'—

 

‘3'4 tailitiizofn't-i's-r': 3-5-1
1 o. I" “"‘(’ I'.'

THE EFFECTS OF USING ANAPHAGE (D. P. W.) DR
SHAVINGS AS LITTERS 0N BODY WEIGHT GAIN, FEED
EFFICIENCY, MEAT FLAVOR, CARCASS QUALITY AND
UVABILITY 0F BROILER TYPE CHICKS AND TURKEY
POULTS

Thesis for the Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
JOHN F. KASSID
1977

IVCl’Slty

V.
R
A
m
n
U U

m
m
S
n
mp
.hc
M

 

. .i‘QQ-

 

 

id 3 a. oukzwwm
. . a. _. a. mm mm NH on an .fl .n n

m 22;: 3:22:23.“2:32:m. 22m :32;

l"
"
c-1
. .
l 'I
N
f-
N
I“.

amzmzzzammzmm:.-.cmmmczazmuzmmczZamzma::a
shun—unpu:~:-:~w:-:::~:~::H::::::~:
umamcamawmng:mmmfimzmmzwau::emmmmmmmmzzmm.z
nmmmnmmmnmmmmmmmmnmmm mama...mmmmmmmmmnnmmmmnmmm:3::
uvwv:wovvwvve¢v«IL.ZZvvwvuvwvvvvvwvwvvzvzfl: IV:
nannmnnmmnmmmmzmmnn an:2””an"::mmmmnnnmnnmnmnmmmmn
NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNZNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN-NNNN~N~N§:N:
ZZZ—2.::ZZZ__:::_::::::_::::___r_

222192122:2$3533333533323332$:2$333,33333923:33:22532:3

529:::acaazaccaaaaaaaeeccco22.3.3299:or- grams:

a. 3.... ME ...=..

IDNwwraflfiev, .13 FF... 3.3.3.313,

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECTS OF USING ANAPHAGE (D.P.W.) OR SHAVINGS
AS LITTERS ON BODY WEIGHT GAIN, FEED EFFICIENCY,

MEAT FLAVOR, CARCASS QUALITY AND LIVABILITY
OF BROILER TYPE CHICKS AND TURKEY POULTS

BY
John F. Kassid

Two experiments were conducted to study the effects
of using anaphage or shavings as litter material on body
weight gain, feed efficiency, meat flavor, carcass quality
and livability of broiler type chicks and turkey poults.
A total of 700 male broiler type chicks were randomly
assigned among four floor pen units (4.5 m x 3 m) with 175
birds per pen in the first experiment, which was conducted
over a period of seven weeks. With the exception of one
pen, which had no litter, each of the experimental pens
contained a different kind or amount of floor litter. The
litters tested were none, 4.4 cm of shavings (control),
4.4 cm of anaphage, and 8.8 cm of anaphage.

All experimental groups received the same diet.

Chicken starter and chicken grower rations were fed for

the first five weeks and the last two weeks, respectively.

*1

L)

F?

John F. Kassid

Individual bird weights were taken at the begin-
ning and the end of the first experiment. Feed consump-
tion was determined for each pen of birds at the time of
weighing.

The second experiment was carried out over a period
of 16 weeks. A total of 360 turkey poults were randomized
into eight floor pen units (4.5 m x 3 m) with 45 turkeys
in each. Sexes were intermingled. This experiment in-
cluded four experimental treatments with two replications
of each. I

The litters tested were 4.4 cm of anaphage, 2.2
cm of anaphage, 4.4 cm of shavings and a bare concrete
floor. All experimental groups received the same diet.
Turkey starter and turkey grower were used for the first
eight weeks and the second eight weeks of the experiment,
respectively.

All turkeys in each pen were wing banded and
weighed at the beginning of the experiment and at the end
of every four weeks period. The feed consumption was
measured at the time of weighing turkeys.

Taste panels of 1% and 10 judges evaluated the
meat flavor of the broilers and turkeys, respectively.

A comparison of the data obtained at seven weeks
of age in the first experiment shows that broilers raised
in the pens with litter weighted significantly more

(p < 0.01) than those grown in the pen with no litter.

John F. Kassid

Broilers raised in the pen with shavings weighed signif-
icantly more (p < 0.01) than those grown in the pens with
4.4 cm, and 8.8 cm of anaphage. Broilers raised in the
pen with 8.8 cm of anaphage weighed significantly more
(p < 0.01) than those grown in the pen with 4.4 cm of
anaphage.

Livability for all broilers was 96.3% with no
significant differences between treatments.

Feed efficiencies were 2.43, 2.23, 2.27 and 2.50
for broilers reared on no litter, 4.4 cm of shavings,
8.8 cm of anaphage and 4.4 cm of anaphage, respectively.

Analysis of variance of meat flavor of the
chickens indicated that broilers raised in the pen with
8.8 cm of anaphage had significantly higher scores
(p < 0.05) than those raised intflmapens with no litter,
4.4 cm of shavings and 4.4 cm of anaphage.

Breast blister incidences and lowering of U.S.
quality of broilers raised on 4.4 cm of anaphage and no
litter floor were more pronounced than in those grown on
8.8 cm of anaphage and 4.4 cm of shavings.

The data obtained in the second experiment do not
show any significant differences in body weight gains,
feed efficiency, or mortality between treatments. This
was true for both male and female turkeys at 4, 8, 12

and 16 weeks of age.

John F. Kassid

Taste panelists were unable to detect significnat
differences (p > 0.05) in intensity of flavor, acceptance
of flavor and general acceptance for light and dark meat
of male and female turkey poults reared under the four
litter treatments.

Although it was not measured, it was obvious that
anaphage litter condition in the first and the second
experiment was not satisfactory, because of its undesir-
able odor, wetness and dustiness, especially at the time

of stirring the litter.

THE EFFECTS OF USING ANAPHAGE (D.P.W.) OR SHAVINGS
AS LITTERS ON BODY WEIGHT GAIN, FEED EFFICIENCY,
MEAT FLAVOR, CARCASS QUALITY AND LIVABILITY
OF BROILER TYPE CHICKS AND TURKEY POULTS

BY

John F. Kassid

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Poultry Science

1977

TO MY FAMILY
AND

MY WIFE

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express his sincere apprecia-
tion and gratitude to Dr. T.H. Coleman, Professor of
Poultry Science, for his patience and guidance throughout
this study and for his many helpful suggestions with the
preparation of this manuscript.

The writer is also grateful to Dr. H.C. Zindel,
chairman, Dr. C.C. Sheppard, Dr. C.J. Flegal, Dr. L.E.
Dawson and Dr. B.J. Marquez, who served on my graduate
committee and provided valuable counsel in the conduct of
this study.

The writer wishes to acknowledge his gratitude to
Dr. T.H. Coleman, Dr. C.J. Flegal, Dr. C.C. Sheppard and
Dr. B.J. Marquez for their help and their efforts in
directing this research.

The author is grateful to Dr. T.H. Coleman, Dr.
C.J. Flegal and Dr. B.J. Marquez for their constructive
review of this manuscript..

Special thanks go to Dr. J.L. Gill and Dr. L.E.
Dawson for their continuous help during this study.

The writer also wishes to express his sincere

appreciation to other faculty members of the Department

iii

Peultry Science, Dr. T. S. Chang,. Dr. D. Polin and Dr.
R. K. Ringer for their interest and assistance.

The writer expresses gratitude to the government of
Iraq for the generous financial support throughout the
author's study at Michigan State University.

Special thanks also go to my friends and the graduate
students in the Poultry Science Department for their help
on the farm, the services of the staff at the Poultry
Science Research and Teaching Center, and Michigan State
University, Department of Poultry Science for the use of
the farm.facilities.

Last but not least, the writer wishes to express
his most sincere appreciation, gratitude and indebted-
ness to his parents for their unwavering support and en-
couragement throughout his educational career.

The author extends his thanks to his wife, Shatha,
for her cooperation, patience, devotion and sacrifices

which helped make his graduate study possible. I

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
List of Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Treatment means + standard error
(a = 0.05) for final body weights of
broilers at the end of seven weeks of

age 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Treatment means : standard error
(a = 0.05) for the flavor of the broiler
meat I O C O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0

Results of carcass quality standards of
the broilers used in the first experiment .

Mean body weight gain (gm) + standard
error (a = 0.05) for body of male turkeys
at 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks and 16 weeks
of age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean body weight gain (gm) : standard
error (a = 0.05) for body of female
turkeys at 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks and
16 weeks of age . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Treatment means : standard error

(a = 0.05) for feed efficiency at 4, 8, 12
and 16 weeks of age for turkeys raised on
different litter treatments . . . . . . . .

