Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:09:01.425Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of light-emitting diode light v. fluorescent light on growing performance, activity levels and well-being of non-beak-trimmed W-36 pullets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2017

K. Liu ,
H. Xin  and
P. Settar
K. Liu
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
H. Xin*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
P. Settar
Affiliation:
Hy-Line International, Dallas Center, IA 50063, USA
*
†E-mail: hxin@iastate.edu
Get access

Abstract

More energy-efficient, readily dimmable, long-lasting and more affordable light-emitting diode (LED) lights are increasingly finding applications in poultry production facilities. Despite anecdotal evidence about the benefits of such lighting on bird performance and behavior, concrete research data were lacking. In this study, a commercial poultry-specific LED light (dim-to-blue, controllable correlated color temperature (CCT) from 4500 to 5300 K) and a typical compact fluorescent light (CFL) (soft white, CCT=2700 K) were compared with regards to their effects on growing performance, activity levels, and feather and comb conditions of non-beak-trimmed W-36 pullets during a 14-week rearing period. A total of 1280-day-old pullets in two successive batches, 640 birds each, were used in the study. For each batch, pullets were randomly assigned to four identical litter-floor rooms equipped with perches, two rooms per light regimen, 160 birds per room. Body weight, BW uniformity (BWU), BW gain (BWG) and cumulative mortality rate (CMR) of the pullets were determined every 2 weeks from day-old to 14 weeks of age (WOA). Activity levels of the pullets at 5 to 14 WOA were delineated by movement index. Results revealed that pullets under the LED and CFL lights had comparable BW (1140±5 g v. 1135±5 g, P=0.41), BWU (90.8±1.0% v. 91.9±1.0%, P=0.48) and CMR (1.3±0.6% v. 2.7±0.6%, P=0.18) at 14 WOA despite some varying BWG during the rearing. Circadian activity levels of the pullets were higher under the LED light than under the CFL light, possibly resulting from differences in spectrum and/or perceived light intensity between the two lights. No feather damage or comb wound was apparent in either light regimen at the end of the rearing period. The results contribute to understanding the impact of emerging LED lights on pullets rearing which is a critical component of egg production.

