Broiler Litter as Cattle Feed

Help Support CattleToday:

A

Anonymous

I recently came across a website that was trialling the use of broiler litter as cattle feed. I was quite alarmed to think that someone could even consider this as a suitable feed for any animal due to bacteria levels in the manure and the low nutritional level of sawdust. So I am curious to know if anyone has tried using broiler littler as a feed or if anyone has any more info on it.

[email protected]
 
OP
A

Anonymous

> I don't really know much about it. The website which I found was:

<A HREF="http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/publicat/wqwm/ag61.html" TARGET="_blank">www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/publicat/wqwm/ag61.html</A>

Like I said it was the first i have ever heard of it so, everythin that i have read about it is on the website.

[email protected]
 
OP
A

Anonymous

One thing I haven't kept up with is that the USDA was evaluating a response to ban broiler litter as cattle feed. The reason was that chickens are fed bone meal as part of their diet, and bone meal would then drop into the litter and become part of the beef cattle diet - something that raises concerns about transmission of BSE. Anyone hear what became of the thoughts on banning this material?
 
OP
A

Anonymous

> One thing I haven't kept up with
> is that the USDA was evaluating a
> response to ban broiler litter as
> cattle feed. The reason was that
> chickens are fed bone meal as part
> of their diet, and bone meal would
> then drop into the litter and
> become part of the beef cattle
> diet - something that raises
> concerns about transmission of
> BSE. Anyone hear what became of
> the thoughts on banning this
> material? Bone meal, anymore (even before mad cow scares) is made out of all pork which is not a ruminant therfore will not transmit BSE, But as a precaution most mills are certified to be free of any bone meal that could possibly have a ruminant species in it, and they say that the bone meal is steamed at such high temperatures that it would easily kill all BSE anyways. So to answer your question the USDA would not have to ban it cause the feed companies and mill have voluntarily banned it
 
OP
A

Anonymous

BSE is not killed by high temperatures. this is the reason why ruminant bone meal is no longer being allowed in europe to be fed to other ruminants. and another thing: to say it's not in your feed, and not have it in your feed are two different things. it's like a burger company saying all their burgers are made out of carefully selected beef of the highest quality. it's bullshit. their have to be some regulations on the matter.

[email protected]
 
OP
A

Anonymous

What blows my mind is that why people go to all the effort to "research" and/or get non-normal feeds for their livestock! Yes, we have grass and hay shortages from time to time. Yes, we have things like beet pulp and cotton burs, and others that "can" be fed to livestock in moderation.

Is feeding these alternative "feeds" due to local over-supply of these biproducts, cheap prices, or just naivete? Now, feeding alfalfa cubes to horses traveling the road might be another thing. On the other hand, ruminants and non-ruminants have digestive systems that are fine-tuned from centuries of evolution to eat grass, weeds, hay, small grains, and other items.

Finally, I do not see the redeeming value in compromizing their natural grazing behavior or G-I systems by even considering broiler litter (chicken manure +), sawdust, ground-up and processed animal parts, plastic pellets, or any of the other un-natural, exotic or weird things to fill that big open space in the gut. This is akin to feeding humans Tofu, seaweed, tree bark, energy pills, and a myriad of exotic vitamin and other non-food supplements! Hey...what's wrong with REAL food? Food that was inherently normal for a given animal species, two or 4-legged.

Off my soapbox...lol

[email protected]
 
OP
A

Anonymous

Here's a link to a publication by the Alabama Cooperative Extension Service that I found a couple of months ago regarding this subject:

<A HREF="http://www.aces.edu/dept/extcomm/publications/anr/anr-557/pdf/anr-557.pdf" TARGET="_blank">http://www.aces.edu/dept/extcomm/publications/anr/anr-557/pdf/anr-557.pdf</A>
 
OP
A

Anonymous

basically, it's called economics. and if we really get down to what cattle realy are, then they are in essence partially meat eaters due to the microbiotic protein derived from the rumen activity. so there is theoreticaly nothing wrong ith trying to feed cattle other forms of protein, (the problem is that they will drop dead if rumen activity is not kept at a normal level). this aside, if broiler litter works and is safe, why not??? cattle are designed to get their proteins out of low protein feeds like grasses and such, this doesn't mean we can't shortcut this system at least a little, and if we can do this in a cheap way, why not?

[email protected]
 
OP
A

Anonymous

I was going to stay out of this thread, but obviously there are some who need to hear this.

