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

Coop and run

Jul 13

It seems like there are a million different types of chicken coop bedding out there, and everyone and their cat has an opinion on which one you should use. For both beginner and more experienced chicken keepers, it can be overwhelming.

I wrote this article to make things easier for you. I scoured through dozens upon dozens of scientific papers to find out the truth about all chicken coop bedding materials: the pros, the cons, and what’s safe for your chickens.

You’ll also want to check out the list at the end of this article about the 6 weirdest chicken coop beddings of all time!

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.

A comparison of commonly used chicken coop bedding materials

Below is a chart summarizing the pros and cons of the most commonly used chicken coop bedding materials. These are numbered in no particular order (except that they are discussed in the same order below).

#	Bedding	Overall Rating	Pros	Cons	Sources (see text for more)
1	Medium sand	Excellent	Dry, low pathogen levels, low insect levels	Heavy, not good for composting, may be dusty	Garcês et al., 2013; Bilgili et al., 2009; Hafeez et al., 2009
2	Chopped straw	Mediocre-good	High absorption, some has low dust	Poor water release, harbors pathogens	Ward et al., 2000; Yarnell et al., 2016; Shepherd et al., 2017
3	Hemp	Uncertain, preliminary studies are mixed	Low mold levels, absorbent	May harbor bacteria	Fleming et al., 2008; Garlipp et al., 2010; Yarnell et al., 2016
4	Play sand	Poor	Low pathogen levels, low insect levels	May cause silicate pneumoconiosis, cancer	Brambilla et al., 1979; Evans et al., 1988; Roperto et al., 2000
5	Hay	Poor-mediocre	High absorption	Poor water release; harbors pathogens	Olenchock et al., 1990; Wolf et al., 2005; Wichert et al., 2008
6	Pine shavings	Poor	Absorbent, compost well, insulate well, lightweight	Pine extractives are highly toxic	Vesell, 1967; Ayars et al., 1989; Törrönen et al., 1989
7	Cedar shavings	Poor	Absorbent, compost well, insulate well, lightweight	Cedar extractives are highly toxic	Sabine et al., 1973; Burkhart and Robinson, 1978; Ayars et al., 1989
8	Aspen shavings	Poor-mediocre	Absorbent, compost well, insulate well, lightweight	Aspen extractives are mildly-moderately toxic	Törrönen et al., 1989; Pelkonen and Hänninen, 1997, Burn et al., 2006
9	Hardwood shavings	Poor-mediocre	Absorbent, compost well, insulate well, lightweight	Hardwood extractives are mildly-moderately toxic, high in molds and endotoxins	Törrönen et al., 1989; Pelkonen and Hänninen, 1997; Whiteside et al., 2010
10	Sawdust	Poor	Absorbent, compost well, insulate well, lightweight	Incredibly dusty, which exposes chickens to more toxins than shavings	Vesell, 1967; Ayars et al., 1989; Törrönen et al., 1989
11	Wood chips (mulch)	Poor-mediocre	Absorbent, low dust	High moisture, high mold levels	Brake et al., 1992; Grimes et al., 2002; Ritz et al., 2005
12	Tree bark (mulch)	Poor-mediocre	Absorbent, low dust	Caking, splinters, high mold levels	Thornberry et al., 1970; Labosky et al., 1977; Grimes et al., 2002
13	Peat moss	poor	Absorbent, low pH may initially inhibit ammonia-producing bacteria	High amount of dust causes respiratory illnesses, high levels of bacteria and mold	Airaksinen et al., 2005; Kaukonen et al., 2017; Shepherd et al., 2017
14	Rice hulls	Poor	Good moisture release	Poor absorbency, high mold levels, chickens don’t like it	Grimes et al., 2002; Carbone et al., 2016; Shepherd et al., 2017
15	Peanut hulls	Poor	Good moisture release	Poor absorbency, high mold levels, high ammonia	Grimes et al., 2002; Ritz et al., 2005; Shepherd et al., 2017
16	Corncobs	Poor	Absorbent	High mold levels, high bacteria levels, high endotoxin levels	Snyder et al., 1958; Grimes et al., 2002; Whiteside et al., 2010
17	Grass clippings	Poor-mediocre	Initially pleasant for chickens	Poor absorbency, high mold levels, high bacteria levels	No studies done
18	Leaves	Poor-mediocre	Lightweight	Possibly high mold and bacteria levels	Willis et al., 1997
19	Pine needles	Poor	Lightweight	Cakes over very badly	Grimes et al., 2002; Sharma et al., 2015
20	Paper products	Poor-mediocre	Lightweight, fewer endotoxins and bacteria than wood shavings	High moisture retention, high levels of mold, high ammonia release, flammable	Malone et al., 1982; Tanner et al., 1998; Grimes et al., 2002
21	Gravel or rocks	Poor-mediocre	Low pathogen levels, low insect activity	Nearly impossible to clean, may have sharp edges that injure chicken feet	Schmidtmann, 1991

Is it okay to use a mediocre bedding?

