Physicochemical Characterization of Broiler Poultry Litter from Commercial Broiler Poultry Operation in Semiarid Tropics of India
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- To investigate the physical characteristics, chemical makeup, and manure value assessment at the production and usage sites of broiler chicken litter;
- To create appropriate composting plans that will preserve and maintain the broiler chicken litter’s manure value;
- To examine the microbial situation during the composting process.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Sample Collection
2.3. Physicochemical Analysis
2.4. Statistical Analysis
2.5. Ethical Approval
3. Results
3.1. Dry Matter
3.2. Moisture
3.3. Total Ash
3.4. Total Organic Matter/Total Volatile Solids
3.5. Total Organic Carbon
3.6. pH
3.7. Electrical Conductivity (EC)
3.8. Total Nitrogen
3.9. Macro Plant Nutrient Analysis
3.10. Micro Plant Nutrient Analysis
3.11. Physicochemical Characteristics of BPL at the Point of Utility
4. Discussion
4.1. Dry Matter
4.2. Moisture
4.3. Ash
4.4. Organic Matter
4.5. Organic Carbon
4.6. pH
4.7. Electrical Conductivity
4.8. Nitrogen
4.9. Major Plant Nutrient Analysis
4.10. Micro Plant Nutrient Analysis
4.11. Physicochemical Characteristics of BPL at the Point of Utility
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Report. India Poultry Market Report by End Use (Food Services, Households), Distribution Channel (Traditional Retail Stores, Business to Business (B2B), Modern Retail Stores), and Region 2023–2028. 2023. Available online: https://www.imarcgroup.com/indian-poultry-market (accessed on 24 August 2024).
- Mehta, R.; Nambiar, R.G. The poultry industry in India. Presented at the Poultry in the 21st Century: Avian Influenza and Beyond, International Poultry Conference, Bangkok, Thailand, 5–7 November 2007; pp. 1–61. [Google Scholar]
- Chatterjee, R.N.; Rajkumar, U. An overview of poultry production in India. Indian J. Anim. Health 2015, 54, 89–108. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. World Food and Agriculture—Statistical Yearbook; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BAHS. Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics—2023, Government of India, Ministry of Fisheries Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, India. 2023. Available online: https://ccsea.gov.in/Content/56_1_CONTACTUS.aspx (accessed on 24 August 2024).
- Thirunavukkarasu, M.; Sivakumar, K.; Ramesh, V.; Purushothaman, M.R.; Murali, N.; Mahimairaja, S. A Survey Profile on Broiler Poultry Litter Production and Disposal in Tamil Nadu, India. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2019, 8, 782–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, J.; Yu, Z.; Gao, H.; Yan, X.; Chang, J.; Wang, C. Chemical structures and characteristics of animal manures and composts during composting and assessment of maturity indices. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0178110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ko, H.J.; Kim, K.Y.; Kim, H.T.; Kim, C.N.; Umeda, M. Evaluation of maturity parameters and heavy metal contents in composts made from animal manure. Waste Manag. 2008, 28, 813–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mathialagan, P.; Rajkumar, N.V. Renewable Energy (Poultry Litter); Tamil Nadu Energy Development Agency, Government of Tamil Nadu: Chennai, India, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Report, Annual Review of Fertilizer Production and Consumption 2022-23. Indian J. Fertil. 2023, 19, 91–99.
- Melony Wilson, V.M.; Daniels, M.; Slaton, N.; Van Devender, K. Sampling Poultry Litter for Nutrient Content; Cooperative Extension Service, University of Arkansas: Fayetteville, AR, USA, 2008; FSA9519-PD-9-06N. [Google Scholar]
- APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 20th ed.; American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and Water Environmental Federation: Washington, DC, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Tiquia, M.S.; Wan, H.C.; Tam, N.F.Y. Microbial Population Dynamics and Enzyme Activities During Composting. Compost. Sci. Util. 2002, 10, 150–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- USCC. Test Methods for the Examination of Composting and Compost USA Composting Council; USCC: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Qasim, W.; Lee, M.H.; Moon, B.E.; Okyere, F.G.; Khan, F.; Nafees, M.; Kim, H.T. Composting of chicken manure with a mixture of sawdust and wood shavings under forced aeration in a closed reactor system. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2018, 7, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allison, L.E. Organic carbon. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2: Chemical and Microbiological Properties; Blacck, C.A., Evans, D.D., White, J.L., Ensiminger, L.E., Clark, F.E., Dinauer, Eds.; SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1965; pp. 367–378. [Google Scholar]
- Rynk, R.; Van de Kamp, M.; Willson, G.B.; Singley, M.E.; Richard, T.L.; Kolega, J.J.; Gouin, F.R.; Laliberty, L., Jr.; Kay, D.; Murphy, D.W.; et al. On-Farm Composting Handbook, NRAES-54; Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Engineering Service, Cooperative Extension, 152 Riley-Robb Hall: Ithacy, NY, USA, 1992; pp. 14853–15701. [Google Scholar]
- Barrington, S.; Choiniere, D.; Trigui, M.; Knight, W. Effect of carbon source on compost nitrogen and carbon losses. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 83, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogunwande, G.A.; Lawrence, A.O.; Ogunjimi, J.A. Osunade. Fate of compost nutrients as affected by co-composting of chicken and swine manures. Int. Agrophys. 2014, 28, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 20th ed.; AOAC: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Zhu, N.; Deng, C.; Xiong, Y.; Qian, H. Performances Characteristics of three aeration systems in the swine manure composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2004, 95, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Snedecor, G.W.; Cochran, W.G. Statistical Methods, 8th ed.; Iowa State Press: Ames, IA, USA, 1996; pp. 254–268. [Google Scholar]
- Kelleher, B.P.; Leahy, J.J.; Henihan, A.M.; O’Dwyer, T.F.; Sutton, D.; Leahy, M.J. Advances in poultry litter disposal technology—A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2002, 83, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Stephenson, A.H.; McCaskey, T.A.; Ruffin, B.G. A survey of broiler litter composition and potential value as a nutrient resource. Biol. Wastes 1990, 34, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chastain, J.P.; Camberato, J.J.; Skewe, P. Poultry Manure Production and Nutrient Content. In Poultry Waste Management Handbook; NRAES: Ithaka, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Hersztek Mierzwa, M.; KlimKowicz Pawlas, A.; Gondek, K. Influence of Poultry Litter and Poultry Litter Biochar on Soil Microbial Respiration and Nitrifying Bacteria Activity. Waste Biomass Valorization 2018, 9, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katuwal, S.; Rafsan, N.A.S.; Ashworth, A.J.; Kolar, P. Poultry litter physicochemical characterization based on production condition for circular system. BioResources 2023, 18, 3961–3977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suppadit, T. Effects of pelleting process on fertilizing values of broiler litter. J. ISSAAS 2009, 15, 136–146. [Google Scholar]
- Sistani, K.R.; Brink, G.E.; McGowen, S.L.; Rowe, D.E.; Oldham, J.L. Characterization of broiler cake and broiler litter, the by-products of two management practices. Bioresour. Technol. 2003, 90, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ogunwande, G.A.; Ogunjimi, L.A.O.; Fafiyebi, J.O. Effects of turning frequency on composting of chicken litter in turned windrow piles. Int. Agrophys. 2008, 22, 159–165. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, M.; Li, B.; Yu, A.; Liang, F.; Yang, L.; Sun, Y. The effect of aeration rate on forced-aeration composting of chicken manure and sawdust. Bioresour. Technol. 2010, 101, 1899–1903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kunkle, W.E.; Carr, L.E.; Carter, T.A.; Bossard, E.H. Effect of flock and floor type on the levels of nutrients and heavy metals in broiler litter. Poult. Sci. 1991, 60, 1160–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abreu, V.M.N.; de Abreu, P.G.; Jaenisch, F.R.F.; Coldebella, A.; de Paiva, D.P. Effect of Floor Type (Dirt or Concrete) on Litter Quality, House Environmental Conditions, and Performance of Broilers. Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2011, 13, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McMasters, J.D.; Harris, G.C., Jr.; Goodwin, T.L. Effects of nipple and trough watering systems on broiler performance. Poult. Sci. 1971, 50, 432–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quilumba, C.; Quijia, E.; Gernat, A.; Murillo, G.; Grimes, J. Evaluation of different water flow rates of nipple drinkers on broiler productivity. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2015, 24, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Francesch, M.; Brufau, J. Nutritional factors affecting excreta/litter moisture and quality. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2004, 60, 64–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, W.-Z.; Classen, J.J.; Shah, S.B.; Sharma-Shivappa, R. Ammonia Fate and Transport Mechanisms in Broiler Litter. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2014, 225, 1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Hoeven-Hangoor, E.; Paton, N.D.; van de Linde, I.B.; Verstegen, M.W.; Hendriks, W.H. Moisture content in broiler excreta is influenced by excreta nutrient contents. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 5705–5713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fasina, O.O. Flow and Physical Properties of Switchgrass, Peanut Hull, And Poultry Litter. Trans. ASABE 2006, 49, 721–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brodie, H.L.; Carr, L.E.; Condon, P. A comparison of static pile and turned windrow methods for poultry litter compost production. Compost Sci. Util. 2000, 8, 178–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Larney Francis, J.; Ellert, B.H.; Andrew, F. Olson. Carbon, ash, and organic matter relationships for feedlot manures and composts. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2005, 85, 261–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiménez, E.I.; García, V.P. Relationships between Organic Carbon and Total Organic Matter in Municipal Solid Wastes and city refuse composts. Bioresour. Technol. 1992, 41, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Mendonca Costa, M.S.S.; Bernardi, F.H.; de Mendonça Costa, L.A.; Pereira, D.C.; Lorin, H.E.F.; Rozatti, M.A.T.; Carneiro, L.J. Composting as a cleaner strategy to broiler agro-industrial wastes: Selecting carbon source to optimize the process and improve the quality of the final compost. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 2084–2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ravindran, B.; Mupambwa, H.A.; Silwana, S.; Mnkeni, P.N. Assessment of nutrient quality, heavy metals, and phytotoxic properties of chicken manure on selected commercial vegetable crops. Heliyon 2017, 3, e00493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamiu, A.; Eyitomilayo, A.; Toyin, O.; Tahjudeen, A. Agronomic Evaluation of Manure Ashes: Effect on Soil Reaction and Electrical Conductivity. Jordan J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 11, 86–92. [Google Scholar]
- Rogeri, D.A.; Ernani, P.R.; Mantovani, A.; Lourenço, K.S. Composition of poultry litter in southern Brazil. Rev. Bras. Ciência Solo 2016, 40, e0140697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karanja, A.W.; Njeru, E.M.; Maingi, J.M. Assessment of physicochemical changes during composting rice straw with chicken and donkey manure. Int. J. Recycl. Org. Waste Agric. 2019, 8, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coufal, C.D.; Chavez, C.; Niemeyer, P.R.; Carey, J.B. Nitrogen emissions from broilers measured by mass balance over eighteen consecutive flocks. Poult. Sci. 2006, 85, 398–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolan, N.S.; Szogi, A.A.; Chuasavathi, T.; Seshadri, B.; Rothrock, M.J.; Panneerselvam, P. Uses and management of poultry litter. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2010, 66, 673–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pessoa, S.M.; Heredia Zárate, N.A.; Vieira, M.C.; Cardoso, C.A.L.; Poppi, N.R.; Formagio, A.S.N.; Silva, L.R. Total biomass and essential oil composition of OcimumgratissimumL.in response to broiler litter and phosphorus. Rev. Bras. Plant. Med. 2015, 17, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabler, G.T.; Berry, I.L. Nutrient Analysis of Poultry Litter and Possible Disposal Alternatives. Avian Advice 2003, 32, 6–8. [Google Scholar]
