Temporal variation of physico-chemical, microbiological, and parasitological properties of poultry manure from two egg production systems

Abstract

Egg production has increased worldwide and, consequently, there is a large volume of poultry manure generated. The principal egg production systems are the caged ones, namely the conventional and the automated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the temporal variability of the physico-chemical, microbiological, and parasitological properties of poultry manure from both systems. Three conventional and four automated farms were studied. The main variables analyzed differed significantly between systems. Poultry manure from conventional system had the highest values of pH, total solids, C:N, phosphorous, sulfate, selected cations, and some microorganisms and parasites. Poultry manure from automated system had the highest values of electrical conductivity, volatile solids, nitrogen content, and soluble fraction of Ca, Mg, and Mn, among others. The lowest temporal variability of the measured parameters was observed in the automated system. Overall, all measured parameters, except nitrogen, had their highest values in the warmest season. The presence of pathogen microorganisms and parasites and the Na and Zn concentrations indicate that a special management before soil application should be considered. This study could contribute to the development of management strategies for poultry manure in each system, such as control of ambient conditions within the facilities and waste treatment.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Abbreviations

AS:

Automated system

AW:

Autumn–winter

C:N:

Carbon: nitrogen ratio

COD:

Chemical oxygen demand

CS:

Conventional system

EC:

Electrical conductivity

NH4+-N:

Ammonium nitrogen

PM:

Poultry manure

SA:

Summer–autumn

SS:

Spring–summer

SO42 :

Sulfates

TS:

Total solids

TKN:

Total Kjeldahl nitrogen

TOC:

Total organic carbon

TP:

Total phosphorus

VS:

Volatile solids

References

  1. 1.

    FAO (2009) The state of food and agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Young BJ, Rizzo PF, Riera NI, Torre VD, López VA, Molina CD, Fernández FE, Crespo DC, Barrena R, Komilis D, Sánchez A (2016) Development of phytotoxicity indexes and their correlation with ecotoxicological, stability and physicochemical parameters during passive composting of poultry manure. Waste Manag 54:101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Hu Y, Cheng H, Tao S (2017) Environmental and human health challenges of industrial livestock and poultry farming in China and their mitigation. Environ Int 107:111–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Wiedemann S, McGahan E, Burger M (2008) Layer hen manure analysis report. Australian Egg Corporation Limited, North Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bolan N, Adriano D, Mahimairaja S (2004) Distribution and bioavailability of trace elements in livestock and poultry manure by-products. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 34:291–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643380490434128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Maisonnave R, Lamelas K (2015) Buenas prácticas de manejo y utilización de cama de pollo y guano. Ministerio de Agroindustria, Buenos Aires

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Quiroga G, Castrillón L, Fernández-Nava Y, Marañón E (2010) Physico-chemical analysis and calorific values of poultry manure. Waste Manag 30:880–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.12.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Faissal A, Ouazzani N, Parrado J, Dary M, Manyani H, Morgado B, Barragan M, Mandi L (2017) Impact of fertilization by natural manure on the microbial quality of soil: molecular approach. Saudi J Biol Sci 24:1437–1443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2017.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Kelleher B, Leahy J, HenihanO'dwyer AT, Sutton D, Leahy M (2002) Advances in poultry litter disposal technology—a review. Bioresour Technol 83:27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-8524(01)00133-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Rizzo PF, Torre VD, Riera NI, Crespo D, Barrena R, Sánchez A (2015) Co-composting of poultry manure with other agricultural wastes: process performance and compost horticultural use. J Mater Cycles Waste 17:42–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-013-0221-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Abouelenien F, Kitamura Y, Nishio N, Nakashimada Y (2009) Dry anaerobic ammonia–methane production from chicken manure. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 82:757–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-009-1881-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Bres P, Beily ME, Young BJ, Gasulla J, Butti M, Crespo D, Candal R, Komilis D (2018) Performance of semi-continuous anaerobic co-digestion of poultry manure with fruit and vegetable waste and analysis of digestate quality: a bench scale study. Waste Manag 82:276–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2018.10.041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    IEC (2010) The egg industry 2010. A global view. https://www.internationalegg.com. Accessed 8 Aug 2019

  14. 14.

    Naseem S, King AJ (2018) Ammonia production in poultry houses can affect health of humans, birds, and the environment—techniques for its reduction during poultry production. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:15269–15293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2018-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Bloem E, Albihn A, Elving J, Hermann L, Lehmann L, Sarvi M, Schaaf T, Schick J, Turtola E, Ylivainio K (2017) Contamination of organic nutrient sources with potentially toxic elements, antibiotics and pathogen microorganisms in relation to P fertilizer potential and treatment options for the production of sustainable fertilizers: a review. Sci Total Environ 607:225–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Pelletier N (2017) Life cycle assessment of Canadian egg products, with differentiation by hen housing system type. J Clean Prod 152:167–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.050

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    USDA, USCC (2001) Test methods for the examination of composting and compost. Edaphos International, Houston

