
26.7
15.0
14.7
13.0
12.2
18.2
17.4
*
TDN
69.4
68.6
61.0
58.9
56.2
59.4
58.4
69.1
66.8
63^5
60.2
73.0
72.0
- Meal/kg ---
letabolizable
Energy
3.440
3.152
2.321
2.239
2.127
2.938
2.914
2.644
2.564
2.449
2.334
3.009
2.893
-------
«£> '
K)
TABLE G-ll. COMPOSITION OF DPW USED IN THE EVALUATION OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR DAIRY COWS
Source
Kneale and Garstang
(1975)
Silva et_ al. (1976)
Crude
Protein
31.88
12.9
Ether Crude
Extract Ash Calcium Phosphorus Fiber
_-
0.7 60.3 14.4 3.2 7.6
TABLE G-12. SOURCE AND DEHYDRATION METHOD OF DPW USED IN THE EVALUATION OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF
FOR DAIRY COWS
Study
Source and Dehydration Method
Thomas et al. (1972)
Kneale and Garstang (1975)
Silva et_-al_. (1976)
Smith et al. (1976)
Gaged layer manure fed a normal 17% protein, non-
medicated diet. Dehydration in a commercial dryer.
Caged layer manure. Dehydrated by flash drying.
Commercial caged layer manure. Dehydrated in a Coleman
Industrial Manure Dryer at 315.5°C for 40 minutes.
Experimental caged layer manure. Dehydration method not
specified.
-------
TABLE G-13. SUMMARY OF STUDIES USED IN THE EVALUATION OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR HEIFERS
10
Experimental Number of
Levels of Heifers
Source
Cooper et al.
(1974)
Keys and Smith
(1978)
DPW,
0
21.9
11.1 + corn
§ stover
11.6 + corn
25.3 + corn
% Per Ration
7
7
silage 7
7
§ stover 7
Duration
Initial of Study,
Breed Weight, Kg
Angus 216
216
Holstein 398
398
398
Days
112
112
70
70
70
Feedstuffs Reduced
or Replaced in Ration
Soybean
Meal
N/A*
*N/A - No control ration, therefore no feedstuffs were reduced or replaced.
-------
TABLE G-14. COMPOSITION OF RATIONS USED IN THE EVALUATION OF DPW AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR HEIFERS
to
Crude
Source Protein
Cooper et al. (1974)
Control
21.9% DPW
Keys and Smith (1978)
11.1% DPW
11.6% DPW
25.3% DPW
16.5
11.6
11.8
12.4
13.4
Digestible
Protein
12
5
4
8
7
.1
.6
.4
.6
.9
_ _ %
Ether
Extract
2.5
2.7
2.3
4.2
3.1
of Dry (>
Ash
5.7
10.2
9.1
10.9
14.0
Calcium
0.51
2.04
1.28
0.95
2.20
Phosphorus
0
0
0
0
0
.38
.72
.45
.57
.77
Crude
Fiber
20.6
22.8
26.5
3.6
13.0
TON
71.8
64.6
64.0
90.0
75.4
Meal/kg
M.E.
2.600
2.345
2.318
3.190
2.689
-------
TABLE G-15. SUMMARY OF STUDIES USED IN THE EVALUATION OF AS COLLECTED BROILER LITTER AS
A FEEDSTUFF FOR STEERS . ... .
N)
<£>
cn
Source
Noland et al .
(1955)
Southwell et al .
(1958)
Fontenot et al .
(1966)
Lowrey et al .
(1975)
Experimental
Levels of
Litter, %
0
18,72
0
18.75
0
18.77
0
9.9
19.8
0
25 Hulls
25 Wood
0
20
0
Number
Steers
Per Ration.
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Initial
Body
Weight, kg
305.7
305,7
350,6
360.2
397,8
393.7
313,4
314.8
317.5
391
379
376
330
330
330
Duration
of Study,
Days
56
56
56
56
42
42
140
140
140
123
123
123
98
98
98
Feedstuffs Reduced
or Eliminated
in Ration
Cottonseed Meal,
Molasses § Corn
Snapped Corn,
Cottonseed Meal &
Bermudagrass Hay
Hay § Soybean Meal
Peanut Hulls & Soybean
Meal
-------
TABLE G-16. COMPOSITION OF RATIONS USED IN THE EVALUATION OF AS COLLECTED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR STEERS
Source
Noland et al.
