Utilization of Turkey Feather Fibers in Nonwoven Erosion Control Fabrics

ORIGINAL PAPER/PEER-REVIEWED Utilization of Turkey Feather Fibers in Nonwoven Erosion Control Fabrics By Brian R. George 1, Anne Bockarie 2, Holly McBride 1, David Hoppy 2, and Alison Scutti 2 ABSTRACT Currently, between two and four billion pounds of feathers are produced annually by the poultry processing industry (1). These feathers present a disposal problem, and are usually converted to animal feed. A method of effectively stripping the feather fibers from the quill without damaging the fibers has been patented, and as a result research is being conducted to determine uses for these fibers (4). Current research has focused on creating latex bonded fabrics containing turkey feather fibers for utilization as erosion control fabrics. These fabrics have been compared with currently available erosion control fabrics to determine their suitability for this particular purpose. The turkey fiber fabrics performed similarly to the commercially available erosion control fabrics tested in terms of light and water transmittance. None of the fabrics significantly affected the ph, nitrogen or phosphorus content of the soil even though the turkey fabrics had fully decomposed by the conclusion of the experiment. The turkey fabrics increased soil moisture content and decreased soil compaction, which are critical properties for successful ecological restoration of habitats. One significant drawback of the turkey fabrics was difficulty in handling and installation on the site compared to the two commercial erosion control fabrics tested. INTRODUCTION Presently, between two and four billion pounds of feathers are 1 School of Textiles & Materials Technology, Philadelphia University, Philadelphia, PA 2 School of Science & Health, Philadelphia University, Philadelphia, PA produced annually by the poultry processing industry [1]. These feathers are usually converted to animal feed via hydrolyzation in an attempt to recycle it rather than dispose of these feathers in landfills [2,3]. However, this method may result in diseases or bacteria being passed along to the ingestors of this feather meal. Until recently there was no method of separating the quill from the feather fibers without damaging the fibers, but the United States Department of Agriculture has patented a method to perform this task [4]. As a result of this patent, research is being conducted to determine uses for these fibers, which could be purchased for approximately $0.50-$2.00 per pound [4-7]. Most of the current research has been conducted with chicken feather fibers due to their greater availability and lower modulus than turkey feather fibers. However, the turkey feather fibers are generally longer than the chicken feather fibers, which could be beneficial for textile processing. The feathers consist of three basic sections, as depicted in Figure 1: the quill, the pennaceous fibers, which are located on the upper portion of the quill, and the plumulaceous fibers, which extend from the lower part of the quill [8]. The plumulaceous fibers usually consist of a stem with two to three branches attached, and are soft and flexible. The pennaceous fibers are generally straighter, stiffer, and larger in diameter than the plumulaceous fibers. The linear densities and mechanical properties of turkey feather fibers are reported in Table 1 [9,10]. Previous research focused on creating yarns and knitted and nonwoven fabrics from feather fibers [6,7,9-11]. The turkey feather fibers, as received, were too stiff to card and needlepunch effectively, but could be air-laid and wet laid and latex bonded [9-11]. Current research concerns utilizing turkey feathers in nonwoven fabrics designed for erosion control purposes, and comparing these fabrics with 45 INJ Summer 2003

Figure 2 SPECIMEN OF TURKEY FIBER FABRIC ZV Figure 1 DIAGRAM OF A CONTOUR FEATHER [8] other commercially available erosion control fabrics. Erosion control materials are often employed on construction sites and other areas that have been denuded of vegetation, where soil stabilization is desired. These fabrics prevent sediment from being removed during rainfall, which not only preserves the landscape, but it also keeps nutrients in place, which is essential for revegetation of the site. Ultimately, the fabric should biodegrade while vegetation grows until the area is totally revegetated and there is no further need for synthetic erosion control. