Effects of Application Rate of Poultry Litter on Chemical Composition and in vitro Gas Production of Rumen Content in Vermicomposting

Document Type : Ruminant Nutrition

Authors

• kian sadeghi ¹
• Akbar Taghizadeh ²
• Ahmadreza Hasani ³
• Mohsen Elmi ³

¹ Department of Animal Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran.

² Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Tabriz University, Iran.

³ Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Center of East Azarbaijan

10.22067/ijasr.v8i4.48499

Abstract

Introduction Vermicomposting is the process of composting using various worms to decomposing vegetable, food waste, bedding materials and many organic waste materials. Many wastes and residues have been used to produce vermicompost. Using variety of left over products such as vegetable cuttings, food wastes and manure from cattle and chickens for vermicomposting can inhibit environmental pollution while producing valuable vermicompost. However, worms require specific conditions for activity and composting. Vermicast (worm manure) is the end product of the breakdown of organic matter by earthworms which usually applies as an organic and natural fertilizer. Due to appropriate protein and organic matter of vermicast or vermicompost, it is maybe possible to use vermicompost as a feedstuff in ruminant animals such as low producing cattle, sheep and goats. Then, the aim of the current research was to investigate the possibility of using rumen content which has been enriched with poultry litter as a decomposing material for worms and nutritive value of the produced vermicast for ruminants.
Materials and Methods Rumen content was treated with 0 (T1), 3 (T2), 5 (T3) or 7% (T4) of poultry litter in triplicate samples. Three boxes (65×35×30 cm) were made for each treatment and 8 kg of materials and 80 grams of worms (200 worms) were added to one of them. The boxes were kept for 75 days in a room with 25oC temperature and 65-70% of relative humidity. After 75 d, a sample of each replicated was chosen for pH and dry matter analysis. Another sample from each replicated was grounded and analyzed for chemical composition (crude protein, ash, crude fiber, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber) and gas production measurement. Gas volume was recorded at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 36, 48, 72 and 96 h of incubation. The kinetics of gas production was estimated using model: Y = A (1 – e−ct). Cumulative gas production at 24 h was used for estimation of metabolisable energy, net energy for lactation, short chain fatty acids and digestible organic matter.
Results and Discussion Vermicomposting efficiency was lower in T4 and higher in T2 and T3 treatments when compared with T1. The highest and lowest vermicomposting efficiency was in T3 and T4 treatments, respectively. Moreover, T3 treatment showed the highest crude protein and crude fat concentrations among the treatments. T3 treatment also had the lowest ash, crude fiber, neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber concentrations among the treatments. The values of pH after 75 days were 6.76, 6.73, 7.10 and 6.57, respectively. The concentrations of crude protein for T1 to T4 were 16.50, 17.32, 18.84 and 15.45%, respectively. Also, the concentrations of neutral detergent fiber for T1 to T4 were 41.5, 42.5, 39.6 and 43.9%, respectively. Moreover, the concentrations of acid detergent fiber for T1 to T4 were 27.33, 28.50, 26.40 and 30.33%, respectively. Gas production was higher in T3 treatments compared with other treatments in all incubation hours. The cumulative gas productions for 24 h were 110.96, 116.24, 156.40 and 101.74 ml/g DM for treatments 1 to 4, respectively. Also, the cumulative gas productions for 96 h were 176.80, 210.58, 237.08 and 150.08 ml/g DM for treatments 1 to 4, respectively. T3 and T4 had the highest and the lowest potential of gas production among the treatments. The potential of gas production were 184.44, 225.65, 241.56 and 156.31 ml/g DM for treatments 1 to 4, respectively. The greatest and lowest metabolisable energy, net energy for lactation and organic matter digestibility were in T3 and T4 treatments, respectively. The calculated metabolisable energy values for T1 to T4 were 4.70, 4.87, 6.16 and 4.39 MJ/kg DM, respectively. The calculated net energy for lactation values for T1 to T4 were 2.26, 2.39, 3.33 and 2.04 MJ/kg DM, respectively. Organic matter digestibility values for T1 to T4 were 32.29, 33.33, 41.45 and 30.31%, respectively.
Conclusion The results of this study show that using up to 5% poultry litter in vermicomposting rumen content can produce vermicompost with great nutritive value (higher protein and lower fiber concentration) and high digestibility and energy content, which can be used in ruminants nutrition.