Treatment means 1 standard error

(a = 0.05) for intensity of flavor of
turkey meat, acceptance of flavor, general
acceptance (juiciness and tenderness) for
light meat of male turkeys . . . . . . . .

Treatment means : standard error

(a = 0.05) for intensity of flavor of
turkey meat, acceptance of flavor, general
acceptance (juiciness and tenderness) for
dark meat of male turkeys . . . . . . . . .

vi

Page

24

24

26

27

28

29

30

Table

10

Page
Treatment means + standard error
(a = 0.05) for ifitensity of flavor of
turkey meat, acceptance of flavor, general
acceptance (juiciness and tenderness) for
light meat of female turkeys . . . . . . . 31
Treatment means : standard error
(a = 0.05) for intensity of flavor of
turkey meat, acceptance of flavor, general
acceptance (juiciness and tenderness) for
dark meat of female turkeys . . . . . . . 32

vii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

1 Composition of the chicken starter ration

fed (0-5 weeks of age) in percentage . . . 41
2 Nutrient composition of the chicken

starter ration based on calculated

analysis . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . 42
3 Composition of the chicken grower ration

fed (6-7 weeks of age) in percentage . . . 43
4 Nutrient composition of the chicken

grower ration based on calculated

analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
5 Composition of the turkey starter ration

fed (0-8 weeks of age) in percentage . . . 45
6 Nutrient composition of the turkey

starter ration based on calculated

analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7 Composition of the turkey grower ration

fed (8-16 weeks of age) in percentage . . 47

8 Nutrient composition of the turkey grower
ration based on calculated analysis . . . 48
9 Sensory evaluation of turkey meat . . . . 49
10 Sensory evaluation of broiler meat . . . . 50

11 Analysis of variance of.final body weight

gain of broilers at 7 weeks of age . . . . 51
12 Analysis of variance of chicken meat
flavor of the broilers . . . . . . . . . . 51

13 Analysis of variance of body weight gain
of male turkeys at 4 weeks of age . . . . 52

viii

Appendix Page

14 Analysis of variance of body weight gain
of male turkeys at 8 weeks of age . . . . . 52

15 Analysis of variance of body weight gain
of male turkeys at 12 weeks of age . . . . 53

16 Analysis of variance of body weight gain
of male turkeys at 16 weeks of age . . . . 53

17 Analysis of variance of body weight gain
of female turkeys at 4 weeks of age . . . . 54

18 Analysis of variance of body weight gain
of female turkeys at 8 weeks of age . . . . 54

19 Analysis of variance of body weight gain
of female turkeys at 12 weeks of age . . . 55

20 Analysis of variance of body weight gain
of female turkeys at 16 weeks of age . . . 55

21 Analysis of variance of taste panel scores
for intensity of flavor of light meat of
male turkeys slaughtered at 16 weeks of
age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

22 Analysis of variance of taste panel scores
for intensity of flavor of dark meat of
male turkeys slaughtered at 16 weeks of
age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

23 Analysis of variance of taste panel scores
for intensity of flavor of light meat of
female turkeys slaughtered at 16 weeks of
age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

24 Analysis of variance of taste panel scores
for intensity of flavor of dark meat of
female turkeys slaughtered at 16 weeks of
age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

25 Analysis of variance of taste panel scores
for light meat flavor of male turkeys
slaughtered at 16 weeks of age . . . . . . 58

26 Analysis of variance of taste panel scores

for dark meat flavor of male turkeys
slaughtered at 16 weeks of age . . . . . . 58

ix

Appendix
27

28

29

30

Analysis of variance of taste panel scores
for light meat flavor of female turkeys
slaughtered at 16 weeks of age . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of taste panel scores
for dark meat flavor of female turkeys
slaughtered at 16 weeks of age . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of taste panel
general acceptance scores (juiciness and
tenderness) for light meat of male turkeys
slaughtered at 16 weeks of age . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of taste panel

(general acceptance scores (juiciness and

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

tenderness) for dark meat of male turkeys
slaughtered at 16 weeks of age . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of taste panel general
acceptance scores (juiciness and tenderness)
for light meat of female turkeys slaughtered

at 16 weeks of age . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of taste panel general
acceptance scores (juiciness and tenderness)
for dark meat of female turkeys slaughtered

at 16 weeks of age . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of feed efficiency of
turkeys at 4 weeks of age . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of the feed efficiency

of turkeys at 8 weeks of age . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of feed efficiency of
turkeys at 12 weeks of age . . . . . . . .

Analysis of variance of feed efficiency of
turkeys at 16 weeks of age . . . . . . . .

Analysis offvariance of mortality from 1
day to 16 weeks of age for all the experi-
mental groups of the turkeys used in the
experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

59

59

6O

60

61

61

62

62

63

63

64

INTRODUCTION

Floor litter in poultry houses has been used for
many years to provide a more desirable environment for
growing birds. Many different materials with wide vari-
ations in physical properties can be classified as litter.
Many materials used as litter in the poultry industry are
by-products of other industries.

The most popular litter materials in many areas
are straw, shavings, ground or crushed corn cobs, peat
moss, shredded corn stalks, shredded sugar cane, oat hulls,
sawdust, pine bark, rice hulls, can bagasse, hay, peanut
shells, cotton seed hulls, sand and mineral litters. Mate-
rials used are usually ones that are available locally and
are fairly inexpensive.

Considerable research effort by many investigators
during the past 30 years has been directed toward studying
the effect of using many different new litter materials
on the performance of birds raised on these litters. To
gain additional information, two trials were performed
at Michigan State University, Poultry Science Department
Research and Teaching Center. Broiler-type chicks and

turkey poults were used in the first and second trial,

respectively. v
l

The first experiment was conducted January 24
through March 14, 1975, and the second experiment was
carried out during the period starting April 17 and end-
ing July 31, 1975.

The purpose of the studies reported herein was
to further evaluate the effect of using Anaphage (dry
poultry waste) as a litter material versus the effect of
shavings on the growth, feed efficiency, livability, meat

flavor and carcass quality of broilers and turkeys raised

on such litters.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

'Considerable research effort has revolved around
finding, for growing birds, a floor litter material which
can meet the following characteristics:

1. Readily available

2. Cheap

3. Does not pack readily

4. Absorbent

5. Well adapted to use as deep or built-up
litterl

6. Fine in texture

7. Free of dust

8. Low fire hazard

9. Light in weight

A review of the literature revealed no research
reports on raising birds on Anaphage.* However, several

workers have reported on the effects of raising birds on

different kinds of litter.

 

*

A scientific descriptive term for dehydrated poultry
waste (D.P.W.). This term was originaged by Dr. D. Polin
(personal communication). ‘ ‘

1Built-up litter means continued rearing of successive
groups of young chickens on the same litter without any
change. .
3

Seeger gt 31 (1951) reported that on a comparative
study of 12 litter materials where production, mortality,
feed efficiency, average final weight and pounds of
broiler meat produced per chick started were studied,
peanut shells head the list as the best litter. The
other litters examined were ranked in the following order:
corn cobs, peat moss, sugar cane, fiber, sawdust, shavings,
cotton seed hulls, corn stalks, Dryzon,2 sand, chick bed,3
and Georgia mineral.4 These investigators also demon-
strated that litter, which is of organic origin, is the
best for broiler production. Research conducted at North
Carolina, Oregon State, Louisiana State, Texas A and M
and Purdue Universities has shown that pine bark is equal
or somewhat superior to shavings and other materials
tested as a litter for both broilers and started pullets.

Smith (1956) reported that larger numbers of
breast blisters were found on broilers when flocks were
raised on wet litter as compared with flocks where the
litter was dry. He also stated that litter condition con-
tributed a greater effect on breast blister incidence
than did kind of litter.

Smith (1956), Gyles 33 El. (1961, 1962) and
Wisman 22.3l' (1961) demonstrated that management factors

such as type of feeder, the type and depth of litter and

 

2'3'4Types of mineral litter.

floor space influence the incidence of breast blisters.

Anderson and Cramer (1964) reported that litter
moisture content, carbon dioxide and ammonia in the pens
increased with the age of the bird. The foregoing experi-
mental evidence, particularly with reference to the litter
wetness, was further corroborated by the experiment con-
ducted by May and Noles (1965). These investigators
demonstrated that wet litter increased the incidence of
breast blisters.

Wesley and Weaver (1974) agreed with Smith's.
observation (1956). In their experiment concerning the
litter condition, they reported that litter condition,
ammonia levels, house temperature and ventilation
capacities contributed strongly to the incidence of breast
blisters in broilers.

Oliveria (1974) reported that inCidence of breast
blisters was more pronounced in the case of broilers raised
on sand than in those grown on other litters. She also
stated that birds reared on wood shavings and rice hulls
had less incidences of breast blisters than birds reared
on chipped corn cobs, hay, and cane bagasse and that the
particle size was an important consideration in selecting
a litter for broilers.

