One of the most controversial topics in raising backyard chickens may be what bedding to use in your chicken coop. 

Some say straw is the only way to go. Others say it’s pine, and others say only sand will do. Still others sing the praises of less common bedding types, like peat moss and wood chips (see my article, A comparison of 21+ bedding materials for your chicken coop).

So what does the science actually say?   

What is the best chicken coop bedding for healthy, happy chickens? Medium- to coarse-grained sand is the best chicken coop bedding as it’s non-toxic, dries quickly, stays clean, is low in pathogens, and has low levels of dust.

Sand is a much safer choice than all other bedding materials. Chopped straw is a mediocre choice, but carries a risk of pathogens, and pine shavings should be avoided due to toxicity.

So many people are making claims about the quality of different chicken coop bedding materials without providing any research or references to back up their assertions. In this article, I’ve summarized dozens of scientific studies conducted on the most commonly used chicken coop bedding materials—pine shavings, straw, and sand. I’ve provided a long list of citations down below. 

If you are interested in using bedding materials other than sand, pine shavings, or straw, check out my article, A comparison of 21+ bedding materials for your chicken coop.

In this article you will learn:

• Why your chickens need litter not bedding in their coops

• The major problem with scientific research on bedding materials

• The qualities that make a good coop litter

• Moisture absorption and retention of sand vs. straw vs. pine shavings (and why it matters)

• Which bedding material is the cleanest and which is dirtiest

• Ammonia levels in sand, straw, and pine shavings

• Bacteria levels in sand, straw, and pine shavings

• Mold levels in sand, straw, and pine shavings

• Dustiness, toxicity, and carcinogenic properties of sand, straw, and pine shavings

• Additional dangers of sand, straw, and pine shavings

• Ease of use and other concerns of sand, straw, and pine shavings

This post contains Amazon affiliate links for my favorite products. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases at no extra cost to you.

Comparison of straw, sand, and pine shavings

For those of you who don’t want to read this whole article, I have a summary chart below. Due to space constraints, I listed only one citation per cell—read the full article for more references. The ratings given for each cell are relative to the other two bedding materials.

Why your chickens need litter not bedding in the chicken coop

Whether you are new to chicken keeping or you’re a seasoned keeper, most of us have a lot of misconceptions about why chicken coop bedding is needed for modern-day backyard chickens.  

Most of us have an antiquated idea of what chicken coop bedding is, and our chickens suffer for our lack of knowledge. This is because backyard chickens, unlike industry broiler chickens, don’t need bedding. They only need litter (a special thanks to The Chicken Chick for first bringing this to my attention here).

So what exactly is the difference between bedding and litter?

Chicken bedding is the material used on the floor of factory farm poultry houses. Litter is material used for the management of chicken waste.

Bedding is needed in the broiler industry because the chickens are raised in what are called “floor-based poultry production systems” (Munir et al., 2019, p. 5).

How do these systems differ from backyards? In floor-based poultry production houses, chickens live indoors on bedding their entire lives, which isn’t long (typically a month or two).

Unlike backyard chickens, these broilers don’t tend to roost. These birds grow so quickly and have so much meat on them that they are incredibly low energy and are prone to leg problems and pain. Roosting isn’t an option. Many of them struggle to walk, let alone, jump up on a roost for the night.

Because of this, broilers both live and sleep in their bedding. This means they actually need bedding for more than just litter purposes, so their floor material serves as both bedding and as litter.  In these systems, litter is defined as “… a combination of bedding and fecal material” (Shepherd et al., 2017).

Most chicken keepers abide by this definition for litter, but, as you can now see, it doesn’t quite apply to modern-day backyard chickens. A more logical definition of litter for us is this: a combination of a low moisture-retention material and fecal matter. 

We should be thinking of chicken coop floor material more like how we think of kitty litter, rather than thinking of it as animal bedding. Of course, chickens have a lot more exposure to their litter than do cats, so we need to make sure we’re providing them material that’s not toxic.

The problem with scientific research on chicken coop bedding

So now, when reviewing the academic literature on bedding, we have a major problem. Essentially all of the research that’s been done comes from factory farm poultry houses, where bedding actually serves as bedding.

This is something you’ll have to always keep in mind when you read a scientific study on chickens. You are using bedding for a different purpose than they are.

Another problem is that broiler chickens don’t live very long (usually a month or two), so none of the academic studies address the long-term effects of bedding materials. This is incredibly unfortunate for backyard chicken keepers as many bedding types that are very safe in the short term are very dangerous in the long term. 

As you’ll learn in this article, pine shavings is one such bedding type. Cedar shavings and peat moss, although not discussed here, also fall into this category. For more information, you can check out my articles:

• Pine shavings in the coop: The secret chicken killer?

• Why you should NEVER use cedar your chicken coop

• Peat moss for chicken coop bedding: Amazing or dangerous?

And even straw and, yes, my favorite, sand, may have potentially dangerous long-term health effects, although more evidence is needed to know (more on this later). This is why I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:

There is no perfect chicken coop bedding.