Materials and Methods Rumen content was treated with 0 (T1), 3 (T2), 5 (T3) or 7% (T4) of poultry litter in triplicate samples. Three boxes (65×35×30 cm) were made for each treatment and 8 kg of materials and 80 grams of worms (200 worms) were added to one of them. The boxes were kept for 75 days in a room with 25oC temperature and 65-70% of relative humidity. After 75 d, a sample of each replicated was chosen for pH and dry matter analysis. Another sample from each replicated was grounded and analyzed for chemical composition (crude protein, ash, crude fiber, neutral detergent fiber, acid detergent fiber) and gas production measurement. Gas volume was recorded at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 36, 48, 72 and 96 h of incubation. The kinetics of gas production was estimated using model: Y = A (1 – e−ct). Cumulative gas production at 24 h was used for estimation of metabolizable energy, net energy for lactation, short chain fatty acids and digestible organic matter.
Results and Discussion Vermicomposting efficiency was lower in T4 and higher in T2 and T3 treatments when compared with T1. The highest and lowest vermicomposting efficiency was in T3 and T4 treatments, respectively. Moreover, T3 treatment showed the highest crude protein and crude fat concentrations among the treatments. T3 treatment also had the lowest ash, crude fiber, neutral detergent fiber and acid detergent fiber concentrations among the treatments. The values of pH after 75 days were 6.76, 6.73, 7.10 and 6.57, respectively. The concentrations of crude protein for T1 to T4 were 16.50, 17.32, 18.84 and 15.45%, respectively. Also, the concentrations of neutral detergent fiber for T1 to T4 were 41.5, 42.5, 39.6 and 43.9%, respectively. Moreover, the concentrations of acid detergent fiber for T1 to T4 were 27.33, 28.50, 26.40 and 30.33%, respectively. Gas production was higher in T3 treatments compared with other treatments in all incubation hours. The cumulative gas productions for 24 h were 110.96, 116.24, 156.40 and 101.74 ml/g DM for treatments 1 to 4, respectively. Also, the cumulative gas productions for 96 h were 176.80, 210.58, 237.08 and 150.08 ml/g DM for treatments 1 to 4, respectively. T3 and T4 had the highest and the lowest potential of gas production among the treatments. The potential of gas production were 184.44, 225.65, 241.56 and 156.31 ml/g DM for treatments 1 to 4, respectively. The greatest and lowest metabolizable energy, net energy for lactation and organic matter digestibility were in T3 and T4 treatments, respectively. The calculated metabolisable energy values for T1 to T4 were 4.70, 4.87, 6.16 and 4.39 MJ/kg DM, respectively. The calculated net energy for lactation values for T1 to T4 were 2.26, 2.39, 3.33 and 2.04 MJ/kg DM, respectively. Organic matter digestibility values for T1 to T4 were 32.29, 33.33, 41.45 and 30.31%, respectively.
Conclusion The results of this study show that using up to 5% poultry litter in vermicomposting rumen content can produce vermicompost with great nutritive value (higher protein and lower fiber concentration) and high digestibility and energy content, which can be used in ruminants nutrition.

Keywords

• Earthworm
• Poultry litter
• Rumen content
• Vermicompost
• Wastes

20.1001.1.20083106.1396.8.4.13.2

---

References

1- Agblevor, F. A., S. Beis., S. Kim., R. Tarrant, and N. Mante. 2010. Biocrude oils from the fast pyrolysis of poultry litter and hardwood. Waste Management, 30(2): 298-307.