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH Contour turkey feather with the inner quills removed were supplied by MaXim LLC (Pasadena, CA). The feathers, as supplied, consisted of plumulaceous and pennaceous fibers attached to the outer quill. The feathers were processed as received with a Rando-Webber air laid web forming system. Based on previous experimentation, webs 91 cm. by 51 cm. of two different thicknesses were produced in order to determine which would provide better results [10]. The webs were latex bonded via spray bonding with latex supplied by Air Product Polymers. Two different biodegradable latexes were utilized: Figure 3 SPECIMEN OF TURKEY FIBER FABRIC ZA Vinac 884 and Airflex 100HS. Vinac 884, a vinyl acetate homopolymer, has a glass transition temperature of 33ºC, while the glass transition temperature of Airflex 100HS, a vinyl acetate ethylene polymer, is 7ºC. The latexes were diluted to 18.2 percent solids and were applied to the webs with a hand held Craftsman electric airless sprayer. The latex was applied to one side of the web, which was passed through a 2.4 meter long Tsuji Senki Kogyo through air oven at 170ºC at Table 1 LINEAR DENSITY AND MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF TURKEY CONTOUR FEATHER FIBERS [9,10] Feather Fiber Average Denier Average Tenacity Average Strain Average Modulus (g/9000m) at Break (g/den) at Break (%) (g/den) Plumulaceous 55.2 0.36 16.43 4.47 Pennaceous 142.0 0.83 7.96 15.55 46 INJ Summer 2003

Figure 4 SPECIMEN OF TURKEY FIBER FABRIC XV Figure 6 SPECIMEN OF WOVEN JUTE FABRIC Figure 5 SPECIMEN OF TURKEY FIBER FABRIC XA a speed of 0.5 meters per minute for drying. After the initial spraying, the fabric was turned over and the spraying and drying steps were repeated so that both sides of the fabric were bonded. Images of the fabrics are contained in the following figures. Figure 2 is the turkey fabric designated ZV, the thinner turkey fiber fabric bonded with Vinac 884. Figure 3 illustrates ZA, the thinner turkey fiber fabric bonded with Airflex 100 HS. Figures 4 and 5 depict the X series of turkey fiber fabrics, which are thicker than the Z fabrics. The XV fabric in Figure 4 is bonded with Vinac 884 while Figure 5 contains the XA fabric, which is bonded with Airflex 100 HS. Two commercially produced erosion control fabrics were also utilized in this study. The first fabric consisted of a loose plain weave jute mesh fabric, illustrated in Figure 6. On average, there were 4.3 ends/cm. in the warp direction and 3.0 picks/cm. in the filling direction. The warp yarns had an average linear density of 41,490 grams per 9000 meters (denier), while the filling yarns had an average linear density of 17,694 denier. This fabric, produced by Indian Valley Industries, sells for $46.40 for approximately an 84 square meter roll. The second fabric, illustrated in Figure 7, consists of several different components. The fabric consists primarily of coir (coconut) fibers with an average linear density of 312 denier. These fibers, formed into a mat held together by fiber to fiber friction, are contained between olefin mesh on both sides. The olefin mesh consists of monofilaments with an average linear density of 1,083 denier that are spaced 1.9 cm. apart in both the warp and weft directions. Where the filaments cross they are thermally bonded together, which provides the mesh with stability and strength. Olefin multifilament yarns are utilized to bind the sandwich of mesh, coir, and mesh together and to provide stability. The yarns have an average linear density of 1,024 denier and travel five cm. in the warp direction on one face of the fabric, over the mesh, and then pass through a cir- Figure 7 SPECIMEN OF COIR NET FABRIC 47 INJ Summer 2003

cular hole in the coir to the other side of the fabric, where they again float over the mesh, as depicted in Figure 7. This fabric, known as C-2 Coir, is produced by Fabric Synthetic Industries, and costs $114 for approximately an 84 square meter roll. The various fabrics were tested both in the laboratory and in-situ to determine their effectiveness. The laboratory testing was commenced after the samples had conditioned for at least twenty-four hours at standard temperature and relative humidity conditions. The laboratory tests consisted of thickness, basis weight, tensile strength and elongation, moisture transmission, and light transmission. Thickness was determined with a Randall & Stickney thickness gauge with a 2.8 cm. presser foot with a pressure of 4.1 kilo-pascals. Five measurements from two twenty by twenty cm. specimens were completed, for a total of ten measurements from each sample. The basis weight was determined by measuring the mass of twenty specimens