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

net/publication/236680948

Effect of different litter material on performance and behavior of broiler

chickens

Article in Applied Animal Behaviour Science · January 2009

DOI: 10.1016/j.applanim.2009.11.008

CITATIONS READS

63 5,617

5 authors, including:

Majid Toghyani Abbasali Gheisari

Islamic Azad University Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch Isfahan Center for Research of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources
123 PUBLICATIONS 2,166 CITATIONS 64 PUBLICATIONS 1,471 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mehrdad Modaresi Seyed Ali Tabeidian

Islamic Azad University ,Isfahan(Khorasgan) Branch Islamic Azad University
110 PUBLICATIONS 795 CITATIONS 48 PUBLICATIONS 794 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mehdi Toghyani on 14 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Applied Animal Behaviour Science 122 (2010) 48–52

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Animal Behaviour Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/applanim

Effect of different litter material on performance and behavior

of broiler chickens
Majid Toghyani a,*, Abasali Gheisari b, Mehrdad Modaresi a, Sayed Ali Tabeidian a,
Mehdi Toghyani c
a
Department of Animal Science, Islamic Azad University, Khorasgan (Esfahan) Branch, Eastern Jey Street, Esfahan, Iran
b
Department of Animal Science, Esfahan Agricultural Research Center, Esfahan, Iran
c
Young Researchers Club of Islamic Azad University, Khorasgan Branch, Esfahan, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Two experiments were conducted to investigate the effects of alternative litter materials
Accepted 11 November 2009 on growth performance and behaviors of broiler chicks. Chicks were raised from 1 to 42
Available online 6 December 2009 days of age, during the summer with an average temperature of 31 8C. In experiment 1,
three hundred broilers (Ross 308) were randomly assigned to one of 20 floor pens. There
Keywords: were four replicates for each of the following five litter treatments: (1) no litter, (2) wood
Broiler shaving, (3) sand, (4) rice hulls and (5) recycled paper roll. Results showed broilers reared
Litter on rice hulls had significantly lower body weight, feed intake and antibody titer (P < 0.05).
Performance
Litter materials had no significant influence on feed conversion, carcass yield, abdominal
Antibody titer
fat, gizzard, intestine, ceca and lymphoid organs expressed as a percentage of body weight.
Behavior
In experiment 2, four pens were divided into four quarters and bedded with sand, wood
shavings, rice hulls and paper roll. Birds (20/pen) were observed, ten times a day and one
day per week from weeks 2 to 6. The birds spent 49% of their time in the sand side, 19% in
the wood shavings, 18% in the paper roll and 13% in the rice hulls. The proportion of the
total time budget spent dustbathing was greater on the sand side. The time spent sitting
was also higher in the sand and wood shavings. Walking was greater on the rice hulls and
paper roll but foraging was lower on the rice hulls. These results indicate that broilers
reared on floor (no litter), sand and paper roll performed as well as those reared on wood
shavings and when given a choice, broilers spent a greater proportion of their total time in
sand and performed a greater proportion of their behaviors on sand.
ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Wood shavings and sawdust are the most common
materials used as litter in commercial broiler production in
many areas. Low supplies, high cost, and unavailability of
suitable materials have encouraged the search for alter-
native litter materials. A variety of paper products (Malone
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 913 314 1302; fax: +98 311 5354038.
E-mail address: toghiani@hotmail.com (M. Toghyani).
et al., 1982, 1983; Lien et al., 1992), gypsum (Grimes et al.,
2006), hardwood bark (Brake et al., 1992), kenaf (Malone et
al., 1990), peanut hulls (Lien et al., 1998), sand (Billgilli
et al., 1999a,b; Shields et al., 2005), rice hulls (Veltmann et
al., 1984), rice hull ash (Chamblee and Yeatman, 2003), rice
and wheat straw (Benabdeljelil and Ayachi, 1996), soft-
wood chipping fines (Parsons and Baker, 1985), leaves
(Willis et al., 1997) refused tea (Atapattu and Wickrama-
singhe, 2007) ground corncob, chopped corn stalk and
soybean straw (de Avila et al., 2008) have occasionally
been used as substitute bedding materials with various