- Sharpley, A.; Slaton, N.; Tabler, T., Jr.; VanDevender, K.; Jones, F.; Daniel, T. Nutrient Analysis of Poultry Litter; Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service: Fayetteville, AR, USA, 2009; FSA9529. [Google Scholar]
- Ashworth, A.J.; Chastain, J.P.; Moore, P.A., Jr. Nutrient Characteristics of Poultry. In Animal Manure: Production, Characteristics, Environmental Concerns and Management; Waldrip, H.M., Pagliari, P.H., He, Z., Eds.; ASA Special Publication 67; ASA and SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 2019; p. 5585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.; Shang, J. Estimation of greenhouse gas emissions from livestock and poultry industry and decomposition of influencing factors. Popul. Resour. Environ. China 2014, 89–95. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, C.; Fang, W. Pollution and Cooperative Treatment of Livestock and Poultry Waste: A Review of the Literature. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 677, 022087. Available online: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/677/2/022087/pdf (accessed on 5 July 2021). [CrossRef]
- Bryant, R.B.; Endale, D.M.; Spiegal, S.A.; Flynn, K.C.; Meinen, R.J.; Cavigelli, M.A.; Kleinman, P.J.A. Poultry manureshed management: Opportunities and challenges for a vertically integrated industry. J. Environ. Qual. 2022, 51, 540–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopez-Mosquera, M.E.; Cabaleiro, F.; Sainz, M.J.; Lopez-Fabaa, A.; Carral, E. Fertilizing value of broiler litter: Effects of drying and pelletizing. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 5626–5633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Van Ryssen, J.B.J. Poultry litter as a feedstuff for ruminants: A South African scene. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 2001, 2, 1–8. Available online: https://www.sasas.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Van-RyssenPoultry-litterReg_0.pdf (accessed on 24 August 2024).
- Sturgeon, L.E. Fertilizer Value of Densified Broiler Litter. Master’s Thesis, Graduate Faculty of Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, X.; Zhang, R.; Jiang, S.; El-Mashad, H. Losses of Solids, Moisture, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, Carbon, and Sulfur from Laying-Hen Manure in Storage Facilities. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2017, 228, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onwosi, C.O.; Igbokwe, V.C.; Odimba, J.N.; Eke, I.E.; Nwankwoala, M.O.; Iron, I.N.; Ezeogu, L.I. Composting technology in waste stabilization: On the methods, challenges and future prospects. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 190, 140–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, W.P.; Reuter, T.; Xu, X.P.; Hsu, Y.H.; Stanford, K.; McAllister, T.A. Field scale evaluation of bovine-species DNA as an indicator of tissue degradation during cattle mortality composting. Bioresour Technol. 2011, 102, 4800–4806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Murshid, N.; Yaser, A.Z.; Rajin, M.; Saalah, S.; Lamaming, J.; Taliban, M. Vegetable waste composting: A case study in Kundasang, Sabah. Borneo Sci. J. Sci. Technol. 2023, 4, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rawoteea, S.A.; Mudhoo, A.; Kumar, S. Co-composting of vegetable wastes and carton: Effect of carton composition and parameter variations. Bioresour Technol. 2017, 227, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tittonell, P.; Rufino, M.C.; Janssen, B.H.; Giller, K.E. Carbon and nutrient losses during manure storage under traditional and improved practices in smallholder crop-livestock systems—Evidence from Kenya. Plant Soil 2010, 328, 253–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kacprzak, M.; Malińska, K.; Grosser, A.; Sobik-Szołtysek, J.; Wystalska, K.; Dróżdż, D.; Jasińska, A.; Meers, E. Cycles of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in poultry manure management technologies—Environmental aspects. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2023, 53, 914–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sl. No | Character | Mean (± SE) |
---|---|---|
1 | Dry matter (%) | 83.04 ± 0.77 |
2 | Moisture (%) | 16.96 ± 0.77 |