In my discussions below, I’ve also drawn on other sources of information about bedding, such as other livestock studies, rodent medical research, and human occupational diseases research, to help you anticipate the long-term effects of these bedding materials on your chickens’ health. 

The qualities of good chicken coop litter

Good chicken coop litter has 7 major properties:

1. Low moisture retention

2. Cleanliness

3. Low Ammonia

4. Low bacteria diversity and counts

5. Low mold counts

6. Low dust

7. Non-toxicity

Other properties that may be desirable (but not always necessary) in chicken coop litter are:

1. Easy to use

2. Insulative

3. Compostable

4. Non-flammable

5. Low insect counts

In the rest of this article, I will compare straw, sand, and pine shavings across these categories. 

Moisture retention of sand, straw, and pine shavings in the coop

Chicken coop bedding needs to stay dry. If it gets too wet, a diversity of pathogens will thrive (Dumas et al., 2011), which can cause both ammonia buildup in your coop and a variety of illnesses in your chickens.

There are two components involved in the moisture retention of chicken bedding (Shepherd et al., 2017):

1. Absorption capacity—how much water can the bedding absorb?

2. Release speed—how quickly can the bedding lose water to evaporation?

Absorption is necessary so that water doesn’t pool on the bedding or get the bedding too wet too quickly. The quick release of water in bedding is necessary to keep the coop as dry as possible and limit pathogenic activity.

Moisture absorption: Sand vs. straw vs. pine shavings

As far as absorption capacity goes, straw tends to be significantly more absorbent than pine shavings and sand. Although there are a couple of laboratory studies that suggest that straw has a lower absorbency than pine shavings (Ward et al., 2000; Yarnell et al., 2016), these studies use unusual laboratory methods to measure bedding absorbency. 

The studies that have been done in the field (that is, in actual poultry houses with chickens) consistently indicate that straw is superior to pine shavings in terms of absorbency.

Out of 9 bedding types tested for absorbency, including pine shavings, chopped straw came in second only to peat moss (Shepherd et al., 2017). The chopped straw absorbed 7x its own weight in water.

Sand, on the other hand, has been shown to have a very low absorbency when compared to both straw and pine shavings (Bilgili et al. 2009). In one study, sand had a water-holding capacity of only 10% vs. wood shavings at 100% and peat moss at 300% (Shanawany et al., 1992).

Moisture release: Sand vs. straw vs. pine shavings

Although straw is an incredibly absorbent bedding (Shepherd et al., 2107), it’s downright terrible at releasing moisture. Out of 9 bedding types tested for water release, chopped straw was the very slowest to release water. This means that straw retains moisture, not a good characteristic for bedding.

Sand, on the other hand, is the king of moisture release. Sand releases water better than all other types of bedding.

In one study, various forms of bedding were compared in side-by-side experimental pens with mixed-sex broilers. The bedding tested included sand, pine shavings, and straw (Bilgili et al., 2009). After 48 hours, sand retained only 22.2% moisture, whereas pine shavings retained 71.8%, and straw retained 80.8%. Think about that—sand retained only ¼ of the moisture that straw retained! 

I’ve summarized some of the data from this study below (Bilgili et al., 2009):

In a different, month-long study, sand was again the clear winner for moisture release (Hafeez et al., 2009). At the end of a broiler-raising period of 35 days, the moisture of sand was at ~20%, compared to ~40% for straw. 

Similarly, in another study, the moisture levels in sand were found to be considerably lower than those in the pine shavings (Macklin et al., 2005).

These studies suggest that absorption may only be important for organic bedding materials, like straw and pine shavings, but not for inorganic bedding, like sand (Grimes et al., 2002). For example, in one study, despite the fact that the absorbency of sand was found to be significantly lower than for wood shavings, the sand was only about 1/5 as wet as the wood shavings (Garcês et al., 2013). 

What really matters in the chicken coop is that the bedding stays as dry as possible, and sand, despite its low absorbency, tends to stay dry because it releases moisture so quickly. 

So there you have it:

• Straw is absorbent, but does not release water quickly

• Sand releases water quickly, but is not absorbent (but because it releases water so well, it stays drier, regardless)

• Pine shavings are somewhere in between with moderate absorbency and moderate release

From this data, sand is clearly the best bedding for moisture control. Although the sand grains don’t absorb water well, water trickles into the bedding and dries quickly. This greatly lessens the conditions conducive to pathogen growth that are so common in straw and pine shavings (see the section on pathogens below). 

Cleanliness: Sand vs. straw vs. pine shavings

As far as relative cleanliness goes, straw is filthy. Sand is clean, and pine shavings are somewhere in between. When wheat straw and rice straw were compared to sawdust, wood shavings, and rice hulls, straw obtained the lowest index values for cleanliness (Benabdeljelil and Ayachi, 1996). The low values were attributed to straw’s tendency to hold on to moisture, resulting in caking. 

Caking occurs when poop and bedding get “caked” together in thick masses. This litter-caking tendency of straw has been documented in numerous studies (Malone, 1992; Grimes et al., 2002; Ritz et al., 2005; Bilgili et al., 2009;

One study even found that severe caking in straw made it difficult for broiler chicks to move through the bedding (Hafeez et al., 2009). These chicks were therefore unable to easily get to their waterers and feeders, and they didn’t gain as much weight as the chicks raised on sand. The sand used in this study didn’t cake at all.