Aho gt_al. (1955) reported that when used as

litter, wood chips of one to two inches in circumference

resulted in drier conditions than wood chips three or
four inches in circumference.

Ruzler and Carson (1974) stated that cane pomace
heads a list of five broiler litter materials in its
ability to absorb moisture. It was followed by wood
shavings, crushed corn cobs, peanut shells and pine bark.

Abbott 23 El. (1969) reported that the occurrence
of foot-pad dermatitis in turkey poults was related to
the wetness and crustiness of the litter used. Ross
(1968) reported that chicks reared on fresh litter have
slightly lower mortality than those reared on reused
litter. Unlike Ross (1968), Reed and McCartney (1970)
reported that there was no difference in mortality of
broilers reared on reused litter and those reared on new
litter. Many experiments were conducted to study the
effect of using built-up litter in poultry houses on the
performance of birds. Kennard and Chamberlin (1950)
stated that better growth, feed efficiency and viability
were found in many cases when chickens were raised on old
built-up litter.

It was reported by Kennard and Chamberlin (1949)
that using built-up litter in poultry houses was con-
sidered a new type of sanitation, in which the action of
the litter works against harmful bacteria, protozoa and

other disease-producing factors.

With the development of built-up litter came the
treatment of litter with hydrated lime. Kennard and
Chamberlin (1947, 1948b,c) reported that adding hydrated
lime to floor litter aided in keeping litter more friable
and absorbent and less inclined to pastecnrcake over the
surface.

Kennard, Bethke and Chamberlin (1948a) reported
that built-up litter was a potent source of valuable
nutrients.

Some evidence is found in the literature indicat-
ing that litter management may affect the amount of
nutrients required in the diet. Lamoreux and Schumacher
(1940) stated that hen feces contained more riboflavin
than the amount in the feed which was fed.

Schumacher and Heuser (1941) isolated an organism
capable of synthesizing riboflavin in hen feces.

Rubin gt a1. (1946) observed that the animal pro-
tein factor was present in hen feces.

McGinnis 23 21. (1947) found that incubating hen
feces for 72 hours at 30°C stimulated further synthesis
of the unidentified factor.necessary for growth.

Halbrook (1950) isolated from built-up litter 140
different organisms, which were capable of synthesizing
vitamin B12.

Halbrook gt_al. (1951) Stated that "there was a

definite trend for bacteria, molds and yeasts to increase

in poultry house litter with age up to at least 8 weeks."
They also showed that the change in pH of litter with
increasing age probably explains the decrease in yeasts
and molds present in built-up litter.

Various attempts have been made to alter or control
the microbial population of litter.

Halbrook gt_al. (1951) reported that the use of
quick lime in built-up litter reduced noticeably all
classes of bacteria, yeasts and molds.

Andrews gt El° (1943), Swanson and Taylor (1943),
Boney (1948) and Edgar and King (1955), utilized methyl
bromide for the sterilization of parasite contaminated
soil or litter.

Some investigators worked on the effect of
insecticide impregnated litters on the performance of
broilers and on the processed products from such treated
poultry.

Tower and Floyd (1961) reported that "the perfor-
mance of chicks brooded and reared on sugarcane bagasse
litter that had been impregnated with Lindane was not
affected." “

They also reported that "there was no difference
in consumer acceptance between birds grown on Lindane
treated litter and those grown on untreated litter."

A review of the literature revealed that some

work has been done by several investigators on the

utilization of poultry litter as a nitrogen source in the
diet of livestock (Noland §t_aln, 1955; Southwell £5 31.,
1958; Camp, 1959; Carmody, 1964; Brugman gt 21,, 1964,
Fontenot g 511., 1964 and 1965; Ray and Child, 1964, 1965;
Bahttacharya, A.N. and J.P. Fontenot, l965a,b; and Drake
22 31., 1965).

The inclusion of animal and poultry waste in the
rations of poultry has also been reported by Rubin 33 31.,
1946; Palafox and Rosenberg, 1951; Elam 33 21., 1954;
Wehunt st 31., 1960; Durham st 31., 1966; Camp, 1967;
Quisenberry and Bradley, 1968; and Flegal and Zindel, 1970.
Poultry house litter has been shown to be high in crude
protein and low in energy, vitamin A, and vitamin D as

reported by Brugman gt El. (1964).

PROCEDURE

Two experiments were performed to investigate the
effect of raising broiler-type chicks and turkey poults
in floor pen units with two different levels of anaphage
(dehydrated poultry waste), shavings, or no litter on the
floor on body weight gain, feed efficiency, meat flavor,
carcass quality and livability.

The first experiment was conducted over a period
of seven weeks starting January 24 and ending March 14,
1975.

The housing facilities consisted of four floor
pens (4.5 m x 3 m), which were thoroughly cleaned and dis-
infected.

The pens were separated from each other by wire
netting partitions.

Each pen housed 175 males (Hubbard strain one-day-
old commercially hatched broiler type chicks).

With the exception of one pen, which was a bare
concrete floor with no litter, each of the experimental
pens contained a different kind or amount of floor litter.
The litters tested were none, 4.4 cm of shavings (used as
a standard for comparison), 4.4 cm of anaphage, and 8.8

cm of anaphage. _
10

11

Gas heated brooders were used. For the first
two weeks of the experimental period flat type feeders
and jar-waterers were employed. These were then replaced
by hanging feeders and automatic waterers. Water in the
water founts was kept at a certain level to prevent damp-
‘ness of the litter beneath the founts.

Attempts were made to provide the maximum.amount
of ventilation in keeping with the comfort of the chicks
and the weather condition.

All experimental groups received the same diet.
During the first five weeks, a chicken starter ration was
fed (Appendix table 1), and for the last two weeks of the
experiment, a chicken grower ration was fed (Appendix
table 3).

The feed was weighed at the beginning and the end
of the experimental period. Feed consumption and mortality
were recorded.

Chicken starter and chicken grower rations were
adequate in all known nutrients required in commercial
broilers based on calculated analysis (Appendix tables 2
and 4).

.All the broilers were individually weighed at the
beginning and at the end of the experimental period. At
the beginning of the experiment 50 broiler type chicks

from each pen were banded for statistical purposes. The

12

birds were vaccinated twice against Newcastle and Bron-
chitis by the drinking water method on the second and the
fourth week of the experimental period. At the end of
the experiment 25 broilers from each pen were slaughtered
for the purpose of carcass quality evaluation.

A taste panel of 20 judges from students, faculty
and other employees was employed at the Food Science De-
partment, Michigan State University to evaluate the flavor
and acceptability of the meat produced on the four litter
regimes.

The second experiment was carried out over a
period of 16 weeks starting April 17, 1975 and ending
July 31, 1975. A total of 360 turkeys (one-day-old poults)
were randomized into eight floor pen units (4.5 cm x 3 m)
with 45 turkeys in each. Sexes were intermingled. This
experiment included four experimental treatments, with
two replications of each. The litters tested were 4.4 cm
of anaphage, 2.2 cm of anaphage, 4.4 cm of shavings (used
as a standard for comparison) and a bare concrete floor
with no litter on it.

Gas heated hover type brooders and electric heat
bulbs were used to provide the temperature needed during
the brooding period. Brooder guards were used for seven
days. For the first three weeks of the experimental

period, flat type feeders and jar-waterers were employed.

13

At the beginning of the fourth week they were replaced by
hanging feeders and automatic waterers.

All experimental groups received the same diet.
For the first eight weeks, a turkey starter ration was
.fed (Appendix table 5), then for the second eight weeks
of the experiment, a turkey grower ration was fed (Appendix
table 7).

In the turkey experiment feed was weighed at the
beginning and the end of every four week period. Feed
consumption and mortality were recorded. Turkey starter
and turkey grower ration were adequate in all known nu-
trients required in turkey production, based on calculated
analysis (Appendix tables 6 and 8).

All turkeys were banded and were individually
weighed at one day of age and at the end of every four
week period up to 16 weeks of age. Turkeys were medicated
by the use of Tylan at the beginning of 4, 12 and 16 weeks
of age. One male and one female from each experimental
group was slaughtered at the end of the experiment for
the purpose of meat evaluation.

One of the slaughtered females which was taken
from the 2.2 cm of anaphage treatment was lost during the
refrigeration time, so an analysis of variance test was
completed for the rest of the saved turkeys. A taste
panel of 12 judges from students, faculty and other

employees was employed at the Food Science Department,

14

Michigan State University for the purpose of evaluating
flavor of the meat produced on the four litter treatments.