Based on all the scientific studies on chicken coop bedding materials, I’m only comfortable recommending medium- to large-grained sand and chopped straw.

I do wish I could recommend more bedding materials than that, but most bedding either isn’t very effective as litter or isn’t very safe, as you’ll learn in this article.

But I’m sure some of you are very disappointed—maybe you have your heart set on a certain type of bedding, but it has a “Poor-mediocre” rating?

The good news is you may still be able to successfully use some of the bedding types listed as “mediocre” in the chart above—just make sure you keep them dry and replace them often if needed.

The best chicken coop bedding materials

#1 Medium- to large-grained sand

Out of all the chicken coop bedding materials, the only ones I recommend are medium- to large-grained sand and chopped straw. Between those two, sand is far superior to straw. I consider straw a mediocre bedding, but still better than most. Hemp may also be a good bedding alternative, but the jury is still out (see section #3 below).

Sand is amazing for a number of reasons. First of all, it stays drier than other types of bedding. Despite having poor absorption, sand releases water through evaporation better than all other bedding types (Macklin et al., 2005; Bilgili et al. 2009; Hafeez et al., 2009)—and therefore keeps moisture low in your coop.

Because sand is dry, inorganic (and therefore nutrient-poor), and may not have binding sites available for pathogens, it does not support pathogen growth very well (Macklin et al., 2005). Sand has been shown to have lower pathogen levels than other types of bedding in numerous studies (Macklin et al., 2005; Bilgili et al., 1999; Murphy et al., 2019).

Sand also doesn’t support insects anywhere near as much as other types of bedding (Schmidtmann, 1991).

The biggest downsides to sand are that it’s heavy and therefore harder to maneuver (Garcês et al. 2013), and it can’t be used for composting.

If you’ve heard the common myth that sand will kill your chickens, see my comments on play sand (#4) below, or check out my article, Will sand bedding kill your chickens? Silica and silicosis explained.)

#2 Chopped straw

Chopped straw has an excellent absorption capability, second only to peat (Shepherd et al., 2017). It can actually absorb 7x its own weight in water! It works very well for the deep litter method, and may make the coop warmer in the winter.

Straw is much easier to maneuver than sand. Some straw has relatively low levels of dust compared to pine shavings, and straw is less flammable than pine shavings (Ward et al., 2000).

The biggest downside to straw is that it’s susceptible to pathogen growth. Straw bedding frequently supports high levels of bacteria, mold, and endotoxins when compared to other bedding types (e.g., Olenchock et al., 1990; Tanner et al., 1998; Yarnell et al., 2016).

Straw also is terrible at releasing water (Shepherd et al., 2017), which is actually why it’s so conducive to pathogen growth. Out of a comparison of 9 bedding types, straw ranked the worst for water release.

Although I use sand for my coops now, I have personally used Standlee chopped straw in my coops in the past. I bought this chopped straw here on Amazon because I couldn’t find chopped straw at my local farm supply store. The straw expands greatly and lasts a lot longer than you would think.

Below is a comparison chart from my article, The best chicken coop bedding: Sand vs. straw vs. pine shavings, showing you additional pros and cons of sand and straw, compared to pine shavings. I’ve only just scratched the surface here. Check out that article for the full scoop.

	Straw	Sand	Pine Shavings
Moisture Absorption	Excellent (Shepherd et al., 2017)	Poor (Bilgili et al., 2009)	Good (Shepherd et al., 2017)
Moisture Release	Poor (Shepherd et al., 2017)	Excellent (Bilgili et al., 2009)	Mediocre (Shepherd et al., 2017)
Cleanliness	Poor (Benabdeljelil and Ayachi, 1996)	Excellent (Bilgili et al., 2009)	Mediocre (Bilgili et al., 2009)
Ammonia Level	Medium (Tasistro et al., 2007)	Low to high (Bilgili et al., 2009)	Initially low (Tasistro et al., 2007)
Bacterial Load	Medium to High (Yarnell et al., 2016)	Low (Bilgili et al., 1999a)	Medium to high (Völkel et al., 2011)
Mold Load	High (Wichert et al., 2008)	Low	Medium to high (Tanner et al., 1998)
Dust	Medium to high (Fleming et al., 2008)	Low to high (Grimes et al., 2002)	Medium to high (Ward et al., 2000)
Additional Health Problems	Respiratory diseases (Wichert et al., 2008)	Silicate pneumoconiosis, cancer (Roperto et al., 2000)	Liver damage, respiratory damage, cancer (Pelkonen and Hänninen, 1997)
Ease of Use	Mediocre (Tasistro et al., 2007)	Poor (Garcês et al., 2013)	Excellent
Insulation	Warmer in winter with deep litter method	Cooler in summer (Grimes et al., 2002)	Warmer in winter with deep litter method
Composting	Excellent	Poor	Excellent
Flammability	Flammable (Ward et al., 2000)	Non-flammable (inorganic)	Highly flammable (Ward et al., 2000)
Insect Load	High (Schmidtmann, 1991)	Low (Schmidtmann, 1991)	High (Schmidtmann, 1991)