Bilgili et al. (2009) also noted that litter caking in pine shavings was very high compared to sand. However, pine shavings don’t show caking anywhere near as much as straw does.

Because sand is such a clean litter, the broiler industry can actually use it for a longer time than other bedding materials before cleaning out the poultry house (Grimes et al., 2002). Many factory farms only remove their organic litter (like pine shavings and straw) every 1 or 2 years, but they can leave sand in for 5 years.

However, if you have backyard chickens, you do want to keep your sand as clean as possible. I clean my sand daily in my small coops and every 1-2 weeks in my large coop. And I do a major annual cleaning. To learn how to use sand in your backyard chicken coop, check out my article Using sand in the coop.

Ammonia levels: Sand vs. straw vs. pine shavings

Ammonia is a nasty gas that is incredibly dangerous to your chickens in high concentrations. The gas is produced as certain bacteria break down chicken waste and bedding. When ammonia levels get too high in the coop, chickens can suffer chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, and death (Tasistro et al., 2007).

The following table gives information on the effects of ammonia on poultry. The studies shown here are summarized in Tasistro et al. (2007).

Aside from keratoconjunctivitis, ammonia can produce many other serious eye problems in chickens, including blindness. For a summary of the many ways ammonia may harm your chickens’ eyes, check out this article (Aziz and Barnes, 2010).  

Clearly, high levels of ammonia in the coop must be avoided at all costs. Can you help control ammonia through the bedding you choose? Maybe.

Unfortunately, the research on ammonia production in differing bedding types has been mixed, so it’s difficult to pin down which bedding produces more or less than any other. Laboratory studies don’t always yield the same results as the poultry house field studies, and results that seem strong initially can change quickly over a week or two.

Some studies have shown that pine shavings have low ammonia emissions compared to other bedding types (Tasistro et al., 2008). Some researchers have speculated that some of the chemicals in pine may be unfavorable for the growth of ammonia-producing bacteria (Munir et al., 2019). These chemicals include terpenes, polyphenols, and tannins.

If this is the case, this comes at a steep price as some of these chemicals, such as terpenes, may also cause serious health issues in your chickens. See my article, Pine shavings in the coop: The secret chicken killer? for more information. 

Some studies have shown that wheat straw has lower ammonia emissions than pine shavings (Tasistro et al., 2007). However, this lower ammonia level may also come at a price. 

Wheat straw tends to cake a lot more than pine shavings, and this may be why it releases less ammonia. The caking may act as a physical barrier that prevents the ammonia from being released (Miles et al., 2006). However, chickens struggle to thrive in wheat straw bedding with caking, often not growing as well (Tasistro et al., 2007; Hafeez et al., 2009).

Additionally, when you clean your straw out of your coop and move the caked straw around, then the ammonia can get released. Farmers have reported that straw releases extreme odors and causes eye and nasal irritations when removed (Tasistro et al., 2007). 

The studies for ammonia production in sand are inconsistent. In some studies, sand has been found to release greater amounts of ammonia than wood shavings (Miles et al., 2011; Garcês et al, 2013). Others have noted that sand produced the same amount of ammonia as other bedding sources (Bilgili et al., 1999a; Bilgili et al., 2009). And some have found ammonia production in sand to be incredibly low (Hafeez et al., 2009).

Bacteria levels: Sand vs. straw vs. pine shavings

As mentioned above, pine shavings may have antibacterial properties that initially help to keep bacteria levels low (Munir et al., 2019). This is partly due to pine’s extractives, natural chemicals that help to protect the wood (Milling et al., 2005), but that are also incredibly toxic (see the Toxicity section below).

However, one study strongly suggests that the antimicrobial powers of pine are short-lived (Fries et al., 2005). In this study, the aerobic plate counts were measured for a variety of bedding materials. Aerobic plate counts are indicators of bacterial populations. 

The wood shavings (presumably pine) had an aerobic plate count of ~4 lg/g before being added to the poultry house. Straw, on the other hand, had a much higher initial count of ~7 lg/g. 

At the end of the study period (16 weeks), the wood shavings had an aerobic plate count of ~9 lg/g, compared to straw at ~9.25 lg/g. 

In a second experiment, the wood shavings actually had a higher aerobic plate count than straw did at the end of the study period, at ~10 lg/g vs. 9.5 lg/g, respectively. 

These results also bring up another important thing to consider: fresh bedding isn’t sterile (Torok et al., 1999). Bedding already brings pathogens with it from its journey from source to coop. That’s kind of a scary thought.

Additionally, in some conditions, pine shavings have been found to harbor more disease-causing pathogens than some other types of bedding. In one study, wood shavings had higher Salmonella counts than three other bedding types, including straw, which had no detectable Salmonella (Völkel et al., 2011).

In other circumstances, straw may support considerably higher bacteria production than other bedding materials. One study looked at the rate of growth of several different types of bacteria that are known to cause diseases in horses (Yarnell et al., 2016). This study found that straw had much higher colony counts than did pine shavings. 