(1955)
Southwell et al.
(1958)
Fontenot et al .
(1966)
Lowrey et al.
(1975)
Ration
Control
18.72% Litter
Control
18.75% Litter
Control
18.77% Litter
Control
9.9% Litter
19.8% Litter
Control
25% Mulls
25% Wood
Control
20% Litter
Control2
Crude
Protein
12.9
12.3
12.9
12.3
13.1
12.3
11.94
11.43
10.73
13.0
14.2
14.2
13.1
15.4
11.5
Digestible
Protein
9.7
9.2
9.7
9.2
9.8
9.2
8.5
8.1
9.6
9.2
10.9
10.9
9.6
12.1
8.2
%.
Ether
Extract
3.6
2.8
3.6
2.8
3.6
2.8
3.36
2.09
1.64
3.2
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.9
3.7
jf Dry Ma
Ash
6.0
8.4
6.0
8.4
5.9
8.4
1.95
4.11
6.80
4.4
6.6
6.6
3.8
6.4
3.7
t~ t* <&¥•
Calcium
0.35
0.81
0.35
0.81
0.35
0.81
.027
0.19
0.35
0.32
0.73
0.73
0.56
1.00
0.53
Phosphorus
0.46
0.66
0.46
0.66
0.47
0.66
.028
0.35
0.45
0.30
0.64
0.64
0.58
0.90
0.56
Crude
Fiber
11.0
12.4
11.0
12.4
10.3
12.4
8.76
10.13
6.06
13.6
9.4
9.4
12.6
6.2
15.1
TON
78.7
74.5
78.7
74. S
79.5
74.5
67.0
64.8
72.2
78.3
81.2
81.2
80.4
85.9
77.8
Meal/kg
M.E.
3.102
2.793
3.102
2.793
3.102
2.793
2.511
2.385
2.568
2.867
2.866
2.866
2.851
2.949
2.756
-------
TABLE G-17. COMPOSITION AND TYPE OF LITTER USED IN THE EVALUATION OF AS COLLECTED BROILER
LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR STEERS
Source
N> ; Noland et al .
3 ! (1955)
Southwell et al .
(1958)
Fontenot et al.
(1966)
Dry
Matter, %
84.95
--
89.1
88.9
Crude
Protein
27.19
19.5
32.0
30.6
0. f M
Ether
Extract Ash Calcium
0.52 14.86
1.0 -- 1.48
2.8 17.9 2.77
2.8 19.0 2.48
Phosphorus
--
0.99
2.86
2.26
Crude
Fiber
15.4
17.9
15.1
14.6
Type of
Litter
Cane Bagasse
Ground Corn
Cobs
Peanut Hulls
Wood Shaving
Lowrey et al.
(1975)
Wood Shavings
-------
TABLE G-18. SUMMARY OF STUDIES USED IN THE EVALUATION OF DRIED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR
STEERS :
K)
-------
TABLE G-19. COMPOSITION OF RATIONS USED IN THE EVALUATION OF DRIED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR STEERS
Source
Fontenot et al.
(1971)
Webb et al.
(1973)
Oliphant
(1974)
Cullison et al.
