Effect of light-emitting diode (LED) vs. fluorescent (FL) lighting on laying hens in aviary hen houses: Part 2 – Egg quality, shelf-life and lipid composition

Long, H.; Zhao, Yang; Xin, Hongwei; Hansen, Hannah; Ning, Zhonghua; Wang, Tong

doi:10.3382/ps/pev306

Cited by 12 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Besides, they have a higher initial cost (Mendes et al, 2013), and they are susceptible to power fluctuations. These problems make it difficult to maintain uniform light intensity in the whole livestock production cycle (Long et al, 2015). Another drawback is that the fluorescent lamp maximum efficiency occurs when the air temperature is between 21 and 27°C.…”

Section: Types Of Lampsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, the cost of the technology has decreased significantly since its first development and it has become more accessible to the poultry industry (Long et al, 2015).…”

Section: Light Emitting Diode (Led)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Facing these results, it is necessary to deal with parameters like humidity and light spectrum. The sensibility of hens is different from humans, so it is necessary to evaluate the levels of light intensity in the different stages of production, and also the phases of the day (Long et al, 2015). Molino et al (2015) evaluated the effect of different sources and intensities of light in the production and the egg quality.…”

Section: Light Emitting Diode (Led)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

LED in production systems of laying hens: An alternative to increase sustainability

Verza¹,

Peixoto²,

Tamehiro³

et al. 2017

Afr. J. Agric. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Brazilian poultry production currently has a substantial impact on the national and international economy. Brazil ranks sixth in the world rankings of the largest egg producers. However, the activity still has barriers related to management and facilities, such as high waste of electrical energy due to the low energy efficiency of the lighting systems. The artificial lighting programs represent an important management tool to accelerate or delay sexual maturity of laying, stimulate the release of reproductive hormones, increase the egg production, besides promoting improvements in the shell quality and the size of the eggs. There is a large number of lamps that are available for use in artificial lighting systems, however, each light source has different characteristics (light intensity, wavelength, color, temperature and fluctuations) which may cause positive or negative effect on hens performance, egg quality and production costs. The LED technology is an innovative alternative that can improve the sustainability of the activity, since it has better energy efficiency, longer lifetime and emits light of different colors. This literature review aims to discuss the beneficial characteristics of the LED and its effects on the production of commercial layers.

show abstract

Section: Types Of Lampsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, the cost of the technology has decreased significantly since its first development and it has become more accessible to the poultry industry (Long et al, 2015).…”

Section: Light Emitting Diode (Led)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Light Emitting Diode (Led)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

LED in production systems of laying hens: An alternative to increase sustainability

Verza¹,

Peixoto²,

Tamehiro³

et al. 2017

Afr. J. Agric. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another recent study revealed that a Dim-to-Blue poultry-specific LED light and a warm-white CFL led to comparable W-36 pullet performance in body weight, body weight uniformity, and mortality (Liu et al, 2017). Similarly, when applying a Nodark poultry-specific LED light (CCT = 4100K) and warm-white fluorescent lights in commercial aviary hen houses, no differences between the two types of light were detected in egg weight, egg production, feed use, mortality rate, or egg quality parameters for DeKalb white hens (Long et al, 2016a(Long et al, , 2016b. In addition, a study found that the effects of LED lights on broiler growth were age-related (Yang et al, 2016).…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

Choice Between Fluorescent and Poultry-Specific LED Lights by Pullets and Laying Hens