#3 Hemp

Hemp is possibly a good bedding material. I say “possibly” because this material has had very little research done on it. Until recently, it was illegal to grow and sell hemp within the United States. Unfortunately, hemp is still illegal in many states, including my home state, Idaho.

Hemp has been used primarily for horse stable bedding in the United States as it absorbs liquids well (Bouloc, 2013).

What little research has been done on hemp has had mixed results. Hemp has been found to have significantly higher counts of dangerous bacteria than wood shavings (Yarnell et al., 2016). However, it’s been found to harbor less mold than wood shavings and straw (Fleming et al., 2008; Garlipp et al., 2010).

On the other hand, another study found that hemp bedding released significantly more airborne endotoxins than other bedding types (Rieger et al., 2002, cited in Airaksinen, et al., 2005). Specifically, hemp released 22,000 EU/m3, compared to sawdust and straw bedding at 2,000 EU/m3 and 14,000 EU/m3, respectively.

Another study compared hemp bedding to sawdust bedding and found that hemp performed worse for every property measured (Wolfzorn et al., 2017). Hemp didn’t hold waste as well, was more difficult to clean, and smelled worse.

Studies on the dustiness of hemp compared to other bedding types have also shown mixed results. One study found hemp less than half as dusty as wood shavings and straw (Garlipp et al., 2010), but another study found hemp significantly dustier than wood shavings and straw (Fleming et al., 2008). In some cases, the hemp bedding was three times as dusty (Fleming et al., 2008).

The amount of dust in bedding is incredibly significant as very fine-grained dust particles, regardless of composition, can cause respiratory irritation and disease (Ward et al., 2000; Garlipp et al., 2010).

Interestingly, I’ve found numerous anecdotes from chicken keepers claiming that their hemp bedding has very low dust compared to pine shavings (which are incredibly dusty) and straw. They claim hemp stays much cleaner and doesn’t smell as bad.

I have also come across a lot of big claims about hemp that don’t seem to be backed up by any research. Many of these claims seem to have their sources with hemp-producing or hemp-selling companies.

I keep coming across a statistic online that hemp can hold 4x its weight in water, but I can’t find the source for that. Interestingly, in the video below, a woman using hemp for chicken bedding says the pamphlet that came with the bedding claims the hemp is “multiple times over” more absorbent than straw.

However, straw can hold ~7x its weight in water (Shepherd et al., 2017), so I’m skeptical that hemp is more absorbent than that. It’s possible that hemp releases moisture better than straw, and the companies may be confused on the difference.

You can see another example of a claim not backed up by science in the video below, which is essentially an ad for hemp chicken coop bedding. The video claims the bedding has a natural pesticide that keeps away insects. This is likely not true.

Be skeptical about these types of claims. People also claim that pine bedding has natural properties that make it more insect resistant, but pine shavings are actually a breeding ground for flies once they become moist with chicken waste (Schmidtmann, 1991). Only sand and gravel have been found to reduce insect populations (Schmidtmann, 1991, Grimes et al., 2002).

Just don’t fall prey to the magic of hemp as told by corporations and anecdotes. We don’t know what truth, if any, there is to these claims. Based on the scientific evidence, I suspect hemp is a mediocre bedding, probably similar in quality to chopped straw.

Try hemp for yourself if you’d like, and see what you think. I would like to try it just for a week or two, simply out of curiosity, but, as I said before, it’s unfortunately illegal where I live.

You can buy hemp bedding online—see hemp bedding here on Amazon. In some areas, you may be able to find it in your local farm supply store. Make sure you know your local laws before purchasing.

**Beddings not to be confused with large-grained sand or chopped straw**

#4 Play sand

Play sand is an incredibly fine-grained sand, and therefore comes with increased health risks when compared to medium- to large-grained sand. Play sand is made of very fine-grained crushed silica (i.e., quartz).

When fine-grained quartz particles are inhaled over the long-term, they can cause lung cancer in humans (Steenland and Sanderson, 2001) and silicate pneumoconiosis in chickens and other birds (Brambilla et al., 1979; Evans et al., 1988; Roperto et al., 2000). For this reason, you also don’t want to use clay materials in your coop.