(1976)
Ration
Control
25% DEL
50% DBL
Control
25% DBL
25% DBL f,
Molasses
Controls
14.7% DBL
16.1% DBL
23.1% DBL
Control
20% DBL (Wood)
20% DBL(Hulls)
Neg. Control
Control
5.8% DBL
13% DBL
Crude
Protein
15.5
18.1
20.7
13.8
14.2
14.2
16.1
16.0
15.8
15.7
11.5
11.0
11.6
8.9
10.8
10.9
11.2
Digestible
Protein
11.7
14.5
17.3
11.5
10.3
10.4
12.5
12.6
11.8
12.5
8.9
10.0
10.6
7.3
8.1
8.2
8.3
- 4 nf
Ether
Extract
3.6
3.3
3.1
3.5
3.6
3.3
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.2
3.2
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.2
3.0
3.0
Dry Mat
Ash
4.5
10.6
16.6
4.2
6.8
7.9
8.5
8.8
9.0
9.7
3.2
4.4
5.9
2.6
3.2
3.9
4.6
*• f^f" — — _
Calcium
0.46
0.80
1.14
0.80
0.71
0.79
0.70
0.59
0.62
0.79
0.39
0.34
0.43
0.30
0.44
0.58
0.76
Phosphorus
0.49
0.66
0.84
0.50
0.75
0.72
0.59
0.51
0.53
0.64
0.31
0.44
0.52
0.27
0.40
0.48
0.57
Crude
Fiber
9.6
11.6
13.7
43.8
27.5
21.8
25.3
26.6
26.5
26.3
8.5
6.5
5.2
8.3
7.0
7.4
8.3
TDN
83.6
77.4
73.0
80.7
78.4
76.9
58.0
56.7
56.8
57.0
82.9
87.2
87.2
84.0
84.7
83.0
80.9
Meal/kg
M.E.
2.966
2.631
2.298
2.915
2.680
2.652
2.785
2.602
2.608
2.495
2.946
3.001
3.001
2.973
3.017
2.928
2.821
-------
o
o
TABLE G-20. COMPOSITION, SOURCE, AND DEHYDRATION METHOD OF LITTER USED IN THE EVALUATION OF DRIED
BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR STEERS
%n-F n-rv Ma-M" AT* _ - -
Crude Ether Crude
Study Protein Extract Ash Fiber
Fontenot et al .
(1971)
Webb et al.
(1973)
Source and Dehydration Method
Litter from commercial farm. Dried in a
commercial suspension air dryer with out-
going air temperature of 121°C.
Litter from commercial farm. Dried in a
commercial suspension air dryer with out-
Oliphant 14.7% 27.6
(1974) 16.1% 31.4
23.1% 25.9
28.8
23.3
24.9
going air temperature of 132°C.
Source and dehydration method not specified,
Cullison et al.
(1976)
Wood Shaving
Peanut Hulls
5.8 and 13%
22.5
24.9
34.5
1.0
0.7
2.2
22.3
32.5
19.1
Litter from 2 batches of birds. Air dried
for several weeks to 15-18% moisture.
Source not specified. Dried in-house with
assistance of heated floor to 11.7% moisture.
-------
G-21. SUMMARY OF STUDIES USED IN THE EVALUATION OF ENSILED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR
RUMINANTS
Source
McClure et al .
(1977)
U)
<2 McClure et al .
(1978)
Cross et al .
(1978)
Experimental
Levels of
Litter, %
0
12.8
0
12.8
0
22.3
0
22.3
0
10
30
50
70 to 44
Number and
Type of Animals
Per Ration
12-Heifers
12
12
12
12-Heifers
12
12
12
16-Steers
16
16
16
16
Initial
Weight, kg
199
219
198
215
251.3
252.7
255.8
250.8
228
238
233
223
220
Duration
of Study,
Days
200
171
200
Feedstuffs Reduced
or Eliminated
in Ration
Corn silage, Shelled
Corn and Soybean Meal
Corn Silage, Shelled
Corn and Soybean Meal
Corn Silage and Cotton
seed Meal
-------
TABLE G-22. COMPOSITION OF RATIONS USED IN THE EVALUATION OF ENSILED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR RUMINANTS
Source
Heifers
McClure et al .
(1977)
McClure et al.
(1978)
Steers
Cross et al.