0168-1591/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2009.11.008
 Author's personal copy
M. Toghyani et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 122 (2010) 48–52
degrees of success. Recently in Iran many farmers prefer to
rear broilers on the floor (no litter) in summer or on
recycled paper roll as a new litter.
Bedding type can significantly affect growth perfor-
mance and carcass quality of broilers (Billgilli et al., 1999b;
Malone et al., 1983). Litter type affects litter consumption
and litter bacteria (Malone et al., 1983; Lien et al., 1992),
thus may affect body weight and immunity of broiler
chicks. Factors which can influence the efficiency of a type
of litter include particle size, moisture content and
buildup, rate of caking, and other physical characteristics
of the material used.
Bedding substrate stimulates particular behaviors of
broiler chickens. Sand appears to be one such potential
substrate. Broilers that are deprived of bedding and
subsequently given a choice between sand and pine wood
shavings choose to dustbathe and forage more in sand than
in any of the other substrates (Shields et al., 2004, 2005).
When sand-filled trays are placed in pens, broilers
dustbathe and forage preferentially in the sand rather
than in the wood shavings covering the pen floor (Arnould
et al., 2004). However, there are little data about behaviors
of broilers reared on other litter materials.
The objectives of these two experiments presented here
were to evaluate growth performance and behaviors of
male broiler chicks when using different material as a
bedding source.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experiment 1
Three hundred one-day-old male broiler chicks (Ross
308) were allocated to five treatments in a completely
randomized design. The treatments consisted of no litter
(cement floor) or four different bedding types: wood
shavings, rice hulls, recycled paper roll, and sand. The pens
were filled to a depth of 3 cm with sand, wood shavings,
rice hulls or recycled paper roll having a thickness of 2 mm.
Each treatment was randomly allocated within the house
in floor pens of 15 chicks each (10 birds/m2). Chicks were
raised from 1 to 42 days of age, during the summer in July–
August with an average temperature of 31 8C. Each pen
contained a waterer (bell drinker) and feeder (trough
feedrer). All chicks received corn-soybean meal diet in a
three-stage feeding program, which consisted of a starter
(21.5% CP, 2810 kcal ME/kg), grower (21% CP, 2980 kcal
ME/kg) and finisher (20% CP, 3050 kcal ME/kg).
Feed and water were provided ad libitum. No antibiotics
or coccidiostats were administered. The lighting program
was 23 h light and 1 h dark. Body weight, feed consumption
and feed conversion were determined for each pen at 14, 28
and 42 days. Mortality was recorded daily.
All chicks were intramuscularly immunized with a
killed vaccine of Newcastle and Avian Influenza (H9 N2)
viruses at age of 8 days. On day 18 and 28 blood samples
were collected from the wing vein of two birds per
replicate and serum antibody titers against Newcastle and
Influenza viruses in serum were determined by haemag-
glutination inhibition (HI) test and were expressed as the
logarithm base 2.
49
At 42 days of age two birds were chosen randomly from
each pen, slaughtered and the abdominal fat, gizzard,
proventriculus, intestine, ceca and lymphoid organs such
as spleen and bursa of Fabricius were collected, weighed
and expressed as a percentage of live body weight.
2.2. Experiment 2
Eighty male broiler chicks (Ross 308) were used in this
experiment. At day 1 of age, the chicks were randomly
assigned to four different treatment pens. Each pen was
divided into four quarters bedded with wood shavings, rice
hulls, sand, and paper roll. The pens were filled to a depth
of 2 cm with sand, wood shavings, rice hulls, or recycled
paper roll with thickness of 2 mm. The location of the 4
substrates was alternated in the pens. Each pen measured
240 cm  240 cm was equipped with separate drinkers
(bell drinker) and feeders (trough feeder), on each litter.
Feed and water were available ad libitum. The lighting
program was 23 h light and 1 h dark. The same diets were
used in experiment 1.
Behavioral observations were conducted one day per
week starting when the chicks reached 7 days of age and
continued through 42 days of age. The behavioral data
were recorded via overhead video cameras fitted in each
pen, over ten 1 h periods per day (from 09:00 to 12:00 h
and from 13:00 to 20:00 h). For each 1 h period six scan,
were taken 5 min apart. The behaviors were divided
into: Eating, drinking, preening, dustbathing, pecking,
scratching, walking, lying, standing, sitting, perching and
aggression. To express each behavioral score as a
proportion of the total behavior performed in a given
day and pen, the behavioral score on each substrate was
then divided by the total score for all the behaviors in
that pen for that day. Dividing each behavioral score by
the total possible behavioral score created a population
time budget that could then be subjected to statistical
analysis.
2.3. Statistical analysis
Analysis were performed with the SAS software (SAS,
1997) using the General Linear Model procedures.
Significant differences (P < 0.05) among treatment means
were determined using the Duncan multiple range test.
3. Results
3.1. Experiment 1
The effects of different bedding types on the
performance of broilers are summarized in Table 1.
Body weight of broilers at 42 days was significantly
(P < 0.05) affected by the litter type. Broilers grown on
the rice hulls litter had the lowest body weight
compared to other litters. The feed intake of broilers
reared on rice hulls was significantly lower than other
litters (P < 0.05). The highest feed intake was belonged
to broilers reared on no litter or sand.
There were no significant (P > 0.05) differences in feed
conversion and mortality. Percentage of proventriculus to
 Author's personal copy