This, and other "alternative" feeding methods, are why I started raising my own beef, and why I will NOT under ANY circumstances eat commercially produced beef. This is also why so many people have become vegetarians -- it's not that they don't want to consume meat, it's because they don't want to consume filth, even if it is indirectly.

The consumer has the right to know that the animals that they are eating are fed good, wholesome, CLEAN food -- and no paper from some university telling how to feed chicken manure safely, is going to convince me (or many other consumers) that we want to eat this crap.

Ann B

> basically, it's called economics.
> and if we really get down to what
> cattle realy are, then they are in
> essence partially meat eaters due
> to the microbiotic protein derived
> from the rumen activity. so there
> is theoreticaly nothing wrong ith
> trying to feed cattle other forms
> of protein, (the problem is that
> they will drop dead if rumen
> activity is not kept at a normal
> level). this aside, if broiler
> litter works and is safe, why
> not??? cattle are designed to get
> their proteins out of low protein
> feeds like grasses and such, this
> doesn't mean we can't shortcut
> this system at least a little, and
> if we can do this in a cheap way,
> why not?



[email protected]
 
OP
A

Anonymous

I cant agree with you more. Load these critters up with medicated feed (when not sick), growth hormones and feed then another animal's crap.. No wonder I could not find a decent piece of beef in the supermarket.. I dont buy it anyway, I grow my own ... all natural.. totally. Time we got back to quality and not quantity... Incidentially... pork in the super market is no better.. tastes like nothing.

I was going to stay out of this
> thread, but obviously there are
> some who need to hear this.

> This, and other
> "alternative" feeding
> methods, are why I started raising
> my own beef, and why I will NOT
> under ANY circumstances eat
> commercially produced beef. This
> is also why so many people have
> become vegetarians -- it's not
> that they don't want to consume
> meat, it's because they don't want
> to consume filth, even if it is
> indirectly.

> The consumer has the right to know
> that the animals that they are
> eating are fed good, wholesome,
> CLEAN food -- and no paper from
> some university telling how to
> feed chicken manure safely, is
> going to convince me (or many
> other consumers) that we want to
> eat this crap.

> Ann B



[email protected]
 
OP
A

Anonymous

Hooray for Ann & Dyann! Couldn't agree more.

I am not a vegetarian or a health nut by any modern definition. However, I want my beef and pork to come from "normally" fed animals, feed they were designed to eat, as "free" roaming animals.

Livestock raisers that pump up their stock with growth hormones, steroids, animal by-products, sawdust, paper, plastic, dried manure, and other stuff are (in my humble, biased opinion) more interested in saving $$, catering to the dictatorships of the slaughter operations, and the naive consumer that has bought into all this standardized, mechanized, carbon-copy truckloads of clone-fed animals where every piece of meat looks the same.

Personally I want to eat an animal that has had a normal, peaceful, and happy life who has eaten cow, pig, or chicken things and drank good, clean water (no bottled water or power pills or energy snacks....)
(User Above)":2umaznhm said:

[email protected]
 
OP
A

Anonymous

i am absolutely against hormones or any other product interfering with the normal hormonal or digestive system of an animal, but when a certain product hits the market, that is perfectly safe (aka, no rubbish, filth or other shite), and which causes no harm for either humans or cattle, and when you add to that that it's cheaper to use. then i would say that the whole community of consumers as well as producers fare well by using this particular product. (what's wrong with gluten? it's an industrial by-product, as are cookies that fell on the factory floor). business is about economics, and if you can make the costs smaller, then the profit goes up, and everyone is happy. "all natural" doesn't necessarily mean all grass or pure corn.

[email protected]
 
OP
A

Anonymous

> I was going to stay out of this
> thread, but obviously there are
> some who need to hear this.

> This, and other
> "alternative" feeding
> methods, are why I started raising
> my own beef, and why I will NOT
> under ANY circumstances eat
> commercially produced beef. This
> is also why so many people have
> become vegetarians -- it's not
> that they don't want to consume
> meat, it's because they don't want
> to consume filth, even if it is
> indirectly.

> The consumer has the right to know
> that the animals that they are
> eating are fed good, wholesome,
> CLEAN food -- and no paper from
> some university telling how to
> feed chicken manure safely, is
> going to convince me (or many
> other consumers) that we want to
> eat this crap.

> Ann B I agree with you whole-heartedly! I didn't mean to cause a stir by posting the link, I was quite disgusted by the whole idea myself when I ran across this article a couple of months ago.
 
