See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/320247154

Windrowing poultry litter after a broiler house has been sprinkled

with water1

Article  in  The Journal of Applied Poultry Research · October 2017

DOI: 10.3382/japr/pfx034

CITATIONS READS

2 128

4 authors, including:

Dana Dittoe Christopher D Mcdaniel

University of Wisconsin–Madison Mississippi State University
34 PUBLICATIONS   201 CITATIONS    96 PUBLICATIONS   1,514 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Aaron Kiess
Mississippi State University
90 PUBLICATIONS   983 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Avian pathogenic Escherichia coli View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dana Dittoe on 20 July 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


C 2017 Poultry Science Association Inc.

Windrowing poultry litter after a broiler house has

been sprinkled with water1
D. K. Dittoe, C. D. McDaniel, T. Tabler, and A. S. Kiess2

Poultry Science Department, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762

Primary Audience: Flock Supervisors, Quality Assurance Personnel, Researchers

SUMMARY
In-house windrowing of poultry litter between broiler flocks has been promoted as a man-
agement practice to improve the litter condition upon chick placement. Before the onset of
the current study, low-pressure sprinklers were used during the grow-out period in a broiler
house. Different methods of windrowing were then utilized to determine the effect each had on
litter composition. Covered, turned, and static 9 d windrow treatments, and one non-windrowed
control were applied to a broiler house containing litter used over multiple flock grow-outs.
The house was divided into 16 6 × 6 m plots with each treatment being applied to 4 blocks
within the house. Litter from each plot was analyzed for particle size, moisture, N, NH3 , P, K,
pH, and temperature over a 20-day period, with d 20 representing 7 d after chick placement. All
variables except particle size were statistically different. Of all the treatments, the covered treat-
ment showed the greatest reduction in moisture over the 20-day period. Nitrogen content was
lowest in the turned treatment. Ammonia decreased from d 9 to 20. Both the covered and static
treatments were able to reach recommended temperatures in both the core and the periphery
of the windrows. Conclusively, in-house windrowing after utilizing low-pressure sprinklers did
not improve N retention, reduce NH3 volatilization, or decrease P or K in the litter compared to
the control. However, the temperatures obtained in the periphery and core of the covered and
static treatments show potential for eliminating pathogens present in the litter.

Key words: broiler litter, sprinkler, windrowing, ammonia, temperature

2018 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 27:1–15
http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfx034

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM over several flocks, challenges arise. These chal-