3 | Ash (%) | 27.08 ± 1.18 |
4 | Organic matter (%) | 72.92 ± 1.18 |
5 | Organic carbon (%) | 42.39 ± 0.69 |
6 | pH | 8.43 ± 0.06 |
7 | EC (dS m−1) | 5.74 ± 0.13 |
8 | N (g kg−1) | 24.2 ± 0.84 |
9 | C:N ratio | 21.42 ± 1.24 |
10 | Calcium (g kg−1) | 22.20 ± 0.72 |
11 | Phosphorous (g kg−1) | 11.3 ± 0.49 |
12 | Potassium (g kg−1) | 14.90 ± 1.17 |
13 | Magnesium (g kg−1) | 11.60 ± 0.12 |
14 | Zinc (mg kg−1) | 276.6 ± 26.50 |
15 | Copper (mg kg−1) | 25.01 ± 2.05 |
16 | Manganese (mg kg−1) | 200.3 ± 6.00 |
17 | Iron (g kg−1) | 2.37 ± 9.81 |
Effect. | n | DM (%) | Moisture (%) | Ash (%) | OM (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean (± SE) | Mean (± SE) | Mean (± SE) | Mean (± SE) | ||
Overall mean | 110 | 84.58 ± 2.56 | 15.42 ± 2.56 | 36.84 ± 3.11 | 63.16 ± 3.11 |
Geographical location | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Coimbatore | 55 | 84.23 ± 2.44 | 15.77 ± 2.44 | 37.65 ± 2.96 | 62.35 ± 2.96 |
Erode and Tirupur | 55 | 84.93 ± 2.98 | 15.07 ± 2.98 | 36.03 ± 3.63 | 63.97 ± 3.63 |
Integrator | NS | NS | * | * | |
Others | 10 | 89.12 ± 3.93 | 10.89 ± 3.93 | 41.88 ± 4.77 c | 58.13 ± 4.77 a |
Shanthi | 68 | 84.79 ± 3.14 | 15.21 ± 3.13 | 32.05 ± 3.81 a | 67.95 ± 3.81 b |
RMP | 32 | 79.84 ± 2.64 | 20.16 ± 2.64 | 36.59 ± 3.21 b | 63.41 ± 3.21 b |
Floor | NS | NS | ** | ** | |
Cement | 56 | 83.78 ± 2.63 | 16.22 ± 2.63 | 32.58 ± 3.20 a | 67.42 ± 3.20 b |
Mud | 54 | 85.38 ± 2.82 | 14.62 ± 2.82 | 41.10 ± 3.43 b | 58.90 ± 3.43 a |
Roof | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Tiles | 75 | 85.06 ± 2.94 | 14.94 ± 2.94 | 36.96 ± 3.57 | 63.04 ± 3.57 |
Asbestos | 14 | 85.18 ± 3.24 | 14.82 ± 3.24 | 40.59 ± 3.94 | 59.41 ± 3.94 |
Metal | 21 | 83.51 ± 2.83 | 16.50 ± 2.83 | 32.97 ± 3.44 | 67.03 ± 3.44 |
Extra feeding | NS | NS | ** | ** | |
No | 95 | 84.55 ± 2.47 | 15.45 ± 2.47 | 32.07 ± 3.00 a | 67.93 ± 3.00 b |
Yes | 15 | 84.62 ± 3.13 | 15.39 ± 3.13 | 41.61 ± 3.81 b | 58.39 ± 3.81 a |
Littering | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Coir pith | 105 | 83.51 ± 1.64 | 16.49 ± 1.64 | 34.31 ± 1.99 | 65.69 ± 1.99 |
Rice husk | 5 | 85.65 ± 4.60 | 14.35 ± 4.60 | 39.37 ± 5.59 | 60.63 ± 5.59 |
Type of feed | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Mash | 33 | 84.65 ± 3.21 | 15.35 ± 3.21 | 39.69 ± 3.91 | 60.31 ± 3.91 |
Crumble | 77 | 84.52 ± 2.83 | 15.48 ± 2.83 | 33.99 ± 3.44 | 66.01 ± 3.44 |
Watering | * | * | NS | NS | |
Automatic | 77 | 86.97 ± 2.92 b | 13.03 ± 2.92 a | 35.98 ± 3.55 | 64.02 ± 3.55 |
Nipple | 33 | 82.19 ± 2.60 a | 17.81 ± 2.60 b | 37.70 ± 3.16 | 62.30 ± 3.16 |
Population size | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
<9000 | 80 | 83.35 ± 2.41 | 16.65 ± 2.41 | 37.28 ± 2.93 | 62.72 ± 2.93 |
9001–16,800 | 18 | 83.49 ± 3.20 | 16.51 ± 3.20 | 37.77 ± 3.89 | 62.23 ± 3.89 |
>16,800 | 12 | 86.90 ± 3.61 | 13.10 ± 3.61 | 35.46 ± 4.39 | 64.54 ± 4.39 |
Character | DM | Moisture | Ash | OM | C | pH | EC | N | K | P | Ca | Mg | Zn | Cu | Mn | Fe |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Dry matter | 1.00 | −1.000 ** | −0.019 | 0.019 | 0.019 | −0.534 ** | 0.209 * | 0.025 | 0.015 | −0.103 | 0.006 | −0.858 ** | 0.089 | −0.248 ** | −0.020 | −0.088 |
0.000 | 0.843 | 0.843 | 0.843 | 0.000 | 0.028 | 0.794 | 0.879 | 0.286 | 0.950 | 0.000 | 0.356 | 0.009 | 0.836 | 0.360 | ||
Moisture | −1.00 ** | 1.000 | 0.019 | −0.019 | −0.019 | 0.534 ** | −0.209 * | −0.025 | −0.015 | 0.103 | −0.006 | 0.858 ** | −0.089 | 0.248 ** | 0.020 | 0.088 |
0.000 | 0.843 | 0.843 | 0.843 | 0.000 | 0.028 | 0.794 | 0.879 | 0.286 | 0.950 | 0.000 | 0.356 | 0.009 | 0.836 | 0.360 | ||
Ash | −0.019 | 0.019 | 1.000 | −1.000 ** | −1.00 ** | 0.199 * | −0.035 | −0.450 ** | 0.297 ** | 0.006 | −0.123 | 0.015 | −0.319 ** | 0.175 | 0.182 | 0.144 |
0.843 | 0.843 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.038 | 0.714 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.952 | 0.202 | 0.874 | 0.001 | 0.067 | 0.057 | 0.135 | ||
Organic matter | 0.019 | −0.019 | −1.00 ** | 1.000 | 1.000 ** | −0.199 * | 0.035 | 0.450 ** | −0.297 ** | −0.006 | 0.123 | −0.015 | 0.319 ** | −0.175 | −0.182 | −0.144 |
0.843 | 0.843 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.038 | 0.714 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.952 | 0.202 | 0.874 | 0.001 | 0.067 | 0.057 | 0.135 | ||
