1961
DOI: 10.3382/ps.0400479
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Increasing, Decreasing, and Constant Lighting Treatments on Growing Pullets

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
3

Year Published

1962
1962
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 41 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
12
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Experiments published by King (1961), Morris (1967) and an unpublished trial for which data are given in Lewis et al (1998) found differences of 5·0, 12·6, and 11·5 d respectively between groups reared on 6 h and 10 h photoperiods, compared with the difference of 22·5 d observed in the present trial between 7 h and 10 h treatments. It is difficult to see any likely explanation for this divergence, other than genetic differences in sensitivity to short photoperiods.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 63%
“…Experiments published by King (1961), Morris (1967) and an unpublished trial for which data are given in Lewis et al (1998) found differences of 5·0, 12·6, and 11·5 d respectively between groups reared on 6 h and 10 h photoperiods, compared with the difference of 22·5 d observed in the present trial between 7 h and 10 h treatments. It is difficult to see any likely explanation for this divergence, other than genetic differences in sensitivity to short photoperiods.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 63%
“…Already after the first week the increased consumption in the lighted pens amounted to as much as 10%, and at times almost one-third of the total feed intake was consumed during the period of artificial illumination. This phenomenon has been described for DLR by Morris and Fox (I960), Noles and Smith (1964) and Lillie and Denton (1965), and for various schedules of constant lighting by King (1961). It can be assumed that this effect is due to light supplementation per se, rather than being the specific result of DLR.…”
Section: Experimental and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…They also noted that up to that time, artificial lighting had not been widely adopted by the industry and egg supply was seasonal in the UK. King (1959King ( , 1961 pointed out that much of the earlier work on lighting patterns had been done by supplementation of natural day length with additional lighting and by using natural lighting as the control. By using techniques of complete light control for all treatments, he demonstrated the value of a declining or constant short day length during rearing, followed by increasing day length during lay.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%