The lung cancer studies have only been done on humans, but chickens have incredibly sensitive respiratory systems. For example, although both birds and mammals suffer from silicate pneumoconiosis when exposed to fine silicate dust over time, birds are much more affected (Brambilla et al., 1979).

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

#5 Hay

As far as hay goes, it’s not the same as straw. The majority of hays are much moister than straw, and, therefore, are not suitable for chicken coop bedding. The pathogen problems of mold become worse with moister bedding, like hay.

Not even the broiler chicken industry uses hay for bedding (and their standards are much lower than ours), so I don’t even have studies to share.

However, studies have been done on hay used in horse and cattle ranching. These studies found that hay contains a lot of dust that is high in endotoxins (Olenchock et al., 1990), and that hay has been found to harbor molds that cause respiratory diseases in horses (Wolf et al., 2005; see Wichert et al., 2008 for a review).

Wood shavings: Toxic bedding materials

#6 Pine shavings

Pine shavings have a lot of great qualities as a bedding material. They have good moisture absorption, are lightweight and easy to maneuver, provide insulation, and are great for composting (Grimes et al., 2002; Munir et al., 2019). However, their downsides far outweigh their benefits.

Pine shavings contain dust that is toxic to chickens, harming their 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). The toxicity comes from natural chemicals, such as abietic acid, terpene hydrocarbons, and aromatic compounds.

Yes, pine’s aromatic compounds, the stuff that makes pine smell so good, are toxic.

The dust from pine shavings is also carcinogenic to humans who have had long-term exposure to it (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). It very well could be carcinogenic for birds too, especially considering that they have such sensitive respiratory systems compared to mammals.

I have a very well-researched and thorough article all about the toxicity of pine shavings and why they are harmful for your chickens. I have barely scratched the surface here. Please see, Pine shavings in the coop: The secret chicken killer?

#7 Cedar shavings

Cedar shavings toxicity is basically pine shavings toxicity on steroids. Cedar, unlike pine, contains plicatic acid, which makes it even deadlier than pine (Sabine et al., 1973; Burkhart and Robinson, 1978; Ayars et al., 1989).

For detailed information about cedar toxicity, see my article, Why you should never use cedar in your coop.

#8 Aspen shavings

Following pine and cedar, aspen shavings are likely the most common wood shavings used in chicken coops. Although aspen shavings are considerably safer than pine and cedar shavings, they still have some problems.

Like pine and cedar, aspen is also cytotoxic (i.e., causing cell death) to the liver (Törrönen et al., 1989; Pelkonen and Hänninen, 1997). Aspen shavings also induce liver enzyme activity, although to a much lesser degree than pine and cedar shavings.

For more information on how wood is cytotoxic to the liver and what this means for your chickens, see my article, Pine shavings in the coop: The secret chicken killer?

Aspen shavings bedding has also been linked to respiratory problems and lung damage (Burn et al., 2006), but again, to a much lesser degree than pine and cedar shavings.

#9 Other hardwood shavings

Other hardwood shavings (aside from aspen) are also not ideal for use as chicken coop bedding. They also induce liver enzyme activity (Törrönen et al., 1989; Pelkonen and Hänninen, 1997). In one study, alder was found to be more cytotoxic than aspen (Törrönen et al., 1989), but still much less so than pine.

Another study found that various hardwood shavings were 6 times more toxic to liver cells than grass materials, including straw, whereas pine shavings were 15 times more toxic (Pelkonen and Hänninen, 1997). The researchers concluded:

“This study shows that softwood bedding should be replaced by non-toxic materials with less inducer activity. Grass materials were in general less risky than woods, and hardwoods less risky than softwoods.”

— Kai Pelkonen & Osmo Hänninen, 1997, p. 78

Additionally, hardwoods are even more carcinogenic than pine and cedar (Demers et al., 1997).

Hardwood bedding also tends to have much higher levels of endotoxins than many other bedding types. In one study, hardwood bedding had 3124 to 5401 EU/g, compared to 5 to 105 EU/g in paper bedding (Whiteside et al., 2010).

Hardwood bedding is also susceptible to mold growth, even more so than straw (Ritz et al., 2005; Viegas et al., 2012).

Additionally, hardwood bedding has been found to harbor more bacteria than paper bedding (Whiteside et al., 2010). Coliform counts ranged between <10 to 137 cfu/g in hardwood bedding, whereas all counts were <10 cfu/g in various paper beddings.

