Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:54:10.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of lighting needs by W-36 laying hens via preference test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2015

H. Ma ,
H. Xin ,
Y. Zhao ,
B. Li ,
T. A. Shepherd  and
I. Alvarez
H. Ma
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Agriculture for Agricultural Engineering in Structure and Environment, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China 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
Y. Zhao
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
B. Li
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of the Ministry of Agriculture for Agricultural Engineering in Structure and Environment, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100083, China
T. A. Shepherd
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
I. Alvarez
Affiliation:
Department of Statistics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Light intensity, spectrum and pattern may affect laying hen behaviors and production performance. However, requirements of these lighting parameters from the hens’ standpoint are not fully understood. This study was conducted to investigate hens’ needs for light intensity and circadian rhythm using a light tunnel with five identical compartments each at a different fluorescent light intensity of <1, 5, 15, 30 or 100 lux. The hens were able to move freely among the respective compartments. A group of four W-36 laying hens (23 to 30 weeks of age) were tested each time, and six groups or replicates were conducted. Behaviors of the hens were continuously recorded, yielding data on daily time spent, daily feed intake, daily feeding time, and eggs laid under each light intensity and daily inter-compartment movement. The results show that the hens generally spent more time in lower light intensities. Specifically, the hens spent 6.4 h (45.4%) at 5 lux, 3.0 h (22.1%) at 15 lux, 3.1 h (22.2%) at 30 lux and 1.5 h (10.3%) at 100 lux under light condition; and an accumulation of 10.0 h in darkness (<1 lux) per day. The 10-h dark period was distributed intermittently throughout the day, averaging 25.0±0.4 min per hour. This hourly light-dark rhythm differs from the typical commercial practice of providing continuous dark period for certain part of the day (e.g. 8 h at night). Distributions of daily feed intake (87.3 g/hen) among the different light conditions mirrored the trend of time spent in the respective light intensity, that is, highest at 5 lux (28.4 g/hen, 32.5% daily total) and lowest at 100 lux (5.8 g/hen, 6.7%). Hen-day egg production rate was 96.0%. Most of the eggs were laid in <1 lux (61.9% of total) which was significantly higher than under other light intensities (P<0.05). Findings from this study offer insights into preference of fluorescent light intensity by the laying hens. Further studies to assess or verify welfare and performance responses of the hens to the preferred lighting conditions and rhythm over extended periods are recommended.