Endotoxins from straw have also been implicated in respiratory disease in farm workers (Olenchock et al., 1990).

Contrary to straw and pine shavings, sand does not support bacterial pathogens very well. Sand has been found to have fewer bacterial spore counts than organic beddings, including wood shavings and straw (Murphy et al., 2019).

Additionally, multiple studies have found that aerobic bacterial counts in sand are lower (sometimes drastically) or equal to pine shavings (Bilgili et al., 1999a; Bilgili et al., 1999b; Macklin et al., 2005).  

The lower bacteria levels in sand bedding may be due to sand’s inorganic nature. Sand contains very few nutrients to support bacterial growth. Sand may also not have the binding sites necessary for bacterial growth (Macklin et al., 2005).

Mold levels: Sand vs. straw vs. pine shavings

Mold can be very prevalent in straw (see Wichert et al., 2008 for a review; Garlipp et al., 2010), and may cause serious respiratory problems in livestock animals (Wolf et al., 2005). One study found molds and endotoxins were significantly higher in straw and hay than in wood shavings and silage (Siegers et al., 2018). 

Unfortunately, straw often contains mold before it’s ever even been used as bedding (Fleming et al., 2008).

Mold has also been shown to grow readily in pine shavings (Tanner et al., 1998; Garlipp et al., 2010), but once again, sand does not appear to support these pathogens. I could find no studies showing that mold is a problem in sand bedding. 

Dust, toxicity, and carcinogens: Sand vs. straw vs. pine shavings

The dangers of dust in the chicken coop

Chickens can be exposed to pathogenic, toxic, and carcinogenic particles in the coop in two different ways:

1. The consumption of bedding

2. The inhalation of dust from the bedding

Some studies have shown that chickens do commonly consume some of their litter (Malone et al., 1983; Willis et al., 1997; Toghyani et al., 2010). Chickens can be exposed to all sorts of harmful particles this way. 

However, inhalation of bedding from the dust is likely a much more common means of exposure to harmful substances (Olenchock et al., 1990; Ward et al., 2000; Wichert et al., 2008 and references therein; Garlipp et al., 2010; Siegers et al., 2018). 

Chickens, being such small animals with their heads so close to the floor, are exposed to high levels of dust from their bedding. They are, therefore, exposed to high levels of any pathogenic, toxic, or carcinogenic particles that are present. Because of this, dustiness is a very bad quality for chicken coop bedding.

What exactly qualifies as dust? One research group defined dust as follows:

Very fine-grained dust particles, regardless of composition, can cause respiratory irritation and disease (Ward et al., 2000; Garlipp et al., 2010). 

Unfortunately, straw, sand, and pine shavings all have some tendency toward dustiness.  

In a test on the amount of dust produced by chopped straw and kiln-dried bagged pine shavings, the pine shavings were found to have significantly more dust than the straw, although the straw was also dusty (Ward et al., 2000).  

Another study also found significantly higher levels of dust in straw than wood shavings (Siegers et al., 2018). 

So why are some researchers finding pine shavings dustier than straw, whereas others are finding the opposite? I imagine it has to do with the source of the straw. 

I’ve used both kiln-dried bagged pine shavings and bagged chopped straw in my coops before. The pine shavings were drastically dustier than the chopped straw. Perhaps something in the processing of my bagged straw made it less dusty than some others. I used this chopped straw from Amazon.

Very few studies have been done on dust generation in sand. Most of the information is qualitative opinions, rather than quantitative measurements of dust. For example, the authors of one article asserted off-the-cuff that some have found that sand has dustier air conditions than pine shavings (Grimes et al., 2002). 

The authors of another article, however, asserted that “during the racking or stirring [of sand], there was no dust problem,” and that this “minimized the chances of respiratory infections in the chicks” (Hafeez et al., 2009, p. 584). These authors also did not actually measure the dust levels of the different bedding types.

I wonder if the discrepancy in the dustiness of sand has to do with the different types of sands being used. Studies have used various sands, including riverbed sand (Garcês et al., 2013), mortar sand (Bilgili et al., 2009), masonry grade construction sand (Shields et al., 2005), and concrete mix sand (Schmidtmann, 1991). 

The more fine-grained the sand is, the dustier it is, and the harder it is on your chickens’ lungs. This is one reason why you should never buy play sand for your coop. It’s much too fine-grained. 

I use a medium- to coarse-grained sand in my coop that creates dust when I’m cleaning the poop out, but otherwise, it isn’t dusty. Even when I’m sieving the sand, the dust is minimal compared to when I used to use pine shavings in my coops.

For more on how to use sand in the coop, check out my article, Using sand in the coop.

Additional dangers of bedding dust in the chicken coop

All dusts may cause sinus and respiratory problems, but some bedding types create dust problems that are specific to their compositions. The table below summarizes these unique properties:

The dangers of pine shavings dust

The dust from pine shavings is incredibly dangerous.