of each fabric with dimensions 10 cm. by 5 cm. Tensile strength and elongation tests were conducted according to ASTM test method D5035, the cut strip method. An Instron Model 1125 interfaced with an IBM Personal System/2 Model 55 SX computer equipped with Labvantage Series IV software was utilized for this evaluation. Ten specimens in the machine or warp direction and the cross or filling direction were tested, with the average values and standard deviations reported. The specimens measured 10 cm. by 5 cm., with the length cut in the direction of the test, MD or CD. The tensile strength is reported in kilograms of breaking force per centimeter of width, while breaking elongation is reported as a percentage of the original length of the test specimen. Moisture transmission was performed according to AATCC test method 42-2000, Water Resistance: Impact Penetration Test. The test method states that specimens should measure 17.8 cm. by 33 cm. However, only a limited amount of fabric was produced due to a constrained feather supply at the time of fabric production. Therefore, three specimens of 20.3 cm squared were utilized, which were also utilized for the light transmission tests. The specimens were clamped on an incline with the center of the fabric 60 cm. below a spray head attached to the bottom of a funnel. A piece of blotter paper, previously weighed, was inserted between the fabric and the specimen holder. Five hundred milliliters of deionized water was poured through the funnel and spray head and onto the fabric. Some water passed through the fabric to the blotter paper below, while other water drained due to the incline of the fabric and paper. Afterwards, the blotter paper was reweighed and the amount of water absorbed by the paper was determined. The results are reported as the average amount of water absorbed by the blotter paper. Light transmission was determined with AATCC test method 148-1989, Light Blocking Effect of Curtain Materials. The light source utilized was a 60 watt fluorescent lamp rather than the 300 watt tungsten lamp specified in the test method. The light was located approximately 100 cm. from the specimen box, which has openings at the front and rear. The fabric specimen is placed over the front opening of the specimen box, while a light meter is located at the edge of the rear opening. The amount of light passing through the fabric is measured and compared to the amount of light that passes through the specimen box without fabric at the front opening. Three specimens of each fabric type were tested, with the average percentage of light transmitted through the fabrics reported. In addition to the laboratory tests, the fabrics were also evaluated in-situ. Two 51 cm. by 91 cm. specimens of each fabric type were placed on a highly compacted slope in a randomized complete block design of four blocks with seven treatments (control, jute, coir, thin turkey fabric bonded with Vinac 884, thick turkey fabric bonded with Vinac 884, thin turkey fabric bonded with Airflex 100 HS, and thick turkey fabric bonded with Airflex 100 HS). The fabrics were affixed to the slope with staples commonly utilized with erosion control fabrics to prevent movement. Prior to and six months following placement of the fabrics, soil samples were collected from each plot and tested for nitrogen, phosphorous and ph. A soil core 5 cm. in diameter was collected from each plot to determine bulk density and soil moisture content. For soil moisture 100 gram samples were weighed before and after drying in an oven at 100 o C for twenty-four hours. Soil temperature was recorded for each plot with a Taylor pocket digital thermometer. Soil compaction was measured at ten points in each plot using a Pocket Penetrometer. Infiltration rate of water through the soil was measured using Turf-Tec 15 cm. diameter infiltration rings and 1.5 liters of water. The rings were placed 2.5 cm. into the horizontal ground and water was allowed to flow into the soil for 10 minutes and the rate of water flow into the soil was calculated in cm./min. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Fabric production Previous experiments with processing turkey feather fibers indicated that they could not be carded unless they were blended with other fibers, due to their extreme stiffness. However, the feather fibers could be wet laid without the need for blending. The original webs were wet laid, but the web size produced with the available wet laid equipment (30.5 cm. squared) was not sufficient in area for the in-situ evaluation. Therefore, the webs utilized for this project were air laid. Both the air laid and wet laid processes generally resulted in the separation of the quill and the fibers. However, as figures 2-5 indicate, there are some feathers that did not undergo quill-fiber separation. This most likely affected properties such as basis weight, strength, stiffness, and moisture and light transmission. All of the fabrics exhibit thick and thin areas. The majority of these inconsistencies are due to the processing of the fibers. It was observed that during the air laid process that some fibers clung to the feed roll of the Rando Webber rather than being carried to the licker-in, which most likely led to thickness differences. 48 INJ Summer 2003

