Flue gas desulfurization gypsum: Its effectiveness as an alternative bedding material for broiler production

Abstract Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum may be a viable low-cost alternative bedding material for broiler production. In order to evaluate FGD gypsum's viability, a study was conducted to determine its influence on live performance (body weight, feed consumption, feed efficiency, and foo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of applied poultry research 2017-03, Vol.26 (1), p.50-59
Hauptverfasser: Watts, D. B., Hess, J. B., Bilgili, S. F., Torbert, H. A., Sibley, J. L., Davis, J. D.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 59
container_issue 1
container_start_page 50
container_title Journal of applied poultry research
container_volume 26
creator Watts, D. B.
Hess, J. B.
Bilgili, S. F.
Torbert, H. A.
Sibley, J. L.
Davis, J. D.
description Abstract Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum may be a viable low-cost alternative bedding material for broiler production. In order to evaluate FGD gypsum's viability, a study was conducted to determine its influence on live performance (body weight, feed consumption, feed efficiency, and footpad dermatitis), litter characteristics (caking, moisture percentage, and surface temperature) and ammonia volatilization in 3 successive flocks. FGD gypsum was compared with pine shaving (PS), pine bark (PB), PS + FGD gypsum (second material was top dressed over first), PB + FGD gypsum, PS + PB, FGD gypsum + PS, and FGD gypsum + PB. Bedding had no significant influence on feed consumption (FC), feed efficiency (FE), and mortality (M). Body weight and adjusted feed efficiency (AFE) were significantly lower with FGD gypsum compared to that of PS for flock 1, with no differences being observed among the other bedding materials. No differences were noted in live performance for flocks 2 or 3. Incidences of footpad lesions were lower with FGD gypsum than the other bedding materials, but only for flock 1. Bedding treatment had no influence on litter surface temperature. Gravimetric moisture content of gypsum treatments was lower than that of non-gypsum treatments; however, visually, the FGD gypsum was more compacted and had a surface crust. Reductions in ammonia volatilization also were observed during the initial flock with FGD gypsum; however, its effectiveness had diminished by flock 2 and 3.
doi_str_mv 10.3382/japr/pfw045
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>oup_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_3382_japr_pfw045</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.3382/japr/pfw045</oup_id><sourcerecordid>10.3382/japr/pfw045</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c301t-74cd6f129636eef6074ef5b3fea39caa489659369f8e6e29e2e354fb5ff2bce63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kD1PwzAURS0EEqUw8Qc8saBQf8ROwoYqWipVYoE5cpz3KlduEtkJqPx6EoWZ6V5dHd3hEHLP2ZOUuVgdTRdWHX6zVF2QBVcyS1gqs8uxM6UTzTN-TW5iPDImJMvFgviNH4AeTKQ1xMHjENyP6V3b0MO5i8Ppme76SAERbO--oIEY6QibhhrfQ2jMtNIK6to1B3oy4-aMp9gGWoXWeQi0C2092Onzllyh8RHu_nJJPjevH-u3ZP--3a1f9omVjPdJltpaIxeFlhoANctSQFVJBCMLa0yaF1oVUheYgwZRgACpUqwUoqgsaLkkj_OvDW2MAbDsgjuZcC45KydR5SSqnEWN9MNMt0P3L_gLUOJtyg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Flue gas desulfurization gypsum: Its effectiveness as an alternative bedding material for broiler production</title><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Watts, D. B. ; Hess, J. B. ; Bilgili, S. F. ; Torbert, H. A. ; Sibley, J. L. ; Davis, J. D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Watts, D. B. ; Hess, J. B. ; Bilgili, S. F. ; Torbert, H. A. ; Sibley, J. L. ; Davis, J. D.</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum may be a viable low-cost alternative bedding material for broiler production. In order to evaluate FGD gypsum's viability, a study was conducted to determine its influence on live performance (body weight, feed consumption, feed efficiency, and footpad dermatitis), litter characteristics (caking, moisture percentage, and surface temperature) and ammonia volatilization in 3 successive flocks. FGD gypsum was compared with pine shaving (PS), pine bark (PB), PS + FGD gypsum (second material was top dressed over first), PB + FGD gypsum, PS + PB, FGD gypsum + PS, and FGD gypsum + PB. Bedding had no significant influence on feed