The Impact of Peat Moss Amendments on the Microbial Load in Used Pine Shaving Poultry Litter
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2013.202.205Keywords:
Anaerobic, coliforms, litter, sphagnum peatAbstract
In addition to pine shavings, alternative litter sources for poultry bedding include sand, pine straw, or even peat moss. Peat moss has a high absorptive capacity and is naturally acidic, possibly making it a good poultry litter amendment. The objective of this study was to determine if microbial populations changed when different levels of peat moss were added to poultry litter. Experimental treatments included 0, 13 and 20% peat moss which were added to used pine shavings. A total of 216 male broilers (42 d) were separated into 18 pens (6 pens/3 treatments). Control litter samples (100 g) were collected prior to the addition of peat moss and birds (0 d); then litter samples from each pen were collected weekly thereafter for 3 wk. From each litter sample, 10 g was diluted in 90 ml of Buttersfield’s Phosphate and then serially diluted. For Tryptic soy agar, MacConkey agar and Sabouraud Dextrose agar, 100 μl of inoculums was plated in duplicate to detect aerobic bacteria, total coliforms and yeasts/molds, respectively. Plates were incubated aerobically for 24 h at 37°C and then counted. The results indicated that there were no differences between treatments for total aerobic bacterial counts. Initially, an increase in coliforms was detected in treatments that had peat added. By the second week coliforms were reduced in the peat treatments and a treatment by week interaction was detected (P = 0.012). The level of coliforms in litter which had peat added (13 or 20%) was 3.92 and 4.04 log cfu/g, respectively. For the control litter where no peat was added, coliforms were 5.43 log cfu/g of litter. Also a treatment by week interaction was detected for yeast and molds (P = 0.0025). Over each week of the experiment a decrease in the number of yeast and molds occurred in litter where peat was added. In week 1, yeast and molds were at 5.22 log cfu/g of litter in the control and 4.42 and 4.54 log cfu/g of litter in the 13 and 20% peat treatments, respectively. Week 2 the yeast and molds were 5.43 log cfu/g of litter in the control and 4.0 and 3.88 log cfu/g of litter for the 13 and 20% peat treatments, respectively. For, week 3 the yeast and molds were 6.03 log cfu/g of litter in the control and 4.82 and 3.72 log cfu/g of litter for the 13 and 20% peat treatments, respectively. In conclusion, the data demonstrates that the addition of peat moss may be a useful amendment for reducing bacteria, yeasts and molds in poultry litter. Overall, future studies should test the absorptive capacity of peat moss for trapping ammonia and changing the litter pH which could demonstrate how peat moss is actually reducing bacteria and yeast/mold growth in poultry litter.
References
Arnould, C., D. Bizeray, J.M. Faure and C. Lecterrier, 2004. Effects of the addition of sand and string to pens on use of space activity tarsal angulations and bone composition in broiler chickens. Anim. Welfare, 13: 87-94.
Cocozza, C., V. D'Orazio, T.M. Miano and W. Shotyk, 2003. Characterization of solid and aqueous phases of a peat bog profile using molecular fluorescence spectroscopy, ESR and FT-IR and comparison with physical properties. Organic Geochem., 34: 49-60.
Cook, M.E., 1990. Mycotoxin-induced immune suppression. Proceedings of the SEPEA Poultry Health Seminar, September 11-12, 1990, Atlanta, GA.
Donald, J. and S. Watkins, 2003. Treating poultry house floors to improve poor performance. The Poultry Engineering, Economics and Management News-Letter. Auburn University.
Frame, D.D., R.E. Buckner and G.L. Anderson, 2002. Pelletized newspaper bedding for Turkeys and its effect on brooding performance. J. Appl. Poult. Res., 11: 229-232.
Kline, K.L. and M.D. Coleman, 2010. Woody energy crops in the southeastern united states: Two centuries of practitioner experience. Biomass Bioenergy, 34: 1655-1666.
Klocking, R., K.D. Thiel and M. Sprossig, 1976. Antiviral activity of humic acids from peat water. Proceedings of the 5th International Peat Congress on Peat and Peatlands in the Natural Environment: Protection, September 21-25, 1976, Poznan, Poland, pp: 446-455.
Kruglov, V.P., E.F. Mayakova and V.E. Rakovsky, 1975. Peat as a raw material for obtaining fodder and biologically active preparations. Proceedings of the 5th International Peat Congress on New Ideas and Technologies in Utilization of Peatlands and Peat, September 21-25, 1975, Poznan, Poland, pp: 54-62.
Lovett, J., J.W. Messer and R.B. Read, 1971. The microflora of Southern Ohio poultry litter. Poult. Sci., 50: 746-751.
Malone, G.W., 1992. Evaluation of litter material other than wood shavings. Proceedings of the National Poultry Waste Management Symposium, November 25-30, 1992, Auburn Al., pp: 274-284.
Malone, G.W., G.W. Chaloupka and W.W. Saylor, 1983. Influences of litter type and size on broiler performance. 1. Factors affecting litter consumption. Poult. Sci., 62: 1741-1746.
Pankratov, T.A., A.O. Ivanova, S.N. Dedysh and W. Liesack, 2011. Bacterial populations and environmental factors controlling cellulose degradation in an acidic Sphagnum peat. Environ. Microbiol., 13: 1800-1814.
Petherick, J.C. and I.J.H. Duncan, 1989. Behaviour of young domestic fowl directed towards different substrates. Br. Poult. Sci., 30: 229-238.
SAS Inst., 2003. SAS User's Guide. Version 9, SAS Inst., Cary, NC.
Schefferle, H.E., 1965. The microbiology of built up poultry litter. J. Applied Bacteriol., 28: 403-411.
Trail, J.V., 2013. The truth about peat moss. http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/1780209/the_truth_about_peat_moss.html.
Trckova, M., L. Matlova, H. Hudcova, M. Faldyna and Z. Dvorska et al., 2005. Peat as a feed supplement for animals: A review. Vet. Med. Czech, 50: 361-377.
Willis, W.L., C. Murray and C. Talbott, 1997. Evaluation of leaves as a litter material. Poult. Sci., 76: 1138-1140.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2013 Asian Network for Scientific Information

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.