OP
A

Anonymous

This thread really intrested me,why because my dad in the 70's worked for a company who promoted a non roughage diet. It was produced by a well knowen company.You fed whole shell corn and premixes/concentrates only.I was kinda young and didn't ask questions,but listened good.Ranchers up here would run him and his boss off there ranches alot. I didn't know why.Another one of those fad diets.Well later after I grew up I started to finish a cow or two for family use. I thought that feeding program would be good but come to find out the company was banned from the state which I live in.I still don't know why.The lesson I learned was watch what you feed.Keep it as natural as possiable and good quality. You will never go wrong.. Right??

[email protected]
 
OP
A

Anonymous

> You guys seem to think that feeding chicken litter is a new thing. On the contrary, farmers have been doing it for decades. And they aren't feeding it pure it will make up to 10-15% of the diet, and the litter isn't pure feces.

Here's how it works: Farmers regularly feed Urea(nothing to do with urine) which is also used as fertilizer for the nitrogen, cattle can break down nitrogen into protein. Chicken litter has a high amount of nitrogen, so they get their protein from this source. If the packers would pay a decent percentage of what they make for the cattle and not take such a big margin from the consumer then farmers wouldn't have to look for alternative feed sources.

And would you rather buy meat that has been "medicated and hormoned up" or would you rather buy synthetic food that is manufactured from preservatives and artificial flavors.

Do the same people that don't eat meat refrain from drinking and smoking, or taking hormones for menopause, or taking viagra, or even aspirin and other pain killers, or coffee.

When raising pigs if they were fed 100% all-natural diet, they would still eat things that would disgust city slickers (skip this part if you are squeamish): their afterbirth (womb), their feces, their own piglets, another dead animal before it can be properly disposed of, and lots of times they are fattened up in a cattle lot and never eat nothing but the corn that passes through cattle.

And how about the water that you are drinking, in many towns it is recycled sewage.

Hope this doesn't cause too much of a stir but it provides something to discuss.
 
OP
A

Anonymous

> You guys seem to think that feeding chicken litter is a new thing. On the contrary, farmers have been doing it for decades. And they aren't feeding it pure it will make up to 10-15% of the diet, and the litter isn't pure feces.

Nobody said anything about it being a new thing -- but being an old practice doesn't make any less disgusting.

>Here's how it works: Farmers
> regularly feed Urea(nothing to do
> with urine) which is also used as
> fertilizer for the nitrogen,
> cattle can break down nitrogen
> into protein. Chicken litter has a
> high amount of nitrogen, so they
> get their protein from this
> source.

Urea is a NON-NITROGEN protein source -- and I don't feed it to my cattle.

If the packers would pay a
> decent percentage of what they
> make for the cattle and not take
> such a big margin from the
> consumer then farmers wouldn't
> have to look for alternative feed
> sources.

Totally agree with you on that -- it's a sin how the farmer and the consumer are both being raped by "middleman".

> And would you rather buy meat that
> has been "medicated and
> hormoned up" or would you
> rather buy synthetic food that is
> manufactured from preservatives
> and artificial flavors.

Neither, that's why I raise my own -- my animals are not implanted with hormones, and the only time they get medication is if they are sick.

> Do the same people that don't eat
> meat refrain from drinking and
> smoking, or taking hormones for
> menopause, or taking viagra, or
> even aspirin and other pain
> killers, or coffee.

Drinking and smoking and these other things shouldn't even enter into this -- they have nothing whatsoever to do with food. And as for hormones for menopause -- any woman is CRAZY if she allows her doctor to give her HORSE URINE, if hormone replacement is necessary there are plant-based estrogens that are identical to human estrogens are available. And this is my point -- I will not be convinced that the waste of one species is beneficial to another species.

> When raising pigs if they were fed
> 100% all-natural diet, they would
> still eat things that would
> disgust city slickers (skip this
> part if you are squeamish): their
> afterbirth (womb), their feces,
> their own piglets, another dead
> animal before it can be properly
> disposed of, and lots of times
> they are fattened up in a cattle
> lot and never eat nothing but the
> corn that passes through cattle.

Pigs are omnivores and meant to eat just about anything, but cows are herbivores. Cow were not meant to eat chicken manure.

> And how about the water that you
> are drinking, in many towns it is
> recycled sewage.

We're on a well that taps into a 180 ft deep aquifer and we're pumping up 300 year old water that is cleaner than any city water -- and no chemicals.