#10 Sawdust: All types are dangerous for bedding

Sawdust, whether pine, cedar, or hardwood, should never be used for chicken coop bedding. Sawdust is simply finer-grained shavings. This means that all of the problems inherent to wood shavings are magnified with sawdust because it contains more dust for your chickens to inhale. Your chickens will get drastically more exposure to toxic wood chemicals.

Mulch for bedding

#11 Wood chips and #12 Tree bark

Wood chips and tree bark bedding have a lot less dust than pine shavings and sawdust. Therefore, your chickens will be exposed to fewer airborne toxins. Pine chips, for example, are much less toxic than pine shavings, but I would still worry about exposing them to my chickens.

I haven’t found any studies that look at wood chips or tree bark from a toxicity point-of-view, so I don’t know how dangerous they are. I still wouldn’t take a chance.

Otherwise, wood chips and tree bark perform similarly to wood shavings, except for an increase in breast blisters on broilers (Carter et al., 1979; Labosky et al., 1977; Brake et al., 1992; Grimes et al., 2002; Ritz et al., 2005). Backyard chickens, however, don’t live on their bedding the way broilers do, so breast blisters likely won’t be a problem.

Tree bark may last longer than wood shavings before needing to be replaced (Labosky et al., 1977).

The downsides of mulch as litter is that it tends to be moister than wood shavings, at least starting out (Carter et al., 1979). As you know, moist bedding supports pathogens. Moisture content, and the resulting mold, are serious concerns with mulch bedding (Grimes et al., 2002).

I have also come across numerous reports online of chicken keepers losing chickens to mold infections due to their mulch bedding. The chickens either die unexpectedly or waste away, and mold was only determined to be the cause after bloodwork was done postmortem. Even necropsies often don’t show mold infections.

For this reason alone, I wouldn’t touch any type of mulch for chicken coop bedding.

Additionally, if particle sizes are greater than one inch, mulch bedding may cake (i.e., become matted with feces; Thornberry et al., 1970). Wood splinters in mulch are also a huge risk (Grimes et al., 2002).

Alternative Organic Bedding

#13 Peat moss

Long ago, I saw on online forums that a lot of people were using peat moss for their chicken coops, and I loved that idea. Then, as I’m prone to do, I jumped headfirst into the academic research. I found that peat moss is not a good choice as it can make your chickens very ill, especially in the long-run.

People like to use peat moss because it’s highly absorbent. In a study of 9 different bedding types, peat moss was the most absorbent (Shepherd et al., 2017). It can absorb around 8x its weight in water!

Another benefit to peat moss is that it has a low pH that is unfavorable to a lot of ammonia-producing bacteria. One experiment found that adding peat moss to pine shavings bedding may reduce the bacterial populations, and, therefore, the ammonia levels in the coop (Everett et al., 2013).

Unfortunately, other experiments have found that the low pH of peat moss doesn’t last long (Kaukonen et al., 2017; Shepherd et al., 2017). As chicken waste is added, the pH increases to be equal to or greater than that of other bedding materials.

The downsides of peat moss are 3-fold. First, peat moss is terrible at releasing moisture. Out of 9 bedding types tested, straw was the worst bedding at releasing moisture, followed closely by peat moss (Shepherd et al., 2017). This means that although your peat moss bedding may absorb water well, it holds onto it in the long-term, and you end up with a very moist coop.

Second, peat moss is incredibly dusty (Shepherd et al., 2017), and thus can cause serious chronic respiratory diseases in animals and humans (Airaksinen et al., 2005).

Third, peat moss is prone to hosting microorganisms, including dangerous bacteria and molds, that can seriously harm your chickens (Airaksinen et al., 2005; Cayer et al., 2007; Johansen et al., 2014). Because peat moss is so dusty, your chickens get a high exposure to these microbes as they are constantly inhaling them.

Check out my article, Peat moss for chicken coop bedding: Amazing or dangerous? to find a long list of pathogens that have been found in peat moss. This article also very thoroughly evaluates all the research done on the pros and cons of peat moss bedding.

#14 Rice hulls

Rice hulls are most commonly used in the southern U.S. and the Far East (Grimes et al., 2002). The advantages of rice hulls are that they release water fairly well (Shepherd et al., 2017), and they are lightweight and therefore easy to manage (Morgan, 1984).

The drawbacks of rice hulls are that even though they release water, they don’t absorb water very well (Shepherd et al., 2017), and the excess moisture that results is noticeable. Some researchers don’t recommend rice hulls as bedding for this reason (Carbone et al., 2016).

Rice hulls also induce liver enzyme activity to a moderate degree, comparable to hardwoods (Pelkonen and Hänninen, 1997; Carbone et al., 2016).

One study found that chickens raised on rice hulls performed poorly compared to other bedding material (Toghyani et al., 2010). These birds had lower body weight, feed intake, and antibody titer.

