- Email: [email protected]
Compact Fluorescent Lamps Under Commercial Poultry House Conditions
01995 Applied Poultry Science, Inc
COMPACT FLUORESCENT LAMPS UNDER COMMERCIAL POULTRY HOUSE CONDITIONS
Primary Audience: Poultry Producers, Extension Personnel
Until recently, incandescent lamps proDESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM vided the artificial lighting for poultry. The Light is one of the major aspects of the environment that impacts bird health, production, and reproduction. Many studies have investigated the effect of light on bird performance, looking specifically at intensity, duration, and spectral quality. These studies found that light in the blue-green (460-560 nanometers (nrn)) portion of the visible spectrumstimulates growth, while orange-red (625-750 nm) stimulates reproduction [l,2,3,4]. Long light days also stimulate egg production and growth [5], while intensities as low as 0.3 footcandles (fc) will support egg production [6].
1
To whom correspondence should be addressed
advent of compact fluorescent (CF) lamps and other high efficiency lamps has literally changed the way we light animal facilities. CF lamps emitted light in the proper wavelengths to support poultry growth and production while reducing electrical consumption [7,8,9, 101. Some researchers discovered that chickens actually preferred CF lamps over incandescent lamps [111. These researchers found that hens provided free access between pens illuminated with incandescent or CF lamps spent 73.2% of their time under the CF lamps and 26.8% under incandescent lamps with no adverse effect on any other behavior. How-
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library on April 10, 2015
MICHAEL J. D A R R J ~ Department ofAnimal Science, Univenify of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-4040 Phone: (203) 48b1008 F M : (203) 48b4375 JAMES S. ROCK New London County Cooperative Extension Office, Cooperative Extension System, Universityof Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-4040
MAINTENANCE OF CF LAMPS
106 ever, several questions needed to be answered: How well did these lamps hold up under commercial poultry house conditions? and How much did light output decrease over time? This study was designed to measure the light output of the lamps and to test the hypothesis that these lamps would exceed the estimated lamp life of 10,OOO hr under farm conditions.
MATER A ILS
random sample of fifty-six 7-watt lamps and sixty-nine 9-watt lamps were used. Longevity of the lamps was studied using all the original lamps installed on the farms. Researchers collected the data on light output on the yearly anniversary of the installation of the CF lamps on each farm. The farmers kept information on when any lamp was replaced, including the date and if both the lamp and ballast were replaced or only one or the other. Final data for each year was analyzed as a completely randomized design using SAS GLM procedure [14] and Duncan's multiple range procedure to determine differences between means for each year.
AND METHODS
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION By comparing average lamp output (Table 1) for the 7-watt lamps, we see that the initial output was 37.4 fc; this amount decreased to 33.7 fc after two years and to 30.9 fc for years three and four, corresponding to 90.2% and 82.6% of original light output, respectively. The values for the 9-watt lamps (Table 1) began at 51.5 fc and decreased to 40.96 fc after two years and to 37.09 fc and 36.98 fc for years three and four. This decrease represents 79.6% (year two) and 72% (years 3 and 4) of original light output. As is evident, the 9-watt lamps had greater reduction in light output over time than did the 7-watt lamps. Over the four year time span, the 9-watt lamps lost an average of 28% of their illuminating power compared to a loss of 18% by the 7-watt lamps. As a side note, we found that as lamps (both CF and incandescent) accumulateddust and fly-specs, the light output also decreased by as much as 20%, even with what appears to be a minimal layer of dust. Therefore, regular cleaning of the lamps is necessary to maintain optimal light output.
