Intermittent Feeding and Lighting of Mature Leghorn Hens1

Intermittent Feeding and Lighting of Mature Leghorn Hens 1 D. D. BELL 2 AND R. E. MORENG Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 (Received for publication September 2, 1972)

POULTRY SCIENCE 52: 982-991, 1973

INTRODUCTION

T

HERE have been many attempts at restricting the feed intake of laying chickens in an effort to reduce feed wastage and to improve the utilization of energy and other nutrients in the production of eggs. Limitation of feed intake has been accomplished either by the restriction of feeding time or the limitation of the quantity of feed given. Burmester and Card (1939) found that body weight and egg production were seriously depressed when hens received less than six hours of mash feeding per

1 Published with the approval of the Director of the Colorado State University Experiment Station as Scientific Series paper number 1791. 2 This investigation was carried out as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the M.S. degree by the senior author. Present address: Agricultural Extension Service, University of California, 21160 Box Springs Road, Suite 202, Riverside, California 92507.

day but that the feeding of pellets could reverse this trend. Cherry (1959) studied the same factors and indicated that at least eight continuous hours of mash availability per day were required to maintain normal egg production and body weight. Dronawat (1968), using a pellet diet, studied limited feeding times of four and six hours per day. This restriction resulted in a reduction of feed intake of 15 percent and ten percent respectively but did not result in lowered egg production. Pope (1971a) studied a feeding time limitation of three one-hour periods per day and reported a 7.5 percent reduction in feed consumption with no effect on egg production. A more common means of feed restriction is the method of quantity restriction. Heywang (1940) reported that restriction to 87.5 percent and 75 percent of the amount consumed by a group on

982

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Michigan State University on January 28, 2015

ABSTRACT Two experiments were conducted to determine the effects of limiting feed and light to adult female White Leghorn chickens. In both experiments, lighting treatments compared ten-minute periods of light every four hours with 17 hours of continuous light per 24-hour period; feeding treatments compared ten-minute periods every four hours (concurrent with the intermittent lighting periods) with ad libitum feeding. Two levels of dietary protein, 18 and 20 percent, were used in Experiment 1 and two levels of dietary energy, 2816 and 3028 Cal./Kg., were used in Experiment 2. In Experiment 1, no differences in egg production were observed. In Experiment 2, restricted feeding reduced egg production by 9.4 percent. Egg production was not affected by light restriction. Egg size was reduced by 0.4 gram per egg in both experiments when feeding time was limited; however, this difference was significant only in the first experiment. Intermittent light resulted in a significant increase in average egg weight of l.S grams in Experiment 1 and 1.9 grams in Experiment 2 when compared with 17 hours of light. The limitation of feeding time resulted in a 20 percent reduction in feed consumption. Light restriction reduced feed consumption by ten percent in Experiment 1 and by 12 percent in Experiment 2. The efficiency of converting feed to eggs was significantly improved in the birds on restricted feeding by 10.0 percent in Experiment 1 and by 5.5 percent in Experiment 2. The improved efficiency of converting feed to eggs indicated a lowered maintenance requirement in birds on restricted feeding.

INTERMITTENT FEEDING AND LIGHTING

3

Gates-Cyclo, Inc., Brighton, Colorado.

less feed. Egg income over feed cost was comparable. I t is apparent from analyzing these experiments that the extent of the light or feed restriction, the diet fed, the type of chicken, the environmental conditions and the method by which light or feed restriction was accomplished all influenced the results obtained by the various researchers. The literature indicates that there has been little effort to experiment with double restriction programs (light and feed). It is also apparent that much of the work reported in the literature is not applicable to the management practices currently utilized by the commercial egg business. The following research was undertaken to determine if restricted feeding time and/or intermittent lighting could improve the efficiency of feed utilization in commercial White Leghorn layers and thereby increase income to the poultryman. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Experiment One (Protein Levels). The 480 DeKalb 161 Single Comb White Leghorn pullets used in this experiment were hatched in July of 1969 and raised by a commercial started pullet grower in an open-type house without artificial lights until 20 weeks of age. At this time they were placed in 30.48 by 45.72 cm. cages at the rate of three birds per cage. The pullets were housed in four light-tight chambers. Each chamber measured 4.9 meters in length, 3.7 meters in width and 2.4 meters in height. Each chamber had four lines of cages placed in a "stair-step" configuration with ten cages per line for a total of 120 birds per chamber. The lights which were mounted on the two side walls provided a light intensity range of from two to three footcandles at the feed trough.