In the same study, when chickens were given a choice on which bedding to use, rice hulls were their least preferred bedding. Their most preferred bedding was sand, in case you’re wondering.

If you wonder what the heck rice hulls even look like (as I initially did), the video below shows an example of someone’s coop with rice hulls bedding:

#15 Peanut hulls

Peanut hulls are not very good as bedding. The only real advantages of peanut hulls are that they’re low in cost in peanut-producing areas (Ritz et al., 2005), and that they release moisture well (Shepherd et al., 2017).

However, peanut hulls don’t absorb moisture well (Shepherd et al., 2017), so moisture is still a problem with this type of bedding. Dangerous molds have been documented in studies of peanut hulls (Lien et al., 1998; Grimes et al., 2002).

Peanut hulls also have higher ammonia emissions than straw and wood shavings (Tasistro et al., 2008), and they tend to cake and crust over (Ritz et al., 2005).

#16 Corncobs

Like peanut hull bedding, corncob bedding isn’t a very good choice for the chicken coop.

Although corncobs have a high absorption capacity, they can become oversaturated with moisture, and then they tend to grow molds (Snyder et al., 1958).

Corncob bedding has significantly higher endotoxin contents than paper bedding at 1913 to 4504 EU/g vs. only <5 to 105 EU/g, respectively (Whiteside et al., 2010). Corncob bedding also may have higher coliform bacteria levels than other types of bedding. It had counts up to ~7600 cfu/g, compared to counts up to ~140 cfu/g in hardwood bedding and <10 cfu/g in various paper beddings.

Corncob bedding can also be very dusty, but this can be improved if it’s first screened to remove fine particles (Grimes et al., 2002).

Yard waste for bedding

#17 Grass clippings

There have been no studies done on grass clippings, so we have to turn to common sense and anecdotes for information. Grass clippings are great in the short-term, for a couple of days. The chickens love picking through them.

After that, though, they are prone to growing visible mold because they are so moist. They likely grow high counts of microscopic pathogens too. They also don’t absorb moisture well, and they get clumped together with chicken poop. They are not a safe choice for your chickens.

#18 Leaves

Leaves may carry a lot of the same problems that grass clippings do. Only one study has been done on leaves as chicken coop bedding. The authors found that the moisture content of leaves was actually similar to that of pine shavings, but they said they had a low placement density of birds (Willis et al., 1997). This means that they didn’t put many birds on the bedding.

The authors said the low density of birds is necessary for leaves to work as chicken coop bedding.

The study also found a higher mortality rate on leaves than pine shavings, but they don’t know if this was due to low temperatures in the poultry house or to toxic mold and/or bacteria in the leaves.

Note that the chickens in this study were broilers, so they wouldn’t be allowed to live very long anyway, usually around a month. There are no studies on the longer-term effects of leaves in the coop.

For backyard chicken keepers, the takeaway from this study is that leaves may be acceptable, but only if you have a small number of chickens in a large area. The leaves should be replaced often. Even so, leaves are a risky choice.

#19 Pine needles

Pine needles are also a risky choice. Very little research has been done on them, but one review study concluded:

“Pine straw was found to be not suitable for litter in that it caked over quickly.”

— J.L. Grimes & colleagues, 2002, p. 517

Another study done in India concluded the opposite. They said pine needles could be used because they don’t negatively affect the body weight of broilers (Sharma et al., 2015). However, this study was very focused on the economic side of raising broilers (i.e., increasing farmers’ profits), rather than the welfare side.

Recycled bedding materials

#20 Paper products

Numerous types of recycled paper products have been tested as bedding, including:

Processed paper
Recycled paper
Recycled paper roll
Shredded paper
Phonebook paper
Processed newspaper
Shredded newspaper
Chopped newspaper
Processed cardboard

(from Malone et al., 1982; Tanner et al., 1998; Grimes et al., 2002; Tasistro et al., 2008; Toghyani et al., 2010).

Paper beddings have been tested by poultry researchers because they are cheap and readily available, but the results aren’t promising (Grimes et al., 2002).

Although one study found that paper bedding contained significantly fewer endotoxins and coliform counts than hardwood shavings and corncobs (Whiteside et al., 2010), another study found that paper bedding had high levels of fungal spores (Tanner et al., 1998). This may be because paper retains moisture and cakes easily (Malone et al., 1982; Grimes et al., 2002).

Another study found that paper bedding had very high ammonia emissions compared to wood shavings and straw (Tasistro et al., 2008).

Paper bedding is also a fire hazard. As the researchers of one study summed it up:

“Chopped paper, although popular for its price, availability, and ease of on-site preparation, is highly flammable and has been the fuel for many accidental farm fires.”