i
YEAR 1987
HOURS ON 0
7-WA'lT
%OFNEW
9-WAIT
37.39+0.2SAB
100
51.47+0593c
70OF NEW 100
1989
11,680
33.73rt 0.487
90.2
40.96rt0.569
1990
17,520
30.83rt0.472
82.4
37.09rt0.633
72.06
30.90rt0.595
82.6
36.98rt0.327
71.84
1991
=,=J
*Values represent light output in footcandles rt SEM
Bn= 231
n' = 317
79.6
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library on April 10, 2015
This study was initiated in 1987 to determine 1)the decrease in light output over time and 2) the longevity of CF lamps used in commercial caged layer facilities. Three commercial egg production farms replaced their incandescent lampswith either 7- or 9-watt CF lamps to maintain a minimum of 0.5 fc at the darkest point at the front of the cages [12]. One farm had both a high-rise building and a stacked-deck system, while the remaining two had high-rise buildings. The farms were all on a 16L8D lighting program. During this experiment, light output in footcandles was measured at a standard distance of 1 ft. from the lamps, and all lamps were wiped clean with a damp cloth and allowed to dry before researchers measured light output. Measurements were made using a Weston Instruments Model 756 (131 light meter with a 555 nm filter. Therefore, light output could be measured only at that wavelength, which is in the yellow-green portion of the spectrum. Comparisons between new lamps and 2,3, and 4 yr old lamps were made, correspondingto 11,680,17,520, and 23,360 hr of actual on time for the lamps. A total of 231 (7-watt) and 317 (9-watt) lamps were used in data collection for the longevity study. For the measurement of light output for the study of lumen maintenance a
Field Report 107
DARRE and ROCK
YEAR
HOURS ON
7 WATT
% LEFT
9 WAIT
%LEFT
1987
0
231
100
317
100
1988
5,840
231
100
317
100
1989
11,680
230
9956
317
100
1990
17,520
228
305
96.21
1991
23,360
76
98.70 32.9
110
34.7
larger figure of 2,000 hr/lamp, we will need 21,480 hr t 2,000 hrbulb or 10.74 bulbs replaced; that is 10.74 bulbs x 150 bulbs x 65ebulb = $1,047 in bulb cost. Cost comparisons are presented in Table 3. The data in Table 3 reveals a savings of $7,106.52 for the CF lamps, a savings of $47.38 per bulb replaced. This figure includes neither the additional savings of not having to replace the ballast each time the CF lamps are replaced nor the saving of labor cost of replacing the incandescent bulbs. Overall, we can accept the hypothesis that the CF lamps will last longer than - perhaps twice as long as - the manufacturers suggest (l0,OOO hr). The one point that must be considered when using the CF lamps is that they lose illumination value over time, as discovered by this study. However, if one takes this loss of light output into consideration when first installing the lamps and increases the original illumination by about 25 to 30% (by using the next higher wattage lamp or decreasing the spacing between lamps), users can maintain adequate lighting levels and still save electrical energy costs relative to incandescent lighting. TABLE 3. Cost comparison of compact fluorescent ICR vs. incandescent lamps Electricity
$3,350.88
$10,310.40
$ 900.00
S 1,047.00 $11,357.40
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library on April 10, 2015
Lamp life data is of primary importance. The data presented in Table 2 illustrates the longevity of the 7- and 9-watt CF lamps. As can be seen, after four years only 32.9% of the original 7-watt lamps and only 34.7% of the 9-watt lampswere left. These remaining lamps exceeded 23,360 hr of on time. The mean burnout time for the 231 (7-watt) and 317 (9-watt) lamps was 21,480 hr of on time. No ballast failures occurred during this time period and none were expected since the ballasts are rated at between 40,000hr and 50,000 hr based upon three-hour starts [15]. The economic aspects of using CF lamps cannot be overlooked. Using an electrical cost of 8e per kilowatt hour (kwh) for 9-watt CF lamps (13-watt total with ballast), 150 lamps would equal an average electrical consumption of: 13watts x 150 lamps x 21,480 hr t 1,OOO w a t t s h h x 8 e h h = $3,350.88 for the four-year period. Incandescent lamps, in contrast, would cost 40 watts x 150 lamps x 21,480 hr t 1,000 wattskwh x 8 e h h = $10,310.40 for the same period. However, this calculation does not include the cost of the lamps. The CF lamps cost an average of $6.00, but an incandescent lamp costs about 6%. Using these average figures for illustrative purposes, the original cost of the CF lamps is $6.00 x 150 lamps = $900. Although the rated life of most incandescent lamps runs about 1,OOO hr [15], we found that, when turned on once each day for 16 hr, incandescent lights will last about 1,500 to 2,000 hr. Conservatively speaking, if we use the
JAPR MAINTENANCE OF CF LAMPS
108
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS 1. CF lamps of 7 watts maintained90% of original illumination value after 10,OOO hr and better than 82% after 23,000 hr of on time. 2. CF lamps of 9 watts maintained79% of their original illumination value after 10,OOO hr and 71% after 23,000 hr of on time. 3. After 10,000 hr of on time, 99.5% of the 7-watt and 100% of the 9-watt lamps were still operating. After 17,000 hr of on time, 98% of the 7-watt and 96% of the 9-watt lamps were still operating. After 23,000 hr of on time, 32.9% of the 7-watt and 34.7% of the 9-watt lamps were still operating. 4. Based upon the lamp life data, illuminationvalues, and electrical usage documented by this study, CF lamps are the best choice for use in all types of poultry facilities where energy savings are desired.