The poultry industry currently re-uses bed-
ding material over several broiler flock grow-
outs. This strategy is practiced due to the increas-
ing cost and decreased availability of traditional
pine shaving bedding material. It is also evident
that built-up litter yields less footpad dermati-
tis than fresh litter [1]. However, when broilers
are grown on the same bedding or litter material
1
This publication is a contribution of the Mississippi Agri-
cultural and Forestry Experiment Station.
2
Corresponding author: akiess@poultry.msstate.edu
lenges may include an increase in N, P, and K, as
well as NH3 . Used litter also can lead to disease
outbreaks. In-house windrowing is a technique
used by the poultry industry to improve the qual-
ity of used broiler litter. The technique is very
similar to composting, where litter is piled into a
single or multiple rows that extend the length of
the broiler house [2]. The piles are then allowed
to generate heat over a specific amount of time to
reduce pathogenic organisms [3]. The main dif-
ferences between composting and windrowing
are the time it takes to perform, their temper-
ature profiles, and the residual material at the
2 JAPR: Research Report
end of the process [2]. To effectively windrow
used litter, the moisture content of the litter must
exceed 32% but remain less than 35% [4]. How-
ever, most litter management practices during
a broiler grow-out are designed to reduce litter
moisture, and in Mississippi the average litter
moisture content is around 24.8%, which can
make it hard to accomplish an effective windrow-
ing program [5].
Recently, low-pressure water sprinklers, an
alternative or supplement to the commonly used
evaporative cooling pads, have been evaluated
as a method for cooling birds within a broiler
house without reducing the house temperature
[6]. This new alternative replaces or supplements
the evaporative cooling pad system with a low-
pressure (<50 psi) sprinkler system. Not only
is the sprinkler system meant to lower the body
temperature of poultry, but also lower the air-
borne particulate matter and NH3 [7]. The use
of the sprinkler system will result in tempera-
tures that are similar to or slightly lower than
the outside environment. As well, the resulting
humidity in the house will be relatively close to
the outside environment [6]. The humidity for
sprinkler cooling will be lower than that of a tra-
ditional cool-cell system and thus may promote
a drier climate for the birds.
Although the house can run hotter, with im-
proper management, a sprinkler system in the
broiler house may increase the moisture content
of the litter over the length of the grow-out. If lit-
ter moisture is higher at the end of the grow-out,
then in theory a more effective windrowing pro-
cess should occur. Though the concept of higher
moisture in the litter contradicts good man-
agement practices (GMP), a moisture content
above Mississippi’s average 24.8% but between
32 and 35% is important, because higher mois-
ture content is directly related to the windrow
temperature, and higher temperature can poten-
tially inactivate disease-causing organisms more
efficiently [8]. It has been demonstrated by
Macklin et al. [9] that an in-house windrow
reaching slightly above 50◦ C for 48 h has the
potential to reduce anaerobic and aerobic bacte-
ria and eliminate Salmonella and Campylobacter
within the core of the windrow. Fifty degrees
Celsius (50◦ C) also has been an instrumen-
tal temperature in reducing pathogenic bacteria
within an in-house windrow, and this temper-
ature is also capable of killing or inactivating
most viruses, fungi, and parasite eggs [10, 11].
Thus, temperature is necessary for improving
litter quality and flock welfare. The EPA 503b
rule addresses the temperature requirements to
effectively treat litter: exceed 40◦ C for 120 h
and within the 120 h exceed 55◦ C for 4 h;
however, these temperatures are hard to obtain
throughout the entirety of a windrow [12, 13, 14].
Previous research has indicated that when litter
within the average Mississippi moisture content
is windrowed, only the core of the windrow is
able to meet temperatures necessary to inactivate
disease-causing organisms, not the outer exterior
[12, 13]. The need to evenly inactivate pathogens
in the litter may be solved by the additional water
added to the litter by the sprinkler system.
Despite the benefit of reducing pathogenic
organisms by windrowing, it is important to de-
termine the effects that the addition of water may
have on other parameters related to litter quality
(NH3 levels, pH, etc.). If the moisture content
of the litter were to exceed 35%, an increase in
NH3 production may occur, which could lead
to poor chick quality and high mortality rates.
Miles et al. [15] noted that moisture and tem-
perature have a direct effect on NH3 volatiliza-
tion. Higher temperature and a critical point of
moisture content will increase NH3 volatiliza-
tion. However, if the moisture content is below or
above the critical point, NH3 volatilization will
decrease [15]. Higher moisture also can lead to
nutrient runoff due to the excess of free water in
the windrow. The excess free water also can lead
to compression of the litter, which corresponds to
a reduction in particle size and therefore porosity.
However, an increase in windrow temperatures
from the compression and decrease in porosity
of the litter also can cause a decrease in litter pH
[16, 17]. Therefore, the objective of this study
was to determine the impact that windrowing
has on litter quality when the broiler house has
utilized low-pressure sprinklers throughout the
grow-out period.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
House Layout
One commercial broiler house with the di-
mensions of 121.9 M long x 13.1 M wide was
DITTOE ET AL.: WINDROWING POULTRY LITTER AFTER SPRINKLING
utilized in this study. The house was divided into
4 blocks, and each block contained 4 treatments
that were randomly assigned, providing a total of
16 plots for evaluation (Figure 1). There were 8
plots on either side of the house, and the plots
were centered in the middle of the house, leaving
33.5 M on either end of the house. During the
treatment term, the house was closed, with no
ventilation.
Within the broiler house, the litter consisted
of built-up litter that had been previously used
by 9 consecutive flocks with the grow-out pe-
riods lasting 63 days. The litter profile was 10
to 13 cm deep. There were no previous disease
or pathogen concerns associated with the litter
in the house. As well, windrowing and chemical
amendments were applied previously to the litter.
The litter was windrowed every other flock and
chemical amendments were applied if necessary
between flocks.
Low-pressure Sprinkler System
During the previous grow-out period, before
the onset of this study, the broiler house used
a commercial low-pressure sprinkler system
(Weeden Sprinkler System) [18]. The system
involves low-pressure sprinkler nozzles, which
are comparable to normal yard sprinklers with a
spinner head. The sprinklers were mounted from
the ceiling and ran the length of the house on 2
lines located 3 m from each sidewall with 20
sprinkler nozzles on either line for a total of 40
nozzles. Each nozzle had an output of 15 mL of
water per s over an area of 42 m2 [18].
The sprinklers became active when the birds
reached 5 wk of age. The Weeden controller uti-
lized a 3-stage program that operated specifi-
cally on time intervals. The first stage began
when the broilers reached 5 wk of age. The 3
set stages in the sprinkler controller were named
stages 1, 2, and 3. Stage 1 was set to run ev-
ery 30 min, stage 2 was set to run every15 min,
and stage 3 was set to run every 5 minutes. At
each stage, the system ran for only 20 s between
each time interval. The temperature increment
between each stage was set for 2.8˚C, while the
cool-cell system ran 1.7˚C above the sprinkler.
In 2014, from July 24 to September 25, the low-
pressure sprinkler system utilized 80,962 liters
3
of water, while the evaporative cooling pad uti-
lized 133,281 liters.
Treatments
Each of the 4 treatments was randomly as-
signed to one of the 4 blocks creating 16 plots.
There was a total of 4 replications for each
treatment. The treatments consisted of a non-
windrowed control, a static windrow, a turned
windrow, and a covered windrow. The control
was de-caked on d 0 and had no windrow ap-
plication applied to it. The static treatment was
de-caked, windrowed, and then allowed to sit for
the following 9 days. The turned treatment was
de-caked, windrowed, turned in on itself on d 4,
and then allowed to sit for an additional 5 days.
The covered treatment was de-caked, windrowed,
covered with 1.2 mm thick plastic, and then al-
lowed to sit for 9 days. The individual windrows,
when formed, were 6 m long x 1.5 m wide x
1 m high in depth. Windrows were formed using
a tractor equipped with a litter windrow blade
[19]. On d 4, turned windrows were turned in on
themselves using a skid steer loader. On d 9, all
windrows were broken down in their respective
plots. The house was then closed for 4 additional
d (d 13) until day-old chicks were placed back in
the house for the next commercial grow-out. No
analysis was performed on placed chicks. Chicks
were supplied feed and water ad libitum. Chicks
used in this experiment were treated in compli-
ance with the Guide for the Care and Use of
Agricultural Animals in Research and Teaching
[20].
Sample Collection
On day 0, the previous flock was transported
for processing. Litter samples were collected on
d 4, when the turned treatment was being rolled
in on itself; d 9, when all windrows were lev-
eled out; d 13, when the next flock’s chicks
were placed; and d 20, 7 d after chick place-
ment. Handfuls of litter were collected (at least
20 g) from 5 random locations at varying depths
within each plot and then pooled into a Ziploc
bag [21]. There were 16 total bags of litter for
each d of litter collection. At the lab, 200 g of
litter were transferred to smaller Whirl-Pak bags
to be analyzed for N, P, and K [22].
4 JAPR: Research Report