Pine shavings contain abietic acid, terpene hydrocarbons, and aromatic compounds, which are toxic substances that adversely affect chickens’ respiratory systems and livers (e.g., Vesell, 1967; Ayars et al., 1989; Törrönen et al., 1989; Connors et al., 1990; Potgieter et al., 1995; Pelkonen and Hänninen, 1997; Miyamoto et al., 2008; Li et al., 2009). 

Pine shavings dust is also carcinogenic in the long-term (e.g., Hernberg et al., 1983; Voss et al., 1985; Boysen et al., 1986; Maier et al, 1992; see Demers et al., 1997 for a full review). 

I have an entire article written about this topic if you’re interested in more information. Please see Pine shavings in the coop: The secret chicken killer?

The takeaway message: just say no to pine shavings. Whatever benefits they may offer, they’re not worth the risks.

The dangers of straw dust

Aside from the dangers inherent to all dusts (i.e., sinus and respiratory damage), the real danger of straw dust is the potential inhalation of disease-causing airborne molds and endotoxins (Olenchock et al., 1990; see the review in Wichert et al., 2008; Siegers et al., 2018).

These molds and endotoxins can cause serious respiratory illnesses.

The dangers of sand dust

Sand dust comes with two main long-term dangers. Firstly, sand can be carcinogenic (Steenland and Sanderson, 2001). Secondly, sand may cause silicosis/silicate pneumoconiosis, which is a scarring of the lungs that is very painful and can result in death (Evans et al., 1988). 

Nobody has done any studies on the prevalence of silicate pneumoconiosis in chickens raised on medium- to large- grained sand as this is an illness that would only show symptoms after a number of years. Again, factory farm chickens don’t live long enough for these studies to be done

Because there is no data, I don’t know how big the risks of silicate pneumoconiosis and cancer are with medium- to coarse-grained sand in the coop, but it does worry me. 

However, I do know that the finer-grained your sand is, the bigger your risk is, as silicate pneumoconiosis develops from the inhalation of very fine grains. Play sand is an incredibly fine-grained sand, and therefore comes with drastically increased health risks when compared to medium- to large-grained sand.

Although no studies have been conducted specifically on play sand and birds, silicate pneumoconiosis has been reported in several species of birds, including backyard chickens, that were exposed to very fine-grained, silicate-rich dust (Brambilla et al., 1979; Evans et al., 1988; Roperto et al., 2000). The dusts were composed of quartz grains and other silicate particles, such as fine-grained mica and illite.

Dust exposure in these studies occurred either from dust in windy deserts, dust from sandy soils, or dust in the air of very polluted areas. The studies showed that chickens and other birds have very sensitive respiratory systems that become more inflamed when exposed to this dust than do the respiratory systems of mammals (which are also adversely affected).

Upon necropsy of the birds, the “retention of dust [in the lungs] was generally severe” (Brambilla et al., 1979, p. 154). The birds’ lungs had large granulomas, nodules, and silicotic lesions. 

This is why play sand should be avoided in your chicken coop. It’s simply too fine-grained, and although your chickens may seem fine for years, they may develop incredibly painful and fatal illnesses later on.

As for larger-grained sand, the jury is out.

For more information on silicosis and chickens, see my article, Will sand bedding kill your chickens? Silica and silicosis explained.

Additional bedding qualities: Sand vs. straw vs. pine shavings

Bedding ease of use

Pine shavings are the easiest bedding material to maneuver. Straw comes in second. However, straw is prone to releasing ammonia gas when handled, resulting in strong odors, together with eye and nasal discomfort (Tasistro et al., 2007).

Sand is very difficult to move around compared to straw and pine shavings, simply because it’s so heavy. In one study, the sand bedding was 4 times heavier than the wood shavings bedding (Garcês et al., 2013). However, because you only have to remove and replace your sand once a year, this inconvenience may not be so bad.

Insulating properties of bedding

Sand has been found to keep poultry houses cooler (see Grimes et al., 2002 for a review). This may be a disadvantage in the winter, but it’s a huge advantage in the summer. When I first switched out my pine shavings for sand one summer, the temperature in my coops became noticeably cooler, and made a much nicer summer for my flocks.

As for winter, my coop is very well ventilated, so it’s incredibly cold no matter what bedding I put in there.

Organic bedding, such as straw and pine shavings, can release heat during decomposition. This means that if you’re using the deep litter method, your coop may be warmer in both the winter and the summer. 

Composting properties of bedding

Organic bedding types, such as straw and pine shavings, can be used for composting. Many chicken keepers love being able to use their spent bedding on their gardens.

Spent sand, although not great for composting, can be used in the coop again after thorough cleaning—see my article, Using sand in the coop, for more information.

Flammability of Bedding

Pine shavings are incredibly flammable. Straw is also flammable, but not nearly as much as pine shavings. In one study of bedding flammability, both straw and pine shavings ignited and burned, but the fire spread more rapidly in the pine shavings and burned for a much longer time (Ward et al., 2000).

Sand, being an inorganic bedding, made essentially of minerals and rocks, isn’t flammable. This is a huge benefit if you plan to have any electricity in your coop. I, for one, heat my coops in the winter, and am grateful for the extra safety that sand provides. You can see my Sweeter Heater here on Amazon, and my flat panel heater here.