1. Farner, D.S. and R Lewis, 1971. Photoperiodism and reproductive cycles in birds. Photophysiology4:325332. 2. Foss, D.C., LB. C a m , Jr., and EL Arnold, 1972. Physiological development of cockerels as influenced by selected wavelengths of environmental light. Poultry S c i . 51:1922-1927. 3. Harrison,P.C., J. McGinnis, G. Schumaier, and J. Lauber, 1969. Sexual maturity and subsequent reproductive performance of White Leghorn chickens subjected to different parts of the light spectrum. Poultry Sci. 48:878883. 4. Waybeck, CJ. and W.C. Skoglund, 1974. Influence of radiant energy from fluorescent light sources on growth, mortali and feed conversion of broilers. Poultry s i . 53:2055-%59.
5. Schutze,J.V., W.E Matsoqand J. M a i n n i s , 1963. Effect of light on economic and physiolo ’cal characteristics of layng hens. Poultry Sci. 42150-86. 6. Morris, T.R, 1967. The effect of light intensity for r i n g and layingpullets.World’s Poultry Sci. J. 232461. 7. Andrews, D.K. and N.G. Zimmermann, 1990. A comparison of energy efficient broiler house li hting sources and photoperiods. Poultry Sci. 69:1471-14!9.
8. Darre, M.J. and AH. Spandorf, 1985. Energy efficient cost effectivelights for use with poultry. Poultry Sci. 64(Suppl):SS (Abs). 9. Scheideler, SE, 1990. Research Note: Effect of various light sources o n broiler performance and of roduction under commercial conditions. % : G?!c.i 68103G1033. 10. Zimmermann, N.G., 1988. Broiler performance when reared under various light sources. Poultry Sci. 6743-51.
11.Widowski, T.M., L.J. Keeling, and I.J.H. Duncan, 1992. The preferences of hens for compact fluorescent over incandescent lighting. Can. J. Anim. Sci. m203-211. 12. Lampswere of both the Osram and Phillips design, and ballastswere from Osram, Phillips, ChenKuei,Lights of America, American Lighting, and FarmTek. There were nodifferences in performance due to lamp or ballast type or manufacturer in this study. 13. Daystrom, Inc., Weston Instruments Division, Newark, NJ. 14. SAS Instilule, 1988. SAWSTAT User’s Guide Release 6.03. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC. 15. Knisley, J.R., 1990. Updating light sources for new and existin facilities. Electrical Construction and Maintenance 89f12):49-60.
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library on April 10, 2015
REFERENCES AND NOTES
COMPACT FLUORESCENT LAMPS UNDER COMMERCIAL POULTRY HOUSE CONDITIONS
Primary Audience: Poultry Producers, Extension Personnel
Until recently, incandescent lamps proDESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM vided the artificial lighting for poultry. The Light is one of the major aspects of the environment that impacts bird health, production, and reproduction. Many studies have investigated the effect of light on bird performance, looking specifically at intensity, duration, and spectral quality. These studies found that light in the blue-green (460-560 nanometers (nrn)) portion of the visible spectrumstimulates growth, while orange-red (625-750 nm) stimulates reproduction [l,2,3,4]. Long light days also stimulate egg production and growth [5], while intensities as low as 0.3 footcandles (fc) will support egg production [6].
1
To whom correspondence should be addressed
advent of compact fluorescent (CF) lamps and other high efficiency lamps has literally changed the way we light animal facilities. CF lamps emitted light in the proper wavelengths to support poultry growth and production while reducing electrical consumption [7,8,9, 101. Some researchers discovered that chickens actually preferred CF lamps over incandescent lamps [111. These researchers found that hens provided free access between pens illuminated with incandescent or CF lamps spent 73.2% of their time under the CF lamps and 26.8% under incandescent lamps with no adverse effect on any other behavior. How-
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library on April 10, 2015
MICHAEL J. D A R R J ~ Department ofAnimal Science, Univenify of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-4040 Phone: (203) 48b1008 F M : (203) 48b4375 JAMES S. ROCK New London County Cooperative Extension Office, Cooperative Extension System, Universityof Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-4040
MAINTENANCE OF CF LAMPS
106 ever, several questions needed to be answered: How well did these lamps hold up under commercial poultry house conditions? and How much did light output decrease over time? This study was designed to measure the light output of the lamps and to test the hypothesis that these lamps would exceed the estimated lamp life of 10,OOO hr under farm conditions.
MATER A ILS
random sample of fifty-six 7-watt lamps and sixty-nine 9-watt lamps were used. Longevity of the lamps was studied using all the original lamps installed on the farms. Researchers collected the data on light output on the yearly anniversary of the installation of the CF lamps on each farm. The farmers kept information on when any lamp was replaced, including the date and if both the lamp and ballast were replaced or only one or the other. Final data for each year was analyzed as a completely randomized design using SAS GLM procedure [14] and Duncan's multiple range procedure to determine differences between means for each year.