Basis weight variations can also be attributed to the method of latex application. Spray bonding was chosen over other available methods of latex application because it allowed the fabric to retain its thickness, which was considered to be an important feature of an erosion control fabric. However, the method of spray bonding, a hand held sprayer, most likely resulted in uneven application of latex, even though attempts were made to uniformly spray the webs. Although the webs were sprayed on both sides, no method of applying latex to the interior of the webs was utilized. This could result in lower mechanical values than otherwise expected. Laboratory characterization Table 2 lists the average breaking force and elongation of the fabrics, as well as the standard deviations. This table also provides the average thicknesses and basis weights of the fabrics. The turkey fiber fabrics have much lower basis weights than the woven jute and coir net fabrics. Initially, higher basis weight turkey fabrics were produced, but evaluation of these fabrics indicated that they were not bonded throughout the thickness, resulting in weak fabrics. It was also determined that these fabrics were most likely too thick to allow transmission of moisture and light to the ground below. Although the X series of fabrics were designed to have a greater basis weight than the Z series, the difference between the average basis weights of the XV and XA fabrics is surprising. All of the X series webs were produced sequentially under the same conditions, so it is most likely that the XV fabrics were sprayed with latex for a slightly longer time period, although attempts were made to provide uniform spray times. This increased spray time would result in greater amount of latex solids on these fabrics, resulting in mechanical properties different from the other turkey fiber fabrics. Mechanical characterization of the fabrics indicated that the turkey fabrics do not have the ability to support loads as well as the commercial fabrics. In fact, the turkey fabrics are several magnitudes weaker than the commercial fabrics. This indicates that greater care would most likely be required when utilizing these fabrics during installation to ensure that improper handling does not destroy them. These lower values may also indicate that environmental conditions such as high winds and heavy rainfalls may overwhelm the fabrics. Part of the cause of the lower values of the turkey fabrics is due to fabric construction, when compared to the other two fabrics. The turkey fabrics rely solely on fibers bonded together. Additionally, as mentioned previously, no method of applying latex to the interior of these fabrics was utilized. It is possible, especially in the higher basis weight X fabrics, that fibers in the interior areas of the fabric were not bonded, which would result in decreased breaking load values. The coir fabric, while similar in that it consists mostly of fibers, has mesh and multifilament yarns to contribute to its load bearing ability. The woven jute fabric consists of large yarns woven together, which can support high loads. The breaking load and elongation values are highly variable, as evidenced by the relatively high standard deviation values, indicating that the turkey fabrics themselves are not uniform in their construction. This can be due to a variety of factors, such as variations in basis weights, variations in the amount of latex applied to the fabrics, poor bonding between the fibers, and strength of the latex. Some variation in mechanical properties could also be dependent upon the amount of pennaceous and plumulaceous fibers contained in the fabrics, as these fibers have different strength and strain properties as displayed in Table 1. The breaking load of the turkey fabrics is greater in the cross direction rather than the machine direction, but this is due to the fact that the air laid