In both taste panels (i.e., for broilers and
turkeys), panel members were instructed to evaluate the
meat on the basis of:

1. Like extremely

2. Like very much

3. Like moderately

4. Like slightly

5. Neither like nor dislike

6. Dislike slightly

7. Dislike moderately

8. Dislike very much

9. Dislike extremely, (Appendix tables 9 and 12)

The scores given by panel members ranged from (1)
to (9) for like extremely and dislike extremely, respec-
tively. Results of the taste dfifference test for both
experiments were subjected to analysis by the Hedonic
Rating System, as described in the Merck Technical Bul—
letin (1963).

The analysis of variance for the following char-
acteristics was obtained:

1. Final average body weight gain for the broiler

type chicks and turkeys (Appendix ll, 13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20).

15

2. Chicken meat flavor at the end of seven
weeks (Appendix 12).

3. Feed conversion of turkeys at 4, 8, 12 and
16 weeks of age for both Toms and hens
(combined Appendix 33, 34, 35 and 36,
respectively). Feed conversion was done on
the assumption that males and females were
in equal percentages because distribution of
birds into each pen was random.

4. Intensity of turkey flavor, acceptability of
flavor, general acceptance (juiciness and
tenderness) for light and dark meat of tur-
key males and females at 16 weeks of age
(Appendix 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
30, 31 and 32).

5. Mortality from the period of one day to 16
weeks of age for all experimental groups of
turkeys used in the experiment (Appendix 37).

The pen means of the study were evaluated statis-

tically by the analysis of variance using the F-ration as
a measure of significance., If the F-ratio was significant,
orthogonal contrasts were employed to determine which
treatments were significantly different at the 0.05 and
0.01 level of probability.

Final average body weights, and individual body

weight gains are expressed as the ratio of feed intake

to the body weight gain.

16

Mortality is expressed as a percent of the total
chicks housed at the beginning of the experiment. In
both experiments, the litter was thoroughly stirred and
redistributed at frequent intervals, to prevent packing
and caking over the surface, and especially around the
feeders and water founts. Dead birds from both experi-
ments were removed from the pens and sent to the labora-

tory for determining the cause of death.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Experiment One - Broiler Type Chicks

 

Final average body weight gain (individual
weights). Analysis of variance of final body weight gain
of broilers used in the experiment at the end of seven
weeks was conducted (Appendix 11), the results were as
follows. Broilers raised in the pens with litter weighed
significantly more (p < 0.01) than those grown in the pen
with no litter (Table 1). This suggests that litter pro-
vides a more desirable environment for growing birds in
poultry houses than does a bare floor. Broilers raised
in the pen with shavings weighed significantly more
(p < 0.01) than those grown in the pens with 4.4 cm and
8.8 cm of anaphage (Table 1). This result agrees with
the general opinion that shavings are one of the best
litter materials to use in poultry houses. Broilers
raised in the pen with 8.8 cm of anaphage weighed signif-
icantly more (p < 0.01) than those grown in the pen with
4.4 cm of anaphage (Table 1). It is possible that 8.8
cm of anaphage absorbs more moisture than 4.4 cm of
anaphage which aids in providing a better bedding situa-

tion for growing birds.

17

18

At the beginning of the experiment 50 broiler
type chicks from each pen were banded for the purpose of
running a regression analysis of final body weights on
initial body weights of the broilers. The reasons for
running a regression analysis was to test if final body
weight is related to initial body weight and, if related,
to adjust treatment means of final body weight for dif-
ference in mean initial weight. The idea is to compare
treatment means as if all groups began with the same mean
initial weight. The results showed that final body weight
was correlated to initial body weight. When the treat-
ment means of the final body weights of the broilers
were adjusted to the differences in the initial body
weight means at the time when the birds were housed in
the pens, the same results were obtained, i.e., the
relative differences among treatment means were only
trivially altered by the adjustment for differences in
initial weight.

Feed efficiency. Feed efficiencies to seven weeks
of age were 2.43, 2.23, 2.27 and 2.50 for broilers grown
in pens with no litter, shavings (control), 8.8 cm of
anaphage, and 4.4 cm of anaphage, respectively. These
figures are not an absolutely correct estimation of the
feed efficiency, because we had only one replication of
each treatment, and probably they could be affected by

many different environmental conditions.

19

Meat flavor. Analysis of variance of chicken meat

 

flavor of the broilers used in the experiment was conducted
at the end of the seven week test (Appendix 12). The re-
sult indicated that broilers raised in the pen with 8.8 cm
of anaphage tasted significnatly better (p < 0.05) than
those raised in the pens with no litter, 4.4 cm of shavings
and 4.4 cm of anaphage.

On the other hand, orthogonal contrasts indicated
that no one of the other experimental groups was signif-
icantly better in acceptability of the meat flavor than
the other (Table 2).

Carcass quality. .U.S. quality, breast blister

 

and bruising (discolored skin) were the only three criteria
of the carcass quality standards that were studied. Re-
sults are shown in Table 3.

Briefly summarized, the results of the carcass
quality study show that breast blister incidence of broilers
raised on 4.4 cm of anaphage and no litter floor was
greater than in those grown on 8.8 cm of anaphage and
shavings.

This agrees with the observations of Smith (1956);
May and Noles (1965); Glyes gt 31., (1961); Wisman gt_al.,
(1961); and Wesley and Weaver (1974) that type and depth I
of litter and litter conditions influence the breast

blister incidence.

20

As far as U.S. Quality is concerned, all broilers
raised on shavings and 8.8 cm of anaphage were of grade

1

A-quality , while some of those raised on 4.4 cm of

anaphage and no litter floor were of grade B-quality2
with slight breast defect.

Differences among the treatments as far as
bruising was concerned were probably due to handling the
birds before slaughtering them or to management condi—
tions as reported by Ringrose (1953); Kaiser and Smith
(1958), and Handy gt 21., 1961.

Livability. Livability percent of the different
experimental groups was almost the same.

Mortality percentage was negligible for all
broilers up to seven weeks of age. It was 3.7 percent.

This will indicate that mortality percentages among the

treatment groups were not affected by type of litter used.

Experiment Two - Turkey Poults
Body weight gains. Body weight gain of male and
female turkeys at 4, 8, 12 and 16 weeks of age for shav-

ings, no litter, 2.2 cm of anaphage and 4.4 cm of anaphage

are shown in Table 4 and 5.

 

1A-quality means no obvious breast defect.

2B-quality means slight breast defect sufficient to lower
grade.

21

There is very little evidence that the treatment
groups differed in mean body weight gain. This was true
for females and males at 4, 8, 12 and 16 weeks of age
(Appendix 13, 14, 15, l6, 17, 18, 19 and 20). Unlike
what was found with Broiler type chicks, the data obtained
here showed that using anaphage and shavings as litter
materials has no effect on body weight gain of turkey
poults.

Feed efficiency. Feed efficiencies of the tur-

 

keys used in the experiment at 4, 8, 12 and 16 weeks of
age for shavings, no litter, 2.2 cm of anaphage and 4.4
cm of anaphage were illustrated in Table 6.

Analysis of variance of feed efficiency of the
turkeys used in the experiment at 4, 8, 12 and 16 weeks
of age was conducted. There was no evidence of signif-
icant difference (p > 0.05) between the experimental
groups (Appendix 33, 34, 35 and 36). The feed efficiency
of turkeys grown on anaphage and shavings was approximately
equal.

Meat flavor. Evaluation of intensity of flavor
of turkey meat, acceptability of flavor, general accep-
tance (juiciness and tenderness) for light and dark meat
of male and female turkeys grown on shavings, no litter,
2.2 cm of anaphage or 4.4 cm of anaphage are shown in

Tables 7, 8, 9 and 10.

22

Analysis of variance of intensity of turkey
flavor, acceptance of flavor, general acceptance (juici-
ness and tenderness) for light and dark meat of male and
female turkeys at 16 weeks of age were conducted.

Taste panelists were unable to detect signif-
icant differnece (p > 0.05) in intensity of flavor,
acceptance of flavor and general acceptance for light
and dark meat of males and females of turkeys reared
under the four litter treatments (Appendix 21, 22, 23,
24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32).

Livability. Mortality was 10.8% for the period

 

of 16 weeks (from 1 day of age to 16 weeks of age) for
all the experimental groups.

According to the F-test, there were no signif-
icant differences in mortality between the different
experimental groups (Appendix 37).

From looking at all the data which were obtained
from the second experiment, no significant difference
was found in body weight gains, feed efficiency or
mortality between treatments. This was true for both
male and female turkeys at.4, 8, 12 and 16 weeks of age.
The only conclusion that could be derived from these
data would be that dehydrated poultry waste (anaphage)
used in this trial was somewhat equal to shavings as a

litter material.