2- Akinfemi, A., O. Adu, and F. Doherty. 2009. Assessment of the nutritive value of fungi treated maize cob using in vitro gas production technique. Livestock Research Rural Development, 21: 188-196.

3- AOAC. 2005. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC international. AOAC international. Maryland, USA.

4- Bybordi, A., V. Najafzadeh, and Y. Fateh. 2008. Vermicomposting guide on sustainable agriculture. First ed. Organic fertilizer manufacturing company Municipality in Tabriz. Application Tehran, Iran. (In Persian).

5- Carlos, G. G. R., D. Luc, and G. M. F. Antonio. 2008. Vermicomposting leachate (worm tea) as liquid fertilizer for maize (Zea mays L.) forage production. Asian Journal of Plant Science, 7(4):360-367.

6- Dominguez, J., C. A. Edwards, and M. Webster. 2000. Vermicomposting of sewage sludge: effect of bulking materials on the growth and reproduction of the earthworm Eisenia andrei. Pedobiologia, 44: 24-32.

7- Dominguez, J., R. W. Parmelee, and C. A. Edwards. 2003. Interactions between Eisenia andrei (Oligochaeta) and nematode populations during vermicomposting. Pedobiologia, 47: 53-60.

8- Edwards, C. A. and P. J. Bohlen. 1996. Biology and ecology of earthworms. Springer Science & Business Media. Chapman and Hall, London.

9- Edwards, C. 1998. The use of earthworms in the breakdown and management of organic wastes. Pages 345-379 in Earthworm Ecology. C. A. Edwards ed. St Lucie Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

10- Elvira, C., M. Goicoechea., L. Sampedro., S. Mato. and R. Nogales. 1996. Bioconversion of solid paper-pulp mill sludge by earthworms. Bioresource Technology, 57: 173-177.

11- Fedorah, P. M. and S. E. Hrudey. 1983. A simple apparatus for measuring gas production by methanogenic cultures in serum bottles. Environmental Technology, 4: 425-432.

12- Gesari, S., Sh. Danesh, and J. abedini targhabeh. 2010. Applicability of vermicomposting process in recycling of vegetables wastes (case study- vegetables wastes from the city of Mashhad). Journal of Agricultural Science and Naturan Resources, 16(2): 181-188. (In Persian).

13- Getachew, G., M. Blümmel., H. Makkar, and K. Becker. 1998. In vitro gas measuring techniques for assessment of nutritional quality of feeds: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 72:261-281.

14- Getachew, G., H. Makkar., and K. Becker. 2002. Tropical browses: contents of phenolic compounds, in vitro gas production and stoichiometric relationship between short chain fatty acid and in vitro gas production. Journal of Agricultural Science, 139: 341-352.

15- Ghosh, M., G. Chattopadhyay, and K. Baral. 1999. Transformation of phosphorus during vermicomposting. Bioresource Technology, 69: 149-154.

16- Gunadi, B. and C. A. Edwards. 2003. The effects of multiple applications of different organic wastes on the growth, fecundity and survival of Eisenia fetida (Savigny)(Lumbricidae). Pedobiologia, 47: 321-329.

17- Hartenstein, R., E. F. Neuhauser, and D. L. Kaplan. 1979. Reproductive potential of the earthworm Eisenia foetida. Oecologia, 43: 329-340.

18- Boda, K. 1990. Nonconventional feedstuffs in the nutrition of farm animals. Developments in animal and veterinary sciences, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam. pp. 258.

19- Kamalak, A. 2006. Determination of nutritive value of leaves of a native grown shrub, Glycyrrhiza glabra L. using in vitro and in situ measurements. Small Ruminant Research, 64: 268-278.

