The Effects of Spot Lighting on Broiler Performance and Welfare

Bayraktar, Hakan; Altan, Ali; Şeremet, Çiğdem

doi:10.3923/javaa.2012.1139.1144

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This result is supported by Rahimi et al, (2005), Bölükbasi and Emsen, 2006), Lewis and Gous (2006ab), Downs et al, (2006), Abbas et al, (2008), Mahmud, et al, (2011), Farghly (2014), Yang et al 2015, Farghly and Makled, (2015), Farghly et al, (2016) and Farghly and Enas Ahmad (2017) who found that intermittent or flashed light had significant effect on body weight and gain weight. Lien et al, (2009), Lewis et al, (2009ab), Lewis et al, (2010) and Bayraktar et al, (2012) reported that growth rate was significantly reduced during long dark periods, but final weight and gain was insignificant by lighting regimen. On the other hand, Boon et al, (2000) reported that long photoperiods increased significantly weight gain values.…”

Section: F a Mmentioning

confidence: 98%

Application of Flashed Lighting Program in Naked Neck Chickens (Sharkasi) Management

Farghly

El-Garhy

Ali

2017

EPSJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study was undertaken to investigate the effect of application flash lighting program on performance and physiological status of naked neck chickens. Three hundred and sixty, four weeks old birds were randomly distributed into 6 experimental groups (3 replicates of 20 birds each) and housed in floor pens. The first group (control group, C), birds were maintained under 12 hrs and 16 hrs common light (CL) per day during the growing and laying periods, respectively. While, in the other groups, birds were exposed to light flashes for 10 minute/hour (T1), 20 minute/hour (T2), 30 minute/hour (T3), 40 minute/hour (T4) and 50 minute/hour (T5) for 12 and 16 hrs light/day during the growing and laying periods, respectively. Main results indicated that light flashes program significantly (P≤0.05) improved growth efficiency, carcass dressing percentage, breast percentage, abdominal fat percentage, egg laying rate, egg shell thickness, sexual parameters and healthy status. Also, estradiol hormone significantly (P≤0.05) increased by application of flash lighting program. However, long period of light flashes program recorded the worst values as in general performance and welfare (H / L ratio and tonic immobility values). Insignificant (P>0.05) effect were observed in drumstick, femur, liver, heart, gizzard, most blood components, egg shape or yolk, Haugh units, leg problems, plumage conditions, bone lengths, age at sexual maturity, genital organs and hatchability percentages. From an economical point of view, it is observed that the birds exposed to light flashes periods for 10 to 30 minutes/hour were superior to that of birds in other groups. Using short periods of light flashes might be suitable as alternative light to continuous or common light for managing Sharkasi chicken in sight and stimulation of internal organs or hormones release without oppositely affecting the physiological response, healthy traits and welfare.

show abstract

Section: F a Mmentioning

confidence: 98%

Application of Flashed Lighting Program in Naked Neck Chickens (Sharkasi) Management

Farghly

El-Garhy

Ali

2017

EPSJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Light intensity ; Mean values within lines with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). *P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001; **** P < 0.0001; NS: not significant L: Lighting type; C: cage tier; LED: light-emitting diode, FLO: compact fluorescent; I: 1st tier (bottom), II: 2nd tier, III: 3rd tier, IV: 4th tier (top) 1 Body and comb wound score ranged from 1 to 3, with 1 signifying severe damage and 3 signifying no lesions on body and comb. 2 Foot score (bumble foot and footpad dermatitis) ranged from 1 to 3, with 1 signifying severe hyperkeratosis and 3 signifying no lesions on foot.…”

Section: Some Welfare Behavior Traitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Light-emitting diode (LED) light bulbs have been gaining popularity for use in poultry house lighting in recent years [1]. The LED lamps have low energy consumption, a long life, and produce monochromatic light [2].…”

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

“…Lewis and Gous (2006 a&b); Downs et al (2006), Gharib, et al (2008), Abbas et al (2008) and Mahmud et al (2011) indicated that intermittent light significantly affect body weight. Classen et al (2004), Lien et al (2009); Lewis et al (2009a&b); Lewis et al (2010) and Bayraktar et al (2012) indicated that early growth rate was significantly reduced by longer periods of darkness, but gain as well as final body weight was not affected by lighting programs. In contrast, Boon et al (2000) found that longer photoperiods were associated with larger weight gains.…”

Section: Body Weight (Bw) and Body Weight Gain (Bwg)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Improvement of Productive and Reproductive Performance of Dandarawi Chicken Through Flash Light Program

Farghly

2014

Egyptian Journal of Animal Production

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An experiment with Dandarawi chickens was designed to see the impact of flash light (FL) stimulation on productive and reproductive performance. Three hundred, four weeks old chicks were divided into 5 equal groups (3 replicates of 20 birds each) and housed in floor pens. The first group, the birds were subjected to 12 and 16 hrs common light (CL)/day during the growing and laying periods, respectively and were considered as the control group (C). While, the second group (T1), birds were subjected to 12 hrs light (9 CL: 3 FL) and16 h light (12 CL:4 FL) during growing and laying periods, respectively. The third group (T2), birds were subjected to 12 hrs light (6 CL:6 FL) and16 hrs light (8 CL:8 FL) during growing and laying periods, respectively. The fourth group (T3), birds were subjected to 12 h light (3 CL : 9 FL) and16 h light (4 CL:12 FL) during growing and laying periods, respectively. The fifth group (T4), birds were subjected to 12 and 16 hrs flash light (FL)/day during the growing and laying periods, respectively. Feed and water were available ad libtum and all the other conditions were the same during the experimental period. Results emanating from this study indicated that exposure of birds to flash light affected many of the studied traits and the effects were significant (P≤0.05) on body weight, weight gain, feed conversion, liver, giblets, abdominal fat, total lipids, blood AST, H/L ratio, egg number, egg shell thickness, egg yolk index, age at sexual maturity, fertility, semen volume & concentration, follicle number, testes and ovary percentages. While, there were no significant (P>0.05) differences in most carcass traits, blood components (protein, cholesterol, ALT), shell strength, Haugh units, egg components, leg problems, plumage conditions, bone lengths, semen pH, oviduct weight & length and hatchability percentages. Finally, the economical efficiency of the birds reared on12 hrs light (6 CL: 6 FL) during the growing period and birds provided with either 16 hrs of light (4 CL:12 FL) for table eggs, as well as (8 CL: 8 FL) or (4 CL:12 FL) for fertile eggs during laying periods were superior to that of birds in other groups. Light flashes program as bio-intermittent light might be economical alternative light to continuous or common light in sight and stimulation of internal organs or initiation of hormones release without negatively affecting the performance and welfare of chickens during growing and laying periods.

show abstract

The Effects of Spot Lighting on Broiler Performance and Welfare

Cited by 5 publications

References 6 publications

Application of Flashed Lighting Program in Naked Neck Chickens (Sharkasi) Management

Application of Flashed Lighting Program in Naked Neck Chickens (Sharkasi) Management

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

Improvement of Productive and Reproductive Performance of Dandarawi Chicken Through Flash Light Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About