50 M. Toghyani et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 122 (2010) 48–52

Table 1 Table 4
Effect of different litter materials on performance of broiler chicks Effect of different litter material on antibody titer against Newcastle and
averaged over all growth period. influenza viruses at different ages.

Litter treatments Body Feed intake Feed Mortality Litter treatment Newcastle Influenza
weight (g) (g/bird/d) conversion (%) (log2 HI titer) (log2 HI titer)
(g:g)
18 days 28 days 18 days 28 days
No litter 2129 a 84.2 a 1.70 a
2.4 a a a a
No litter 4.12 5.25 3.87 5.38 a
Wood shaving 2091 a 82.3 ab 1.69 a
2a
Wood shaving 3.25 ab 5.12 a 3.62 a 5.12 a
Rice hulls 2017 b 78.9 b 1.69 a
2.8 a
Rice hulls 2.37 b 4.62 a 3.25 a 4.38 a
Paper roll 2072 a 82.1 ab 1.71 a
2.3 a
Paper roll 3.00 b 4.88 a 3.88 a 5.50 a
Sand 2116 a 83.1 ab 1.69 a
1.8 a
Sand 4.25 a 4.71 a 4.12 a 5.00 a
SEM 19.3 2.21 0.03 1.62
* * SEM 0.586 0.921 0.856 0.741
Significance NS NS *
Significance NS NS NS
a,b
Means within the column with no common superscripts differ a,b
Means within the column with no common superscripts differ
significantly; NS: not significant.
* significantly; NS: not significant.
P < 0.05. *
P < 0.05.

live weight was significantly affected by litter type
(P < 0.05) but no significant differences were found
for carcass, abdominal fat, gizzard, intestine and ceca
(Table 2). Broilers reared on no litter or rice hulls had
the lower proventriculus weight than other litters
(P < 0.05) and were not significantly different from each
other. Also percentage of gizzard and intestine were not
significantly different but tended to decrease in broilers
reared on no litter or rice hulls and increase in wood
shaving.
Percentage of lymphoid organ (spleen and bursa of
Fabricius) of live weight were not significantly affected by
litter type (Table 3). However the weight of bursa of
Fabricius was not significantly lower in broilers reared on
rice hulls than other litters.
Effect of the different bedding types on antibody titer
against Newcastle and Influenza vaccine are presented in
Table 4. The antibody titer against Newcastle vaccine at 18
days was significantly affected by litter type. Broilers
reared on the rice hulls had significantly lower antibody
titer than on sand. Antibody titer against Newcastle at 28
days and Influenza at 18 and 28 days tended to decrease in
broilers reared on rice hulls.
3.2. Experiment 2
Comparing the change in behavior between the four
bedding types showed a significant (P < 0.05) difference in
drinking, feeding, foraging, preening, sitting, locomotion,
dustbathing, and perching behaviors on the four different
beddings (Table 5).
There was a significant decrease in locomotion behavior
on sand and wood shavings whereas sitting increased. The
birds sat more on sand and wood shavings rather than on
rice hulls and the paper roll (P < 0.05). Perching behavior
peaked during weeks 3 and it was the highest for rice hulls
and lowest for sand. Foraging behavior decreased in the
rice hulls side of the pen but was higher on the other litters.
The drinking behavior tended to increase on the paper roll
side of the pen. Dustbathing and preening were performed
respectively more on sand and wood shavings rather on
the other bedding types (P < 0.01).