Figure 1. Treatment arrangement in a commercial broiler house. The commercial house used was 121.9 m in
length x 13.1 m in width. There were 16 plots measuring 6.1 × 6.1 m. Four plots denote a block, with each
treatment being represented within a block. Treatments included: 1) a treatment in which litter was de-caked but
not windrowed (Control), 2) a treatment in which litter was de-caked prior to windrowing, windrowed, and allowed to
sit for 9 d (Static), 3) a treatment in which the litter was de-caked prior to windrowing, windrowed, turned in on itself
on d 4, and then allowed to sit for 5 d (Turned), and 4) a treatment in which litter was de-caked prior to windrowing,
windrowed, covered with 1.2 mm thick plastic, and allowed to sit for 9 d (Covered). There were 2 rows of plots, with
8 plots on either side. Thirty-three-and-a-half meters of space were not utilized on either the evaporative cool cell
or exhaust fan ends of the house (not drawn to scale).
DITTOE ET AL.: WINDROWING POULTRY LITTER AFTER SPRINKLING
Particle Size
Particle size of the litter was determined using
a Ro-Tap Sieve Shaker [23]. In duplicate, 100 g
of litter were weighed and then placed into the
first set of sieves (No. 4, 6, 8, 10, 16, 20, and
40). The first set of sieves was allowed to sift for
5 minutes. Upon completion, the litter that was
able to sift to the bottom pan was placed on the
top of a second set of sieves (No. 50, 70, 100,
140, 200, and 270). The second set of sieves was
set in the Ro-Tap and allowed to sift for another
5 minutes. Each sieve was weighed, and then the
following equation was used [24]:
 n  
−1 Wi log d̄i
dgw = log n
i=1
i=1 Wi
Where: dgw is geometric mean diameter or me-
dian size of particles by mass (mm), di is normal
sieve aperture size of the ith sieve (mm), Wi is
the mass on the ith sieve (g), and n is the number
of sieves +1 (pan).
Litter Moisture
Litter moisture was measured in duplicate for
each plot. Each individual litter sample was mea-
sured into 15 g samples. The wet weight of the
sample was obtained before being placed into a
drying oven [25]. Each sample was then placed in
a 0.325 m2 drying oven for 24 h at 105◦ C. Once
24 h had passed, the samples were removed from
the drying oven and weighed to determine their
dry weight. Moisture content was calculated us-
ing the following equation [26]:
Wwet − Wdry
MC(%) = × 100
Wwet
Where: MC (%) is the percentage of moisture
present or moisture content, Wwet is the wet
weight, and Wdry is the dry weight.
Nitrogen, Phosphoric Acid, and Potash
All samples were analyzed by the Mississippi
State Chemistry Lab. Phosphoric acid and potash
were analyzed by AOAC methods 2006.03a and
5
2006.03, respectively [27, 28]. Nitrogen was ana-
lyzed by the DUMAS method utilizing the Rapid
N Cube [29].
NH3
Ammonia generation for the litter was mea-
sured on d 9, 13, and 20. Measurements were
not recorded on d 4 due to the windrows still in
formation. Ammonia production off the litter at
floor level was analyzed using an infrared pho-
toaccoustic multi-gas analyzer with a dynamic
flux chamber, using the design by Woodbury
et al. [30, 31]. NH3 was calculated based on
the chamber footprint, sampling time, and the
mass of NH3 in the acid trap [30]. The NH3
gas being emitted off the litter was sampled for
approximately 10 min to allow the infrared pho-
toaccoustic multi-gas analyzer to calibrate. Am-
monia levels were then recorded at 11, 12, and
13 minutes. The 3 readings were then averaged
to determine NH3 production.
pH
Litter pH was analyzed by measuring 10 g of
each litter sample in duplicate and then trans-
ferring each sample to a 500 mL beaker. Ultra
purified water (100 mL) was then added to the
beaker containing the 10 g of litter and stirred
for approximately 5 min [25]. Using an Accumet
Excel XL60 probe [32], the litter-water mixture
was tested to obtain a pH reading [33].
Temperature
Thermochron i-Button temperature sensors
were used to record temperature throughout the
house [34]. There were 2 sensors in each plot,
both attached to a wooden stake that had one
sensor submerged in the litter and the other sen-
sor just below the litter surface. The sensor that
was submerged in the litter recorded the temper-
ature at the core of the windrow. The other sensor
that was just below the litter’s surface recorded
the periphery temperature of the windrow. For all
treatments, except the control, the periphery sen-
sor was submerged 5.1 cm under the litter surface
of the windrow. The control treatment’s core sen-
sor was 5.1 cm under the litter surface, while the
periphery sensor was just below the surface. The
6 JAPR: Research Report

Table 1. Outside ambient temperature from d 1 to d 20 (September 25, 2014 to October 15, 2014). All data retrie-
ved from Mississippi State University station, NCDC (33.4691◦ to 88.7822◦ ). Average inside temperatures were
obtained from the Rotem Platinum Plus controller protocol set in accordance with industry standards.
Day Outside temperature Inside temperature
◦ ◦
Max C Low C Average◦ C
0 28 14 26
1 29 15 41
2 29 17 44
3 28 17 45
4 28 18 44
5 31 17 43
6 31 16 42
7 32 17 41
8 28 19 38
9 27 9 29
10 21 9 –
11 26 12 –
12 27 17 –
13 31 19 32
14 31 18 32
15 32 19 32
16 31 19 32
17 31 19 32
18 28 21 32
19 29 14 32
20 20 11 30