23

It is possible that management practices and
ventilation would have a greater effect on the perfor-
mance of turkey poults than the kind of floor litter.
This needs to be substantiated by further tests.

In addition to the results obtained in both trials,
there were some other things which were not measured
(i.e., dust level, litter moisture condition and odor).

An unpleasant odor and an increased level of dust
were some of the problems which were encountered in the
pens with anaphage as the litter.

Increased litter moisture was the other problem
which existed in the pens utilizing anaphage as a litter
in both trials in spite of all the attempts which were
done to prevent dampness and wetness of the litter.

Anaphage litter condition in the first and the
second experiment was not satisfactory because of its
undesirable odor, wetness and dustiness, especially at

the time of stirring the litter.

24

Table 1. Treatment means : standard error (a = 0.05)
for final body weights of Broilers at the end
of 7 weeks of age.

 

 

Treatment Mean body weight (gm) i_standard
error
4'4 cm °f 1676 + 25.9c
anaphage —
8'8 cm °f 1745 + 25.9b
anaphage —
. be
No litter 1699 :_25.7
Shavings a
control 1793.i 25.5

 

Values with different superscript differ significantly,
p < 0.01.

Note: Only males were used in the first experiment.

Table 2. Treatment means : standard error (a = 0.05)
for the flavor of broiler meat.

 

 

Treatment Scores of meat flavor i standard
error

No litter 7.15 i .415

4.4 cm of

anaphage 6.8 i .415

Shavings .. 6.75 i .415

8.8 cm of 7.41 + .415

anaphage -

 

Note: The scores were ranged frOm like extremely (9) to-
dislike extremely (1).

1Significantly better (p < 0.05) than other experimental
group.

25

Table 3. Results of carcass quality standards of the
broilers used in the first experiment.

 

Carcass Quality

 

 

 

 

Standards Treatment
No Litter Shavings 8.8 cm 4.4 cm
of of
Anaphage Anaphage
U.S. Quality %
Grade A 80 100 100 92
Grade B 20 8
Breast Blister %
No Blister 64 80 72 52
Blister 8 0 0 4
Slight
Blister 24 8 4 24
U.S.
Blister 4 12 24 20
Bruise %
No Bruise 100 92 100 92
Slight
Bruise 8 8

 

 

 

 

 

26

 

mo.¢a~ + mm.mvmh

m¢.mHN + mm.mmmh

mo.mmm + mm.mm¢h

mo.mmm + bmmh

mxmmz mg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mo.vma + mm.wmom 1 mv.hma + mH.H>mv N~.bva + mm.¢mmv -.nva + mm.moom mxwm3 NH
3.2: H 3.83 34: H mmémmm SSS H 3.2.2 $3: H 2.83 3663 m
hm.m~ H mo.a¢h mv.om H v>.Hmb mm.~m H amp mm.~m H_vv.hwn mxmmz e
mmmsmqu mo 80 ¢.v mmmsmmnfl mo Eu ~.N Hmuqu oz Ammcw>mnmv Houucoo
.wmm mo mxmm3 ma was mxmm3 NH hmxmmz m .mxmm3 e um mhmxusu
mama mo moon Mom Amo.o n av Honum oumocmum + AEUV :fimm unmwm3 moon cows .v manna

 

27

 

m.NHmm Wm.mmH + mm.hHmm mw.mmH + mm.mHmm

mxwms o¢

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mwummm + mmmm mm.mma +
mm.m>a H mmhm H~.mmH_H mm.vmmm H~.mma H.nm.vmnm m>.mma H vm.vomm mxmmz NH
No.voa H mmam vm.am. H No.0vmm am.am _H Hm.vnam mm.om H m.mm- mxmm3 m
2.3 H 368 84% H 363 13.: H 363 Tmm H $.36 3663 e
mmmsmmad mo EU q.v mmmnmmad no So m.~ kuqu oz Ammcfl>mnmv Houucoo
.mmm mo mxmm3 ma can mxmwS Na_hmxmm3 w .mxmms e um mmmxusu
mamfimm mo moon Mom Amo.o n av Houum oumocmum + Afiov seam names: hoop cums .m manna

 

28

.uanmz m>HH mo manna mosooum on omHHsUmH comm mo mfimuo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H
Sea H 3.... :5 H Sum .125 H dim .336 H 34 63:66.2 no 66 e4.
36.6 H 3.... . .26 H mm.~ SSS H m~.~ 8:5 H 34 message. no so ~.m
Sea H Hm...” filo H mmé 345 H m~.~ 3:6 H 34. 8»qu oz.
See H $4. 85 H e.~ «25 H e~.~ m3... H 34 29.388 85.5%.
mx603 ma mxmmz NH mxmmz m mxmmz v
mucmEummHB

.wucmfiummuu HmuuHH “SOHDHMHc so omnHmn mmmxusu How was Mm mxmmz ma was NH

~m ~¢ U.“

H

aocmHoHumm owmm Ham Amo.c u 5v Honnm ouwocmum + magma ucufiummus .m manna

.
n

Ԥ

29

.Amv mamfiwnuxm waHme 0» Adv mamamuuxm mxHH Eoum

common mums mmuoom one "wuoz

 

wam.o + 5H.m

 

 

 

 

mama + 8.... 3.0 + mm.m 63.362 no so ~.~
mmm.o H ~¢.m mam.o H mo.m Hm.o H ha.m Hmuqu DJ
meme H ~m.~ 39o H m~.m 35 H m~.m 63:665.. no so v.1
23.0 H mm.~ mama H mfm 3.0 H mm.~ mmcgmnm
Ammmcumpame .I
was mmwcHOHsbv Ho>mHm Ho>mam
mocmymmoom Hmnwcmo mo mocmnmmood hexane mo huHmcmch Hcmfiummna

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mmwxusu mane mo ume uana How Ammmcumoamu
was mmmcHoHSHV mocmummoom Hmnwcmm .Ho>me mo mocmunWoom .ume mmxusu

mo Ho>mam mo wuHmcwucHtuom Amo.o u

#5. HOHHT UHMQGMHm + WGMOE “GOEUMOHB om. OHQMB

30

.Amv hHmEmHuxw mxHHmHo ou AHV mamfimnuxw OMHH EOHM

ommcmu mumz mmuoom was ”muoz

 

 

 

 

 

 

3&6 H mm.~ meme H $.m 35 H ~m.m message no so ~.~
355 H 86 meme H SH 35 H RH 6633 oz
39¢ H oo.m meme H mm.m 35 H mm.m mmmfimé no so 4.4
636 H mmé meme H SH 36 H m~.m 665.8%
Ammmcumocma
can mmOCHoHSbv Ho>mam Ho>mam
occupmmoom Hmnmcmw mo wocmummoom amxusa mo muHmcmucH usefivmmua

 

 

 

 

.mmmxusu mama no ume xumo How Ammmcumocmu
new mmmcHoHsnv mocmumwoom Hmuwcmm .Ho>mam mo moGMDBWOom .ummE mmxuou

mo Ho>mam mo thmcwucH How Amo.o u

av Houum Unmocmum + momma Hamfiummua .m manna

 

.Amv mamawuuxm mxHHmHo ou AHV hamfimuuxm mxHH Eoum ommcmn whoa mmuoom one “muoz

 

 

31

 

 

 

 

 

 

36 H mm... 36 H Tim 256 H m~.m .8»qu oz
36 H 3.... 56 H m5... 355 H om.m envenomed no so 4.4
$5 H mo.m 36 H 2.... mite H oo.m mongoom
Ammwcumocwa
US“ mMOCHUHSUV HO>MHh HO>MH5H
wocmummoom Hmumcmo mo wocmummood mmxnaa mo muHmcmucH unmEumeB
a

 

.mhmxnsu mamfimm mo puma usmHH How Ammmcumocmu
was mmmaHoHsnv mosmummoom Hmuocmm .Ho>mHm mo mocmunWoom .ummfi mmxusu
mo Ho>mHm mo muHmcwvcH Mom .mo.o u av House onmocmum + mammfi ucmfiummua .m manna

 

.Amv mHmEmHuxm waHmHo on AHV hamamnuxm oxHH Scum ommamn mmuoom one "muoz

 

 

32

 

 

 

89o H 8.6 m8; H mm; .34 H mm; .833 oz
hom.o_H mm.m mHo.H H.>m.m mo.H H_mh.m mmmnmmcfi «0 so v.¢
8m... H $8 as; H 8;. 34 H co... 3 mortgage
Ammmcuwocoa
can mmwcHOHsov Ho>mHm Ho>mam
mocmummoom Hmnmcmo mo mosmummood hexane mo auHmcmusH unmaummua

 

 

 

 

.mhmxusu wamfimm mo Home xumo How Ammmcuwocwu
can mmmcHOHsmv mocmummoom Hmumcwm .HO>MHM mo mocmufiwoom .ume mmxusu
mo Ho>mam mo muHmcmucH How Amo.o u ov Honuo onmocmum + momma usmfiummua .OH manna

 

SUMMARY AND-CONCLUSION

First Experiment

 

BrOilers raised in the pens with litter weighed
significantly more (p < 0.01) than those grown in the pen
with no litter. Broilers grown in the pen with shavings
weighed significantly more (p < 0.01) than those grown
in the pens with 4.4 cm, and 8.8 cm of anaphage. Broilers
raised in the pen with 8.8 cm of anaphage weighed signif-
icantly more (p < 0.01) than those grown in the pen with
4.4 cm of anaphage. Feed efficiencies to seven weeks of
age were 2.43, 2.23, 2.27 and 2.50 for broilers raised
on no litter floor, shavings, 8.8 cm of anaphage and 4.4
cm of anaphage, respectively. Broilers raised in the pen
with 8.8 cm of anaphage tasted significantly better
(p < 0.05) than those raised in the pens with no litter,
4.4 cm of shavings and 4.4 cm of anaphage.