(1978)
Ration
Control
12.8%
Control 6 SBM*
12.8%
Control
22.3%
Control 6 SBM*
22.3%
Control
10%
30%
50%
70 to 44%
Crude
Protein
7.1
12.0
10.1
14.3
8.5
14.1
8.2
16.6
11.1
11.1
12.1
14.4
13.3
Digestible
Protein
4.3
8.9
6.6
10.9
5.0
10.4
7.7
12.6
7.9
8.9
9.0
11.5
10.7
Ether
Extract
3.5
3.3
3.0
3.1
3.4
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.6
3.7
3.5
3.6
3.9
-- % of
Ash
2.3
S.3
2.8
5.6
2.1
7.1
2.4
7.4
3.4
5.4
8.1
12.0
10.4
Dry Matter
Calcium
0.23
0.56
0.33
0.62
0.25
0.85
0.27
0.86
0.22
0.50
1.10
1.60
1.40
Phosphorus
0.30
0.49
0.32
O.S1
0.29
0.69
0.31
0.71
0.44
0.61
0.83
1.20
1.09
Crude
Fiber
14.9
16.7
17.2
17.0
14.2
15.9
14.3
16.1
17.2
20.5
15.6
15.6
10.6
TDN
78.0
73.5
74.5
73.0
76.3
69.0
75.9
68.4
73.3
72.4
73.4
71.6
77.2
Mril/kt) --
Metabolizable
Energy
2.801
2.582
2.685
2.565
3.027
2.511
2.729
2.487
2.601
2.517
2.476
2.316
2.530
* Soybean meal
-------
TABLE G-23. COMPOSITION, SOURCE, AND ENSILING METHOD OF LITTER USED IN THE EVALUATION OF ENSILED
BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR RUMINANTS
Source
Crude Ether
Protein Extract
% of Dry Matter
Ash Calcium Phosphorus
Crude
Fiber
Source and
Ensiling Method
(A)
o
CM
McClure et al
(1977)*
43.6
2.9
25.2
McClure et al,
(1978)*
Cross et^ al.
(1978)
48.5
20.1
2.5
3.4
37.7
22.0 3.1
2.1
17.9 Litter from a commerr-
cial operation. Corn
forage and litter blown
into a silo. Duration
of ensiling not speci-
fied,
25.2 Same as above,
Litter from a poultry
house raising at least
3 broods for 8 weeks
each. Ensiled for 6
weeks,
Composition after ensiling
-------
TABLE G-24. SUMMARY OF STUDIES USED IN THE EVALUATION OF COMPOSTED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF
FOR BEEF HEIFERS AND BROOD COWS
Source
Beef Heifers
Webb et al. (1974)
Webb et^ al. (1975)
Brood Cows
Webb et^ al . (1974)
Webb et al. (1977)
Webb e^ al_. (1978)
Experimental
Levels of
Litter, %
0
50
50 3 Cu*
0
75
75 S Cu*
0
75
75 5 Cu*
0
80
80 $ Cu*
0
80
80§ Cu*
0
72.4
72.4
0
66.7
66.7 5 Cu*
Number
of Animals
Per Ration
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
11
11
11
14
14
14
12
12
12
12
12
12
Duration of
Study, Days
130
130
130
98
98
98
140
140
140
135
135
135
119
119
119
111
111
111
119
119
119
Feedstuff Reduced or
Eliminated in Ration
Hay and Urea
Hay
Hay
Hay
Hay
Hay
Hay
* Copper
-------
TABLE G-25. COMPOSITION OF RATIONS USED IN THE EVALUATION OF COMPOSTED BROILER LITTER AS A FEEDSTUFF TO BEEF HEIFERS AND BROOD COWS
CA!
O
on
Source
Beef Heifers
Webb et al.
(1974)
Webb et al.
(1975)
Brood Cows
Webb et al.
(1974)
Webb et al .
(1977)
Webb et al.
(1978)
Environmental
Levels of
Litter, %
0
50% Litter
0
75% Litter
0
75% Litter
0
80% Litter
0
80% Litter
72.4% Litter
0
66.7% Litter
Crude
Protein
13.0
18.1
IS. 8
22.4
15.8
22.4
15.8
23.6
15.8
23.6
22.9
15.8
22.3
Digestible
Protein
9.0
13.7
11.6
18.3
11.6
18.3
11.6
19.8
11.6
19.8
17.9
11.6
18.5
Ether
Extract
2.2
3.2
1.8
2.8
1.8
2.8
1.8
2.8
1.8
2.8
2.7
1.8
2.7
% of Dry
Ash
4.9
10.1
6.6
14.4
6.6
14.4
6.6
15.2
6.6
15.2
14.4
6.6
13.7
Maf f f*v — -
Calcium .