system utilized to create the fabrics provides greater fiber orientation in the cross direction. The coir net has similar breaking load values in both machine and cross directions. The slightly greater value in machine direction may be due to the multifilament olefin yarn utilized to connect the meshes on either side of the coir web traveling in this direction. The woven jute has a vastly greater load bearing capability in the machine direction rather than the cross direction due to the larger diameter yarns traveling in this direction. Table 3 contains the light and water transmission values of the various fabrics. With the exception of the XV turkey fabric, the turkey fabrics compare favorably with the coir net fabric in terms of light transmission. This would seem to indicate that these fabrics should allow enough light to pass through in order to allow plant growth under the fabric during the revegetation process. The XV turkey fabric transmits approximately half of the light that the other fabrics transmitted. This may lead to poor plant growth and longer revegetation times. The woven jute fabric, due to its loose construction, transmits at least five times the amount of light as the other fabrics, which might provide optimal conditions for revegetation. In terms of water transmitted through the fabrics, all of the turkey fabrics with the exception of XV are comparable to the woven jute and coir net fabrics. This indicates that these turkey fabrics should be able to transmit enough water through the fabric to support plant growth. Fabric XV transmitted about one third of the water transmitted by all of the other fabrics. Most likely this is due to its increased basis weight in comparison to the other turkey fabrics. The increased basis weight would allow the fabric to absorb more moisture and thus transmit less to the blotter paper below it. Both fabric types, X and Z, bonded with the Vinac 884 have lower water transmission values than the fabrics bonded with Airflex 100HS. Since all the webs were produced under similar conditions, the differences noted can be attributed to differences in the latexes. In-situ characterization Table 4 contains the soil data both prior to and after the insitu evaluations. The fabrics were installed on a denuded slope to determine their effectiveness in the environment. The fabrics were arranged in a randomized complete block design so that they all experienced similar environmental conditions in terms of ultraviolet exposure, degree of slope grade, and 49 INJ Summer 2003

Table 2: MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF EROSION CONTROL FABRICS Property Fabric Type XA Turkey XV Turkey ZA Turkey ZV Turkey Coir Net Woven Jute Average Thickness (cm) 0.41 0.50 0.29 0.35 0.54 0.43 Thickness Standard Deviation (cm) 0.12 0.09 0.05 0.09 0.15 0.13 Average Basis Weight (g/m 2 ) 154 205 150 144 290 499 Basis Weight Standard Deviation (g/m 2 ) 26.2 6.93 7.13 10.0 14.8 14.8 Mean Breaking Load MD (kg/cm) 0.004 0.007 0.005 0.004 1.89 13.7 MD Breaking Load Std. Deviation (kg/cm) 0.003 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.22 2.96 Mean Breaking Elongation MD (%) 8.24 18.1 22.5 21.1 26.7 12.8 MD Breaking Elongation Std. Deviation (%) 8.39 8.58 3.77 10.4 4.73 2.25 Mean Breaking Load CD (kg/cm) 0.007 0.013 0.016 0.016 1.78 3.74 CD Breaking Load Std. Deviation (kg/cm) 0.001 0.006 0.009 0.005 0.31 0.89 Mean Breaking Elongation CD (%) 9.18 14.1 17.5 16.1 22.6 22.2 CD Breaking Elongation Std. Deviation (%) 5.83 5.67 3.15 5.62 4.49 4.31 exposure to rainfall, in order to provide as much uniformity of testing as possible. One of the requirements of an erosion control fabric is that it should be able to withstand the installation procedures, including handling. The turkey fabrics were generally much stiffer than the coir and jute fabrics. Some of the stiffness can be attributed to the use of latex to bond the fibers together, which prevents the fibers from moving. Another bonding method should result in a more flexible fabric. Use of latex with a lower glass transition temperature may result in a more fabric with greater flexibility. Another cause of the fabric stiffness is the turkey fibers themselves. While the plumulaceous fibers are flexible, the pennaceous fibers, which are more numerous in the fabrics, are much stiffer. These fibers do not bend easily, which influenced the bending behavior and stiffness of the fabric. The stiffness of these fabrics made handling and installation of the turkey fabrics difficult, as caution was required not to tear or otherwise destroy these fabrics. Even with delicate