Table 2
Carcass traits of broiler chickens (percentage of live weight) reared using different litter materials (measured at 42 days of age).

Litter Carcass Abdominal Proventriculus Gizzard Intestine Ceca

treatments fat
a
No litter 76.6 2.35 a 0.309 b
2.14 a 3.08 a 0.711 a

a
Wood shaving 75.9 2.31 a 0.337 ab
2.42 a 3.76 a 0.699 a

a
Rice hulls 76.3 2.49 a 0.311 b
2.25 a 3.18 a 0.704 a

a
Paper roll 75.6 2.11 a 0.359 a
2.36 a 3.43 a 0.666 a

a
Sand 75.5 2.29 a 0.354 a
2.35 a 3.53 a 0.718 a

SEM 1.85 0.345 0.019 0. 260 0.542 0.015

*
Significance NS NS NS NS NS
a,b
Means within the column with no common superscripts differ significantly; NS: not significant.
*
P < 0.05.

Table 3
Lymphoid organs of broiler chickens (percentage of live weight) reared using different litter materials (measured at 42 days of age).

Lymphoid organs No litter Wood shaving Rice hulls Paper roll Sand SEM Significance
a a a a a
Spleen 0.146 0.147 0.177 0.152 0.185 0.075 NS
a a a a a
Bursa of Fabricius 0.081 0.077 0.052 0.079 0.072 0.046 NS

NS: not significant.

 Author's personal copy

M. Toghyani et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 122 (2010) 48–52 51

Table 5
Overall distribution of behaviors on each side of the pen as shown by the proportion of total behavioral time budget for each behavior.

Treatment behaviorc Wood shavings Sand Rice hulls Paper roll Significance
c c b
Drink 1.7 1.6 3.2 6a *

b a a b *
Feed 9.5 16.1 16.4 11.7
a a b a *
Forage 9.2 9.6 6.5 10.6
a b b b *
Preen 7.8 3.8 4.1 4.6
a a a a
Stretch 2.4 0.7 1.2 2.4 NS
a a a a
Stand 3.7 3.4 5.3 5.2 NS
a a b b *
Sit 46.3 47.4 35.9 35.6
b b a a *
Locomotion 3.3 2.9 7.8 9.3
a b b b **
Dustbathe 3.7 0.3 0.2 0.8
a a a
Lie 9.8 9.4 13.4 10 a NS
b ab
Perch 2.6 4.7 6a 3.8 b *

a,b
Means within the row with no common superscripts differ significantly, NS: not significant.
c
% of total behavior.
*
P < 0.05.
**
P < 0.01.