AND METHODS
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION By comparing average lamp output (Table 1) for the 7-watt lamps, we see that the initial output was 37.4 fc; this amount decreased to 33.7 fc after two years and to 30.9 fc for years three and four, corresponding to 90.2% and 82.6% of original light output, respectively. The values for the 9-watt lamps (Table 1) began at 51.5 fc and decreased to 40.96 fc after two years and to 37.09 fc and 36.98 fc for years three and four. This decrease represents 79.6% (year two) and 72% (years 3 and 4) of original light output. As is evident, the 9-watt lamps had greater reduction in light output over time than did the 7-watt lamps. Over the four year time span, the 9-watt lamps lost an average of 28% of their illuminating power compared to a loss of 18% by the 7-watt lamps. As a side note, we found that as lamps (both CF and incandescent) accumulateddust and fly-specs, the light output also decreased by as much as 20%, even with what appears to be a minimal layer of dust. Therefore, regular cleaning of the lamps is necessary to maintain optimal light output.
i
YEAR 1987
HOURS ON 0
7-WA'lT
%OFNEW
9-WAIT
37.39+0.2SAB
100
51.47+0593c
70OF NEW 100
1989
11,680
33.73rt 0.487
90.2
40.96rt0.569
1990
17,520
30.83rt0.472
82.4
37.09rt0.633
72.06
30.90rt0.595
82.6
36.98rt0.327
71.84
1991
=,=J
*Values represent light output in footcandles rt SEM
Bn= 231
n' = 317
79.6
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library on April 10, 2015
This study was initiated in 1987 to determine 1)the decrease in light output over time and 2) the longevity of CF lamps used in commercial caged layer facilities. Three commercial egg production farms replaced their incandescent lampswith either 7- or 9-watt CF lamps to maintain a minimum of 0.5 fc at the darkest point at the front of the cages [12]. One farm had both a high-rise building and a stacked-deck system, while the remaining two had high-rise buildings. The farms were all on a 16L8D lighting program. During this experiment, light output in footcandles was measured at a standard distance of 1 ft. from the lamps, and all lamps were wiped clean with a damp cloth and allowed to dry before researchers measured light output. Measurements were made using a Weston Instruments Model 756 (131 light meter with a 555 nm filter. Therefore, light output could be measured only at that wavelength, which is in the yellow-green portion of the spectrum. Comparisons between new lamps and 2,3, and 4 yr old lamps were made, correspondingto 11,680,17,520, and 23,360 hr of actual on time for the lamps. A total of 231 (7-watt) and 317 (9-watt) lamps were used in data collection for the longevity study. For the measurement of light output for the study of lumen maintenance a
Field Report 107
DARRE and ROCK
YEAR
HOURS ON
7 WATT
% LEFT
9 WAIT
%LEFT
1987
0
231
100
317
100
1988
5,840
231
100
317
100
1989
11,680
230
9956
317
100
1990
17,520
228
305
96.21
1991
23,360
76
98.70 32.9
110
34.7
larger figure of 2,000 hr/lamp, we will need 21,480 hr t 2,000 hrbulb or 10.74 bulbs replaced; that is 10.74 bulbs x 150 bulbs x 65ebulb = $1,047 in bulb cost. Cost comparisons are presented in Table 3. The data in Table 3 reveals a savings of $7,106.52 for the CF lamps, a savings of $47.38 per bulb replaced. This figure includes neither the additional savings of not having to replace the ballast each time the CF lamps are replaced nor the saving of labor cost of replacing the incandescent bulbs. Overall, we can accept the hypothesis that the CF lamps will last longer than - perhaps twice as long as - the manufacturers suggest (l0,OOO hr). The one point that must be considered when using the CF lamps is that they lose illumination value over time, as discovered by this study. However, if one takes this loss of light output into consideration when first installing the lamps and increases the original illumination by about 25 to 30% (by using the next higher wattage lamp or decreasing the spacing between lamps), users can maintain adequate lighting levels and still save electrical energy costs relative to incandescent lighting. TABLE 3. Cost comparison of compact fluorescent ICR vs. incandescent lamps Electricity
$3,350.88
$10,310.40
$ 900.00
S 1,047.00 $11,357.40
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library on April 10, 2015