consumption (FC), feed efficiency (FE), and mortality (M). Body weight and adjusted feed efficiency (AFE) were significantly lower with FGD gypsum compared to that of PS for flock 1, with no differences being observed among the other bedding materials. No differences were noted in live performance for flocks 2 or 3. Incidences of footpad lesions were lower with FGD gypsum than the other bedding materials, but only for flock 1. Bedding treatment had no influence on litter surface temperature. Gravimetric moisture content of gypsum treatments was lower than that of non-gypsum treatments; however, visually, the FGD gypsum was more compacted and had a surface crust. Reductions in ammonia volatilization also were observed during the initial flock with FGD gypsum; however, its effectiveness had diminished by flock 2 and 3.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1056-6171</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-0437</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3382/japr/pfw045</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Poultry Science Association, Inc</publisher><ispartof>Journal of applied poultry research, 2017-03, Vol.26 (1), p.50-59</ispartof><rights>Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Poultry Science Association 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US. 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c301t-74cd6f129636eef6074ef5b3fea39caa489659369f8e6e29e2e354fb5ff2bce63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c301t-74cd6f129636eef6074ef5b3fea39caa489659369f8e6e29e2e354fb5ff2bce63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,27929,27930</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Watts, D. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hess, J. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bilgili, S. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torbert, H. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sibley, J. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, J. D.</creatorcontrib><title>Flue gas desulfurization gypsum: Its effectiveness as an alternative bedding material for broiler production</title><title>Journal of applied poultry research</title><description>Abstract Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum may be a viable low-cost alternative bedding material for broiler production. In order to evaluate FGD gypsum's viability, a study was conducted to determine its influence on live performance (body weight, feed consumption, feed efficiency, and footpad dermatitis), litter characteristics (caking, moisture percentage, and surface temperature) and ammonia volatilization in 3 successive flocks. FGD gypsum was compared with pine shaving (PS), pine bark (PB), PS + FGD gypsum (second material was top dressed over first), PB + FGD gypsum, PS + PB, FGD gypsum + PS, and FGD gypsum + PB. Bedding had no significant influence on feed consumption (FC), feed efficiency (FE), and mortality (M). Body weight and adjusted feed efficiency (AFE) were significantly lower with FGD gypsum compared to that of PS for flock 1, with no differences being observed among the other bedding materials. No differences were noted in live performance for flocks 2 or 3. Incidences of footpad lesions were lower with FGD gypsum than the other bedding materials, but only for flock 1. Bedding treatment had no influence on litter surface temperature. Gravimetric moisture content of gypsum treatments was lower than that of non-gypsum treatments; however, visually, the FGD gypsum was more compacted and had a surface crust. Reductions in ammonia volatilization also were observed during the initial flock with FGD gypsum; however, its effectiveness had diminished by flock 2 and 3.</description><issn>1056-6171</issn><issn>1537-0437</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kD1PwzAURS0EEqUw8Qc8saBQf8ROwoYqWipVYoE5cpz3KlduEtkJqPx6EoWZ6V5dHd3hEHLP2ZOUuVgdTRdWHX6zVF2QBVcyS1gqs8uxM6UTzTN-TW5iPDImJMvFgviNH4AeTKQ1xMHjENyP6V3b0MO5i8Ppme76SAERbO--oIEY6QibhhrfQ2jMtNIK6to1B3oy4-aMp9gGWoXWeQi0C2092Onzllyh8RHu_nJJPjevH-u3ZP--3a1f9omVjPdJltpaIxeFlhoANctSQFVJBCMLa0yaF1oVUheYgwZRgACpUqwUoqgsaLkkj_OvDW2MAbDsgjuZcC45KydR5SSqnEWN9MNMt0P3L_gLUOJtyg</recordid><startdate>20170301</startdate><enddate>20170301</enddate><creator>Watts, D. B.</creator><creator>Hess, J. B.</creator><creator>Bilgili, S. F.