Khalid JAVED, Athar MAHMUD, Jibran HUSSAIN, Fazal RAZIQ

Effect of light sources on productivity, welfare aspects, and economic evaluation of commercial layers

Abstract: The present study was aimed to evaluate the influence of incandescent, fluorescent, and light emitting diode (LED) lights on the productive efficiency and economic aspects of laying hens. For this, 216 laying hens were distributed into three groups of light sources with six replicates each. Each replicate consisted of 12 birds. The data were analyzed in SAS 9.1 (SAS InstituteInc., Cary, NC, USA) by applying one-way ANOVA technique, and significant means were compared through least significant difference test. In the present study, LED light significantly improved the body weight, body weight gain, percentage of egg production, FCR per dozen and FCR per kg egg mass. All parameters for egg quality (excluding egg yolk index and Haugh unit) and egg geometry (including egg shape index, egg surface and volume) were affected by light sources at 24th week, while significant effects were recorded at egg quality (excluding egg Haugh unit and yolk index) and egg geometry (excluding egg volume) at 32nd weeks. Physiological norms (except heartbeat) and welfare aspects (except footpad score) were not affected by light sources; however, footpad score at 32nd week and heartbeat at 17th and 32nd week were significantly better in the pullets under LED lights. Reproductive hormones and metabolic enzymes (T3, T4, GnRH, LH, FSH, and cortisol including catalase enzyme) were significantly better in the birds kept under LED light at the 20th and 32nd weeks. The present findings suggested that productive parameters and reproductive traits, welfare aspects, hormonal profile as well as overall economics of layer production varied significantly based on light sources, and LEDs positively exceeded the fluorescent as well as incandescent light sources.Key words: Light sources, productive performance, egg quality, hormonal profile, welfare aspects