The breast blister incidence of broilers raised
on 4.4 cm of anaphage and no litter floor was greater than
that of those grown on 8.8 cm of anaphage and shavings.

All the broilers raised on shavings and 8.8 cm
of anaphage were of grade A quality with no obvious breast

blister defect, while some of those broilers that were

33

34

raised on 4.4 cm of anaphage and no litter floor were B
quality with slight breast defect. Differences between
treatments as far as bruising is concerned were probably
due to handling and management conditions before
slaughtering the broilers. Mortality percentage for all

broilers up to seven weeks of age was 3.7%.

Second Experiment

 

The data obtained in the second experiment do not
suggest any significant differences in body weight gains,
feed efficiency or mortality among treatments, and this
was true for male and female turkeys at 4, 8, 12 and 16
weeks of age. Taste panelists were unable to detect
significant differences (p > 0.05) in intensity of flavor,
acceptance of flavor and general acceptance for light and
dark meat of males and females of turkeys reared under
the floor litter treatments.

The only conclusion that could be derived from
these data would be that dehydrated poultry waste (anaphage)
used in this trial was somewhat equal to shavings as a
litter material.

It is possible that management practices and
ventilation would have a greater effect on the performance
of turkey poults than the kind of floor litter. This

needs to be substantiated by further tests.

35

Although it was not measured, it was obvious that
anaphage litter condition in the first and the second
experiment was not satisfactory because of its undesirable
odor, wetness and dustiness, especially at the time of

stirring the litter.

LITERATURE CITED

LITERATURE CITED

Abbot, W.W., J.R. Couch and R.L. Atkinson, 1969. The
incidence of foot-pad dermatitis in young turkeys
fed high levels of soybean meal. Poultry Sci. 48:
2186-2188.

Aho, W.A., W.A. Junnila and H.C. Wheldon, Jr., 1955.
Wood chips for poultry litter. Poultry Sci. 34:
1175.

Anderson, D.P. and C.O. Cramer, 1964. Progress report
on environmental studies on confinement growing of
-turkeys as related to respiratory disease problems.
Paper presented to ASAE Annual meeting, Colorado
State University, June 21-24, 1964.

Andrews, J.A., A.L. Taylor and L.E. Swanson, 1943.
Fumigation of soil with methyl bromide as a means
of destroying infective stages and intermediate
hosts of some internal parasites of mammels. Proc.
Helminth. Soc. Wash. 10: 4-6.

Bhattacharya, A.N. and J.P. Fontenot, 1965a. Utiliza-
tion of different levels of poultry litter nitrogen
by sheep. J. Animal Sci. 24: 1174-1178.

Bhattacharya, A.N. and J.P. Fontenot, 1965b. Protein and
energy value of peanut hull and wood shaving poultry
litters. J. Animal Sci. 25: 367-371.

Boney, W.A., 1948. The efficacy of methylbromide as a
fumigant for the prevention of cecal coccidiosis in
chickens. Amer. J. Vet. Res. 9: 210-214.

Brugman, H.H., H.C. Dickey, B.B. Plummer and B.R. Poulton,
1964. Nutritive value of poultry litter. J. Animal
Sci. 23: 869.

Camp, A.A., 1959. Broiler-house litter as livestock feed.
Texas Agri. Progr. 5: 17.

36 -

37

Camp, A.A., 1967. The use of processed used poultry
house litter in the diet of poultry. West Virginia
Poultry Association.

Carmody, R., 1964. Chicken litter cow feed. Farm Quart.
19: 52-53, 92, 94.

Drake, C.L., W.H. McClure and J.P. Fontenot, 1965.
Broiler litter as feed for ruminants. Livestock
Research Progress Report, 1964-65. Virginia
Agricultural Experiment Station, Blacksburg, Va.

Durham, R.M., G.W. Thomas, R.C. Albin, L.G. Howe, S.E.
Curl and T.W. Box, 1966. Coprophagy and use of
animal waste in livestock feeds. ASAE Publication
No. 0366: 112-114.

Edgar, S.A. and D.F. King, 1955. The effectiveness of
methyl bromide in sterilizing poultry litter.
_Poultry Sci. 34: 595-597.

Elam, J.F., R.L. Jacobs and J.R. Couch, 1954. Unidentified
factor found in autoclaved litter. Poultry Sci.
33: 1053.

Flegal, C.J. and H.C. Zindel, 1970. The utilization of
poultry waste as a feedstuff.for growing chicks.
Research Report No. 117: 21-28.

Fontenot, J.P., C.L. Drake, W.H. McClure, F.S. McClaugherty,
A.N. Bhattacharya, R.F. Kelly and G.W. Litten, 1964.
The value of poultry litter as a feed for ruminants.
Livestock Research Progress Report, 1963-64.
Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Blacksburg,
Va.

Fontenot, J.P., F.S. McClaugherty and W.H. McClure, 1965.
The value of urea in wintering rations for weaning
beef calves. Livestock Research Progress Report,
1964-65. Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station,
Blacksburg, Va.

Gyles, N.R., J. Kan and R.M. Smith, 1962. The heritability
of breast blister condition and breast feather

coverage in a White Rock Broiler strain. Poultry Sci.
41: 13-16.

Gyles, N.R., B.N. McPherson and L.D. Andrews, 1961. The
influence of type of feeder on breast blisters in
broilers. Poultry Sci. 40: 814-816.

38

Halbrook, B.R., 1950. Vitamin 312 synthesis by micro-

organisms in poultry house litter. Ph.D. Thesis,
Ohio State University.

Halbrook, B.R., A.R. Winter and T.S. Sutton, 1951. The
microflora of poultry house litter and droppings.
Poultry Sci. 30: 381-388.

Hamdy, M.K., K.N. May and J.J. Power, 1961. Some physical
and physiological factors affecting poultry bruises.
Poultry Sci. 40: 790-795.

Kaiser, W.K. and R.C. Smith, 1958. Factors affecting the

bruising of broilers. Delaware Agri. Exp. Sta. Bul.
No. 323.

Kennard, D.C. and V.D. Chamberlin, 1947. Lime treatment
of floor litter for chickens. Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta.
Farm and Home Research 32: 11-14.

Kennard, D.C., R.M. Bethke and V.D. Chamberlin, 1948a.
Built-up floor litter as a source of dietary factors
essential for hatchability of chicken eggs. Poultry
Sci. 27: 477-481.

Kennard, D.C. and V.D. Chamberlin, 1948b. Built-up litter
as a source of dietary factors essential for the
growth of chickens. Poultry Sci. 27: 240-243.

Kennard, D.C. and V.D. Chamberlin, 19480. Built-up litter
to date. Ohio Agric. Exp. Sta. Farm and Home Re-
search 33: 130-135.

Kennard, D.C. and V.D. Chamberlin, 1949. Built-up floor
litter sanitation and nutrition. Ohio Agric. Exp.
Sta. Farm and Home Research 34: 162-166.

Kennard, D.C. and V.D. Chamberlin, 1950. Growth, dietary
requirements and mortality of chickens as affected
by management of the floor litter. Poultry Sci. 29:
766.

Lamoreux, W.F. and A.E. Schumacher, 1940. Is riboflavin
synthesized in the feces of fowl? Poultry Sci. 25:
486-491.

May, K.N. and R.K. Noles, 1965. Effect of hesperdin and
litter moisture on growth and carcass defects of
broilers. Poultry Sci. 44: 844-848.

39

McGinnis, J., J.M. Stevens and K. Groves, 1947. The in
vitro synthesis of a chick growth promoting factor
in hen feces. Poultry Sci. 26: 432-433.