Be aware that you don’t want to heat your coop with a heat lamp. Check out the YouTube video below to see just how fast a fire can start with a heat lamp in pine shavings:

Insect activity in bedding

Because straw and pine shavings are organic and decompose when chicken waste is added, they become breeding grounds for flies. Sand, being inorganic, doesn’t have this problem.

One study found that the density of immature house and stable flies in sand bedding was 76% to >99% less than that of straw bedding (Schmidtmann, 1991). The density of flies in pine shavings bedding was similar to that of straw. 

The author of the study concluded that sand likely suppresses fly activity because it’s both very dry and it doesn’t contain enough nutrients for fly growth. 

Sand has also been found to reduce darkling beetle populations when compared to other types of bedding (Grimes et al., 2002). 

So that’s it! No bedding is perfect, but based on all the scientific evidence, sand appears to be the best bedding, followed by straw. Pine shavings bedding should be avoided at all costs due to its toxicity. 

You may also be interested in:

• The BEST luxury coop you’ll ever buy: Spoil your chickens with Rita Marie's

• Chicken coop ventilation: 21 design ideas with pictures

• A comparison of 21+ chicken coop bedding materials: The good, the bad, and the ugly

• Sand for chicken coop bedding: Pros, cons, and how to do it right

• Straw for chicken coop bedding: Pros, cons, and how to do it right

Like this post? Pin it!

Sources

• Anderson, D., Beards, C., and Hanson, R., “The adverse effects of ammonia on chickens including resistance to infection with Newcastle disease virus.” Avian Diseases, v. 8, no. 3, 1964, p. 369–379.

• Ayars, G., Altman, L., Frazier, C., and Chi, E., “The toxicity of constituents of cedar and pine woods to pulmonary epithelium.” Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, v. 83, no. 3, 1989, p. 610-618.

• Aziz, T. and Barnes, J., “Harmful effects of ammonia on birds.” Poultry World, 25 October 2010

• Benabdeljelil, K., and Ayachi, A., “Evaluation of Alternative Litter Methods for Poultry.” The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, V. 5, No. 3, 1996, P. 203–209.

• Bilgili, S., Montenegro, G., Hess, J., and Eckman, M., “Sand as litter for rearing broiler chickens.” The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, v. 8, no. 3, 1999a, p. 345-351.

• Bilgili, S., Montenegro, G., Hess, J., and Eckman, M., “Live performance, carcass quality, and deboning yields of broilers reared on sand as a litter source.” The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, v. 8, no. 3, 1999b, p. 352-361.

• Bilgili, S., Hess, J., Blake, J., Macklin, K., and Saenmahayak, B., “Influence of bedding material on footpad dermatitis in broiler chickens.” The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, v. 18, n. 3, 2009, p. 583-589.

• Boysen, M., Voss, R., and Solberg, L., “The nasal mucosa in softwood exposed furniture workers.” Acta Otolaryngologica, v. 101, no. 5-6, 1986, p. 501-508.

• Brambilla, C., Abraham, J., Brambilla, E., Benirschke, K., and Bloor, C., “Comparative Pathology of Silicate Pneumoconiosis.” The American Journal of Pathology, v. 96, no. 1, 1979, p. 149-169.

• Connors, S., Rankin, D., Gandolfi, A., Krumdieck, C., Koep, L., and Brendel, K., “Cocaine hepatotoxicity in cultured liver slices: a species comparison.” Toxicology, v. 61, no. 2, 1990, p. 171-183.

• Demers, P., Teschke, K., and Kennedy, S., “What to Do About Softwood? A Review of Respiratory Effects and Recommendations Regarding Exposure Limits.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, v. 31, no. 4, 1997, p. 385-398.

• Dumas, M., Polson, W., Ritter, D., Ravel, J., Gelb, J., Morgan, R. and Wommack, E., “Impacts of Poultry House Environment on Poultry Litter Bacterial Community Composition.” PLoS ONE, v. 6, no. 9, 2011, p. 1-12.

• Evans, M., Slocombe, R., and Schwartz, L., “Pulmonary silicosis in captive ring-necked pheasants: definitive diagnosis by electron probe X-ray microanalysis.” Veterinary Pathology, v. 25, no. 3, 1988, p. 239-241.

• Fleming, K., Hessel, E., and Van den Weghe, H., “Generation of Airborne Particles from Different Bedding Materials Used for Horse Keeping.” Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, v. 28, no. 7, 2008, p. 408-418.

• Garcês, A., Afonso, S., Chilundo, A., and Jairoce, C., “Evaluation of different litter materials for broiler production in a hot and humid environment: 1. Litter characteristics and quality.” The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, v. 22, no. 2, 2013, p. 168-176.

• Garlipp, F., Hessel, E., van den Hurk, M., Timmerman, M., and Van den Weghe, H., “The Influence of a Particle Separation Technology on the Generation of Airborne Particles from Different Roughages and Bedding Materials Used for Horses.” Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, v. 30, no. 10, 2010, p. 545-559.