1.02
1.32
1.49
1.96
1.49
1.96
1.49
2.09
1.49
2.09
2.03
1.49
1.99
Phosphorus
0.24
1.16
0.25
1.43
0.25
1.43
0.25
1.51
0.25
1.51
1.39
0.25
1.30
Crude
Fiber
35.4
36.6
33.7
28.9
33.7
28.9
33.7
17.4
33.7
17.4
19.0
33.7
20.1
TON
59.2
72.0
57.0
65.4
57.0
65.4
57
66.1
57.0
66.1
65.2
57.0
64.6
Meal/kg
M.E.
2.113
2.354
2.020
1.990
2.020
1.990
2.020
1.974
2.020
1.974
1.977
2.020
1.981
-------
TABLE G-26. SUMMARY OF STUDIES USED IN THE EVALUATION OF AS COLLECTED OR DRIED BEEF CATTLE MANURE
AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR STEERS AND HEIFERS
o
a\
Source
As Collected
Anthony, 1966
Anthony, 1971
Dried
Johnson et al .
(1975)
Lowrey et al .
(1975)
Experimental
Levels of
Manure , %
0
40
0
28.7
0
40
0
40
0
40
0
15
10
15
0
0
20
Number §
Type of Cattle
Per Ration
15 Steers
15
13 Steers
15
13
15
10 Steers
10
12
12
6 (4 Heifers $
2 Steers)
6
6
6
10 Steers
10
10
Initial
Body Weight
kg
250*
250*
250*
250*
340
327.8
285
283
337
336
250*
250*
250*
250*
330
330
330
Duration
of Study,
days
193
193
128
128
94
94
102
102
135
135
91
91
91
91
98
98
98
Feedstuff Replaced
or Eliminated
in Ration
Ear Corn, Alfalfa
Meal, Cottonseed
Hulls § Cottonseed
Meal.
Corn Silage, Molasses
§ Cottonseed Meal.
Shell Corn, Alfalfa
Meal § Cottonseed
Meal.
Corn, Cottonseed Meal,
Alfalfa Meal, Molasses,
Minerals § Salt.
Corn, Urea, Salt $
Minerals.
Cottonseed Hulls, Soybean
Meal, and Urea.
Peanut Hulls, and Soybean
Meal.
* Initial weight estimated using ADG and feed intake as per NRC requirements (1976)
-------
TABLE G-27. COMPOSITION OF RATIONS USED IN THE EVALUATION OF AS COLLECTED OR DRIED BEEF CATTLE MANURE AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR STEERS AND
HEIFERS
Source
As Collected
Anthony, 1966
Anthony, 1971
Dried
Johnson et al . ,
1975
Lowrey et al . ,
1975
Ration
Control
40% Manure
Control
28.7% Manure
Control
40% Manure
Control
40% Manure
Control
40% Manure
Control
15% Manure
10% Manure
15% Manure
Control
Control
20% Manure
Crude
Protein
11.8
13.7
11.9
13.2
14.7
15.4
13.1
15.4
11.5
11.5
14.9
16.5
16.1
13.0
13.1
11.5
13.3
Digestible
Protein
6.8
6.1
7.8
7.0
10.9
8.6
9.8
7.9
10.5
6.8
11.0
7.3
7.1
8.1
9.6
8.2
8.6
9
Ether
Extract
2,7
2.8
2.3
2.5
4.1
3.5
3.6
3.5
4.3
3.8
2.6
2.8
5.2
2.8
3.7
3.7
4.0
fe of Dry
Ash
4,1
14.1
5.8
12.5
2.2
13.2
5.1
14.7
3.7
12.5
3.8
7.7
6.4
7.6
3.8
3.7
8.6
Calcium
0.23
0.82
0.39
0.77
0.09
0.75
0.44
0.95
0.04
0.71
0.36
0.59
0.52
0.59
0.56
0.53
0.82
Phosphorus
0.40
0.56
0.37
0.49
0.38
0.55
0.53
0.64
0.29
0.50
0.37
0.48
0.44
0.45
0.58
0.56
0.70
Crude
Fiber
13.0
16.9
22.4
22.4
4.3
11.7
4.3
11.6
2.3
10.5
9.0
5.7
6.8
7.7
12.6
15.1
6.5
TON
73.1
63.2
68.7
62.9
91.6
74.1
87.2
71.7
91.7
76.4
80.4
79.9
80.1
79.0
80.4
77.8
83.8
-- Mral /ko --
Metabolizable
Energy
2.638
2.294
2.496
2.290
3.170
2.073
3.099
2.570
3.242
2.727
2.881
2.888
2.886
2.949
2.851
2.756
2.979
-------
TABLE G-28. COMPOSITION, SOURCE, AND HANDLING METHOD OF MANURE USED IN THE EVALUATION OF AS
COLLECTED OR DRIED BEEF CATTLE MANURE AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR STEERS AND RUMINANTS
Source
% of Dry Matter
Dry Crude
Matter, % Protein Ash Calcium Phosphorus
Source and Method of Handling
o
00
As Collected
Anthony
(1966)
Anthony
(1971)
Dried
25.22
28.97
Johnson et al
(1975)
Lowrey et al,
(1975)
19.32
16.84
7.6
0.22
Manure from beef cattle fed a high
concentrate ration. Manure col-
lected and blended daily and stored
in sealed containers until the fol-
lowing day, when it was fed.