Lamp life data is of primary importance. The data presented in Table 2 illustrates the longevity of the 7- and 9-watt CF lamps. As can be seen, after four years only 32.9% of the original 7-watt lamps and only 34.7% of the 9-watt lampswere left. These remaining lamps exceeded 23,360 hr of on time. The mean burnout time for the 231 (7-watt) and 317 (9-watt) lamps was 21,480 hr of on time. No ballast failures occurred during this time period and none were expected since the ballasts are rated at between 40,000hr and 50,000 hr based upon three-hour starts [15]. The economic aspects of using CF lamps cannot be overlooked. Using an electrical cost of 8e per kilowatt hour (kwh) for 9-watt CF lamps (13-watt total with ballast), 150 lamps would equal an average electrical consumption of: 13watts x 150 lamps x 21,480 hr t 1,OOO w a t t s h h x 8 e h h = $3,350.88 for the four-year period. Incandescent lamps, in contrast, would cost 40 watts x 150 lamps x 21,480 hr t 1,000 wattskwh x 8 e h h = $10,310.40 for the same period. However, this calculation does not include the cost of the lamps. The CF lamps cost an average of $6.00, but an incandescent lamp costs about 6%. Using these average figures for illustrative purposes, the original cost of the CF lamps is $6.00 x 150 lamps = $900. Although the rated life of most incandescent lamps runs about 1,OOO hr [15], we found that, when turned on once each day for 16 hr, incandescent lights will last about 1,500 to 2,000 hr. Conservatively speaking, if we use the
JAPR MAINTENANCE OF CF LAMPS
108
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS 1. CF lamps of 7 watts maintained90% of original illumination value after 10,OOO hr and better than 82% after 23,000 hr of on time. 2. CF lamps of 9 watts maintained79% of their original illumination value after 10,OOO hr and 71% after 23,000 hr of on time. 3. After 10,000 hr of on time, 99.5% of the 7-watt and 100% of the 9-watt lamps were still operating. After 17,000 hr of on time, 98% of the 7-watt and 96% of the 9-watt lamps were still operating. After 23,000 hr of on time, 32.9% of the 7-watt and 34.7% of the 9-watt lamps were still operating. 4. Based upon the lamp life data, illuminationvalues, and electrical usage documented by this study, CF lamps are the best choice for use in all types of poultry facilities where energy savings are desired.
1. Farner, D.S. and R Lewis, 1971. Photoperiodism and reproductive cycles in birds. Photophysiology4:325332. 2. Foss, D.C., LB. C a m , Jr., and EL Arnold, 1972. Physiological development of cockerels as influenced by selected wavelengths of environmental light. Poultry S c i . 51:1922-1927. 3. Harrison,P.C., J. McGinnis, G. Schumaier, and J. Lauber, 1969. Sexual maturity and subsequent reproductive performance of White Leghorn chickens subjected to different parts of the light spectrum. Poultry Sci. 48:878883. 4. Waybeck, CJ. and W.C. Skoglund, 1974. Influence of radiant energy from fluorescent light sources on growth, mortali and feed conversion of broilers. Poultry s i . 53:2055-%59.
5. Schutze,J.V., W.E Matsoqand J. M a i n n i s , 1963. Effect of light on economic and physiolo ’cal characteristics of layng hens. Poultry Sci. 42150-86. 6. Morris, T.R, 1967. The effect of light intensity for r i n g and layingpullets.World’s Poultry Sci. J. 232461. 7. Andrews, D.K. and N.G. Zimmermann, 1990. A comparison of energy efficient broiler house li hting sources and photoperiods. Poultry Sci. 69:1471-14!9.
8. Darre, M.J. and AH. Spandorf, 1985. Energy efficient cost effectivelights for use with poultry. Poultry Sci. 64(Suppl):SS (Abs). 9. Scheideler, SE, 1990. Research Note: Effect of various light sources o n broiler performance and of roduction under commercial conditions. % : G?!c.i 68103G1033. 10. Zimmermann, N.G., 1988. Broiler performance when reared under various light sources. Poultry Sci. 6743-51.
11.Widowski, T.M., L.J. Keeling, and I.J.H. Duncan, 1992. The preferences of hens for compact fluorescent over incandescent lighting. Can. J. Anim. Sci. m203-211. 12. Lampswere of both the Osram and Phillips design, and ballastswere from Osram, Phillips, ChenKuei,Lights of America, American Lighting, and FarmTek. There were nodifferences in performance due to lamp or ballast type or manufacturer in this study. 13. Daystrom, Inc., Weston Instruments Division, Newark, NJ. 14. SAS Instilule, 1988. SAWSTAT User’s Guide Release 6.03. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC. 15. Knisley, J.R., 1990. Updating light sources for new and existin facilities. Electrical Construction and Maintenance 89f12):49-60.
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ at UCSF Library on April 10, 2015
REFERENCES AND NOTES