— P.L. Ward & Colleagues, 2000, p. 364

If you wonder what paper bedding in the coop even looks like, below is a video of a chicken keeper using cardboard bedding in her coop:

Alternative inorganic bedding

#21 Gravel or rocks bedding

The poultry industry doesn’t use gravel or rocks for bedding, so there are no chicken studies for me to reference. I did find one study on gravel used in calf hutches. The study found that the number of flies were drastically reduced in the gravel bedding compared to organic bedding materials (Schmidtmann, 1991).

The problem with gravel bedding is that, unlike sand bedding, there is no way to easily clean it, so you would have to replace it all the time. If you use sand bedding, you’ll find it’s incredibly easy to sift the chicken poop out of it. If you have a small coop, you can simply use a kitty litter scooper, like this scooper from Amazon. If you have a large coop, you can use a shovel with holes in it, like this shovel. I use both.

Unfortunately, gravel is made mostly of rocks that are comparable in size to chicken poop, and so there’s no way for the gravel to pass through the sieve when you’re trying to sieve out the poop.

Although I have never used gravel in the coop, I do have gravel surrounding one of my sheds. My free-range chickens love to dust bathe in it. I’ve found that their poop has not mixed well into the gravel at all. I imagine it would be a total nightmare in the coop.

I also worry that gravel may not be soft enough for the coop. The last thing you want is a chicken jumping off a roosting bar onto the gravel and getting a small cut on her foot. This opens the gates for bumblefoot, an infection that can be incredibly painful and life-threatening for chickens.

What About No Bedding in the Coop at All?

Obviously, if you are using a chicken tractor, you don’t need bedding. The fresh grass serves as bedding.

However, there are a few other circumstances where you may be able to safely get away with no bedding. Check out my article, What is chicken coop bedding and do you need it?, for more information.

Interestingly, many farmers in Iran use the “no bedding” method today (Toghyani et al., 2010). Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any details on how they do it or how well it works.

The 6 weirdest chicken coop beddings of all time

Now that you’re familiar with the most common types of chicken coop bedding, it’s time to jump into the weird!

Sometimes it seems like the poultry industry has tried everything under the sun for chicken coop bedding. They are always trying out new materials, anything that is cheap and readily available.

Aside from the bedding materials already discussed, the industry has tried gypsum, kenaf, sugar cane stalks, bagasse (cane pomace), oat hulls, shredded wood pallets, ground hardwood pallets, coir dust, wood fiber pellets, coca bean shells, wheat brans, clay, clay products, coconut husks, sunflower hulls, and vermiculite (e.g., see Grimes et al., 2002 and Toghyani et al., 2010 for reviews).

Out of all the chicken beddings the industry has tried, these are my top contenders for the 6 weirdest:

Refused tea (Atapattu and Wickramasinghe, 2007)
Ground door filler (Bilgili et al., 2009)
Cotton-gin trash (Bilgili et al., 2009)
Citrus pulp (Harms et al., 1968)
Recycled sheetrock (Wyatt and Goodman, 1992)
Recycled rubber tire materials (Skewes et al., 1998)

Thanks for reading, and let me know what your experiences with chicken coop bedding have been in the comments below!

Like this post? Pin it!