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Michigan State University on January 28, 2015

ad libitum feeding resulted in a significant reduction in the number of eggs produced but no change in either body weight or egg size. Walter and Aitken (1961) compared ad libitum feeding with a 12 percent reduction of feed consumption and found that egg production was depressed enough to offset any advantage achieved by the savings of feed. Moreng et al. (1968) reported that "Gates-Cyclo," 3 a commercial egg farm, had successfully put limited feeding and lighting together. The "Gates-Cyclo" house allowed hens to eat six times per day for approximately 4J minutes at each feeding. Lights were provided six times per day for approximately nine minutes each period. Average feed consumption was reported to be only 85 grams per day for a 14-month period. Other researchers have experimented with intermittent lighting of laying hens. Wilson and Abplanalp (1956) showed that intermittent light gave higher egg production than the same amount of continuous light and that egg production with various photoperiods was not proportionate to the quantity of light given. These researchers found no differences in egg production of pullets subjected to six 15-minute periods of light per day compared to either 14 or 24 hours of light per day. An experiment by Pope (1971b) compared a program of 12 hours of light at 20 weeks of age and a weekly increase to 17 hours at 30 weeks with a program of three one-hour light periods per day. The intermittently lighted hens matured at a slower rate and completed 48 weeks of lay with 11 less eggs per hen housed than the other treatment. The eggs from the intermittently lighted hens were significantly heavier and the hens consumed

m

984

D . D . B E L L AND R. E.

MOEENG

TABLE 1.—Composition of diets used in Experiments 1 and 2 % of Diet Experiment 1 18% Protein 30.00%, 37.56 2.49

—

2817 M.E. kcal.

3028 M.E. kcal.

30.00% 32.93 2.50

30.00% 37.96 2.40

—

— —

30.00% 28.08 2.40 6.00

20% Protein

5.09 7.79 3.00 6.29 7.00 .34 .24 .12 .03

5.00 12.60 3.00 6.30 6.90 .35 .25 .13 .05

12.89 3.00 6.29 6.89 .10 .25 .13 .03

14.69 3.00 6.30 8.39 .60 .30 .15 .09

100.00

100.00

100.00

100.00

—

* Each 454 grams (1 lb.) provides: 3,200,000 U.S.P. units vitamin A; 800,000 I.C. units vitamin D 3 ; 800 I.U. vitamin E; 3200 mg. vitamin K (MSB); 1600 mg. riboflavin; 2000 mg. d pantothenic acid; 10,000 mg. niacin; 80,000 mg. choline; 4 mg. vitamin Bu; 160 mg. folic acid; 400 mg. thiamine; 37,300 mg. ethoxyquin; 24,000 mg. manganese; 20,000 mg. zinc; 800 mg. copper; 500 mg. iodine; 8000 mg. iron.

Ventilation was provided by an evaporative cooler which delivered air into an overhead duct and into each chamber through a conventional heating register in the ceiling. Air was exhausted through a baffled light trap from each room. T h e cooler was wired to a time clock and thermostat so that the amount of air was regulated as temperature varied. Water was turned on the evaporative cooler pads when inside temperatures were 28°C. or above. Each line of cages was fed from a continuous feed trough mounted above the egg tray. This trough was divided into two sections allowing two different rations to be fed on each line to five cages each (15 hens). Water was available at all times from cups installed in the rear of the cages. Two rows of cages (one lower tier and one upper) in each chamber were provided feed ad libtium. The remaining two rows had a metal gate at the front of each cage. This gate was lowered mechanically

behind the feed trough to allow the hens to eat. Time clocks activated the system every four hours allowing the chickens to eat six times per day for ten minutes at each feeding, for a total feeding time of 60 minutes in each 24 hours. The four chambers were side by side. Chambers one and three received 17 hours of artificial light per 24 hours. Chambers two and four received ten minutes of artificial light every four hours (coinciding with the intermittent feeding schedule). Five of the six feeding periods in the 17hour rooms occurred during the light period. A total of eight treatment combinations were tested with four 15-hen replicates per treatment. Two different rations were used (Table 1). These rations had calculated protein contents of 18 and 20 percent respectively. All service was restricted to four days per week during the regular morning "lights o n " period. A manually operated set of lights was available in each room to allow extra time for special services such