sensors recorded the temperature every 20 min
during the experiment, in accordance with their
programming. In this experiment, the tempera-
ture data collected up to d 9 were used. Temper-
ature data for the outside environment for Mis-
sissippi State University (33.4691◦ , −88.7822◦ )
were collected from the National Climatic Data
Center database for the entirety of this project
(Table 1) [35]. The temperature of the house dur-
ing the first 7 d of chick placement was recorded
using a Rotem controller and is also displayed in
Table 1 [36].
Statistical Analysis
All data were analyzed using a randomized
complete block design with a split plot over days.
The means were separated using Fisher’s pro-
tected LSD and were considered significant at
P ≤ 0.05 [37, 38].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A delicate balance exists between improving
litter quality and pathogen reduction in poultry
litter. This balance is highly dependent on the
moisture content of the litter. Litter quality is de-
termined on the basis of the poultry litter’s parti-
cle size, nitrogen retention, ammonia volatiliza-
tion, levels of phosphorus and potassium, and
pH. Pathogen reduction is obtained through high
temperatures. High moisture inclusion will al-
low the litter to obtain optimal temperatures for
pathogen reduction; however, litter quality may
experience detrimental effects to overall qual-
ity due to the high moisture. Because there is
such a thin line concerning moisture content, it
is advantageous to utilize a strategy that balances
both litter quality and pathogen reduction.
The results from the current windrowing ex-
periment in which low-pressure sprinklers were
utilized demonstrated no difference in particle
size (PS) among d or treatments (P = 0.9226;
P = 0.0645; data not shown). Therefore, PS was
determined not to be a concern for windrow-
ing, as previous studies also have shown. Keener
et al. [39] demonstrated that PS was not an issue
if moisture was ≤45% at the start of windrow-
ing and “mechanical mixing” was utilized dur-
ing or at the end of the windrowing process. In
the current study, litter moisture was ≤45% at
DITTOE ET AL.: WINDROWING POULTRY LITTER AFTER SPRINKLING 7

Figure 2. Treatment by d interaction for percent litter moisture (moisture %). The column consisting of the diagonal
lines representsthe static treatment, the column consisting of dots represents the control treatment, the column
consisting of hatched lines represents the covered treatment, and the column consisting of horizontal lines repre-
sents the turned treatment. Columns without common superscripts (a-e) are significantly different (P = 0.04; SEM
= 3.39; N = 4).

the beginning of windrowing, and at the end, all
treatments were mechanically mixed with a skid
steer loader. Although there was not a signifi-
cant difference for PS, there were differences for
moisture content, N, NH3 , P, K, and pH.
The amount of moisture present in poultry
litter can affect NH3 volatilization and micro-
bial growth. Moisture is necessary to produce a
windrow that reduces pathogens effectively be-
cause the elevated windrow temperature needed
to inactivate bacteria is directly influenced by
moisture content [8]. As stated previously, 50◦ C
has been seen to reduce, inactivate, or destroy
most of the major concerns in litter, such as
pathogens, viruses, and parasite eggs [10, 11].
The average moisture content of litter in Missis-
sippi is 24.8%, yet the recommended moisture
content for an effective windrow is between 32
and 35% [5, 7]. Due to the use of a low-pressure
sprinkler system in the latter wk of broiler rear-
ing, a moisture content above Mississippi’s av-
erage litter moisture was expected. Even though
the sprinklers use a controlled amount of wa-
ter that creates a wind-chill effect on the birds,
some of the sprinkled water also may reach the
litter. Therefore, correct management is critical
to maintaining proper litter conditions.
In this study, the moisture content for all treat-
ments was above 40% at d 4; however, by d 20,
the moisture content of litter for all treatments
either met or fell below the recommended level
of 32% (Figure 2). For the covered treatment,
d 4 demonstrated the highest moisture content
(60%) compared to all other treatments. How-
ever, by d 20 the moisture content of the covered
treatment was reduced to 24%, the lowest mois-
ture content of any treatment. The high mois-
ture content for the covered treatment on d 4
is most likely due to the impermeable tarp be-
ing placed over the windrow, preventing mois-
ture from evaporating into the air. After the tarp
was removed on d 9, the moisture was then able
to evaporate and revert to below recommended
levels. Only the turned treatment remained at
the recommended level of 32% on d 20. For
all treatments, we expected the litter to dry out
from d 13 to d 20. This is due to the fact that
chicks were placed back into the house and ven-
tilation and brooding were required. Overall, the
litter moisture content was not in the effective
range for windrowing from d 4 to d 9, as it was
well above the recommended level. This high-
moisture content present in the litter had the
potential to increase the quantity of pathogens
present in the litter, especially if the windrows
did not reach the recommended temperatures for
reducing pathogens [40]. Along with a possible
increase in pathogens, a higher moisture content
in the litter also could result in higher nitrogen
loss, ammonia volatilization, and further degra-
dation of litter [8, 41].
The results of this study indicated that the
static 9 d windrow had the highest nitrogen con-
centration (4.60%) when compared to all other
8 JAPR: Research Report

Figure 3. N levels for all sample plots within a treatment were averaged together to attain the mean N content
(%) for each treatment. The column consisting of the diagonal lines represents the static treatment, the column
consisting of dots represents the control treatment, the column consisting of hatched lines represents the covered
treatment, and the column consisting of horizontal lines represents the turned treatment. Columns without common
superscripts (a-b) are significantly different (P = 0.02; SEM = 0.04; N = 16).