Sources

Airaksinen, S., Heiskanen, M., Heinonen-Tanski, H., Laitinen, J., Laitinen, S., Linnainmaa, M., and Rautiala, S., “Variety in Dustiness and Hygiene Quality of Peat Bedding.” Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine, v. 12, no. 1, 2005, p. 53-59.
Atapattu, N. and Wickramasinghe, K., “The use of refused tea as litter material for broiler chickens.” Poultry Science, v. 86, no. 5, 2007, p. 968-972.
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.
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, 1999, p. 345-351.
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.
Bouloc, P., “The Uses of Hemp for Domestic Animals.” Hemp: Industrial production and uses, Bouloc, P., Allegret, S., Arnaud, L., eds., CABI, 2013, p. 260-262.
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.
Brake, J., Boyle, C., Chamblee, T., Schultz, C., and Peebles, E., “Evaluation of the Chemical and Physical Properties of Hardwood Bark Used as a Broiler Litter Material.” Poultry Science, v. 71, no 3, 1992, p. 467-472.
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.
Burkhart, C. and Robinson, J., “High rat pup mortality attributed to the use of cedar wood shavings as bedding.” Laboratory Animals, v. 12, no. 4, 1978, p. 221-222.
Burn, C., Peters, A., Day, M., and Mason, G., “Long-term effects of cage-cleaning frequency and bedding type on laboratory rat health, welfare, and handleability: a cross-laboratory study.” Lab Animal, v. 40, no. 4, 2006, p. 353-370.
Carbone, E., Kass, P., and Evans, K., “Feasibility of Using Rice Hulls as Bedding for Laboratory Mice.” Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, v. 55, no. 3, 2016, p. 268-276.
Carter, T., Allison, R., Mills, W., and West, J., “Wood chips for poultry litter.” Poultry Science, v. 58, no. 4, p. 994-997.
Cayer, M., Veillette, M., Pageau, P., Hamelin, R., Bergeron, M., Mériaux, A., Cormier, Y., and Duchaine, C., “Identification of mycobacteria in peat moss processing plants: application of molecular biology approaches.” Canadian Journal of Microbiology, v. 53, no. 1, 2007, p. 92-99.
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.
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.
Everett, D., Vizzier-Thaxton, Y., McDaniel, C., and Kiess, A., “The Impact of Peat Moss Amendments on the Microbial Load in Used Pine Shaving Poultry Litter.” International Journal of Poultry Science, v. 12, 2013, p. 202-205.
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.
Harms, R., Simpson, C., Waldroup, P., and Ammerman, C., “Citrus pulp for poultry litter and its subsequent feeding value for ruminants.” Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 724.
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.
Johansen, T., Agdestein, A., Lium, B., Jørgensen, A., Djønne, B., “Mycobacterium avium subsp. hominissuis infection in swine associated with peat used for bedding.” BioMed Research International, 2014, p. 1-8.
Kaukonen, E., Norring, M., Valros A., “Evaluating the effects of bedding materials and elevated platforms on contact dermatitis and plumage cleanliness of commercial broilers and on litter condition in broiler houses.” British Poultry Science, v. 58, no. 5, 2017, p. 480-489.
Labosky, P., Holleman, A., Dick, J., and So, D., “Utilization of bark residues as poultry litter.” Forest Products Journal, v. 27, no. 1, 1977, p. 28-32.
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.
Lien, R., Hess, J., Conner, D., Wood, C., and Shelby, R., “Peanut hulls as a litter source for broiler breeder replacement pullets.” Poultry Science, v. 77, no. 1, 1998, p. 41-46.
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., Allen, P., Chaloupka, G., and Ritter, W., “Recycled paper products as broiler litter.” Poultry Science, v. 61, no. 11, 1982, p. 2161-2165.
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.
Morgan, G., “Evaluation of soybean stubble, rice hulls, and pine shavings for litter.” Poultry Science, v. 63, suppl. 1, p. 26.
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.
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.
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.
Sabine, J., Horton, B., and Wicks, M., “Spontaneous Tumors in C3H-Avy and C3H-AvyfB Mice: High Incidence in the United States and Low Incidence in Australia,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, v. 50, no. 5, 1973, p. 1237-1242.
Schmidtmann, E., “Suppressing immature house and stable flies in outdoor calf hutches.” Journal of Dairy Science, v. 74, no. 11, 1991, p. 3956-3960.
Sharma, G., Khan, A., Singh, S., and Anand, A., “Efficacy of pine leaves as an alternative bedding material for broiler chicks during summer season.” Veterinary World, v. 8, no. 10, 2015, p. 1219-1224.
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.
Skewes, P., Hughes, B., Allen, W., and Dawson, Pl., Recycled rubber tires as an alternative material for poultry house litter.” Poultry Science, v. 77, Supp. 1, p. 146.
Snyder, J., Rowoth, O., Schoes, J., and Lee, C., Profitable Poultry Management. 1958, p. 79-83.
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, v. 99, 2008, p. 1952-1960.
Thornberry, E., Arnold, J., and Currie, C., “A comparative evaluation of processed pine bark and pine shavings for poultry litter.” Poultry Science, v. 49, suppl. 1, 1970, p. 1445.
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.
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, 1967, p. 1057-1058.
Viegas, C., Carolino, E., Malta-Vacas, J., Sabino, R., Viegas, S., and Verissimo, C., “Fungal contamination of poultry litter: a public health problem.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, v. 75, no. 22-23, 2012, p. 1341-1350.
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.
Whiteside, T., Thigpen, J., Kissling, G., Grant, M., and Forsythe, D., “Endotoxin, coliform, and dust levels in various types of rodent bedding.” Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, v. 49, no. 2, 2010, p. 184-189.
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.
Wolfzorn, J., Harding, D., Davis, A., Santiago, M., and Porr, C., “Miscanthus and hemp as alternative bedding material for horses.” Journal of Equine Veterinary Science: Abstracts, v. 76, 2017, p. 97.
Wyatt, C. and Goodman, T., “Research Note: The utilization of recycled sheetrock (refined gypsum) as a litter material for broiler houses.” Poultry Science, v. 71, no. 9, 1992, p. 1572-1576.
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.

Bedding-1

Bri Wyzard