PDF

___

1. Firouzi S, Haghbin NH, Habibi H, Jalali SS, Nabizadeh Y et al. Effects of color lights on performance, immune response and hematological indices of broilers. Journal of World’s Poultry Research 2014; 4 (2): 52-55.
2. Kim CN, Lee SR, Lee SJ. Effects of light color on energy expenditure and behavior in broiler chickens. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 2014; 27 (7): 1044- 1049. doi: 10.5713/ajas.2012.12425.
3. Khalil HA. Productive and physiological responses of Japanese quail embryos to light regime during i n c u b a t i o n period. Slovak Journal of Animal Science 2009; 42 (2): 79-86.
4. Jácome IMDT, Borilla R, Rossi LA. Influence of artificial lighting on the performance and egg quality of commercial layers: A review. Brazilian Journal Poultry Science 2014; 16 (4): 337-344. doi: 10.1590/1516-635X1604337-334.
5. Kristensen HH, Prescott NB, Perry GC, Ladewig J, Ersbøll AK et al. The behavior of broiler chickens in different light sources and illuminances. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2007; 103(1-2):75-89. doi: 10.1016/j.applamin.2006.04.017.
6. Schernhammer ES, Kroenke CH, Dowsett M. Urinary 6-sulfatoxymelatonin levels and their correlation with life style factors and steroid hormone levels. Journal of Pineal Research 2006; 40: 116-124. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-079X.2005.00285.x.
7. Long H, Zhao Y, Xin H, Hansen H, Ning Z, et al. Effect of lightemitting diode (LED) vs. Fluorescent (FL) lighting on laying hens in aviary hen houses: Part 2- Egg quality, shelf life and lipid composition. Poultry Science 2016b; 95 (1): 115-124. doi: 10.3382/ps/pev306.
8. Archer GS. Comparison of incandescent, CFL, LED and bird level LED lighting. Growth, fear and stress. International Journal of Poultry Science 2015; 14 (8): 449-455.
9. Kamanli S, Durmus I, Demir S, Tarim B. Effect of different light sources on performance and egg quality traits in laying hens. European Poultry Science 2015; 79: 1-7. doi: 10.1399/ eps.2015.109.
10. Liu K, Xin H, Sekhon J, Wang T. Effect of fluorescent vs. poultry-specific light-emitting diode lights on production performance and egg quality of W-36 laying hens. Poultry Science 2018; 97 (3): 834-844. doi: 10.3382/ps/pex371.
11. Ahmed SF, El-Hammady HY, Farghly MFA, Madian AH. Impact of some light sources on growth performance and sexual maturity of female Japanese quail. Assiut Journal of Agricultural Sciences 2015; 46 (2): 135-147. doi: 10.21608/ ajas.2015.564.
12. Son J, Park J, Kang D, Belal SA, Cha J et al. Effects of white, yellow and blue colored LEDs on milk production, milk composition and physiological responses in dairy cattle. Animal Science Journal 2020; 91 (1): e13337. doi:10.1111/ asj.13337.
13. Archer GS. Effect of type of light source and location of light source on layer production, stress and fear during the start of lay. International Journal of Poultry Science 2018; 17 (2): 92-99.
14. Park JR, Yoon NJ, Belal SA, Shim KS. Effect of led lighting time on productivity, blood parameters and immune responses of dairy cows. Korea Journal of Organic Agriculture 2018; 26 (3): 515-532.
15. Rogers AG, Pritchett EM, Brannick EM, Alphin RL, Benson ER et al. Evaluation of the impact of alternative light technology on male broiler chicken growth, feed conversion and allometric characteristics. Poultry Science 2015; 10: 408- 414. doi: 10.3382/ps/peu045.
16. Yadav S, Chaturvedi CM. Interactive effect of light colors and tymporal synergism of circadian neural oscillations in reproductive regulation of Japanese quail. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology B: Biology 2016; 162: 65-71. doi: 35410.1016/j.jphotobiol.2016.06.023.
17. Hempe J, Lauxen R, Savage J. Rapid determination of egg weight and specific gravity using a computerized data collection system. Poultry Science 1988; 67 (6): 902-907. doi: 10.3382/ps.0670902.
18. Nazligul AK, Turkyilmaz K, Bardakcioglu HE. A study on some production traits and egg quality characteristics of Japanese quail. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 2001; 25 (6): 1007-1013.
19. Butterworth A. 2009. Assessment Protocol for Poultry Welfare Quality Consortium.
20. Welfare Quality ®. Welfare quality assessment protocol for poultry (broiler, laying hens). Welfare Quality Consorium, Lelystad, Netherlands. pp. 110. 2009.
21. Mutibvu T, Chimonyo M, Halimani E. Physiological responses of slow-growing chickens under diurnally cycling temperature in a hot environment. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2017; 19 (4): 567-576. doi: 10.1590/1806-9061-2017-0485.
22. Hadwan MH, Abed HN. Data supporting the spectrophotometric method for the estimation of catalase activity. Data in Brief 2016; 6: 194-199. doi: 10.1016/j. dib.2015.12.012.
23. SAS Institute, User Guide: Statistics. Version 9.01. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.,; 2002.
24. Olanrewaju HA, Miller WW, Maslin WR, Collier SD, Purswell JL et al. Interactive effects of light sources, photoperiod and strains on growth performance, carcass characteristics and health indices of broilers grown to heavy weights. Poultry Science 2019; 98 (12): 6232-6240. doi: https://doi.org/10.3382/ ps/pez476.
25. Baxter M, Bédécarrats, GY. Evaluating the effect of various light sources on reproductive and growth parameter in laying hens. Abstracts of the 2014. International Poultry Scientific Forum Atlanta, Georgia. Poultry Science 2014; 93: 99.
26. Bobadilla-Mendez MF, Rojas-Granados CP, Andrade EF, Retes PL, Ferreira LG et al. Effect of different light sources on reproductive anatomy and physiology of Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Animal Reproduction Science 2016; 168: 50-56. doi: 10.1016.02.025.
27. Baxter M, Bédécarrats GY. Evaluation of the impact of light source on reproductive parameters in laying hens housed in individual cages. The Journal of Poultry Science 2019; 56 (2): 148-158. doi: 10.2141/jpsa.0180054.
28. Hassan MDR, Sultana S, Choe HS, Ryu KS. Effect of Combinations of monochromatic led light color on the performance and behavior of laying hens. The Journal of Poultry Science 2014; 51 (3): 321-326.doi: 102141/jpsa.0130105.
29. House GM, Sobotik EB, Nelson JR, Archer GS. Effect of the addition of ultraviolet light on broiler growth, fear, and stress response. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 2020; 29 (2): 402-408. doi: 10.1016/j.jpar. 2020.01.003.