handling some of the turkey fabrics, notably the lower basis weight Z fabrics, started to deteriorate during the installation process. The Z fabrics deteriorated more during handling due to the lower basis weight, as compared to the X fabrics, which meant fewer fibers per area, and thus results in a more delicate and weaker fabric. Mean standard soil chemical properties measured before fabric installation and at the close of the experiment are listed in Table 4. Nitrogen and phosphorus are measured in kilograms of mineral per hectare (kg/ha). In general, the placement of erosion control fabrics did not significantly affect the soil in terms of ph, nitrogen content, or phosphorus content. Table 3 OTHER MEASURED PROPERTIES OF EROSION CONTROL FABRICS Property Fabric Type XA Turkey XV Turkey ZA Turkey ZV Turkey Coir Net Woven Jute Average Basis Weight (g/m 2 ) 154 205 150 144 290 499 Average Light Transmitted (%) 8.24 3.31 7.95 8.57 8.45 44.8 Average Water Transmitted (g) 25.4 7.10 25.6 20.8 25.1 25.9 50 INJ Summer 2003

Table 4 MEAN SOIL CHEMICAL PROPERTIES BEFORE AND AFTER TREATMENT WITH EROSION CONTROL FABRICS AT PHILADELPHIA UNIVERSITY, PA, 2001-2002. Property Control XA Turkey XV Turkey ZA Turkey ZV Turkey Coir Net Woven Jute ph Before 6.00 6.17 6.33 6.33 6.00 6.00 6.33 After 6.17 6.33 6.17 6.50 6.33 6.33 6.17 Nitrogen (kg/ha) Before 14.9 22.4 22.4 44.8 14.9 54.1 63.5 After 14.9 18.7 14.9 29.9 29.9 115.7 29.9 Phosphorus (kg/ha) Before 78.4 84.0 78.4 84.0 78.4 84.0 84.0 After 84.0 69.1 22.4 22.4 102.7 69.1 59.7 No addition of nutrients through fabric decomposition is an asset for erosion control in desert environments because invasive plant species tend to outcompete native species on restoration sites where nutrients have been added through site treatment. As soil chemistry is generally slow to change, further studies over several seasons would be beneficial in determining whether fabric decomposition enhances nutrient load. Table 5 lists the mean soil physical properties measured prior to installation and after the termination of the experiment. Percent soil moisture changed significantly during the course of the experiment. Fabrics were installed during a severe drought in November 2001 so initial percent soil moisture ranged from 6-10% which is extremely low for temperate deciduous forests in the northeast United States. The final measurement was taken during June 2002 following spring rains so the range changed to 19-29%. While the control did show a noticeable change in soil moisture, plots treated with XV, ZA, ZV turkey feather fabrics held significantly more moisture than the control (p = 0.02). It is important to note that the coir net and woven jute did not increase soil moisture over that of the control. Improved soil moisture is critical to seed germination and early plant establishment on restoration sites. These soils were highly compacted and so the infiltration rate was extremely low which means water did not readily seep into the soil as it should. An increased infiltration rate is desirable as it indicates that water flows through the soil rather than over it, thereby reducing erosion due to rainwater run-off. The fabrics did not significantly change the soil infiltration rate in the six month period, however there were some differences in surface soil compaction. In all instances, including the control, surface soil compaction decreased. Soil compaction, a measure of the tightness of packing of soil particles, is directly related to infiltration rate. A highly compact soil will have low infiltration rates, while a less compact soil has more space between dirt particles so that the water can enter the soil with less difficulty. A lower soil compaction value is desirable because in addition to decreasing erosion due to water run-off, it allows nutrients to enter the soil, which in turn increases vegetation growth, which also decreases erosion. Additional research over several seasons is needed to determine whether infiltration rates would be enhanced by installation of the various fabrics as they stabilize the soil and permit vegetation to re-establish on the site. Of the four turkey fiber fabrics evaluated, the XV fabric had the best combination of properties during the in-situ evaluations. It was easier to handle, held the highest soil moisture and reduced surface compaction most significantly (p = 0.000005) of the turkey fabrics. This is most likely due to the greater thickness of this fabric, which would decrease soil dehydration. Although the coir net fabric is thicker, some of the thickness can be attributed to the