Feedlot manure from fattening cat-
0.88 tie. Method of handling not
specified.
Feedlot manure from fattening cattle
collected in a very wet state in the
spring. Dried and ground prior to
incorporation into the rations.
Feedlot manure from fattening cattle.
Dehydration method not specified.
-------
TABLE G-29. SUMMARY OF STUDIES USED IN THE EVALUATION OF ENSILED BEEF CATTLE MANURE AS A FEEDSTUFF
FOR RUMINANTS
CM
o
-------
TABLE G-29. (continued)
Source
Harpster et al.
(1975)
Hill et al.
(19751"
Newton et al .
(1975) —
Harpster et al .
(1978)
Experimental
Levels of
Manure, %
0
24
41.7
60
0
20
40
60
0
40
0
24
30
45
Number and
Type of Cattle
Per Ration
12-Steers
12
12
12
11-Steers
11
11
11
9-Heifers
9
16-Steers
8
16
8
Initial
Body Weight,
kg.
258
258
258
258
300*
300*
300*
300*
212
212
258
258
258
258
Duration
of Study,
days
200
200
200
200
112
112
112
112
112
112
183
183
183
183
Feedstuff Reduced
or Eliminated
in Ration
Corn Silage, Corn
and Soybean Meal .
Corn and bermudagrass
hay.
Corn, bermudagrass
hay and urea.
Corn silage and soybean
meal.
Initial weights estimated using reported feed intake and average daily gains and NRC Tables (1976)
-------
TABLE G-30. COMPOSITION OF RATIONS USED IN THE EVALUATION OF E\SILED BEEF CATTLE MANURE AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR RUMINANTS
Source
Anthony (1968)
Anthony (1969)
Anthony (1971)
Westing and
Brandenberg
(1974)
Harpster et al .
(1975)
Hill et al.
(1975)
Newton et al.
(1975)
Harpster et al.
(1978)
Ration
Control
22.8% Manure
Control
20.6% Manure
Control
11.4% Manure
22.8% Manure
22.8% Manure
34.2% Manure
Control
15.8% Manure
22.8% Manure
Control
22.8% Manure
21.5% Manure
21.9% Manure
16.4% Manure
22.8% Manure
23% Manure
Control
14% Manure
Control
24% Manure
41.7% Manure
60% Manure
Control
20% Manure
40% Manure
60% Manure
Control
40% Manure
Control
24% Manure
30% Manure
45% Manure
Crude
Protein
9.9
12.6
13.5
14.1
12.6
11.7
12.4
12.4
13.2
13.1
15.1
10.6
11.5
12.4
14.3
14.8
14.6
11.8
10.9
12.3
14.7
10.4
11.7
12.5
13.3
11.0
11.7
13.1
14.2
13.4
14.6
11.3
12.5
13.9
13.2
Digestible
Protein
5.7
6.1
10.0
9.5
6.0
7.6
7.3
7.3
6.9
9.8
9.6
7.3
10.5
7.3
9.1
9.7
10.0
7.3
7.3
7.1
6.0
6.9
6.6
5.8
4.9
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.1
10.1
8.1
7.6
7.2
7.0
6.6
0,
Ether
Extract
3.0
3.3
3.7
3.5
2.9
4.3
3.9
3.7
3.4
3.6
3.5
3.7
4.3
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.7
5.0
8.8
3.1
3.5
3.1
2.8
4.2
3.9
3.6
3.3
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.7
3.8
3.1