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    ALPHA (1992) Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater. ALPHA, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Foreyt WJ (2013) Veterinary parasitology reference manual. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Ogunwande G, Osunade J, Ogunjimi L (2008) Effects of carbon to nitrogen ratio and turning frequency on composting of chicken litter in turned-windrow piles. Agric Eng Int CIGR J 10:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Tabatabaei M, Valijanian E, Aghbashlo M, Ghanavati H, Sulaiman A, Wakisaka M (2018) Prominent parameters in biogas production systems. Biogas. Springer, Basel, pp 135–161

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Burton CH, Turner C (2003) Manure management: treatment strategies for sustainable agriculture. Editions Quae, Bedford

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Zhou DM, Hao XZ, Wang YJ, Dong YH, Cang L (2005) Copper and Zn uptake by radish and pakchoi as affected by application of livestock and poultry manures. Chemosphere 59:167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2004.11.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Borowski S, Weatherley L (2013) Co-digestion of solid poultry manure with municipal sewage sludge. Bioresour Technol 142:345–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.05.047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Ihnat M, Fernandes L (1996) Trace elemental characterization of composted poultry manure. Bioresour Technol 57:143–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/0960-8524(96)00061-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Zhou S, Han L, Huang G, Yang Z, Peng J (2018) Pyrolysis characteristics and gaseous product release properties of different livestock and poultry manures: comparative study regarding influence of inherent alkali metals. J Anal Appl Pyrol 134:343–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2018.06.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Adekiya A, Agbede T, Aboyeji C, Dunsin O, Simeon V (2019) Effects of biochar and poultry manure on soil characteristics and the yield of radish. Sci Hortic 243:457–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.08.048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Lin XJ, Zhang R, Jiang S, Elmashad HM, Mitloehner F (2016) Nutrient flow and distribution in conventional cage, enriched colony, and aviary layer houses. Poult Sci 95:213–224. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Bernal MP, Sommer SG, Chadwick D, Qing C, Guoxue L, Michel FC Jr (2017) Current approaches and future trends in compost quality criteria for agronomic, environmental, and human health benefits. Adv Agron 144:143–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Hruby CE, Soupir ML, Moorman TB, Pederson C, Kanwar R (2018) Salmonella and fecal indicator bacteria survival in soils amended with poultry manure. Water Air Soil Pollut 229:32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-017-3667-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Terzich M, Pope MJ, Cherry TE, Hollinger J (2000) Survey of pathogens in poultry litter in the United States. J Appl Poult Res 9:287–291. https://doi.org/10.1093/japr/9.3.287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Yeager JG, Ward R (1981) Effects of moisture content on long-term survival and regrowth of bacteria in wastewater sludge. Appl Environ Microbiol 41:1117–1122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Islam M, Doyle MP, Phatak SC, Millner P, Jiang X (2004) Persistence of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7 in soil and on leaf lettuce and parsley grown in fields treated with contaminated manure composts or irrigation water. J Food Protect 67:1365–1370. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028x-67.7.1365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Jenkins MB, Bowman DD, Ghiorse WC (1998) Inactivation of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts by ammonia. Appl Environ Microbiol 64:784–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Strauch D (1991) Survival of pathogenic micro-organisms and parasites in excreta, manure and sewage sludge. Rev Sci Technol 10:813–846. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.10.3.565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Mekuria S, Bayessa M (2017) Gastrointestinal helminths and their predisposing factors in different poultry management systems; Haromaya, Ethiopia. Ethiop Vet J 21:40–43. https://doi.org/10.4314/evj.v21i1.4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Eigaard N, Schou TW, Permin A, Christensen JP, Ekstrøm CT, Ambrosini F, Cianci D, Bisgaard M (2006) Infection and excretion of Salmonella enteritidis in two different chicken lines with concurrent Ascaridia galli infection. Avian Pathol 35:487–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/03079450601071696

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Hinrichsen LK, Labouriau R, Engberg RM, Knierim U, Sørensen JT (2016) Helminth infection is associated with hen mortality in Danish organic egg production. Vet Rec 179:196–199. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.103614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    EU (2009) European Union Regulation No. 1069/2009. Animal by-products regulation. European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32009R1069. Accessed 9 Aug 2019

  40. 40.

    WHO (2017) One health. https://www.who.int/features/qa/one-health/en/. Accessed 24 July 2019

  41. 41.

    Abín R, Laca A, Laca A, Díaz M (2018) Environmental assessment of intensive egg production: a Spanish case study. J Clean Prod 179:160–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.067

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Liang Y, Xin H, Wheeler E, Gates R, Li H, Zajaczkowski J, Topper P, Casey KD, Behrends B, Burnham DJ (2005) Ammonia emissions from US laying hen houses in Iowa and Pennsylvania. Trans ASAE 48:1927–1941. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.20002

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded by PNNAT 1128042 project (INTA, Argentina). Authors appreciate the cooperation of the poultry producers.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dimitrios Komilis.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOC 50 kb)

Supplementary file2 (DOC 33 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rizzo, P.F., Bres, P.A., Young, B.J. et al. Temporal variation of physico-chemical, microbiological, and parasitological properties of poultry manure from two egg production systems. J Mater Cycles Waste Manag 22, 1140–1151 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10163-020-01008-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Poultry waste
  • Waste management
  • Soil fertilization
  • Conventional
  • Automated