> Hope this doesn't cause too much
> of a stir but it provides
> something to discuss.

Discussion is great -- and nothing says that everybody has to agree, that's what makes the world interesting. If it was decided tomorrow that all cows in the US were to be fed broiler litter, I won't do it, no matter how much literature there is available telling how safe it is. I will continue to raise mine on as natural a diet as possible -- and know that I'm not going to have to deal with stomach problems that seem to be a direct result of feeding and/or slaughtering procedures. Sure is funny that meat from the store (any meat) will tear up my stomach, but meat I raise or hunt and butcher myself doesn't give me any problems.

I also don't have any trouble selling excess animals -- I have a waiting list of people wanting beef. If I had twice as many animals out there, I still wouldn't fill the list.

Ann B

[email protected]
 
OP
A

Anonymous

> Nobody said anything about it
> being a new thing -- but being an
> old practice doesn't make any less
> disgusting.

> Urea is a NON-NITROGEN protein
> source -- and I don't feed it to
> my cattle.

> If the packers would pay a

> Totally agree with you on that --
> it's a sin how the farmer and the
> consumer are both being raped by
> "middleman".

> Neither, that's why I raise my own
> -- my animals are not implanted
> with hormones, and the only time
> they get medication is if they are
> sick.

> Drinking and smoking and these
> other things shouldn't even enter
> into this -- they have nothing
> whatsoever to do with food. And as
> for hormones for menopause -- any
> woman is CRAZY if she allows her
> doctor to give her HORSE URINE, if
> hormone replacement is necessary
> there are plant-based estrogens
> that are identical to human
> estrogens are available. And this
> is my point -- I will not be
> convinced that the waste of one
> species is beneficial to another
> species.

> Pigs are omnivores and meant to
> eat just about anything, but cows
> are herbivores. Cow were not meant
> to eat chicken manure.

> We're on a well that taps into a
> 180 ft deep aquifer and we're
> pumping up 300 year old water that
> is cleaner than any city water --
> and no chemicals.

> Discussion is great -- and nothing
> says that everybody has to agree,
> that's what makes the world
> interesting. If it was decided
> tomorrow that all cows in the US
> were to be fed broiler litter, I
> won't do it, no matter how much
> literature there is available
> telling how safe it is. I will
> continue to raise mine on as
> natural a diet as possible -- and
> know that I'm not going to have to
> deal with stomach problems that
> seem to be a direct result of
> feeding and/or slaughtering
> procedures. Sure is funny that
> meat from the store (any meat)
> will tear up my stomach, but meat
> I raise or hunt and butcher myself
> doesn't give me any problems.

> I also don't have any trouble
> selling excess animals -- I have a
> waiting list of people wanting
> beef. If I had twice as many
> animals out there, I still
> wouldn't fill the list.

> Ann B Ann,Right on, You Go GIRL!!!!

[email protected]
 
OP
A

Anonymous

> Urea is a NON-NITROGEN protein
> source -- and I don't feed it to
> my cattle.

Sorry, had a "brain fart" -- Urea is non-protein nitrogen (NPN), (and I still don't feed it).

According to everything I've read, urea is quite risky to feed and the user must have a good understanding of its utilization and limitations, and follow the feeding guidelines.

#1 Animals less than 1 year old and those that are sick should not be given urea. #2 Energy feeds must be adequate. #3 Urea intake must be controlled. #4 An adaptation period must be provided.

Failure to observe guidelines can result in ammonia toxicity.

Ann B

[email protected]
 
OP
A

Anonymous

N and Raw cell matter are the key in feeding urea. the micro-life in the rumen needs a ratio of about 3/2 for cell over N, now, if you can feed a lot of raw cell matter with low N content (generative grass hay, straw, any feed that is basically harvested after generative stadium) then the micro-life (sorry for the poor term, but i'm not english speaking) in the rumen can take more advantage of the raw cell matter when extra N, preferably under the form of urea, is added. so there is nothing unnnatural about feeding it, and ann B, if you feed your cattle anything, you should always try to understand what they do with that food, otherwise, there is no way you can feed your cattle the optimum ration.

[email protected]
 

Similar threads

A
Replies
1
Views
2K
Anonymous
A
A
Replies
2
Views
3K
Anonymous
A
A
Replies
4
Views
7K
Anonymous
A
A
Replies
6
Views
3K
Anonymous
A
Top