of Dry M:
Ash
4.5
8.8
4.6
7.9
6.8
5.2
8.7
8.6
12.2
5.1
8.5
8.6
3.7
8.6
8.5
9.3
7.7
8.6
8.6
4.6
10.4
•J.2
8.8
14.2
19.8
3.5
9.1
14.5
l!>.9
2.7
13.3
2.2
8.9
5.0
15.4
1 t" 1" AT*
Calcium
0.26
0.48
0.40
0.44
0.48
0.27
0.49
0.48
0.70
0.44
0.58
0.48
0.23
0.48
0.47
0.57
0.48
0.18
0.09
0.58
0.89
0.24
0.47
0.82
1.18
0.48
0.81
1.13
1.45
0.12
0.75
0.18
0.50
0.61
0.89
Phosphorus
0.38
0.53
0.40
0.38
0.56
0.39
0.43
0.40
0.44
0.53
0.45
0.40
0.64
0.39
0.41
0.49
0.47
0.45
0.42
0.30
0.35
0.33
0.44
0.50
0.56
0.28
0.39
0.49
0.59
0.28
0.49
0.31
0.40
0.43
0.49
Crude
Fiber
20.7
15.6
3.5
10.7
15.1
7.1
11.8
11.8
16.5
4.3
12.1
11.8
2.3
11.8
11.6
11.5
9.2
11.8
11.8
10.5
12.1
17.0
12.3
19.4
26.9
5.9
9.0
12.6
29.1
7.5
13.6
22.1
11.7
14.1
19.9
Metabolizable
TON Energy
70.2
71.1
88.7
66.6
68.5
81.3
73.8
77.5
68.8
87.2
77.0
77.5
91.7
77.5
77.7
76.3
80.4
77.5
77.5
78.5
74.6
74.6
76.0
64.1
51.9
85.0
80.0
71.7
63.5
84.8
70.3
83.3
77.4
73.0
62.1
2.624
2.590
3.152
2.794
2. 665
3.066
2.772
2.772
2.478
3.099
2.754
2.768
3.242
2.768
2.777
2.753
2.863
2.768
2.768
2.924
2.980
2,768
2.735
2.313
1.874
3.017
2.769
. 2.521
2.273
3.062
2.549
2.974
2.809
2.617
2.246
-------
TABLE G-31. COMPOSITION, SOURCE, AND ENSILING METHOD OF MANURE USED IN THE EVALUATION OF ENSILED
BEEF CATTLE WASTE AS A FEEDSTUFF .FOR RUMINANTS
Study
of Dry Matter
Dry
Matter, %
Protein Ash Calcium Phosphorus Source and Treatment
(A)
Anthony (1968,
1969)
Anthony (1971)
Westing and
j Brandenberg (1974)
Harpster et^ al ,
(1975)
21.02 14.84
20.14 16.19
25.15 13.37 6.89 0.16 0.51
15.0 -- 3.02 0.76
16.5
Fresh manure from full fed
slaughter cattle and ensiled
with ground costal bermuda-
grass hay (57:43 Ratio).
The 23% manure ration (1971)
was ensiled with corn and hay.
Manure from feedlot steers fed
high energy ration. Composted
in a covered 1.5 m high pile
for 60 days.
No source specified. Manure
ensiled with chopped grass
hay (60:40 ratio) for unspeci-
fied duration.
Hill e£ al_.
(1975)
Newton et al.
(1975)
Harpster et al.
(1978)
No source specified. Wet manure
ensiled with 40, 60 or 80% of
control ration for unspecified
duration.
No source specified. Manure
ensiled with 60% of control
ration for unspecified duration.
Manure from Angus and Angus-
Hereford Steers fed 2 kg. long
hay and ad lib. ground shelled
corn. Ensiled with hay (60:40)
for unspecified duration.
-------
TABLE G-32. SUMMARY OF STUDIES USED IN THE EVALUATION OF AEROBICALLY DIGESTED SWINE MANURE (ODML)
AS A FEEDSTUFF AND TAP WATER SUBSTITUTE FOR SWINE
Source
Harmon et al .