The standing, stretching and lying behaviors were not
affected significantly by litter type.
In the over all growth period the birds spent 49% of their
time in the sand side, 19% in the wood shavings, 18% in the
paper roll and 13% in the rice hulls.
4. Discussion
4.1. Experiment 1
In the present study broilers reared on rice hulls had the
lowest body weight in comparison to others litter (Table 1).
The observed differences in body weight may be attributed
to depression of feed intake in birds reared on rice hulls
and increasing feed intake on others litter especially on
floor (no litter). Billgilli et al. (1999a) reported in
comparison to broilers reared on pine shavings, broilers
reared on sand had significantly higher body weights. The
beneficial effects of certain types of litter material (news-
paper) on body weight have been reported by Malone et al.
(1982). Many studies in which alternative materials were
tested have reported that the type of litter material used
does not affect body weight (Lien et al., 1992; Burke et al.,
1993; Grimes et al., 2006; de Avila et al., 2008). Feed
conversion and mortality of broilers in this experiment
were not affected by litter type (Table 1). Other researchers
have reported similar findings regarding the influence of
various litter material on feed conversion and mortality
(Burke et al., 1993; Willis et al., 1997; Grimes et al., 2006;
Atapattu and Wickramasinghe, 2007).
The results of this experiment with respect to lower
weight of proventriculus and gizzard in no litter or rice
hulls and no differences in carcass and abdominal fat by
litter type are in agreement with findings of Billgilli et al.
(1999b) who reported carcass yield and abdominal fat
were not affected by litter type but gizzard were
significantly higher for birds reared on pine shaving. They
observed that birds reared on pine shavings had higher
clean gizzard weights and gizzard contents. Broilers reared
on wood shavings or sawdust has been shown to have
larger gizzards than those reared on other litter materials
(Malone et al., 1983).
The reduction in antibody titer against Newcastle and
Influenza in broiler reared on rice hulls may be related to
consumption of pathogenic bacteria due to litter con-
sumption in birds reared on rice hulls. Billgilli et al. (1999a)
and Macklin et al. (2005) reported coliforms, aerobic,
anaerobic and enteric bacterial counts were low in sand.
Sand, being inorganic, contains few nutrients that could be
utilized by bacteria and, thus, would tend to lead to lower
bacterial numbers. Rice hulls, being organic, would contain
nutrients that could be utilized by some bacterial species.
Additionally, sand may lack binding sites for bacteria.
Malone et al. (1983) indicated young chicks may consume
litter material, particularly when its particles are of small
size. No reports regarding antibody titer or immunity and
bedding material could be found.
4.2. Experiment 2
In the present study changes in behaviors of broilers
chicks by litter type was observed. In agreement with our
results, many researchers reported, behaviors of broiler
chicks affected by different bedding types (Arnould et al.,
2004; Shields et al., 2004, 2005). In this study, locomo-
tion behavior on sand and wood shavings decreased
whereas sitting increased. There might be a perceptual
difference in the way sand and wood shavings appear to
broilers, in the way it feels on their feet and in their
plumage. Cleanliness, temperature at lower depth in the
bedding, odor or some other characteristics of the
bedding may be important for resting. Billgilli et al.
(1999a) found that sand bedding in commercial houses is
cleaner than other litters.
The decrease in forage behavior on the rice hulls,
reflects the changing condition of the litter such as
friability (Shields et al., 2005). In the present experiment
drinking behavior increased on the paper roll. Litter
sometimes got into the waterers, and the wood shavings,
rice hulls and sand became suspended in the water to a
greater extent than the paper roll. The result was that the
water tended to stay cleaner on the paper roll side of the
pen, which might be one reason that the birds walked to
this side to drink.
 Author's personal copy
52 M. Toghyani et al. / Applied Animal Behaviour Science 122 (2010) 48–52
Dustbathing was performed more on the sand side,
which is in agreement with findings of Shields et al. (2004,
2005), showing that broilers prefer sand to wood shavings,
paper bedding, or rice hulls for dustbathing. Arnould et al.
(2004) found that broilers are attracted to trays of sand
placed in their pens and use the sand preferentially for
dustbathing and foraging. Laying hens also prefer to
dustbathe in sand rather than in wood shavings or straw
(Sanotra et al., 1995).