windrow treatments ((P = 0.02); Figure 3). How-
ever, all treatments were still below the recom-
mended N level of 5 to 7% [42]. No differences
among the control, covered, or turned treatments
were determined. N loss usually occurs more in
composted manure because of the higher rate of
denitrification, which was not discovered among
the treatments in this study, as the static treatment
had the highest N concentration [43]. However,
according to Mahimairaja et al. [43], denitrifi-
cation occurs under anaerobic conditions, and
nitrogen is lost in the form on N2 . Therefore, it
was expected that the covered treatment would
have the greatest loss of N, because a 1.2 mm
thick plastic tarp, which should have prevented
aerobic conditions, covered the windrow. The
plastic also did not allow for the evaporation of
moisture from the surface of the windrow, pro-
viding an environment more suitable for deni-
trification. However, it was concluded that the
covered, turned, and control treatments were not
different in terms of loss of N.
Although N was not different among the cov-
ered, turned, or control treatments, all 3 were
different when compared to the static treatment
but not by an alarming amount (<0.21%). Flory
et al. [44] demonstrated the effectiveness of
turned windrows in a commercial setting vs. a
control. Their results determined that there were
no differences in nutrient value or N level among
treatments; however, a numerical decrease in N
level was apparent among treatments. In the cur-
rent study, the higher N content demonstrated for
the static treatment may be the result of the high
temperatures the treatment obtained in its core
and periphery. Lavergne et al. [4] demonstrated
a correlation between total N and the maximum
temperature after the addition of water in static
in-house windrows. The results indicated that a
windrow that reached a higher temperature had a
higher N content than a windrow that had an aver-
age temperature [4]. Because the static treatment
in our study had one of the highest temperatures
among all other treatments, it can be suggested
that the elevated N may have been a result of the
high temperature.
Another reason for the loss of nitrogen during
windrowing is ammonia volatilization. Henry
and White [41] discovered that a large quantity
of N lost during windrowing was due to ammo-
nia volatilization. In the current study, no dif-
ferences among treatments were found for NH3
production (data not shown). This finding was
surprising because poultry manure typically con-
tains 5 to 7% total N, with 60 to 75% of the
N in the form of uric acid [42, 45], and when
uric acid breaks down, it produces NH3 [46].
Keener et al. [39] reported a reduction in N
loss through NH3 volatilization when windrows
were covered. Therefore, lower NH3 generation
was expected from the static and turned windrow
treatments in the current study when compared
to our covered treatment. Although there were
no differences found for NH3 production among
DITTOE ET AL.: WINDROWING POULTRY LITTER AFTER SPRINKLING 9

Figure 4. Ammonia levels of all plots were averaged together for each sampling d to get the mean NH3 levels
(ppm) for each day. The light gray column represents the mean NH3 of all plots on d 9. The dark gray column
represents the mean NH3 for all plots on d 13. The white column represents the mean NH3 for all plots on d
20. Columns without common superscripts (a-b) are considered significantly different (P = 0.0002; SEM = 56.90;
N = 16).

treatments, this result may have been influenced
by the high initial moisture contents, which also
could have led to the findings for N content.
Because NH3 volatilization is one of the ma-
jor pathways for N loss, it is important to monitor
NH3 production over time. However, the moni-
toring of NH3 production is important for more
than just N loss, NH3 production is also a ma-
jor welfare concern [45]. Over the course of this
study, the concentration of NH3 generated di-
rectly off the litter was determined to decrease
(d 9, 684.67 ppm; d 13, 585.96 ppm; and d 20,
111.96 ppm) (Figure 4). The high NH3 genera-
tion at d 9 and 13 may be the result of the high
litter moisture created by the low-pressure sprin-
kler system in concurrence with the evaporative
cooling system. As mentioned before, uric acid
is less likely to degrade into NH3 if the litter is
kept dry [46]. Even as the level of NH3 produced
decreased, on d 13 the NH3 concentration being
generated by the litter was well above a safe level
for day-old chicks. On d 20, the NH3 being gen-
erated by the litter into the flux chamber was
reduced to 111.96 ppm. The reduction in NH3
production from d 13 to d 20 was most likely
the direct result of ventilation and the use of the
brooders, as it would dry the litter and therefore
reduce NH3 generated by the litter. It is impor-
tant to note that in this study, the NH3 monitored
was that generated directly by the litter into the
flux chamber and not the air surrounding the
chicks. Due to the ventilation protocol in place
in the broiler house, no chicks were under condi-
tions in which the atmospheric NH3 in the house
exceeded 25 ppm, the maximum limit for atmo-
spheric ammonia at bird height [47].
In the current study it also was determined
that potash and phosphoric acid concentrations
increased over time (Figures 5 and 6). Potash in-
creased over a 20-day period at 3.98, 3.93, 4.19,
and 4.08% on d 4, 9, 13, and 20, respectively.
Phosphoric acid increased over a 20-day period
at 5.49, 5.63, 6.07, and 6.12% on d 4, 9, 13, and
20, respectively. It is important to note that an
increase in the concentration of P in litter is not
a favorable outcome for litter quality. If there
is too much P in the litter, then when applied as
fertilizer, the high P concentrations could run off
into nearby streams, estuaries, or lakes. N, P, and
K are all needed for life; however, too much in
the environment can cause eutrophication [48].
Eutrophication can result in an increase of algae
and deoxygenation of the water, directly killing
the ecosystem in that body of water [48, 49]. In
this study, the treatments on d 20 had P2 O5 and
K2 O levels of 6 and 4%, respectively. Accord-
ing to a study done by the University of Georgia
Cooperative Extension, composted litter has 3
and 2.3% levels of P2 O5 and K2 O, respectively
[50]. One possible explanation for the high level
of P and K is the reuse of the litter over several
flocks [4, 51]. A study that examined the trend
10 JAPR: Research Report

Figure 5. Potash (K2 O) content for all samples plots was averaged together for each sampling d to obtain the mean
potash concentration (%) over a 20-day period. The black column represents the mean potash of all the plots on
d 4. The light gray column represents the mean potash of all plots on d 9 when the windrows were broken down.
The dark gray column represents the mean potash for all plots on d 13 when chicks were placed into the broiler
house. The white column represents the mean potash for all plots on d 20. Columns without common superscripts
(a-b) are considered significantly different (P = 0.02; SEM = 0.06; N = 16).