(1973) ~
Harmon and Day
(1974)
Harmon and Day
(1975)
How
Utilized
Feedstuff
Tap Water
Substitute
Tap Water
Substitute
Experimental
Level, %
0
6.0
0
5.7
0
4.7-5.3
2.8
2.8
Number of
Animals
38
38
12
12
60
60
56
64
Duration
of Study,
Days
56
56
56
56
87
87
56
77
Feedstuff Reduced
or Eliminated in
Ration
Corn, soybean meal, minerals,
and vitamins,
Corn.
None,
None.
w
-------
TABLE G-33. SUMMARY OF STUDIES USED IN THE EVALUATION OF ANAEROBICALLY DIGESTED ANIMAL
MANURES AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR RUMINANTS
Experimental
Number of
Levels of Animals per
Source
Burford and
Varani (1978)
Prior and
Hashimoto
(1980)
Product
Wet Cake
Digester
Effluent
Product, %
0
18
0-Positive
control
6.45
0-Negative
control
Group
36
36
10-
10
10
Duration
of Study,
Days
77
77
168
168
168
Feedstuff Replaced
or Eliminated
in Ration
Cottonseed Meal, Straw
and Limestone
Soybean Meal
-------
TABLE G-34. SUMMARY OF STUDIES USED IN THE EVALUATION OF BEEF CATTLE AND DAIRY COW MANURE SCREEN-
INGS AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR RUMINANTS
in
Type of
Source Screenings
Richter $ Shirley Beef Cattle
(1977) Manure
Schake et al . Beef Cattle
Manure
Johnson et al . Dairy Manure
(1975)
Oliveria et al. Dairy Manure
(1977)
Experimental
Level, %
0
20
40
60
0
39
60.5
74.5
74.5
86.5
33
45
0
30
0
SO(ensiled)
30
30(ensiled)
Number and Duration
Type of Cattle of Study,
Fed Days
4 -Steers
4
4
4
22-Brood Cows
21
21
20
20
20
10-Steers
10
8-Steers
8
20-Heifers
20
8-Steers
8
124
124
124
124
59
59
59
59
30
29
28
28
75
75
3.6 mo.
3.3 mo.
102
102
Feedstuff Reduced
or Eliminated
in Ration
Corn, Citrus Pulp,
Cottonseed Meal
Hulls, Molasses
Fat
and
and
Sorghum, Sudangrass
hay and Molasses
Corn silage.
Corn silage
.
-------
TABLE G-35. SUMMARY OF STUDIES USED IN THE EVALUATION OF CERECO PRODUCTS AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR RUMINANTS
Experimental
Product Level Fed,
Source
Lambeth et al .
(1974)
Lambeth (.1975)
Fed
Control
CII
CII 6 Urea
Negative Control
Control
CI
CII
%
0
8
4
0
0
8.3
3.9
Number
of Steers
75
75
75
75
300
300
300
Breed
of Steer
Hereford,
Angus, and
Hereford-
Angus cross.
„
--
--
Initial
Body Weight,
kg
377.8
368.3
375.4
375.8
356.1
351.5
356.1
Duration
, of Study,
days
91
91
91
91
135
135
135
Feedstuff Reduced
or Eliminated
in Ration
Corn silage and
protein supplement.
Corn silage.
Protein supplement.
-------
TABLE G^36. COMPOSITION OF RATIONS USED IN THE EVALUATION OF CERECO PRODUCTS AS A FEEDSTUFF FOR
RUMINANTS
Source
Lambeth et al .
(1974)
Lambeth
(1975)
Ration
Control
8% C-II
4% C-II & Urea
Negative Control
Control
8.3% C-I
3.9% C-II
Crude
Protein
10.78
10.65
10.80
9.45
10.56
10.65
10.42
% of Dry Ma
Calcium
0.47
0,61
0.49
0.29
0.51
0.51
0.50
•H-o-y
Phosphorus
0.32
0.36
0.33
0.29
0.32
0.31
0.30
Net Energy Net Energy
Production Maintenance
52.6
52.9
53.0
53.9
54.0
53.9
53.7
82.7
82.6
83.1
84.5
83.0
83.0
82.9
------- |