Merck Technical Bulletin, 1963. An introduction to taste
testing of foods. Merck and Co., Inc., Rahway, New
Jersey.

Noland, P.R., B.F. Ford and M.L. Ray, 1955. The use of
ground chicken litter as a source of nitrogen for
gestating-lactating cows and fattening steers. J.
Animal Sci. 14: 860-865.

Oliveria, S.C., 1974. Comparison of litter materials for
broiler production. Proc. of XV World's Poultry
Congress and Exposition. 342-344.

Palafox, A.L. and M.M. Rosenberg, 1951. Dried cow manure
as a supplement in a layer and breeder ration.
Poultry Sci. 30: 136-142.

Quisenberry, J.H. and J.W. Bradley, 1968. Nutrient re-
cycling. Second National Poultry Litter and Waste
Management Seminar. 96-106.

Ray, M.L. and R.D. Child, 1964. He's doing well on
broiler house litter. Feed Bag 40: 46-47.

Ray, M.L. and R.D. Child, 1965. Chicken litter as a
supplement in wintering beef cows and calves on
pasture. Arkansas Farm Research, 14: 5.

Reed, M.J. and M.G. McCartney, 1970. Physical properties
of selected litter materials and performance of
broiler chickens. University of Georgia College of
Agriculture Expt. Sta. Research Bul. 75.

Ringrose, A.T., 1953. Bruised poultry challenges pro-
cessor's profits. Am. Egg Poultry Review, 36-39.

Ross, E., 1968. Fumigation and reuse of broiler litter.
Poultry Sci. 47: 1711.

Rubin, M., H.R. Bird and I. Rothchild, 1946. A growth
promoting factor for chicks in the feces of hens.
Poultry Sci. 25: 526-528.

Ruzler, P.L. and J.R. Carson, 1974. Methods of evaluating
the potential usefulness of selected litter materials.
Poultry Sci. 53: 1420-1427.

40

Schumacher, A.E. and G.F. Heuser, 1941. Isolation of an
organism responsible for the increased riboflavin
content of the feces of the fowl. Poultry Sci. 20:
272-277.

Seeger, R.C., A.E. Tomhave and W.C. Lucas, 1951. A com-
parison of litters used for broiler production.
Delaware Agri. Expt. Sta. Bul. No. 289.

Smith, R.C., 1956. Kind of litter and breast blisters on
broilers. Poultry Sci. 35: 593-595.

Southwell, B.L., O.M. Hale and W.C. McCormick, 1958.
Poultry house litter as a protein supplement in
steer fattening rations. Mimeograph Series N.S. 55.
Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station, Athens, Ga.

Swanson, L.E. and A.L. Taylor, 1943. Control of cattle-
parasitic and free-living nematodes by soil fumiga-

tion with methyl bromide. Proc. Heminth. Soc. Wash.
10: 1-3.

Tower, A.A. and E.H. Floyd, 1961. Consumer and organ-
oleptic tests with broilers grown on lindane-
impregnated 1itter. Poultry Sci. 40: 234-238.

Wehunt, K.E., R.L. Fuller and H.M. Edwards, 1960. The
nutritional value of hydrolyzed poultry manure for
broiler chicks. Poultry Sci. 39: 1057-1063.

Wesley, L.R. and W.D. Weaver, Jr., 1974. Some factors
affecting the incidence of breast blisters in com-
mercial broilers. Poultry Sci. 53: 1991.

Wisman, E.L., W.L. Beane, W.R. Luckman and E.O. Essary,
1961. Efficiency of growing broilers to a heavier
weight. Poultry Sci. 40: 1705-1712.

APPENDICES

41

Appendix Table 1. Composition of the chicken starter
ration fed (0-5 weeks of age) in

 

 

 

percentage.

Ingredient Percent
Corn 62.15
Soybean meal, 49% 20.50
Alfalfa, 17% 2.5
Meat and bone meal, 50% 3.0
Fish meal, 60% 2.5
Whey, dried 2.0
Oats 5.0
Salt 0.25
Limestone, ground 0.75
Dicalcium phOSphate 0.75
Premix (5003) 0.5

Additives 0.1

 

42

Appendix Table 2. Nutrient composition of the chicken
starter ration based on calculated

 

 

 

analysis.

Nutrient Percent
Crude protein 20.00
Fat 3.28
Fiber 3.62
Calcium 1.00
Phosphorus, avail. .50

ME, Cal/Ib 1340.00

 

43

Appendix Table 3. Composition of the chicken grower
ration fed (6-7 weeks of age) in

 

 

 

percentage
Ingredient Percent

Corn 61.8
Soybean meal, 49% 16.25
Alfalfa, 17% V2.5
Meat and bone meal, 50% 3.0
Fish meal, 60% 1.5
Oats 12.5
Salt 0.25
Limestone, ground 0.6
Dicalcium phosphate 1
Premix (5003) 0.5

Additives 0.1

 

44

Appendix Table 4. Nutrient composition of the chicken
. grower ratiOn based on calculated

 

 

 

analysis.
Nutrient Percent
Crude protein 18.00
Fat 3.50
Fiber 4.38
Calcium .91
Phosphorus, avail. .50

ME, Cal/Ib. 1350.00

 

45

Appendix Table 5. Composition of the turkey starter
ration fed (0-8 weeks of age) in

 

 

 

percentage

Ingredient Percent
Corn 42.6466
Soybean meal, 49% 40.9987
Alfalfa meal, 17% 2.9962
Fish meal, 60% 2.9962
Meat and bone meal, 50% 2.9962
Whey, dried ’ 1.997s
Fat, Av 1.4981
Salt 0.2496
Dicalcium phosphate 1.4981
Limestone 1.2484
Premix 5004 0.7490

Biotin 0.1248

 

46

Appendix Table 6. Nutrient composition of the turkey
starter ration based on calculated

 

 

 

analysis.
Nutrient Percent
Crude protein 28.00
Fat . 3.89
Fiber 3.29
Calcium 1.40
Phosphorus, avail. .67

ME, Cal/Ib 1263.00

 

47

Appendix Table 7. Composition of the turkey grower
ration fed (8-16 weeks of age) in

 

 

 

percentage.

Ingredient Percent
Corn 58.7677
Soybean meal, 49% 29.8328
Alfalfa meal, 17% 2.4943
Meat and bone meal, 50% 3.4921
Fat, Av . 2.4943
Salt 0.2494
Dicalcium phosphate 1.2471
Limestone 0.7483
Premix 5004 0.5986

Biotin 0.0748

 

Appendix Table 8.

48

Nutrient composition of the turkey
grower ration based on calculated
analysis.

 

 

 

Nutrient Percent
Crude protein 22.00
Fat 5.22
Fiber 3.25
Calcium 1.00
Phosphorus, avail. .55
ME, Cal/1b 1382.00

 

4S)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmwc mom: who: mmoc
lumocwu uuwocmu nuwocwu Iuwocwu
.mmw: uo>mam .mmoc uo>mam .mmw: Ho>mHm .mmoc uo>m~m
uHoHsn uo>sHm hwxusa IHUHSn uo>mHm >mxusa IHoHsn uo>mHm Hogans IHUHsfl uo>mam auxush
".umwoo< no mo ".ummoo< mo mo ".ummoo¢ wo wo ".umoood no no
mumcww .uQmoot SwamcwucH Hmuwcwo .uooooc huwchDCH .Hmuwcoo .umoood hummcoucm Hmumcmu. .umooo< auwmcuucH
moou OUOU ooou oooo
mama

 

OEQZ

hawsouuxo
oxaamwo,

nose huo>
uxHHuHa

haouuuovoa
oxHHnHa

Hangmaao
oxaaoao

oxaaofio no:
axed uoauaoz

adorned»
oxaq

haounuooOE
oxHA

nose huo>
oxuq

Samsouuxo
axHA

you: aoxusa mo :oHuoan>u auoocom .m «Hana awesomm<

50

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 10. Sensory Evaluation of Broiler Meat
Name: Product:

Date:

PREFERENCE

Code Code Code Code

Like Like JLike Like
"'I—— ..__.. _—

Extremely Extremely Extremely Extremely
_Like LDike Like Like

"very much

_Dike .
Moderately

_Like
LSIightly

_Dgither like
nor dislike

J

J

Dislike
Slightly

 

“Dislike
Moderately

"Dislike
Very much

Dislike
IEitremely

 

.1

Comments:

J

Very much

11.1w—
7Moderately

_LEiIke
S ightly

Dgither like
nor dislike

Dislike
Slightly

 

(Dislike
Moderately

L

Dislike
Very much

Dislike
Extremely

 

Comments:

qvery much

.L_ike
Moderately

like
USlightly

iggither like
nor dislike

Dislike
Slightly

 

“Dislike
Moderately

_Dislike
Very much

“Dislike
Extremely

 

Comments:

 

Very much

Like

 

Moderately

Like

 

Slightly

Neither like

 

nor dislike

Dislike

 

Slightly

Dislike
Moderately

 

Dislike
Very much

 

Dislike
Extremely

 

Comments:

Appendix Table 11.