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Michigan State University on January 28, 2015

Corn Milo Alfalfa meal, dehy. 18% protein Fat, hydrolyzed animal and vegetable Cottonseed meal, 50% protein Soybean meal, 49% protein Fish meal, anchovie, 65% protein Meat and bone scrap, 50% protein Limestone Dicalcium phosphate Salt, iodized Vitamin and mineral mix* DL-methionine

Experiment 2

985

INTERMITTENT FEEDING AND LIGHTING

Experiment Two {Energy Levels). Experiment 2 was conducted in the same facilities as was Experiment 1. Fourhundred and eighty Hyline Single Comb White Leghorn pullets were used in this experiment. They were hatched in January of 1970 and were on a 14-hour lighting program for the six weeks prior to housing. This experiment began when the flock was 24 weeks of age rather than 20 weeks of age as in Experiment 1. This experiment ran for 13 four-week periods and was terminated when the birds were 76 weeks old. Lighting and feeding schedules were the same as in Experiment 1. Two rations

were formulated to give the same dietary protein percentage (18 percent) but different energy levels. The lower energy and the higher energy rations had calculated metabolizable energy contents of 2816 and 3028 kilocalories per kilogram, respectively (Table 1). This experiment included the same measurements as the first experiment with the addition of egg quality determinations. At 68 weeks of age, all eggs produced during a two-day period were measured for specific gravity, shell thickness, shell smoothness, albumen height, Haugh units, yolk weight and percentage yolk, albumen height and percentage albumen, and shell weight and percentage shell. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Experiment One {Protein Levels). The 17hour lighting and the ad libitum feeding programs appeared to have higher production than the restricted programs. However, the data (Table 2) indicate that the differences observed were not statistically significant. There were no significant treatment ef-

TABLE 2.—The effect of feed and light restriction and ration on performanceExperiment 1 (20 to 48 weeks of age) Treatment Arcaimein Lights 17 hours Six 10-minute periods Feeding time Ad libitum Six 10-minute periods Ration 18% protein 20% protein

No of Average Eggs/hen Egg wt.

g-

1Total 0 F

" . ' , Body wt. Feed/ Wt. of feed/ Protein/ ?hen Pwl,/ gain h e n / d a y wt. of eggs hen/day kg.

%

127 n.s.

54.9*

7.0 n.s.

33 n.s.

120

56.4

6.8

38

127 n.s.

55.9*

7.1 n.s.

120

55.5

126 n.s. 121

55.3* 56.1

n.s. = Not significant. * = Significant at .05 level. t = Significant at .01 level. t = Significant at .001 level.

• g-

g95*

M.E./ hen/day kcal.

2.67 n.s.

18.0*

264*

89

2.60

17.0

248

431

loot

2.77f

19.01

277$

6.7

27

84

2.49

16.0

234

7.0n.s. 6.8

35 n.s. 36

92 n.s. 93

2.59 n.s. 2.68

16.6J 18.5

256 n.s. 256

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Michigan State University on January 28, 2015

as monthly weighing of birds, cleaning, etc. The performance data included egg production, feed consumption, egg weight, body weight and mortality. Ten eggs per replicate (15 hens) were weighed each week. All data were grouped into 28-day periods and statistically analyzed by the analysis of variance procedure. The experiment was terminated after seven periods when the hens were 48 weeks of age.

986

D. D. BELL AND R. E. MORENC;

lighting programs. The combination of light and feed restriction resulted in no further reduction of feed consumption. Intermittent feeding resulted in a ten percent improvement in the efficiency of producing eggs during the 28-week experiment. This was equivalent to a savings of 190 grams (0.42 pound) of feed per dozen two-ounce eggs. Lighting did not affect overall feed efficiency. Because of differences in feed intake and ration composition, significant differences in the actual intake of protein and energy in different groups were noted. On the average, the restricted-fed groups consumed only 16 grams of protein, but this did not significantly reduce egg numbers nor total egg mass. Experiment Two {Energy Levels). Restricted feeding depressed egg production to a highly significant degree (Table 3). The hens on the lower energy ration produced significantly fewer eggs. Restricted lighting appeared to reduce egg production. The reduction due to lighting was not significant. Due to experimental design, greater differences in performance were required in the lighting aspects of the experiment than in the others in order to establish significance. The hens fed ad libitum and the hens fed the higher energy ration produced more eggs than the restricted-fed hens or the hens fed the low energy ration. These differences became statistically significant in the seventh period and continued to the end of the experiment. Two significant interactions which are not presented in the tables were observed beginning in the seventh period. Restricted feeding time did not significantly lower production in the birds on restricted lighting, whereas it did result in a 36 egg reduction in the birds on 17 hours of lighting. Higher energy feed (3029 kcal./