Keywords

light intensitylaying henslight preferencebehaviorcircadian rhythm
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , April 2016 , pp. 671 - 680
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Alsam, H and Wathes, CM 1991. Conjoint preferences of chicks for heat and light intensity. British Poultry Science 32, 899–916.Google Scholar
Appleby, MC, Mcrae, HE and Peitz, BE 1984. The effect of light on the choice of nests by domestic hens. Applied Animal Ethology 11, 249–254.Google Scholar
Banks, EM, Woodgush, DGM, Hughes, BO and Mankovich, NJ 1979. Social rank and priority of access to resources in domestic-fowl. Behavioural Processes 4, 197–209.Google Scholar
Blatchford, RA, Klasing, KC, Shivaprasad, HL, Wakenell, PS, Archer, GS and Mench, JA 2009. The effect of light intensity on the behavior, eye and leg health, and immune function of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 88, 20–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coenen, AML, EMTJ, Wolters, Van Luijtelaar, ELJM and Blokhuis, HJ 1988. Effects of intermittent lighting on sleep and activity in the domestic hen. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 20, 309–318.Google Scholar
Davis, NJ, Prescott, NB, Savory, CJ and Wathes, CM 1999. Preferences of growing fowls for different light intensities in relation to age, strain and behaviour. Animal Welfare 8, 193–203.Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS 1990. From an animal’s point of view: motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Science 13, 1–9.Google Scholar
Deep, A, Schwean-Lardner, K, Crowe, TG, Fancher, BI and Classen, HL 2010. Effect of light intensity on broiler production, processing characteristics, and welfare. Poultry Science 89, 2326–2333.Google Scholar
Deep, A, Raginski, C, Schwean-Lardner, K, Fancher, BI and Classen, HL 2013. Minimum light intensity threshold to prevent negative effects on broiler production and welfare. British Poultry Science 54, 686–694.Google Scholar
Estevez, I, Andersen, I-L and Nævdal, E 2007. Group size, density and social dynamics in farm animals. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103, 185–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gates, RS and Xin, H 2001. Comparative analysis of measurement techniques of feeding behavior of individual poultry. Paper presented at the 2001 ASAE Annual International Meeting, 30 July to 1 August, 2001, Sacramento, California, USA, paper number: 01-4003.Google Scholar
Ham, AD and Osorio, D 2007. Colour preferences and colour vision in poultry chicks. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Science 274, 1941–1948.Google Scholar
Hester, PY, Sutton, AL and Elkin, RG 1987. Effect of light-intensity, litter source, and litter management on the incidence of leg abnormalities and performance of male turkeys. Poultry Science 66, 666–675.Google Scholar
Hester, PY, Sutton, AL, Elkin, RG and Klingensmith, PM 1985. The effect of lighting, dietary amino-acids, and litter on the incidence of leg abnormalities and performance of turkey toms. Poultry Science 64, 2062–2075.Google Scholar
Hy-Line 2015. Management Guide: W-36 Commercial Layers. Hy-Line Company. Retrieved Januray 13, 2015, from http://www.hyline.com/UserDocs/Pages/36_COM_ENG.pdf Google Scholar
Kjaer, JB and Vestergaard, KS 1999. Development of feather pecking in relation to light intensity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62, 243–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, HH, Burgess, LR, Demmers, TGH and Wathes, CM 2000. The preferences of laying hens for different concentrations of atmospheric ammonia. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 68, 307–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kristensen, HH, Prescott, NB, Perry, GC, Ladewig, J, Ersboll, AK, Overvad, KC and Wathes, CM 2007. The behaviour of broiler chickens in different light sources and illuminances. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 103, 75–89.Google Scholar
Lewis, PD 2010. Lighting, ventilation and temperature. British Poultry Science 51 (Suppl 1), 35–43.Google Scholar
Lewis, PD, Gous, RM, Ghebremariam, WK and Sharp, PJ 2007. Broiler breeders do not respond positively to photoperiodic increments given during the laying period. British Poultry Science 48, 245–252.Google Scholar
Lewis, PD and Morris, TR 1999. Light intensity and performance of domestic pullets. Worlds Poultry Science Journal 55, 241–250.Google Scholar
Lewis, PD, Morris, TR and Ferry, GC 1996. Lighting and mortality rates in domestic fowl. British Poultry Science 37, 295–300.Google Scholar
Lewis, PD and Perry, GC 1990. Response of laying hens to asymmetrical interrupted lighting regimens – reproductive-performance, body-weight and carcass composition. British Poultry Science 31, 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ma, H, Li, B, Xin, H, Shi, Z and Zhao, Y 2013. Effect of intermittent lighting on production performance of laying-hen parent stocks. Paper presented at 2013 ASABE Annual International Meeting, 21 to 24 July 2013, Kansas City, MO, USA, paper number: 131593290.Google Scholar
Malleau, AE, Duncan, IJH, Widowski, TM and Atkinson, JL 2007. The importance of rest in young domestic fowl. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 106, 52–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendes, AS, Paixao, SJ, Restelatto, R, Morello, GM, Jorge de Moura, D and Possenti, JC 2013. Performance and preference of broiler chickens exposed to different lighting sources. The Journal of Applied Poultry Research 22, 62–70.Google Scholar
Millam, JR 1987. Preference of turkey hens for nest-boxes of different levels of interior illumination. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 18, 341–348.Google Scholar
Olanrewaju, H, Purswell, J, Collier, S and Branton, S 2012. Influence of photoperiod, light intensity, and their interaction on growth performance and carcass characteristics of broilers grown to heavy weights. International Journal of Poultry Science 11, 739–746.Google Scholar
Perry, GC 2003. Lighting. Welfare of the laying hen (ed. GC Perry), pp. 299–311. CABI, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Prescott, NB and Wathes, CM 1999. Spectral sensitivity of the domestic fowl (Gallus g. domesticus). British Poultry Science 40, 332–339.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
Savory, C 1980. Diurnal feeding patterns in domestic fowls: a review. Applied Animal Ethology 6, 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savory, C and Duncan, I 1982. Voluntary regulation of lighting by domestic fowls in Skinner boxes. Applied Animal Ethology 9, 73–81.Google Scholar
Sherwin, CM 1998. Light intensity preferences of domestic male turkeys. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58, 121–130.Google Scholar
Siopes, TD, Timmons, MB, Baughman, GR and Parkhurst, CR 1984. The effects of light-intensity on turkey poult performance, eye morphology, and adrenal weight. Poultry Science 63, 904–909.Google Scholar
Syme, GJ, Syme, LA and Barnes, DR 1983. Fowl sociometry – social discrimination and the behavior of domestic hens during food competition. Applied Animal Ethology 11, 163–175.Google Scholar