Organic carbon | 0.019 | −0.019 | −1.00 ** | 1.000 ** | 1.000 | −0.199 * | 0.035 | 0.450 ** | −0.296 ** | −0.006 | 0.123 | −0.015 | 0.319 ** | −0.175 | −0.182 | −0.144 |
0.843 | 0.843 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.038 | 0.714 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.953 | 0.202 | 0.875 | 0.001 | 0.067 | 0.057 | 0.135 | ||
pH | −0.534 ** | 0.534 ** | 0.199 * | −0.199 * | −0.199 * | 1.000 | −0.301 ** | −0.322 ** | 0.102 | 0.152 | −0.190 * | 0.360 ** | −0.367 ** | 0.182 | 0.045 | 0.054 |
0.000 | 0.000 | 0.038 | 0.038 | 0.038 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.288 | 0.114 | 0.047 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.056 | 0.639 | 0.577 | ||
EC(MS) | 0.209 * | −0.209 * | −0.035 | 0.035 | 0.035 | −0.301 ** | 1.000 | 0.071 | 0.175 | 0.168 | 0.197 * | −0.084 | 0.132 | −0.020 | −0.232 * | −0.442 ** |
0.028 | 0.028 | 0.714 | 0.714 | 0.714 | 0.001 | 0.464 | 0.068 | 0.079 | 0.039 | 0.385 | 0.168 | 0.834 | 0.015 | 0.000 | ||
N | 0.025 | −0.025 | −0.450 ** | 0.450 ** | 0.450 ** | −0.322 ** | 0.071 | 1.000 | −0.261 ** | 0.142 | 0.404 ** | −0.054 | 0.289 ** | −0.056 | −0.058 | −0.091 |
0.794 | 0.794 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.464 | 0.006 | 0.139 | 0.000 | 0.576 | 0.002 | 0.561 | 0.550 | 0.343 | ||
K | 0.015 | −0.015 | 0.297 ** | −0.297 ** | −0.296 ** | 0.102 | 0.175 | −0.261 ** | 1.000 | 0.340 ** | −0.135 | 0.015 | −0.311 ** | 0.052 | −0.086 | −0.093 |
0.879 | 0.879 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.288 | 0.068 | 0.006 | 0.000 | 0.160 | 0.878 | 0.001 | 0.593 | 0.371 | 0.334 | ||
P | −0.103 | 0.103 | 0.006 | −0.006 | −0.006 | 0.152 | 0.168 | 0.142 | 0.340 ** | 1.000 | 0.057 | 0.081 | −0.209 * | −0.068 | 0.050 | −0.253 ** |
0.286 | 0.286 | 0.952 | 0.952 | 0.953 | 0.114 | 0.079 | 0.139 | 0.000 | 0.557 | 0.401 | 0.029 | 0.480 | 0.606 | 0.008 | ||
Ca | 0.006 | −0.006 | −0.123 | 0.123 | 0.123 | −0.190 * | 0.197 * | 0.404 ** | −0.135 | 0.057 | 1.000 | −0.021 | 0.489 ** | 0.034 | −0.022 | −0.302 ** |
0.950 | 0.950 | 0.202 | 0.202 | 0.202 | 0.047 | 0.039 | 0.000 | 0.160 | 0.557 | 0.826 | 0.000 | 0.728 | 0.821 | 0.001 | ||
Mg | −0.858 ** | 0.858 ** | 0.015 | −0.015 | −0.015 | 0.360 ** | −0.084 | −0.054 | 0.015 | 0.081 | −0.021 | 1.000 | −0.087 | 0.355 ** | 0.051 | 0.046 |
0.000 | 0.000 | 0.874 | 0.874 | 0.875 | 0.000 | 0.385 | 0.576 | 0.878 | 0.401 | 0.826 | 0.367 | 0.000 | 0.594 | 0.631 | ||
Zn | 0.089 | −0.089 | −0.319 ** | 0.319 ** | 0.319 ** | −0.367 ** | 0.132 | 0.289 ** | −0.311 ** | −0.209 * | 0.489 ** | −0.087 | 1.000 | −0.149 | −0.174 | −0.362 ** |
0.356 | 0.356 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.168 | 0.002 | 0.001 | 0.029 | 0.000 | 0.367 | 0.121 | 0.069 | 0.000 | ||
Cu | −0.248 ** | 0.248 ** | 0.175 | −0.175 | −0.175 | 0.182 | −0.020 | −0.056 | 0.052 | −0.068 | 0.034 | 0.355 ** | −0.149 | 1.000 | 0.390 ** | 0.324 ** |
0.009 | 0.009 | 0.067 | 0.067 | 0.067 | 0.056 | 0.834 | 0.561 | 0.593 | 0.480 | 0.728 | 0.000 | 0.121 | 0.000 | 0.001 | ||
Mn | −0.020 | 0.020 | 0.182 | −0.182 | −0.182 | 0.045 | −0.232 * | −0.058 | −0.086 | 0.050 | −0.022 | 0.051 | −0.174 | 0.390 ** | 1.000 | 0.468 ** |
0.836 | 0.836 | 0.057 | 0.057 | 0.057 | 0.639 | 0.015 | 0.550 | 0.371 | 0.606 | 0.821 | 0.594 | 0.069 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||
Fe | −0.088 | 0.088 | 0.144 | −0.144 | −0.144 | 0.054 | −0.442 ** | −0.091 | −0.093 | −0.253 ** | −0.302 ** | 0.046 | −0.362 ** | 0.324 ** | 0.468 ** | 1.000 |
0.360 | 0.360 | 0.135 | 0.135 | 0.135 | 0.577 | 0.000 | 0.343 | 0.334 | 0.008 | 0.001 | 0.631 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Effect | n | OC (%) | pH | EC (dS m−1) | N (g kg−1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean ± SE | Mean ± SE | Mean ± SE | Mean ± SE | ||
Overall mean | 110 | 36.72 ± 1.81 | 8.57 ± 0.15 | 5.62 ± 0.43 | 19.60 ± 2.20 |
Geographical location | NS | NS | ** | * | |
Coimbatore | 55 | 36.25 ± 1.72 | 8.54 ± 0.14 | 6.07 ± 0.41 b | 21.25 ± 2.10 b |
Erode and Tirupur | 55 | 37.19 ± 2.11 | 8.60 ± 0.18 | 5.17 ± 0.51 a | 17.95 ± 2.57 a |
Integrator | * | NS | NS | ** | |
Others | 10 | 33.79 ± 2.77 a | 8.37 ± 0.23 | 5.74 ± 0.67 | 16.40 ± 3.38 a |
Shanthi | 68 | 39.50 ± 2.22 b | 8.53 ± 0.18 | 5.54 ± 0.53 | 23.96 ± 2.70 b |
RMP | 32 | 36.86 ± 1.87 ab | 8.82 ± 0.16 | 5.59 ± 0.45 | 18.44 ± 2.28 a |
Floor | ** | NS | NS | NS | |