Figure 6. Phosphoric acid (P2 O5 ) levels for all plots were averaged together for each sampling d to obtain the
mean phosphoric acid content (%) for each day. The black column represents the mean phosphoric acid of all the
plots on d 4. The light gray column represents the mean potash of all plots on d 9. The dark gray column represents
the mean potash for all plots on d 13. The white column represents the mean potash for all plots on d 20. Columns
without common superscripts (a-b) are considered significantly different (P = 0.0001; SEM = 0.10; N = 16).

of nutrient content in Mississippi, determined
an increasing trend of nutrients until the 20th
flock [51]. It also was noted that litter manage-
ment that utilizes total clean-out will experience
lower nutrient levels [51]. With the increasing
concern for the environment and the ecosystem,
the increase of both P and K is not a desirable
outcome.
Liang et al. [8], while evaluating the effects of
in-house broiler litter windrowing, noticed an in-
crease in both total P and K in the windrow treat-
ments that were under high-moisture conditions.
It was deduced that the increase was relative
to P, Ca, and K being the most reliable nutri-
ents to show degradation; but it also was found
that the control treatment had greater degrada-
tion than the windrow treatments [8]. However, it
should also be mentioned that in that study, the
control treatment had higher moisture (21.5%)
than the highest moisture windrow treatment
(19.6%) from the very beginning [8]. In respect
to windrowing poultry litter after the utilization
of low-pressure sprinkler systems in conjunction
with an evaporative cooling system, higher P and
DITTOE ET AL.: WINDROWING POULTRY LITTER AFTER SPRINKLING 11

Figure 7. Interaction between d and treatment for litter pH (pH). The column consisting of the diagonal lines rep-
resents the static treatment, the column consisting of dots represents the control treatment, the column consisting
of hatched lines represents the covered treatment, and the column consisting of horizontal lines represents the
turned treatment. Columns without common superscripts (a-h) are significantly different (P = 0.003; SEM = 0.70;
N = 4).

K over time may be from the higher degradation
occurring as a result of moisture and tempera-
ture, which is comparative to the study conducted
by Liang et al. [8].
Litter moisture also can have an impact on
litter pH. As % moisture is increased, the pH of
the litter becomes more basic [52]. In reference
to the average pH of poultry litter in Missis-
sippi, which is 8.4, all treatments were in the
average range except for the covered treatment
on d 4 (8.75) [5]. The pH for the turned treat-
ment was initially low and then increased by
d 9 and 13 but reverted to a lower pH by d
20 (8.39, 8.48, 8.55, and 8.26 on d 4, 9, 13,
and 20, respectively). Both the static and control
windrows demonstrated an increase in pH on d
9, but the pH then decreased from d 13 thru d 20
(Figure 7). The static windrow treatment started
at a pH of 8.36 on d 4, increased to 8.43 on
d 9, and then decreased to 8.38 and 8.06 on d
13 and 20, respectively. The pH for the con-
trol treatment increased from 8.40 on d 4 to
8.59 on d 9, but then decreased to 8.48 and
8.16 on d 13 and 20, respectively. For the cov-
ered windrow treatment, pH was initially high
but over time decreased (8.75, 8.67, 8.36, and
8.02 on d 4, 9, 13, and 20, respectively). How-
ever, none of the windrowing treatments or the
control treatment reduced the pH to a level that
would improve litter quality. If the pH could have
been reduced below 7.5, the NH3 concentration
also may have been reduced [53]. According to
Groot Koerkamp [45], a pH of 7 or below allows
NH3 to be bound as ammonium, thus prevent-
ing NH3 volatilization. The more basic the pH
is (above 5.5), the more readily uric acid is bro-
ken down [45]. A lower pH would have stunted
NH3 production, substantially yielding more N
retention in the litter. Therefore, the results of
this study suggest that no windrowing technique
improved litter quality when compared to the
control treatment, which may be attributed to the
higher moisture present at the onset of this study
from the utilization of a low-pressure sprinkler
system in tangent with an evaporative cooling
system.
12 JAPR: Research Report

Figure 8. Core temperatures for all samples were averaged together for each sampling d to attain the mean core
temperature (◦ C) for each day. The black solid line (——) represents the turned treatment, the dotted line (······)
represents the static treatment, the dash-dot line (-·-·-·-) represents the covered treatment, and the dashed line
(− − −) represents the control treatment.

