Light-emitting diode (LED) lights are becoming more affordable for agricultural applications. Despite many lab-scale studies concerning impact of LED on poultry, little research has been documented under field production conditions, especially for laying hens. This 15-month field study was carried out to evaluate the effects of LED vs. fluorescent (FL) lights on laying hens (Dekalb white breed) using 4 (2 pairs) aviary hen houses each at a nominal capacity of 50,000 hens. The evaluation was done regarding operational characteristics of the lights and hen production traits. The results show that spatial distribution of the LED light was less uniform than that of the FL light. Light intensity of the LED light decreased by 27% after 3,360 h use but remained quite steady from 3,360 to 5,760 h use. Eleven out of 762 (1.44%) LED lamps (new at onset of the study) in the 2 houses failed during the 15-month experiment period. The neck area of the LED lamp was hottest, presumably the primary reason for the lamp failure as cracks were noticed in the neck region of all failed LED lamps. No differences were observed in egg weight, hen-day egg production, feed use, and mortality rate between LED and FL regimens. However, hens under the FL had higher eggs per hen housed and better feed conversion than those under the LED during 20 to 70 wk production (P < 0.05). Hens under the LED tended to have less feather uniformity and insulation than those under the FL (P < 0.05). Moreover, hens under the LED showed a larger median avoidance distance than those under the FL at 36 wk age (P < 0.05), indicating that hens under the LED were more alert; but no difference at 60 wk age. More comparative research to quantify behavioral and production responses of different breeds of hens to LED vs. FL lighting seems warranted.
In this 60-wk study, egg quality, egg shelf-life, egg cholesterol content, total yolk lipids, and yolk fatty acid composition of eggs produced by Dekalb white laying hens in commercial aviary houses with either light-emitting diode (LED) or fluorescent (FL) lighting were compared. All parameters were measured at 27, 40, and 60 wk of age, except for egg shelf-life, which was compared at 50 wk of age. The results showed that, compared to the FL regimen, the LED regimen resulted in higher egg weight, albumen height, and albumen weight at 27 wk of age, thicker shells at 40 wk of age, but lower egg weight at 60 wk of age. Egg quality change was similar between the lighting regimens during the 62-d egg storage study, indicating that LED lighting did not influence egg shelf-life. Eggs from both lighting regimens had similar cholesterol content. However, cholesterol concentration of the yolk (15.9 to 21.0 mg cholesterol/g wet weight yolk) observed in this study was higher than that of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) database (10.85 mg/g). No significant differences in total lipids or fatty acid composition of the yolks were detected between the two lighting regimens.
In this ongoing study, indoor environment, production performance, egg quality, and some welfare aspects of laying hens in two commercial aviary houses installed with light-emitting diode (LED) lights are compared with those in two aviary houses of similar hen age with fluorescent (FL) lights. To date the study (covering 18 -44 weeks of hen age) shows the following preliminary results. The daily mean temperature and relative humidity (RH) in all houses were generally maintained within 20-25°C and 50-80%, respectively. The holders of LED and FL light bulbs had similar temperatures, approximately 40°C. There were no significant differences in hen production performance parameters between the LED and FL houses. Egg weight, yolk weight, yolk percentage and yolk color factor increased as hen age increased. The Haugh unit (HU) values of fresh eggs in all four houses at 27 and 40 weeks of age were 90 or higher, i.e., much greater than the "AA grade" egg threshold of 72.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.