• Grimes, J., Smith, J., and Williams, C., “Some alternative litter materials used for growing broilers and turkeys.” World’s Poultry Science Journal, v. 58, no. 4, 2002, p. 515-526.

• Hafeez, A., Suhail, S., Durrani, F., Jan, D., Ahmad, I., Chand, N., and Rehman, A., “Effect of different types of locally available litter materials on the performance of broiler chicks.” Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, v. 25, no.4, 2009, p. 581-586.

• Hernberg, S., Westerholm, P., Schultz-Larsen, K., Degerth, R., Kuosma, E., Englund, A., Engzell, U., Hansen, H., and Mutanen, P., “Nasal and sinonasal cancer. Connection with occupational exposures in Denmark, Finland and Sweden.” Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health, v. 9, no. 4., 1983, p. 315-326.

• Kleven, S. and Glisson, J., “Multicausal respiratory disease.” Diseases of Poultry, Calnek, B., ed., Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1997, p. 1009.

• Kristensen, H. and Wathes, C., “Ammonia and poultry welfare: a review.” World’s Poultry Science Journal, v. 56, no. 3, 2000, p. 235-245.

• Lara, A., “Silicosis.” Merck Manual Professional Version, March 2018.

• Li, Z., Okano, S., Yoshinari, K., Miyamoto, T., Yamazoe, Y., Shinya, K., Ioku, K., and Kasai, N., “Soft-hydrothermal processing of red cedar bedding reduces its induction of cytochrome P450 in mouse liver.” Laboratory Animals, v. 43, no. 2, 2009, p. 205-211.

• Macklin, K., Hess, J., Bilgili, S., and Norton, R., “Bacterial Levels of Pine Shavings and Sand Used as Poultry Litter.” The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, v. 14, no. 2, 2005, p. 238-245.

• Maier, H., Gewelke, U., Dietz, A., Thamm, H., Heller, W., Weidauer, H., “Laryngeal cancer and occupation – results of the Heidelberg laryngeal cancer study.” HNO, v. 40, no. 2, 1992, p. 44-51.

• Malone, G., “Evaluation of litter materials other than wood shavings.” 1992 Proceedings of the National Poultry Waste Management Symposium, 1992, p. 274-284.

• Malone, G., Chaloupka, G., and Saylor, W., “Influence of Litter Type and Size on Broiler Performance.: 1. Factors Affecting Litter Consumption.” Poultry Science, v. 62, no. 9, 1983, p. 1741-1746.

• Miles, D., Owens, P., Rowe, D., and Moore, P., “Ammonia volatilization from broiler litter and cake via laboratory acid trap system.” Abstracts International Poultry Science Forum, Atlanta, 2006, p. 41.

• Miles, D., Rowe, D., and Cathcart, T., “Litter ammonia generation: moisture content and organic versus inorganic bedding materials.” Poultry Science, v. 90, no. 6, 2011, p. 1162-1169.

• Milling, A., Kehr, R., Wulf, A., and Smalla, K., “The use of wood in practice—A hygienic risk?” Holz als Roh-und Werkstoff, v. 63, no. 6, 2005, p. 463–472.

• Miyamoto, T., Li, Z., Kibushi, T., Yamasaki, N., and Kasai, N., “Use of soft hydrothermal processing to improve and recycle bedding for laboratory animals.” Laboratory Animals, v. 42, no. 4, 2008, p. 442-452.

• Munir, M., Belloncle, C., Irle, M., and Federighi, M., “Wood-based litter in poultry production: a review.” World’s Poultry Science Journal, v. 75, no. 1, 2019, p. 5-16.

• Murphy, S., Kent, D., Martin, N., Evanowski, R., Patel, K., Godden, S., and Wiedmann, M., “Bedding and bedding management practices are associated with mesophilic and thermophilic spore levels in bulk tank raw milk.” Journal of Dairy Science, v. 102, no. 8, 2019, p. 6885-6900.

• Nagaraja, K., Emery, D., Jordan, K., Sivanandan, V., Newman, J., and Pomeroy, B., “Scanning electron microscopic studies of adverse effects of ammonia on tracheal tissues of turkeys.” American Journal of Veterinary Research, v. 44, no. 8, 1983, p. 1530–1536.

• Olenchock, S., May, J., Pratt, D., Piacitelli, L, and Parker, J., “Presence of endotoxins in different agricultural environments.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, v. 18, no. 3, 1990, p. 279-284.

• Pelkonen, K. and Hänninen, O., “Cytotoxicity and biotransformation inducing activity of rodent beddings: A global survey using the Hepa-1 assay.” Toxicology, v. 122, no. 1-2, 1997, p. 73-80.

• Potgieter, F., Törrönen, R., and Wilke, P., “The in vitro enzyme-inducing and cytotoxic properties of South African laboratory animal contact bedding and nesting materials.” Laboratory Animals, v. 29, no. 2, 1995, p. 163-171.

• Reece, F., Lott, B., and Deaton, J., “Low concentrations of ammonia during brooding decrease broiler weight.” Poultry Science, v. 60, no. 5, 1981, p. 937-940.