</creator><creator>Torbert, H. A.</creator><creator>Sibley, J. L.</creator><creator>Davis, J. D.</creator><general>Poultry Science Association, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170301</creationdate><title>Flue gas desulfurization gypsum: Its effectiveness as an alternative bedding material for broiler production</title><author>Watts, D. B. ; Hess, J. B. ; Bilgili, S. F. ; Torbert, H. A. ; Sibley, J. L. ; Davis, J. D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c301t-74cd6f129636eef6074ef5b3fea39caa489659369f8e6e29e2e354fb5ff2bce63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Watts, D. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hess, J. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bilgili, S. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torbert, H. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sibley, J. L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Davis, J. D.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of applied poultry research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Watts, D. B.</au><au>Hess, J. B.</au><au>Bilgili, S. F.</au><au>Torbert, H. A.</au><au>Sibley, J. L.</au><au>Davis, J. D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Flue gas desulfurization gypsum: Its effectiveness as an alternative bedding material for broiler production</atitle><jtitle>Journal of applied poultry research</jtitle><date>2017-03-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>26</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>50</spage><epage>59</epage><pages>50-59</pages><issn>1056-6171</issn><eissn>1537-0437</eissn><abstract>Abstract Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum may be a viable low-cost alternative bedding material for broiler production. In order to evaluate FGD gypsum's viability, a study was conducted to determine its influence on live performance (body weight, feed consumption, feed efficiency, and footpad dermatitis), litter characteristics (caking, moisture percentage, and surface temperature) and ammonia volatilization in 3 successive flocks. FGD gypsum was compared with pine shaving (PS), pine bark (PB), PS + FGD gypsum (second material was top dressed over first), PB + FGD gypsum, PS + PB, FGD gypsum + PS, and FGD gypsum + PB. Bedding had no significant influence on feed consumption (FC), feed efficiency (FE), and mortality (M). Body weight and adjusted feed efficiency (AFE) were significantly lower with FGD gypsum compared to that of PS for flock 1, with no differences being observed among the other bedding materials. No differences were noted in live performance for flocks 2 or 3. Incidences of footpad lesions were lower with FGD gypsum than the other bedding materials, but only for flock 1. Bedding treatment had no influence on litter surface temperature. Gravimetric moisture content of gypsum treatments was lower than that of non-gypsum treatments; however, visually, the FGD gypsum was more compacted and had a surface crust. Reductions in ammonia volatilization also were observed during the initial flock with FGD gypsum; however, its effectiveness had diminished by flock 2 and 3.</abstract><pub>Poultry Science Association, Inc</pub><doi>10.3382/japr/pfw045</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1056-6171
ispartof Journal of applied poultry research, 2017-03, Vol.26 (1), p.50-59
issn 1056-6171
1537-0437
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_3382_japr_pfw045
source EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
title Flue gas desulfurization gypsum: Its effectiveness as an alternative bedding material for broiler production
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-12T14%3A16%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-oup_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Flue%20gas%20desulfurization%20gypsum:%20Its%20effectiveness%20as%20an%20alternative%20bedding%20material%20for%20broiler%20production&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20applied%20poultry%20research&rft.au=Watts,%20D.%20B.&rft.date=2017-03-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=50&rft.epage=59&rft.pages=50-59&rft.issn=1056-6171&rft.eissn=1537-0437&rft_id=info:doi/10.3382/japr/pfw045&rft_dat=%3Coup_cross%3E10.3382/japr/pfw045%3C/oup_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_oup_id=10.3382/japr/pfw045&rfr_iscdi=true