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Michigan State University on January 28, 2015

fects during the first four periods, but there was a constant trend towards higher production in those birds receiving 17 hours of light compared to the birds receiving only six ten-minute periods a day. During the final three periods, the birds on ad libitum feeding and those on the 18 percent protein ration produced at significantly higher rates. Egg weights but not total egg mass were significantly affected by the light treatment (Table 2). The eggs from the restricted lighted groups averaged 1.5 grams heavier per egg than the eggs from the normal lighted hens for the entire test, resulting in 11.5 percent more eggs grading large or above. Restricting the feeding time resulted in lower average egg weight and 3.0 percent fewer large eggs. The hens fed the 20 percent protein ration produced heavier eggs and six percent more large eggs than the hens fed the 18 percent protein ration. One significant interaction existed between feeding and lighting time. Feed limitation did not reduce the egg size from hens given intermittent lighting but significantly reduced the egg size from hens on 17 hours of light. The restricted-fed birds were lighter in body weight than the full-fed groups. The hens on restricted lights and the 20 percent protein ration were heavier than those on the 18 percent protein diet. These differences due to ration were not observed in the 17-hour lighted group. The major effect of restricting feeding time or lights was to consistently reduce the quantity of feed consumed (Table 2). With normal feeding, light restriction to six ten-minute periods per day resulted in a ten percent reduction in feed intake. With 17-hour lighting, feeding time restriction reduced feed consumption by 19.5 percent. Restriction of feeding time resulted in the same feed intake on both

987

I N T E R M I T T E N T F E E D I N G AND L I G H T I N G

T h e reduction in temperature at the beginning of period seven depressed production proportional to the energy intake. This demonstrates the need for minimum temperature of no less than 7° to 10°C. if hens are to be exposed to restricted feeding. This also indicates t h a t limited energy intake might not be feasible in opentype buildings. There were no differences in egg production when the d a t a were

analyzed through the sixth period. I t was only after the low temperature stress t h a t production differences became evident. Again, as in the first experiment, eggs from the restricted-lighted birds were heavier than eggs from the 17-hour lighted groups. This difference, 1.9 grams per egg, resulted in the production of nine percent more large eggs. This agrees with the results of Pope (1971b). As in Experiment 1, total egg mass was not significantly affected by light. Both restricted feeding and the lower energy ration significantly reduced total egg mass, and this was mostly due to a reduction in egg numbers. An interaction between feeding time and lights was observed. T h e hens on restricted feeding did not suffer a further reduction in total egg mass when they also received intermittent light. The restricted-fed hens and the hens on low energy diets were significantly lighter than their controls. Body weight started to decline in the birds on restricted feed during the seventh period when chamber temperatures were the lowest. By the 56th week they had lost 92 grams from their previous highest weight at 44 weeks of age.

TABLE 3.—The effect of feed and light restriction and ration on performance— Experiment 2 (24 to 76 weeks of age)

Treatment

No. of Average Eggs/hen Egg wt.

Total Egg wt./ hen

Body wt. gain

Feed/ hen/ day

Wt. of feed/wt. of eggs

„ . . , M.E./ Protem / hen/ hen/day dav

% 17 hours 232 n.s. Six 10-minute periods 220 Feeding time Ad libitum 237f Six 10-minute periods 215 Ration 2817 kcal. 218t 3029 kcal. 234 n.s. * = f = $ =

= Not significant. Significant at .05 level. Significant at .01 level. Significant at .001 level.

heal.