Keywords

poultry lightinggrowing performanceactivity levelfeather conditionanimal behavior
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 106 - 115
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aydin, A, Cangar, O, Ozcan, SE, Bahr, C and Berckmans, D 2010. Application of a fully automatic analysis tool to assess the activity of broiler chickens with different gait scores. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 73, 194–199.Google Scholar
Baxter, M, Joseph, N, Osborne, VR and Bedecarrats, GY 2014. Red light is necessary to activate the reproductive axis in chickens independently of the retina of the eye. Poultry Science 93, 1289–1297.Google Scholar
Bessei, W 2006. Welfare of broilers: a review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 62, 455–466.Google Scholar
Boshouwers, FMG and Nicaise, E 1993. Artificial light sources and their influence on physical activity and energy expenditure of laying hens. British Poultry Science 34, 11–19.Google Scholar
Cao, J, Liu, W, Wang, Z, Xie, D, Jia, L and Chen, Y 2008. Green and blue monochromatic lights promote growth and development of broilers via stimulating testosterone secretion and myofiber growth. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 17, 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, A, Ismayilova, G, Borgonovo, F, Viazzi, S, Berckmans, D and Guarino, M 2014. Image-processing technique to measure pig activity in response to climatic variation in a pig barn. Animal Production Science 54, 1075–1083.Google Scholar
De Haas, EN, Bolhuis, JE, de Jong, IC, Kemp, B, Janczak, AM and Rodenburg, TB 2014. Predicting feather damage in laying hens during the laying period. Is it the past or is it the present? Applied Animal Behaviour Science 160, 75–85.Google Scholar
Deep, A, Schwean-Lardner, K, Crowe, TG, Fancher, BI and Classen, HL 2012. Effect of light intensity on broiler behaviour and diurnal rhythms. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 136, 50–56.Google Scholar
Eich, MRS, Garcia, RG, Naas, IDA, Caldara, FR, Borille, R, Royer, AFB and Sgavioli, S 2016. Behavior of broilers reared under monochromatic and fluorescent light sources. International Journal of Poultry Science 15, 96–102.Google Scholar
Huth, JC and Archer, GS 2015. Comparison of two LED light bulbs to a dimmable CFL and their effects on broiler chicken growth, stress, and fear. Poultry Science 94, 2027–2036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hy-Line International 2016. W-36 commercial layers management guide 2016. Retrieved on 2 December 2016 from http://www.hyline/com/userdocs/pages/36_Com_ENG.pdf.Google Scholar
Lanson, RK and Sturkie, PD 1961. The influence of light and darkness upon the reproductive performance of the fowl: 1. Effect of continuous, intermittent, and flashing light on egg production, feed consumption, and body weight. Poultry Science 40, 1751–1756.Google Scholar
Lewis, PD and Morris, TR 1998. Responses of domestic poultry to various light sources. World’s Poultry Science Journal 54, 7–25.Google Scholar
Lewis, PD and Morris, TR 2000. Poultry and coloured light. World’s Poultry Science Journal 56, 189–207.Google Scholar
Lewis, PD, Morris, TR and Perry, GC 1996. Lighting and mortality rates in domestic fowl. British Poultry Science 37, 295–300.Google Scholar
Long, H, Zhao, Y, Wang, T, Ning, Z and Xin, H 2016. Effect of light-emitting diode vs. fluorescent lighting on laying hens in aviary hen houses: part 1 – operational characteristics of lights and production traits of hens. Poultry Science 95, 1–11.Google Scholar
Ma, H, Xin, H, Zhao, Y, Li, B, Shepherd, TA and Alvarez, I 2016. Assessment of lighting needs by W-36 laying hens via preference test. Animal 10, 671–680.Google Scholar
Min, JK, Hossan, MS, Nazma, A, Jae, CN, Han, TB, Hwan, KK, Dong, WK, Hyum, SC, Hee, CC and Ok, SS 2012. Effect of monochromatic light on sexual maturity, production performance and egg quality of laying hens. Avian Biology Research 5, 69–74.Google Scholar
Mobarkey, N, Avital, N, Heiblum, R and Rozenboim, I 2010. The role of retinal and extra-retinal photostimulation in reproductive activity in broiler breeder hens. Domestic Animal Endocrinology 38, 235–243.Google Scholar
Morris, TR and Fox, S 1960. The use of lights to delay sexual maturity in pullets. British Poultry Science 1, 25–36.Google Scholar
Nicol, CJ, Bestman, M, Gilani, AM, De Haas, EN, De Jong, IC, Lambton, S and Rodenburg, TB 2013. The prevention and control of feather pecking: application to commercial systems. World’s Poultry Science Journal 69, 775–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olanrewaju, HA, Miller, WW, Maslin, WR, Collier, SD, Purswell, JL and Branton, SL 2016. Effects of light sources and intensity on broilers grown to heavy weights. Part 1: growth performance, carcass characteristics, and welfare indices. Poultry Science 95, 727–735.Google Scholar
Osorio, D and Vorobyev, M 2008. A review of the evolution of animal colour vision and visual communication signals. Vision Research 48, 2042–2051.Google Scholar
Parvin, R, Mushtaq, MMH, Kim, MJ and Choi, HC 2014. Light emitting diode (LED) as a source of monochromatic light: a novel lighting approach for behaviour, physiology and welfare of poultry. World’s Poultry Science Journal 70, 543–556.Google Scholar
Prayitno, DS, Phillips, CJ and Omed, H 1997. The effects of color of lighting on the behavior and production of meat chickens. Poultry Science 76, 452–457.Google Scholar
Prescott, NB and Wathes, CM 2002. Preference and motivation of laying hens to eat under different illuminances and the effect of illuminance on eating behaviour. British Poultry Science 43, 190–195.Google Scholar
Prescott, NB, Wathes, CM and Jarvis, JR 2003. Light, vision and the welfare of poultry. Animal Welfare 12, 269–288.Google Scholar
Pyrzak, R, Snapir, N, Goodman, G, Arnon, E and Perek, M 1986. The influence of light quality on initiation of egg laying by hens. Poultry Science 65, 190–193.Google Scholar
Rozenboim, I, Biran, I, Chaiseha, Y, Yahav, S, Rosenstrauch, A, Sklan, D and Halevy, O 2004. The effect of a green and blue monochromatic light combination on broiler growth and development. Poultry Science 83, 842–845.Google Scholar
Saunders, JE, Jarvis, JR and Wathes, CM 2008. Calculating luminous flux and lighting levels for domesticated mammals and birds. Animal 2, 921–932.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schumaier, G, Harrison, PC and McGinnis, J 1968. Effect of colored fluorescent light on growth, cannibalism, and subsequent egg production of single comb white leghorn pullets. Poultry Science 47, 1599–1602.Google Scholar
Smith, RE and Noles, RK 1963. Effects of varying daylengths on laying hen production rates and annual eggs. Poultry Science 42, 973–982.Google Scholar
Sultana, S, Hassan, MR, Choe, HS and Ryu, KS 2013. The effect of monochromatic and mixed LED light colour on the behaviour and fear responses of broiler chicken. Avian Biology Research 6, 207–214.Google Scholar
Wabeck, CJ and Skoglund, WC 1974. Influence of radiant energy from fluorescent light sources on growth, mortality, and feed conversion of broilers. Poultry Science 53, 2055–2059.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality 2009. Welfare Quality® assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, The Netherlands. pp. 21–59. Retrieved on 31 October 2016, from www.welfarequality.net.Google Scholar
Xie, D, Wang, ZX, Dong, YL, Cao, J, Wang, JF, Chen, JL and Chen, YX 2008. Effects of monochromatic light on immune response of broilers. Poultry Science 87, 1535–1539.Google Scholar
Yang, Y, Jiang, J, Wang, Y, Liu, K, Yu, Y, Pan, J and Ying, Y 2016. Light-emitting diode spectral sensitivity relationship with growth, feed Intake, meat, and manure characteristics in broilers. Transactions of the ASABE 59, 1361–1370.Google Scholar
Zappia, JV and Rogers, LJ 1983. Light experience during development affects asymmetry of forebrain function in chickens. Developmental Brain Research 11, 93–106.Google Scholar
Zhao, Y, Xin, H and Dong, B 2013. Use of infrared thermography to assess laying-hen feather coverage. Poultry Science 92, 295–302.Google Scholar