Though the moisture, N, NH3 , P, K, and pH
results all indicated the treatments did not have
a positive effect on litter quality, the tempera-
ture results may have impacted the litter envi-
ronment in a positive manner. According to the
EPA 503b rule, for a windrow to effectively re-
duce pathogens, it must exceed 40◦ C for 120 h
and within the 120 h exceed 55◦ C for 4 h [14].
To further this rule, it has been recommended
that the windrow exceed 50˚C for at least 24 h
[10]. Other studies, such as Barker et al. [13],
Lavergne et al. [4], and Macklin et al. [9], have
attempted to reach this benchmark but have been
unable to obtain these temperatures in the pe-
riphery of the windrow. Additionally, previous
research conducted by Schmidt et al. [54], uti-
lizing a 42-point grid, established that the EPA
503b rule could be achieved only within approx-
imately 38.4 ± 26.2% of a windrow. In the cur-
rent study, both the periphery and core temper-
atures were monitored using a 2-point system.
The static and covered treatments both met the
criteria for the EPA 503b rule in the core and pe-
riphery (Figures 8 and 9). The turned treatment
met the criteria for the EPA 503b rule only in its
core (Figure 8). Although a 2-point method is not
the most accurate procedure at predicting the en-
tire windrow temperature, utilizing this method
is still a valuable resource [9]. Because both the
static and covered treatments were effective in
reaching 40◦ C for 120 h, 50˚C for 24 h, and 55◦ C
for 4 h in their periphery and core, both treat-
ments have the potential to reduce pathogens,
diseases, and parasites present in the litter.
It is evident from this study that the qual-
ity of the litter was affected by the inclusion of
additional moisture through the utilization of a
low-pressure sprinkler system during the grow-
out period. Because of these effects, there were
no improvements in N, NH3 , P, K, and pH at the
conclusion of the windrowing procedure. The
temperature in the windrows, however, was in-
creased to an effective range in order to reduce
potential pathogens that may have been present
DITTOE ET AL.: WINDROWING POULTRY LITTER AFTER SPRINKLING
Figure 9. Peripheral temperatures for all samples were averaged together for each sampling d to attain the mean
peripheral temperature (◦ C). The black solid line (——) represents the turned treatment, the dotted line (······)
represents the static treatment, the dash-dot line (-·-·-·-) represents the covered treatment, and the dashed line
(− − −) represents the control treatment.
in the litter. In future studies, it will be imperative
to find a balance between moisture and temper-
ature, so that both litter quality and pathogen
reduction can be maximized.
CONCLUSIONS AND
APPLICATIONS
1. The higher moisture content in the lit-
ter resulted in higher NH3 volatilization, a
lower percentage of N, and higher P and K
over time, after the utilization of in-house
windrowing.
2. The moisture content in the litter was above
the recommended level of 32 to 35% at the
onset of windrowing; however, by d 20, only
the static treatment was within the recom-
mended level, and all other treatments and
control had been reduced to <30% mois-
ture. Windrowing and management prac-
tices reduced the moisture to a safer level
for the birds.
3. The higher moisture content in the lit-
ter increased the ability of the static and
covered treatments to reach the desired
13
temperatures in both the core and surface
of those treatments, which is favorable for
reducing pathogens, according to the EPA
503b rule.
4. The relatively high moisture present in the
litter may be a result of the low-pressure
sprinklers being utilized in conjunction with
the evaporative cooling system. Further
studies should be conducted to compare the
effects of the low-pressure sprinklers be-
ing utilized alone vs. low-pressure sprin-
klers being utilized in tangent with evapo-
rative cooling pads on in-house windrowing
of poultry litter.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. Shepherd, E. M. 2010. Environmental Effects on
Footpad Dermatitis. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Georgia, Athens.
2. Miller, F. C. 1996. Composting of municipal solid
waste and its components. Pages 115–154 in Microbiology
of solid waste. Palmisano, A. C., and M. A. Barlaz, ed. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL.
3. Malone, B. 2008. Bedding alternatives and windrow-
ing programs. Pages 32–34 in Proc. Virginia Poult. Health
Manage. Semin., Roanoke, VA.
14
4. Lavergne, T. K., M. F. Stephens, D. Schellinger, and
W. and A. Carney Jr. 2006. In-house pasteurization of broiler
litter. Publ. 2955. Louisiana State Univ. Agric. Center, Baton
Rouge.
5. Terzich, M., M. J. Pope, T. E. Cherry, and J. Hollinger.
2000. Survey of pathogens in poultry litter in the United
States. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 9:287–291.
6. Liang, Y., G. T. Tabler, T. A. Costello, I. L. Berry,
S. E. Watkins, and Y. V. Thaxton. 2014. Cooling broiler
chickens by surface wetting: Indoor thermal environment,
water usage, and bird performance. Applied Engineering in
Agriculture 30:249–258.
7. Wood, D., and B. V. Heyst 2014. Assessment of sprin-
klers on the removal efficiency of ammonia and particulate
matter in a commercial broiler facility. Paper No. 141914276.
ASABE, St. Joseph, MI.
8. Liang, Y., J. B. Payne, C. Penn, G. T. Tabler, S. E.
Watkins, K. W. VanDevender, and J. L. Purswell. 2014. Sys-
tematic evaluation of in-house broiler litter windrowing ef-
fects on production benefits and environmental impact. J.
Appl. Poult. Res. 23:625–638.
9. Macklin, K. S., J. B. Hess, and S. F. Bilgili. 2008.
In-house windrow composting and its effects on foodborne
pathogens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 17:121–127.
10. Dumontet, S., H. Dinel, and S. B. Baloda. 1999.
Pathogen reduction in sewage sludge by composting and
other biological treatments: A review. Biol. Agric. Hort.
16:409–430.
11. Jones, P., and M. Martin. 2003. A review of the
literature on the occurrence and survival of pathogens of
animals and humans in green compost. The Waste and
Resource Action Programme. WebMD http://www.wrap.
org.uk/downloads/LitReviewPathogensAnimalHuman Co-
mpost. b1895775.pdf Accessed Jan. 2008.
12. Schmidt, A. M., J. D. Davis, J. L. Purswell, Z. Fan,
and A. S. Kiess. 2013. Spatial variability of heating profiles