• Ritz, C., Fairchild, B., and Lacy, M., “Litter quality and broiler performance.” Cooperative Extension Service, The University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, 2005, Bulletin 1267, p. 1-5.

• Roperto, F., Borzacchiello, G., Ungaro, R., and Galati, P., “Silicate pneumoconiosis in hens.” Journal of Comparative Pathology, v. 122, no. 4, 2000, p. 249-254.

• Schmidtmann, E., “Suppressing immature house and stable flies in outdoor calf hutches.” Journal of Dairy Science, v. 74, no. 11, 1991, p. 3956-3960.

• Shanawany, M., “Influence of litter water-holding capacity on broiler weight and carcass quality.” European Poultry Science, v. 56, 1992, p. 177-179.

• Shepherd, E., Fairchild, B., and Ritz, C., “Alternative bedding materials and litter depth impact litter moisture and footpad dermatitis.” The Journal of Applied Poultry Research, V. 26, no. 4, 2017, P. 518–528.

• Shields, S., Garner, J., and Mench, J., “Effect of sand and wood-shavings bedding on the behavior of broiler chickens.” Poultry Science, v. 84, no, 12, 2005, p. 1816-1824.

• Siegers, E., Anthonisse, M., van Eerdenburg, F., van den Broek, J., Wouters, I., and Westermann, C., “Effect of ionization, bedding, and feeding on air quality in a horse stable.” Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine, v. 32, no. 3, 2018, p. 1234-1240.

• Steenland, K. and Sanderson, W., Lung cancer among industrial sand workers exposed to crystalline silica.” American Journal of Epidemiology, v. 153, no. 7, 2001, p. 695-703.

• Tanner, M., Swinker, A., Beard, M., Cosma, G., Traub-Dargatz, J., Martinez, A., and Olenchock, S., “Effect of phone book paper versus sawdust and straw bedding on the presence of airborne gram-negative bacteria, fungi and endotoxin in horse stalls.” Journal of Equine Veterinary Science, v. 18, no. 7, 1998, p. 457-461.

• Tasistro, A., Ritz, C., and Kissel, D., “Ammonia emissions from broiler litter: response to bedding materials and acidifiers.” British Poultry Science, v. 48, no. 4, 2007, p. 399-405.

• Tasistro, A., Cabrera, M., Ritz, C., and Kissel, D., “Manipulating bedding materials and PLTTM to reduce NH3 emissions from broiler manure.” Bioresource Technology, 2008, v. 99, p. 1952-1960.

• Toghyani, M., Gheisari, A., Modaresi, M., Tabeidian, S., and Toghyani, M., “Effect of different litter material on performance and behavior of broiler chickens.” Applied Animal Behaviour Science, v. 122, no. 1, 2010, p. 48-52.

• Torok, V., Hughes, R., Ophel-Keller, K., Ali, M., and MacAlpine, R., “Influence of different litter materials on cecal microbiota colonization in broiler chickens.” Poultry Science, v. 88, no. 12, 2009, p. 2474-2481.

• Törrönen, R., Pelkonen, K., and Kärenlampi, S., “Enzyme-inducing and cytotoxic effects of wood-based materials used as bedding for laboratory animals. Comparison by a cell culture study.” Life Sciences, v. 45, n. 6, 1989, p. 559-565.

• Vesell, E., “Induction of drug-metabolizing enzymes in liver microsomes of mice and rats by softwood bedding.” Science, v. 157, no. 3792, p. 1057-1058.

• Völkel, I., Schmitz, C., Moors, E., Gauly, M., and Czerny, C., “Frequency of Salmonella detection in a broiler flock depending on different litter materials--a field study.” Berliner und Münchener tierärztliche Wochenschrift, 2011, v. 124, no. 1-2, p. 71-77.

• Voss, R., Stenersen, T., Oppedal, B., and Boysen, M., “Sinonasal cancer and exposure to softwood.” Acta Otolaryngol, v. 99, no. 1-2, 1985, p. 172-178.

• Ward, P., Wohlt, J., Zajac, P., and Cooper, K., “Chemical and physical properties of processed newspaper compared to wheat straw and wood shavings as animal bedding.” Journal of Dairy Science, v. 83, no. 2, 2000, p. 359-367.

• Wichert, B., Nater, S., Wittenbrink, M., Wolf, P., Meyer, K., and Wanner, M., “Judgement of hygienic quality of roughage in horse stables in Switzerland.” Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 2008, v. 92, no. 4, p. 432-437.

• Willis, W., Murray, C., and Talbott, C., “Evaluation of Leaves as a Litter Material.” Poultry Science, v. 76, 1997, p. 1138-1140.

• Wolf, P., Coenen, M., and Kamphues, J., A survey on the hygienic standard of feeds for horses associated with diseases.” Pferdeheilkunde, v. 21, 2005, p. 24–25.

• Yarnell, K., Le Bon, M., Turton, N., Savova, M., McGlennon, A., Forsythe, S., “Reducing exposure to pathogens in the horse: a preliminary study into the survival of bacteria on a range of equine bedding types.” Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2016, v. 122, no. 1, p. 23-29.