In the present study broiler chicks preferred to spend
about half of their time in the sand in comparison with
other materials. In agreement with our findings Shields et
al. (2005) reported when given a choice, broiler chicks
rested more on sand than wood shavings bedding.
5. Conclusion
The results of these experiments demonstrated that
broilers reared on floor (no litter), sand and paper roll
perform as well as those reared on wood shavings and
when given a choice, broilers spent a greater proportion of
their total time in sand and increasingly performed many
of their behaviors on sand.
Acknowledgment
This project was supported by the Islamic Azad
University of Khorasgan (project number 5175586040
9003).
References
Arnould, C., Bizeray, D., Faure, J.M., Leterrier, C., 2004. Effects of the
addition of sand and string to pens on use of space, activity, tarsal
angulations and bone composition of broiler chickens. Anim. Welf. 13,
87–94.
Atapattu, N., Wickramasinghe, K.P., 2007. The use of refused tea as litter
material for broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 86, 968–972.
Benabdeljelil, K., Ayachi, A., 1996. Evaluation of alternative litter materi-
als for poultry. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 5, 203–209.
Billgilli, S.F., Montenegro, G.I., Hess, J.B., Eckman, M.K., 1999a. Sand as
litter for rearing broiler chickens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 8, 345–351.
View publication stats
Billgilli, S.F., Montenegro, G.I., Hess, J.B., Eckman, M.K., 1999b. Live
performance, carcass quality and deboning yields of broilers reared
on sand as a litter source. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 8, 352–361.
Brake, J.D., Boyle, C.R., Chamblee, T.N., Schultz, C.D., Peebles, E.D., 1992.
Evaluation of the chemical and physical properties of hardwood bark
used as a broiler litter material. Poult. Sci. 71, 467–472.
Burke, G.B., Pescatore, A.J., Cantor, A.H., Straw, M.L., Xiangbai, H., Johnson,
T.H., 1993. Newspaper as litter material and its effect on the perfor-
mance of broilers. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2, 154–158.
Chamblee, T.N., Yeatman, J.B., 2003. Evaluation of rice Hull ash as broiler
litter. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 12, 424–427.
de Avila, V.S., de Oliveira, U., de Figueiredo, E.A.P., Costa, C.A.F., Abreu,
V.M.N., Rosa, P.S., 2008. Alternative material to replace wood shavings
as broiler litter. Rev. Bras. Zootecn. 37, 273–277.
Grimes, J.L., Carter, T.A., Godwin, J.L., 2006. Use of a litter material made
from cotton waste, gypsum, and old newsprint for rearing broiler
chickens. Poult. Sci. 85, 563–568.
Lien, R.J., Conner, D.E., Bilgili, S.F., 1992. The use of recycled paper chips
as litter material for rearing broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 71, 81–
87.
Lien, R.J., Hess, J.B., Conner, D.E., Wood, C.W., Shelby, R.A., 1998. Peanut
hulls and a litter source for broiler breeder replacement pullets. Poult.
Sci. 77, 41–46.
Macklin, K.S., Hess, J.B., Bilgili, S.F., Norton, R.A., 2005. Bacterial levels of
pine shavings and sand used as poultry litter. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 14,
238–245.
Malone, G.W., Allen, P.H., Chaloupka, G.W., Ritter, W.F., 1982. Recycled
paper products as broiler litter. Poult. Sci. 61, 2161–2165.
Malone, G.W., Chaloupka, G.W., Saylor, W.W., 1983. Influence of litter
type and size on broiler performance: 2. Factors affecting litter
consumption. Poult. Sci. 62, 1741–1746.
Malone, G.W., Tilmon, E.D., Taylor, R.W., 1990. Evaluation of kenaf core for
broiler litter. Poult. Sci. 69, 2064–2067.
Parsons, A.H., Baker, S.L., 1985. Softwood chipping fines: efficacy as
poultry litter. Poult. Sci. 64, 2292–2295.
Sanotra, G.S., Vestergaard, K.S., Aggery, J.F., Lawson, L.G., 1995. The
relative preferences for feathers, straw, wood-shaving and sand for
dustbathing, pecking and scratching in domestic chicks. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 43, 263–277.
SAS Institute, 1997. SAS/STAT1 User’s Guide: Statistics, Version 6.12. SAS
Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
Shields, S.J., Garner, J.P., Mench, J.A., 2004. Dustbathing by broiler chick-
ens: a comparison of preference for four different substrates. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 87, 69–82.
Shields, S.J., Garner, J.P., Mench, J.A., 2005. Effect of sand and wood-
shavings bedding on the behavior of broiler chickens. Poult. Sci.
84, 1816–1824.
Veltmann, L.R., Cardoer, F.A., Unlon, S.S., 1984. Comparison of rice hull
products as litter material and dietary fat levels on turkey poult
performance. Poult. Sci. 63, 2345–2351.
Willis, W.L., Murray, C., Talbot, C., 1997. Evaluation of leaves as a litter
material. Poult. Sci. 76, 1138–1140.