in windrowed poultry litter. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 22:319–328.
13. Barker, K. J., C. D. Coufal, J. L. Purswell, J. D. Davis,
H. M. Parker, M. T. Kidd, C. D. McDaniel, and A. S. Kiess.
2011. In-house windrowing of a commercial broiler farm
during the summer months and its effect on litter composi-
tion. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 20:168–180.
14. Code of Federal Regulations. 40 CFR.503
Appendix B.
15. Miles, D. M., D. E. Rowe, and T. C. Cathcart.
2011. High litter moisture content suppresses litter ammonia
volatilization. Poult. Sci. 90:1397–1405.
16. Agnew, J. M., and J. J. Leonard. 2003. The physical
properties of compost. Compost Sci. Util. 11:238–264.
17. Dunlop, M. W., P. J. Blackall, and R. M. Stuetz. 2015.
Water addition, evaporation and water holding capacity of
poultry litter. Science of the Total Environment 538:979–
985.
18. Weeden Sprinkler System, Weeden Environments,
Woodstock, Ontario.
19. Priefert Litter Back Blade, Priefert Manufacturing
Co. Inc., Mt. Pleasant, TX.
20. Federation of Animal Science Societies. 2010. Guide
for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research and
Teaching. Champaign (IL): Federation of Animal Science.
21. Ziploc bags, S.C. Johnson and Son, Inc. Racine WI.
22. Whirl-Pak bags, Nasco, Fort Atkinson WI.
23. RO-TAP RX-29, W.S. Tyler, Mentor OH.
JAPR: Research Report
24. American Society of Agricultural and Biological En-
gineers. 2008. Method of Determining and Expressing Fine-
ness of Feed Materials by Sieving. S319.4. Am. Soc. Agric.
Biol. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.
25. Fischer Scientific Research, Pittsburgh, PA.
26. American Society of Agricultural and Biological En-
gineers. 2007. Moisture relationships of plant-based agricul-
tural products. Pages 596–612 in ASABE Standards. 54th
ed. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng., St. Joseph, MI.
27. AOAC. 2005. Official Methods of Analysis. 18th
Ed. AOAC INTERNATONAL. Gaithersburg, MD, Method
2006.03a.
28. AOAC. 2005. Official Methods of Analysis. 18th
Ed. AOAC INTERNATONAL. Gaithersburg, MD, Method
2006.03.
29. Rapid N Cube, Elementar Analysensysteme GmbH,
Hanau, Germany.
30. Woodbury, B. L., D. N. Miller, R. A. Eigenberg, and
J. A. Nienaber. 2006. An inexpensive laboratory and field
chamber for manure volatile gas analysis. Trans. ASABE
49:767–777.
31. Chillgard RT. MSA Safety, Murrysville, PA.
32. Accumet Excel XL-60, Fisher Scientific Research,
Pittsburgh PA.
33. AOAC. 1995. Official Methods of Analysis. 16th ed.
Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., Arlington, VA.
34. DS-1192 L, Dallas Semiconductor, Sunnyvale, CA.
35. Record of Climatological Observations. NCDC.
Accessed Feb. 2017. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/
datasets/GHCND/stations/GHCND:USC00228374/detail.
36. Rotem Platinum Plus, Rotem Control and Manage-
ment, Petach-Tikva, Israel.
37. Steel, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie. 1980. Principal and
Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. McGraw-
Hill, Inc., New York, NY.
38. SAS Institute. 2012. Statistical Analysis Software.
Version 9.4. SAS Inst. Inc. Cary, NC.
39. Keener, H., M. Wicks, F. Michel, and K. Ekinci. 2014.
Composting broiler litter. World’s Poultry Science Journal
70, December 2014.
40. Wilkinson, K. G., E. Tee, R. B. Tomkins, G. Hep-
worth, and R. Premier. 2011. Effect of heating and aging of
poultry litter on the persistence of enteric bacteria. Poult. Sci.
90:10–18.
41. Henry, S. T., and R. K. White. 1993. Composting
broiler litter from two management systems. Transactions of
the ASAE 36:873–877.
42. Hansen, R. C., H. M. Keener, W. A. Dick, C. Marugg,
and H. A. J. Hoitink. 1990. Poultry manure composting:
Ammonia capture and aeration control. Paper No. 904062.
ASAE, St. Joseph’s MI.
43. Mahimairaja, S., N. S. Bolan, and M. J. Hedley. 1995.
Denitrification losses of N from fresh and composted ma-
nures. Soil Biol. Biochem. 27. Pp. 1223–1225.
44. Flory, G. A., R. W. Peer, B. Barlow, D. Hughes,
G. W. Malone, and A. P. McElroy. 2008. Litter recondi-
tioning as an alternative litter management strategy within
the commercial poultry industry. Accessed June 2017.
http://www.brownbearcorp.com/studies and research/Litter
%20Reconditioning%20as%20an%20Alternative%20Litter
%20Management%20%20Strategy%201.pdf.
45. Groot Koerkamp, P. W. G. 1994. Review on emis-
sions of Ammonia from housing systems for laying hens in
 DITTOE ET AL.: WINDROWING POULTRY LITTER AFTER SPRINKLING
relation to sources, processes, building design, and manure
handling. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research.
59:73–87.
46. Carey, D. S. 1997. Minimizing N loss from poultry
manure amended with ammonia sulfate. M.S. Thesis. The
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
47. National Chicken Council. 2003. National Chicken
Council Animal Welfare Guidelines and Audit Checklist.
National Chicken Council, Washington, D.C.
48. Burgos, S., and S. A. Burgos. 2006. Environmental
approaches to poultry feed formulation and management.
Int. J. Poult. Sci. 5:900–904.
49. Ongley, E. D. 1996. Control of Water Pollution from
Agriculture. Ch. 3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations. Rome.
50. Cunningham, D. L., C. W. Ritz, and W. C. Merka.
2012. Best management practices for storing and applying
poultry litter. The University of Georgia Cooperative Exten-
sion. Bulletin 1230.
View publication stats
15
51. Tabler, G. T. 2015. Nutrient Content in Mississippi
Broiler Litter. Extension Service of Mississippi State Uni-
versity. Publication 2878. Accessed 29 February 2016.
52. Zhang, R., and B. J. Wienhold. 2002. The effect of
soil moisture on mineral nitrogen, soil electrical conductivity,
and pH. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys. 63:251–254.
53. Carr, L. E., F. W. Wheaton, and L. W. Douglas.
1990. Empirical models to determine ammonia concentra-
tions from broiler chicken litter. Trans. ASAE 33:0260–
0265.
54. Schmidt, A. M. 2010. Design and Analysis of Static
Windrow Piles for In-House Broiler Litter Composting. PhD
Diss. Mississippi State University, MS.
Acknowledgments
This publication is a contribution of the Mississippi Agri-
cultural and Forestry Experiment Station (Mississippi State)
and is supported by the United States Department of Agri-
culture Cooperative Agreement under MIS- 322280.