Cement | 56 | 39.19 ± 1.86 b | 8.68 ± 0.16 | 5.68 ± 0.45 | 21.16 ± 2.27 |
Mud | 54 | 34.24 ± 1.99 a | 8.47 ± 0.17 | 5.57 ± 0.48 | 18.04 ± 2.43 |
Roof | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Tiles | 75 | 36.65 ± 2.08 | 8.44 ± 0.17 | 5.36 ± 0.50 | 20.20 ± 2.53 |
Asbestos | 14 | 34.54 ± 2.29 | 8.55 ± 0.19 | 5.63 ± 0.55 | 22.13 ± 2.79 |
Metal | 21 | 38.97 ± 2.00 | 8.72 ± 0.17 | 5.87 ± 0.48 | 16.46 ± 2.44 |
Extra feeding | ** | NS | NS | * | |
No | 95 | 39.49 ± 1.74 b | 8.57 ± 0.15 | 5.65 ± 0.42 | 21.89 ± 2.13 b |
Yes | 15 | 33.95 ± 2.21 a | 8.57 ± 0.18 | 5.59 ± 0.53 | 17.30 ± 2.70 a |
Littering | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Coir pith | 105 | 38.19 ± 1.16 | 8.57 ± 0.09 | 5.61 ± 0.28 | 18.92 ± 1.42 |
Rice husk | 5 | 35.25 ± 3.25 | 8.57 ± 0.27 | 5.63 ± 0.78 | 20.28 ± 3.96 |
Type of feed | NS | ** | NS | NS | |
Mash | 33 | 35.06 ± 2.27 | 8.85 ± 0.19 b | 5.93 ± 0.54 | 17.83 ± 2.77 |
Crumble | 77 | 38.38 ± 1.99 | 8.29 ± 0.17 a | 5.31 ± 0.48 | 21.37 ± 2.44 |
Watering | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Automatic | 77 | 37.22 ± 2.06 | 8.52 ± 0.17 | 5.92 ± 0.50 | 18.44 ± 2.52 |
Nipple | 33 | 36.22 ± 1.84 | 8.62 ± 0.15 | 5.33 ± 0.44 | 20.76 ± 2.24 |
Population size | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
<9000 | 80 | 36.46 ± 1.70 | 8.61 ± 0.14 | 6.08 ± 0.41 | 21.24 ± 2.08 |
9001–16,800 | 18 | 36.18 ± 2.26 | 8.58 ± 0.19 | 5.66 ± 0.54 | 21.14 ± 2.76 |
>16,800 | 12 | 37.52 ± 2.55 | 8.51 ± 0.21 | 5.12 ± 0.61 | 16.42 ± 3.11 |
Effect | n | Ca (g kg−1) | P (g kg−1) | K (g kg−1) | Mg (g kg−1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean ± SE | Mean ± SE | Mean ± SE | Mean ± SE | ||
Overall mean | 110 | 19.26 ± 2.05 | 11.80 ± 1.10 | 12.11 ± 1.59 | 11.42 ± 0.41 |
Geographical location | ** | NS | * | NS | |
Coimbatore | 55 | 21.67 ± 1.95 b | 12.34 ± 1.05 | 13.66 ± 1.51 b | 11.43 ± 0.39 |
Erode and Tirupur | 55 | 16.84 ± 2.39 a | 11.28 ± 1.28 | 10.57 ± 1.85 a | 11.41 ± 0.47 |
Integrator | ** | NS | NS | NS | |
Others | 10 | 15.15 ± 3.15 a | 11.72 ± 1.69 | 10.96 ± 2.44 | 10.83 ± 0.63 |
Shanthi | 68 | 24.28 ± 2.51 b | 12.31 ± 1.35 | 13.07 ± 1.95 | 11.36 ± 0.50 |
RMP | 32 | 18.34 ± 2.12 a | 11.40 ± 1.14 | 12.31 ± 1.64 | 12.07 ± 0.42 |
Floor | * | * | ** | NS | |
Cement | 56 | 17.53 ± 2.11 a | 12.74 ± 1.13 b | 13.28 ± 1.64 b | 11.47 ± 0.42 |
Mud | 54 | 20.98 ± 2.26 b | 10.88 ± 1.21 a | 10.96 ± 1.75 a | 11.37 ± 0.45 |
Roof | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Tiles | 75 | 20.54 ± 2.35 | 11.63 ± 1.27 | 11.50 ± 1.82 | 11.54 ± 0.47 |
Asbestos | 14 | 17.89 ± 2.59 | 10.74 ± 1.40 | 11.84 ± 2.01 | 11.26 ± 0.52 |
Metal | 21 | 19.34 ± 2.27 | 13.06 ± 1.22 | 13.02 ± 1.76 | 11.47 ± 0.45 |
Extra feeding | * | NS | NS | NS | |
No | 95 | 20.96 ± 1.98 b | 11.01 ± 1.06 | 10.77 ± 1.53 | 11.41 ± 0.39 |
Yes | 15 | 17.55 ± 2.51 a | 12.61 ± 1.35 | 13.47 ± 1.95 | 11.43 ± 0.50 |
Littering | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Coir pith | 105 | 19.69 ± 1.32 | 10.83 ± 0.71 | 12.49 ± 1.02 | 11.48 ± 0.26 |
Rice husk | 5 | 18.81 ± 3.68 | 12.79 ± 1.98 | 11.74 ± 2.85 | 11.36 ± 0.73 |
Type of feed | NS | ** | * | NS | |
Mash | 33 | 21.56 ± 2.58 | 13.95 ± 1.38 b | 14.68 ± 1.99 b | 11.43 ± 0.51 |
Crumble | 77 | 16.95 ± 2.27 | 9.67 ± 1.22 a | 9.54 ± 1.75 a | 11.41 ± 0.45 |
Watering | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Automatic | 77 | 19.59 ± 2.34 | 12.68 ± 1.26 | 12.05 ± 1.81 | 11.10 ± 0.46 |
Nipple | 33 | 18.92 ± 2.09 | 10.93 ± 1.12 | 12.18 ± 1.61 | 11.74 ± 0.41 |
Population size | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
<9000 | 80 | 19.52 ± 1.93 | 11.40 ± 1.04 | 13.03 ± 1.49 | 11.66 ± 0.38 |
9001–16,800 | 18 | 21.78 ± 2.56 | 12.65 ± 1.38 | 12.22 ± 1.98 | 11.46 ± 0.51 |
>16,800 | 12 | 16.47 ± 2.89 | 11.38 ± 1.55 | 11.09 ± 2.24 | 11.15 ± 0.58 |
Effect | n | Zn(mg kg−1) | Cu(mg kg−1) | Mn (mg kg−1) | Fe (mg kg−1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean ± SE | Mean ± SE | Mean ± SE | Mean ± SE | ||
Overall mean | 110 | 161.6 ± 81.48 | 19.48 ± 7.16 | 217.9 ± 20.30 | 2435.3 ± 316.435 |
Geographical location | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Coimbatore | 55 | 183.9 ± 77.58 | 19.26 ± 6.82 | 204.9 ± 19.33 | 2176 ± 301.29 |
Erode and Tirupur | 55 | 139.2 ± 94.95 | 19.69 ± 8.34 | 230.9 ± 23.66 | 2694 ± 368.74 |
Integrator | ** | NS | NS | NS | |