netting, which would not aid in preventing evaporation due to its construction. Generally, erosion control fabrics are designed to survive two years in the environment so that re-growth of vegetation can be fully established. The fabrics were tested on this site for approximately six months. During this time period the turkey fibers biodegraded almost completely. In comparison, the jute and coir fabrics had degraded only slightly, exhibiting much more resistance to the environment than the turkey fibers. However, the turkey fabrics, as well as the coir and jute fabrics, all provided stability to the soil and allowed vegetation to grow, thereby revegetating this formerly bare site. Nevertheless, much of the in-situ data is highly variable, and further experiments with greater numbers of replications are necessary in order to fully understand the effects of erosion control materials upon the environment. CONCLUSIONS Production of erosion control fabrics consisting of turkey feather fibers can be performed utilizing air laid web formation and latex bonding. However, greater control of the latex application is required to obtain increased product consistency. The turkey fiber fabrics, in comparison to the commercial erosion control fabrics evaluated, performed better than expected. Although the turkey fabrics were quite weaker than the other fabrics, they were often similar in terms of water and light transmission, as well as in prevention of erosion. Additionally, the feather fabrics have been shown to increase the retention of moisture somewhat more effectively than even heavier basis weight fabrics of nonwoven coir or woven 51 INJ Summer 2003

Table 5 MEAN SOIL PROPERTIES BEFORE AND AFTER TREATMENT WITH EROSION CONTROL FABRICS AT PHILADELPHIA UNIVERSITY, PA, 2001-2002. Property Control XA Turkey XV Turkey ZA Turkey ZV Turkey Coir Net Woven Jute Soil Moisture (%) Before 10.0 10.0 8.87 8.20 11.2 6.87 6.29 After 21.2 28.3 29.1 26.9 26.7 19.2 23.5 Infiltration Rate (cm/min) Before 0.91 0.62 1.88 0.48 0.49 0.29 0.34 After 0.98 0.28 0.55 0.71 0.27 0.35 0.21 Soil Compaction (kg/cm2) Before 3.33 3.60 2.71 3.39 3.30 4.03 3.26 After 2.66 1.98 1.93 1.96 2.19 2.53 2.06 jute. One would presume that this effect would increase the germination rate for seeds that were sown under the fabrics. One would expect that the branched structure of the feathers would provide at least as much erosion protection as any of the typically utilized commercial fabrics. Overall, the nonwoven turkey fiber fabrics have the potential to replace currently available commercial erosion control fabrics, if certain properties can be improved. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank Carlo Licata at Maxim LLC for supplying turkey feathers and Philadelphia University for support, including the land to evaluate the fabrics. Unpublished report, School of Textiles & Materials Technology, Philadelphia University (Summer 2000). 10. Evazynajad, A., Kar, A., Veluswamy, S., McBride, H., and George, B. Production and characterization of yarns and fabrics utilizing turkey feather fibers. Proceedings of the Fall 2001 Materials Research Society Meeting, MRS Fall 2001 Conference, Boston, vol. 702 (November, 2001). 11. Evazynajad, A. A study of production of turkey feather fiber/nylon yarn and fabric. Master s Thesis, School of Textiles & Materials Technology, Philadelphia University, 2000. INJ REFERENCES 1. Schmidt, W., Agricultural Research Service, USDA, personal communication (November 1, 1999). 2. Choi, J.M. and Nelson, P.V. Developing a slow release nitrogen fertilizer from organic sources. II. Using poultry feathers. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 121 (4), 634-638, (1996). 3. Vincent Corporation, Feather meal. www.vincentcorp.com/apps/animal.htm, (November 1995). 4. Comis, D. Chicken feathers: eco-friendly plastics of the 21st century? Agricultural Research Service News (February 9, 1998). 5. Terlip, C, Featherfiber Corporation, personal communication (November 1999). 6. Ye, W., Broughton, R.M. Jr., and Hess, J.B. Chicken feather as a fiber source for nonwoven insulation. Int. Nonwovens J. 8 (1), 53-59 (Spring 1999). 7. Ye, W., R.M. Broughton, Jr., and J.B. Hess, Chicken feather fiber: a new fiber for nonwoven insulation materials. INDA- TEC 98: Book of Papers: Largest International Nonwovens Technical Conference, INDA1998 Conference, Atlantic City, pp. 7.01-7.16 (September, 1998). 8. Lucas, A.M. and Stettenheim, P.R. Structures of feather. Avian Anatomy Integument 1, 235-274 (1972) 9. Kar, A. and Veluswamy, S. Yarn from turkey feathers. 52 INJ Summer 2003