Liu¹,

Xin²,

Chai³

2017

Transactions of the ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Light plays an important role in poultry development, production performance, health, and well-being. Light technology continues to advance, and accordingly new light products are finding applications in poultry operations. However, research concerning responses of young and adult laying hens to light sources is relatively lacking. This study assessed the choice between a Dim-to-Red poultry-specific light-emitting diode (LED) light (PS-LED, correlated color temperature or CCT = 2000K) and a warm-white fluorescent light (FL, CCT = 2700K) by pullets and laying hens (W-36 breed) via preference test. Birds with different prior lighting experiences were evaluated for their light choice, including (1) pullets (14 to 16 weeks of age or WOA) reared under incandescent light (designated as PINC), (2) layers (44 to 50 WOA) under PS-LED (LLED) throughout the pullet and laying phases, and (3) layers under FL (LFL) throughout the pullet and laying phases. Each bird category consisted of 12 replicates, three birds per replicate. Each replicate involved a 6-day preference test, during which the birds could move freely between two interconnected compartments that contained PS-LED and FL, respectively. Time spent and feed intake by the birds under each light were measured and then analyzed with generalized linear mixed models. Results showed that regardless of prior lighting experience, birds in all cases showed stronger choice for FL (p = 0.001 to 0.030), as evidenced by higher proportions of time spent under it. Specifically, the proportion of time spent (mean ±SEM) under FL versus PS-LED was 58.0% ±2.9% vs. 42.0% ±2.9% for PINC, 53.7% ±1.6% vs. 46.3% ±1.6% for LLED, and 54.2% ±1.2% vs. 45.8% ±1.2% for LFL. However, the proportions of daily feed intake occurring under FL and PS-LED were comparable in all cases (p = 0.419 to 0.749). The study thus reveals that prior lighting experience of the pullets or layers did not affect their choice of FL versus PS-LED. While the birds exhibited a somewhat stronger choice for FL, this tendency did not translate into differences in the proportion of feed use under each light type. Keywords: Behavior and welfare, Computer vision, Poultry Lighting, Preference assessment.

show abstract

“…However, there are few studies on the effects of LED light on layers reared in alternative rearing systems [9,14]. Moreover, there is little information about the effect of LED and fluorescent lighting on production performance, egg quality, stress, and fear in hens [9,14,15]. Additionally, different light intensity levels were reported on different levels of the cage tiers, and this may affect the welfare parameters in layers [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of light-emitting diode and compact fluorescent lighting type and cage tier on layers reared in an enriched cage system, part 2: some welfare traits

Tünaydin¹,

Dikmen²

2019

Turk J Vet Anim Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of lighting type [light-emitting diode (LED) and compact fluorescent (FLO) light] and cage tier on welfare traits such as feather score, body and comb wounds, bumble foot and footpad dermatitis, beak damage, keel bone deformity, finger damage, aggressive pecking behavior, and the avoidance distance test (ADT) in laying hens reared in an enriched cage system. A total of 400 layers were used to determine these traits at 25 and 45 weeks of age. A total of 80 layers were used to determine tonic immobility (TI) duration and induction number. The dust accumulation rate (DAR I and DAR II) was recorded to determine the activity of layers under different lighting sources at 25, 35, and 45 weeks of age. The highest DAR I and DAR II were determined in the FLO group at 35 and 45 weeks of age (P < 0.05). The worst comb wound and highest ADT were found in the FLO group at 25 weeks of age (P < 0.05). In the FLO group the mean feather score, comb wound, and finger damage were worse than in the LED group (P < 0.01). In addition, aggressive pecking behavior (P < 0.01) was observed more in the FLO group at 45 weeks of age (P < 0.05). The breast and vent feather scores (P < 0.001), mean body feather score, comb wound, and footpad dermatitis of hens at 45 weeks of age (P < 0.05) were worse in lower cage tiers. In conclusion, using LED light in poultry houses helps to increase some of the welfare parameters. Cage tier significantly affects the welfare parameters, and this effect is clearer around 45 weeks of age in layers.

show abstract

Effect of light-emitting diode (LED) vs. fluorescent (FL) lighting on laying hens in aviary hen houses: Part 2 – Egg quality, shelf-life and lipid composition

Cited by 12 publications

References 40 publications

LED in production systems of laying hens: An alternative to increase sustainability

LED in production systems of laying hens: An alternative to increase sustainability

Choice Between Fluorescent and Poultry-Specific LED Lights by Pullets and Laying Hens

Impact of light-emitting diode and compact fluorescent lighting type and cage tier on layers reared in an enriched cage system, part 2: some welfare traits

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About