Others | 10 | 23.43 ± 124.94 a | 17.61 ± 10.98 | 215.2 ± 31.13 | 2746 ± 485.20 |
Shanthi | 68 | 336.9 ± 99.77 c | 16.16 ± 8.77 | 203.6 ± 24.86 | 1875 ± 387.45 |
RMP | 32 | 124.4 ± 84.12 b | 24.67 ± 7.39 | 235.0 ± 20.96 | 2683 ± 326.69 |
Floor | NS | * | NS | NS | |
Cement | 56 | 127.8 ± 83.79 | 15.76 ± 7.36 a | 198.7 ± 20.88 | 2289 ± 325.40 |
Mud | 54 | 195.3 ± 89.70 | 23.20 ± 7.88 b | 237.2 ± 22.35 | 2581 ± 348.35 |
Roof | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Tiles | 75 | 190.6 ± 93.49 | 21.27 ± 8.22 | 217.1 ± 23.29 | 2739 ± 363.09 |
Asbestos | 14 | 184.2 ± 103.17 | 19.83 ± 9.07 | 230.6 ± 25.71 | 2252 ± 400.67 |
Metal | 21 | 109.9 ± 90.19 | 17.34 ± 7.92 | 206.2 ± 22.47 | 2313 ± 350.24 |
Extra feeding | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
No | 95 | 209.4 ± 78.56 | 21.54 ± 6.90 | 216.6 ± 19.58 | 2462 ± 305.09 |
Yes | 15 | 113.8 ± 99.74 | 17.42 ± 8.76 | 219.3 ± 24.85 | 2408 ± 387.33 |
Littering | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
Coir pith | 105 | 165.6 ± 52.33 | 21.44 ± 4.59 | 200.1 ± 13.04 | 2278 ± 203.24 |
Rice husk | 5 | 157.5 ± 146.29 | 17.52 ± 12.85 | 235.8 ± 36.45 | 2591 ± 568.10 |
Type of feed | NS | * | ** | NS | |
Mash | 33 | 121.7 ± 102.30 | 18.92 ± 8.99 a | 189.5 ± 25.49 a | 1867 ± 397.30 |
Crumble | 77 | 201.40 ± 90.04 | 20.04 ± 7.91 b | 246.4 ± 22.44 b | 3003 ± 349.66 |
Watering | NS | NS | * | NS | |
Automatic | 77 | 148.2 ± 92.98 | 17.89 ± 8.17 | 216.5 ± 23.17 a | 2122 ± 361.08 |
Nipple | 33 | 174.9 ± 82.79 | 21.06 ± 7.28 | 219.4 ± 20.63 b | 2748 ± 321.55 |
Population size | NS | NS | NS | NS | |
<9000 | 80 | 110.2 ± 76.73 | 23.47 ± 6.74 | 209.1 ± 19.12 | 2520 ± 297.99 |
9001–16,800 | 18 | 171.0 ± 101.76 | 21.66 ± 8.94 | 218.2 ± 25.36 | 2285 ± 395.20 |
>16,800 | 12 | 203.5 ± 114.90 | 13.30 ± 10.10 | 226.5 ± 28.63 | 2500 ± 446.22 |
Sl. No. | Character | Mean (±SE) |
---|---|---|
1 | Dry matter (%) | 77.41 ± 3.95 |
2 | Moisture (%) | 22.59 ± 3.95 |
3 | Ash (%) | 43.97 ± 4.76 |
4 | Organic matter (%) | 56.03 ± 4.76 |
5 | Organic carbon (%) | 32.58 ± 2.77 |
6 | pH | 6.93 ± 0.12 |
7 | EC(dS m−1) | 6.52 ± 0.82 |
8 | N (g kg−1) | 17.34 ± 0.63 |
9 | C:N ratio | 18.40 ± 1.12 |
10 | Calcium (g kg−1) | 16.51 ± 1.23 |
11 | Phosphorous (g kg−1) | 7.37 ± 0.16 |
12 | Potassium (g kg−1) | 14.52 ± 0.64 |
13 | Magnesium (g kg−1) | 14.41 ± 2.02 |
14 | Zinc (mg kg−1) | 196.4 ± 13.44 |
15 | Copper (mg kg−1) | 46.00 ± 3.55 |
16 | Manganese (mg kg−1) | 272.4 ± 7.13 |
17 | Iron (g kg−1) | 4.25 ± 3.43 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Maruthamuthu, T.; Karuppusamy, S.; Veeramalai, R.; Nagarajan, M.; Manika Ragavan, P.; Santiago, M.; Nallathambi, B.; Dharmalingam, A.P.S.; Radhakrishnan, K.; Ramasamy, A.; et al. Physicochemical Characterization of Broiler Poultry Litter from Commercial Broiler Poultry Operation in Semiarid Tropics of India. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1708. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14101708
Maruthamuthu T, Karuppusamy S, Veeramalai R, Nagarajan M, Manika Ragavan P, Santiago M, Nallathambi B, Dharmalingam APS, Radhakrishnan K, Ramasamy A, et al. Physicochemical Characterization of Broiler Poultry Litter from Commercial Broiler Poultry Operation in Semiarid Tropics of India. Agriculture. 2024; 14(10):1708. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14101708
Chicago/Turabian StyleMaruthamuthu, Thirunavukkarasu, Sivakumar Karuppusamy, Ramesh Veeramalai, Murali Nagarajan, Purushothaman Manika Ragavan, Mahimairaja Santiago, Bharathy Nallathambi, Anandha Prakash Singh Dharmalingam, Karthika Radhakrishnan, Ajaykumar Ramasamy, and et al. 2024. "Physicochemical Characterization of Broiler Poultry Litter from Commercial Broiler Poultry Operation in Semiarid Tropics of India" Agriculture 14, no. 10: 1708. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14101708
APA StyleMaruthamuthu, T., Karuppusamy, S., Veeramalai, R., Nagarajan, M., Manika Ragavan, P., Santiago, M., Nallathambi, B., Dharmalingam, A. P. S., Radhakrishnan, K., Ramasamy, A., Ramasamy, S. R. S., & Aranganoor Kannan, T. (2024). Physicochemical Characterization of Broiler Poultry Litter from Commercial Broiler Poultry Operation in Semiarid Tropics of India. Agriculture, 14(10), 1708. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14101708