51

Analysis of variance of final body

Weight gain of broilers at 7 weeks

0

f age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

gource of Degree of Sum of Mean F
variation freedom square square Statistic f.001
Treatments 3 1372693 457564 15.3 5.42*
Firds/Trts 671 19431438 28958

*

Significant

Appendix Table 12.

flavor of the broilers

Analysis of variance of chicken meat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean F ~
variation freedom square square Statistic f.05
*
Treatments 3 5.65 1.88 2.15 2.09
xpt.
Error 76 j66.3 .872

 

fi

*
Significant

f

 

Appendix Table 13.

52

Analysis of variance of body weight

gain of male turkeys at 4 weeks of
age.

 

 

 

 

ource of Degree of Sum of Mean F

ariation freedom square square Statistic f.001
Treatments 3 26892 12297 1.33 5.42
Firds/trts 144 1331093 9243

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 14.

Analysis of variance of body weight

gain of male turkeys at 8 weeks of
age 0

 

 

 

Eource of Degree of Sum of Mean F

ariation freedom square square Statistic f.001
Treatments 3 740324 246775 1.98 5.42
Birds/trts 144 17926398 124488

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 15.

53

Analysis of variance of body weight

gain of male turkeys at 12 weeks of
age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean F

variation freedom square square Statistic f.001
Treatments 3 617046 205682 1.09 5.42
Birds/trts 144 27163426 188634

 

Appendix Table 16.

Analysis of variance of body weight

gain of male turkeys at 16 weeks of
age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean F

variation freedom square quare Statistic f.001
Treatments 3 964901 321633 .668 5.42
Birds/trts 144 69231928 480777

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 17.

54

Analysis of variance of body weight

gain of female turkeys at 4 weeks of
age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ource of Degree of Sum of Mean F

ariation freedom square square Statistic f.001
Treatments 3 28554 9518 2.01 5.42
.Birds/trtsl 113 553127 '4729

 

'Appendix Table 18.

Analysis of variance of body weight

gain of female turkeys at 8 weeks of
age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lource of Degree of Sum of Mean' F

variation freedom square Isquare Statistic f.001
Treatments 3 304756 101585 1.47 5.42
Birds/trts 118 8142144 69001

 

 

 

55

Analysis of variance of body weight
gain of female turkeys at 12 weeks of
age.

Appendix Table 19.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean F

variation freedom square square Statistic f.001
Treatments 3 658928 219642 1.07 5.42
Birds/trts 118 24109923 204321

 

Appendix Table 20.

Analysis of variance of body weight

gain of female turkeys at 16 weeks
of age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eource of Degree of Sum of Mean F

ariation freedom square square Statistic f.001
Treatments 3 202864 67621 .214 5.42
Birds/trts 118 37250276 315680

 

 

 

Appendix Table 21.

56

Analysis of variance of taste panel

scores for intensity of flavor of

light meat of male turkeys slaughtered

at 16 weeks of age.

 

 

 

 

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean F

variation freedom square square Statistic f.05
Treatments 3 4.16 1.386 .713 2.2
Expt.

lérrors 44 85.51 1.943

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 22.

Analysis of variance of taste panel

scores for intensity of flavor of

dark meat of male turkeys slaughtered
at 16 weeks of age.

 

 

 

errors

 

 

 

122.75

 

 

 

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean F

variation freedom square square Statistic f.05
Treatments 3 1.723 .574 .205 2.2
Eth° 44 2.789

 

 

 

57

Appendix Table 23. Analysis of variance of taste panel
scores for intensity of flavor of
light meat of female turkeys slaughtered

at 16 weeks of age.

 

 

 

 

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean F

variation freedom square square Statistic f.05
Treatments 2 1.5 .75 .358 2.2
xpt .

rrors 33 69.25 2.09

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 24.

Analysis of variance of taste panel

scores for intensity of flavor of

dark meat of female turkeys slaughtered
at 16 weeks of age.

 

 

 

 

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean F

variation freedom square square Statistic f.05
Treatments 2 2.06 1.03 .317 2.2
xpt.

Frrors 33 106.92 3.24

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 25.

58

Analysis of variance of taste panel

scores for acceptance of flavor for
light meat flavor of male turkeys
slaughtered at 16 weeks of age.

 

 

 

 

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean F

variation freedom square square Statistic f.05
Treatments 3 1.73 .576 .291 2.2
Eth' 44 87.09 1.979

Frror

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 26.

Analysis of variance of taste panel

scores for acceptance of flavor for
dark meat flavor of male turkeys
slaughtered at 16 weeks of age.

 

 

 

 

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean F

variation freedom square square Statistic f.05
Treatments 3 2.99 .997 .435 2.2
th° 44 100.68 2.288

rror

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 27.

59

Analysis of variance of taste panel

scores for light meat flavor of

female turkeys slaughtered at 16 weeks

of age.

 

 

 

 

xpt.
rror

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Degree of Sum of Meal F
variation freedom square square Statistic f 0.05
Treatments 2 2.05 1.02 .463 2.2

33 72.84 2.20

 

Appendix Table 28.

Analysis of variance of taste panel

scores for dark meat flavor of female
turkeys slaughtered at 16 weeks of
age.

 

 

 

 

gource of Degree of Sum of Mean F
variation freedom square square Statistic f 0.05
Treatments 2 2.66 1.33 .441 2.2

33 99.34 3.01

xpt.
rror

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 29.

60

Analysis of variance of taste panel

general acceptance scores (juiciness,
tenderness) for light meat of male

turkeys slaughtered at 16 weeks of age.

 

 

 

 

ource of Degree of Sum of Mean F

ariation freedom square square Statistic f.05
Treatments 3 7.823 2.607 1.09 2.2
Fth' 44 105.17 2.39

rror

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 30.

Analysis of variance of taste panel

general acceptance scores (juiciness,
tenderness) for dark meat of male
turkeys slaughtered at 16 weeks of
age.

 

 

 

 

gource of Degree of Sum of Mean F
variation freedom square square Statistic f 0.05
Treatments 3 1.723 .574 .272 2.2

44 2.108

xpt.
rror

 

 

92.757

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 31.

61

Analysis of variance of taste panel

general acceptance scores (juiciness,
tenderness) for light meat of female
turkeys slaughtered at 16 weeks of

age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean F

Nariation freedom square square Statistic f 0.05
Treatments 2 .66 .221 .15 2.2
“Pt“ 33 68 09 2 06

error ' ‘

 

Appendix Table 32.

Analysis of variance of taste panel

general acceptance scores (juiciness,
tenderness) for dark meat of female
turkeys slaughtered at 16 weeks of
age 0

 

 

 

error

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean F

variation freedom square square Statistic f 0.05
Treatments 2 3.39 1.695 .709 2.2
Eth' 33 78.92 2.39

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 33.

62

Analysis of variance of the feed

efficiency of turkeys at 4,weeks of
age.

 

 

 

 

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean F

variation freedom square square Statistic f.05
Treatments 3 0.02 0.006 0.8 24.3
Expt.

lerror 4 0.03 0.0075

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 34.

Analysis of variance of the feed

efficiency of turkeys at 8 weeks of
age.

 

 

 

 

xpt.
rror

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean F

variation freedom square square Statistic f.005

Treatments 3 0.03 0.01 2.00 24.3
4 0.02 0.005

 

 

 

63

Analysis of variance of feed efficiency

Appendix Table 35.
of turkeys at 12 weeks of age.

 

 

 

 

Eource of Degree of Sum of Mean F
ariation freedom square square Statistic f.05
Treatments 3 0.08 0.026 1.06 24.3
FXP‘“ 4 0.1 0.025

rror

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 36.

Analysis of variance of feed efficiency
of turkeys at 16 weeks of age. '

 

 

 

 

gource of Degree of Sum of Mean F

variation freedom square square Statistic f.05
Treatments 3 .36 .12 1.09 24.3
Expt.

Frror 4 .44 .11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix Table 37.

64

Analysis of variance of mortality
from the 1 day to 16 weeks of age
for all the experimental groups of
the turkeys uesed in the experiment.

 

 

 

 

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean F

variation freedom square square Statistic f.05
Treatments 3 7.38 2.46 .56 24.3
Expt.

rror 4 17.5 4.37

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

3 1293 03043 6186