30. Tůmová E, RM Gous. Interaction of hen production type, age, and temperature on laying pattern and egg quality. Poultry Science 2012; 91 (5): 1269-1275. doi: 10.3382/ps.2011-01951.
31. Kai L, Xin H, Sekhon J, Wang T. Effect of fluorescent vs. poultry specific light emitting diode lights on production performance and egg quality of W-36 laying hens. Poultry Science 2017; 97 (3): 834-844. doi: 10.3382/ps/pex37.
32. Lewis PD, Gous RM. Responses of poultry to ultraviolet radiation. World’s Poultry Science Journal 2009; 65 (3): 499- 510. doi: 10.1017/S0043933909000361.
33. Gülsüm T, Bilgehan YD. Impact of light-emitting diode and compact fluorescent light source type and cage tier on layers reared in an enriched cage system Part 1: Production performance and egg quality. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 2019; 43: 1-12. doi: 10.3906/vet-1903-74.
34. Raap T, Casasole G, Pinxten R, Eens M. Early life exposure to artificial light at night affects the physiological condition: an experimental study on the ecophysiology of free-living nestling songbirds. Environmental Pollution 2018; 218: 909-914. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.024.
35. Sultana S, Hassan M, Choe H, Ryu K. The effect of monochromatic and mixed LED light color on the behavior and fear responses of broiler chicken. Avian Biology Research 2013; 6 (3): 207-214. doi: 10.3184/175815513X13739879772128.
36. El-Hammady HY, Abdel-Kareem AAA. Influence of photoperiod and light source on semen characteristics, physiological responses and some blood parameters of rabbit bucks. Egyptian Poultry Science Journal 2015; 35 (2): 543-555.
37. Olanrewaju HA, Thaxton JP, Dozier WA, Purswell J, Roush WB et al. A review of lighting programs for broiler production. International Journal of Poultry Science 2006; 5 (4): 301-308.
38. Mohammed HH, Rehan I. The titer of immunity and signs of welfare due to changes in group size in two strains of lohmann classic layers. SVU-International Journal of Veterinary Sciences 2018; 1 (1): 82-89. doi: 10.21608/SVU.2018.17934.
39. Mohammed HH. Assessment of the role of light in welfare of layers. SVU-International Journal of Veterinary Sciences 2019; 2 (1): 36-50. doi: 10.21608/SVU.2019.23176.
40. James C, Asher L, Herbom K, Wiseman J. The effect of supplementary ultraviolet wavelengths on broiler chicken welfare indicators. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2018; 209: 55-64. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2018.10.002.
41. Gongruttananun N. Effects of green or a combination of green and blue monochromatic light on growth, carcass yield, the heterophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and eye morphology of Thai indigenous chickens. Kasetsart Journal (Natural Science) 2014; 48 (3): 412-424.
42. Mohammed HH, Grashorn MA, Bessei W. The effects of lighting conditions on the behavior of laying hens. Archiv für Geflügelkunde 2010; 74 (3): 197-202.
43. Kapell DNRG, Hill W, Neeteson AM, McAdam J, Koerhuis ANK et al. Genetic parameters of foot-pad dermatitis and body weight in pure bred broiler lines in 2-contrasting environments. Poultry Science 2012; 91 (3): 565-574. doi: 10.3382/ps.2011- 01934.
44. Campbell CL, Colton S, Haas R, Rice M, Porter A, et al. Effects of different wavelengths of light on the biology, behavior and production of grow-out Pekin ducks. Poultry Science 2015; 94 (8): 1751-1757. doi: 10.3382/ps/pev166.
45. Huth JC, Archer GS. Comparison of two LED light bulbs to a dimmable CFL and their effects on broiler chicken growth, stress and fear. Poultry Science 2015; 94 (9): 2027-2036. doi: 10.3382/ps/pev215.
46. Patel SJ, Patel AS, Patel MD, Patel JH. Significance of light in poultry production: a review. Advances in Life Sciences 2016; 5 (4): 1154-1160.
47. Hanafy AM, Hegab IM. Effects of egg weight and light sources during incubation period on embryonic development and post-hatch growth of Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). European Poultry Science 2019; 83: 1-14. doi: 10.1399/eps.2019.268.
48. Olanrewaju HA, Collier SD, Purswell JL, Branton SL. Effects of light sources and intensity on broilers grown to heavy weights: Hematophysiological and biochemical assessment. International Journal of Poultry Science 2016; 15 (10): 384- 393.
49. Kumar S. Evaluation of broilers performance under colored light emitting diodes (LED). Master of veterinary science in livestock production management. Submitted to the Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University 2016.
50. El-Fiky A, Soltan M, Kalamah MA, Abou-Saad S. Effect of light color on productive, reproductive, egg quality traits and free radicals in turkey. Egypt Poultry Science 2008; 28 (3): 677-699.
51. Baxter M, Joseph N, Osborne VR, Bédécarrats GY. Red light is necessary to activate the reproductive axis in chickens independently of the retina of the eye. Poultry Science 2014; 390: 93 (5): 1289-1297. doi: 10.3382/ps.2013-03799.
52. Ribeiro PAP, Junior TY, Silva JPD, Yanagi SDNM, Campos RS et al. Technical-economic analysis of different lighting systems for broiler poultry. Engenharia Agricola 2016; 36 (2): 242-252. doi: 10.1590/1809-4430.
53. Araújo FE, Garcia RG, Nääs IA, Lima NDS, Silva RBTR et al. Broiler surface temperature and behavioral response under two different light sources. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2015; 17 (2): 219-226. doi: 10.1590/1516-x1702219-226.
54. Pereira PA, Junior YT, Silva JP, Lima,RR, Campos AT et al. Technical evaluation of artificial lighting systems for broiler houses. Engenharia Agrícola 2012; 32 (6): 1011-1023. doi: 10.1590/S0100-69162012000600002.
55. Jácome IMDT, Borille R, Rossi LA, Rizzotto DW, Becker JA et al. Productive performance of quails housed in different systems of artificial lighting. Archivos de Zootecnia 2012; 61 (235): 449-456.
56. Pawlowski L.Effect of mercury and lead on the total environment. Environment Protection Engineering 2011; 37 (1): 105-117.
57. Benson ER, Hougentogler DP, McGurk J, Herrmn E, Alphin RL et al. Durability of incandescent, compact fluorescent and light emitting diode lamps in poultry conditions. Applied Engineering in Agriculture 2013; 29 (1): 103-111. doi: 10.13031/2013.42531.