20- Kardan Moghadam, V., M. H. Fathi Nasri., R. Valizadeh, and H. Farhangfar. 2015. Growth Nutritive Value of Saffron Residues Harvested at Different Stages by in situ and in vitro (Gas Production) Methods. Iranian Journal of Animal Science Research, 6(1): 32-44. (In Persian).

21- Khan, S. A. 2006. Vermicomposting of poultry litter using Eisenia foetida. Oklahoma State University. Norman, Oklahoma.

22- Loh, T., Y. Lee., J. Liang, and D. Tan. 2005. Vermicomposting of cattle and goat manures by Eisenia foetida and their growth and reproduction performance. Bioresource Technology, 96: 111-114.

23- McDougall, E. 1948. Studies on ruminant saliva. The composition and output of sheep's saliva. Biochemical Journal, 43: 99-109.

24- Mehrdadfar, M. 1988. Breeding earthworms. Journal of Agriculture (Olive), 73: 28-36. (In Persian).

25- Men, B. X., B. Ogle, and T. R. Preston. 2007. Recycling organic wastes to produce earthworms as a protein supplement in diets for poultry and fish .MEKARN Regional Conference: Matching Livestock Systems with Available Resources.

26- Menke, K., L. Raab., A. Salewski., H. Steingass., D. Fritz, and W. Schneider. 1979. The estimation of the digestibility and metabolizable energy content of ruminant feedingstuffs from the gas production when they are incubated with rumen liquor in vitro. Journal of Agricultural Science, 93: 217-222.

27- Menke, K. H. and H. Steingass. 1988. Estimation of the energetic feed value obtained from chemical analysis and in vitro gas production using rumen fluid. Animal Research Development, 28:7-55.

28- Mitchell, A. 1997. Production of Eisenia fetida and vermicompost from feed-lot cattle manure. Soil Biology and Biochemistrym, 29: 763-766.

29- Natarajan, N. and K. S. N. Devi. 2014. The use of earthworm Eudrilus eugeniae in the breakdown and management of poultry waste. Growth, 8 (9): 40-43.

30- Ndegwa, P. M. and S. Thompson. 2000. Effects of C-to-N ratio on vermicomposting of biosolids. Bioresource Technology, 75: 7-12.

31- Opatpatanakit, Y., R. Kellaway., I. Lean., G. Annison, and A. Kirby. 1994. Microbial fermentation of cereal grains in vitro. Crop and Pasture Science, 45: 1247-1263.

32- Roeper, H., S. Khan., I. Koerner, and R. Stegmann. 2005. Low-tech options for chicken manure treatment and application possibilities in agriculture. Pages 3-7 in Sardinia 2005 Tenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium. Cisa Publisher, Italy.

33- Rostami, R., A. Nabaey, and A. Eslami. 2008. Survey of optimal temperature and moisture for worms growth and operating vermicompost production of food wastes. Iranian Journal of Health and Environment, 1(2): 105-112. (In Persian).

34- Samavat, S. 2002. How vermicompost production of agricultural and urban waste. Research Institute of the Water and Soil. Organization of Research, Education and Promoting Agriculture. (In Persian).

35- SAS Institute. 2003. SAS/STAT User's Guide: Version 9.1th edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina.

36- Satchell, J. 2012. Earthworm ecology: from Darwin to vermiculture. Springer Science & Business Media. Chapman & Hall. London.

37- Sherman, R. 2003. Raising earthworms successfully. North Carolina Extension Service, North Carolina State University USA.

38- Sobhanirad, S., M. Behgar., R. Vakili, and M. Elahi Torshizi. 2013. Effect of Gamma Irradiation and Chemical Process on Gas Production Parameters of some Agricultural By-products in in vitro. Iranian Journal of Animal Science Research, 4(4): 316-322. (In Persian).

39- Van Soest, P. J., J. Robertson, and B. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 74: 3583-3597.

40- Van Soest, P. J. 1973. Collaborative study of acid detergent fiber and lignin. Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 56: 781-784.