59.9* 61.8

13.9 n.s. 13.6

9 n.s. 13

90t 84

2.35 n.s. 2.24

16.lt 15.1

262t 245

61.1 n.s. 60.7

14.St 13.1

19t 3

94$ 79

2.36* 2.23

16.9J 14.3

274$ 232

60.4* 61.3

13.2J 14.3

14

87 n.s. 87

2.39$ 2.20

15.6 n.s. 15.6

244t 262

7t

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Michigan State University on January 28, 2015

kg.) significantly increased production in the restricted-fed birds although it was not beneficial to the birds on the 2817 kcal./kg. diet. During the seventh period (25th through 28th weeks) of the experiment, the temperature in the test chambers dropped to a low of 4°C. During the 25th week of production, the room temperature was below 10° C. for 63 hours. This low temperature would not normally occur in a commercial laying house because stocking densities are greater, thus creating more body heat. As a result of this temperature problem, many of the hens on lower energy intake levels molted. Figure 1 illustrates the effect of this temperature change on production in three of the eight groups.

988

D. D. BELL AND R. E. MORENG

Temperatures

C c.)

70--

Hen-day production

(%)

504030"

298 kcal./hen/day 230 kcal./hen/day • • -210 kcal./hen/day

-322 kcal./hen/day -249 kcal./hen/day •227 kcal./hen/day

•234 kcal./hen/day •284 kcal./hen/day • 253 kcal./hen/day

20--

45

46

47

Period 8

Period 7

Period 6

48

49

50 51 Weeks of age

• normal feeding and lights high energy • restricted feeding and lights high energy

52

53

54

55

56

restricted feeding and lights low energy

FIG. 1. The relationship of low temperatures to hen-day egg production—Experiment 2 A significant reduction of feed intake was observed in both the restricted light and feeding treatments (Table 3). This agrees with the results in Experiment 1. With unrestricted feeding, light restriction reduced feed consumption by 12 percent. Restriction of feeding time with normal lighting accounted for a reduction of feed intake of 21 percent. Combining restricted feeding time and restricted lights resulted in no further reduction in feed intake. Two interactions existed with regards to feed consumption. Restricted lighting lowered feed consumption in birds receiving ad libitum feeding but not in restricted-fed birds. Restricted feeding reduced feed consumption without additional reduction when limited lighting was added.

Restricted feeding significantly improved feed efficiency by 5.5 percent even though the restricted groups suffered severe production losses as a result of low temperatures. The feeding of the higher energy ration resulted in an eight percent improvement in feed efficiency over the lower energy feed. Restricted lighting gave a consistent improvement in feed efficiency throughout the experiment, but this was not quite significant at the five percent level. The hens on restricted feed and high energy diet had a feed/egg conversion ratio 14 percent lower than did those on normal feeding and the lower energy diet. Protein consumption in Experiment 2 averaged 15.6 grams per hen per day as opposed to 17.5 in Experiment 1. This was due to the lower protein content of

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Michigan State University on January 28, 2015

60"

989

INTERMITTENT FEEDING AND LIGHTING TABLE 4.—The effect of feed and light restriction and ration on egg quality characteristicsExperiment 2 (68 weeks of age)

Treatment

Shell thickness

Smoothness1 score

Albumen height m.m.

Haugh Units score

30 n.s. 21

379 n.s. 383

.66 n.s. .57

4.38 n.s. 4.59

59.6 n.s. 61.4

26 n.s. 25

378 n.s. 384

.75* .48

4.36* 4.61

58.4* 62.5

25 n.s. 26

382 n.s. 380

.53 n.s. .71

4.58 n.s. 4.40

61.9* 59.1

1 Smoothness: 0 = smooth, 1 = slightly rough, 2 = moderately rough, 3 = very rough, n.s. = Not significant. * = Significant at .05 level.

the average ration in Experiment 2 and the lower feed intake (86.5 grams per day versus 92.2 grams). Average energy consumption for Experiments 1 and 2 was 256 and 253 kcal. per day, respectively. No differences were noted between treatments in any of the shell strength measurements (specific gravity, shell thickness, shell weight or shell percentage, Tables 4 and 5). The layers on restricted feeding had a significantly smoother shell than those on full feeding (0.48 versus 0.75). Overall, the restricted-fed and -lighted groups averaged 0.54; those on normal programs averaged 0.91. This smoothness may be due to a more uni-

form distribution of nutrient intake in the restricted-fed groups. The restricted-fed groups produced a significantly higher albumen (Haugh unit) score than those on normal feeding. There was also a higher Haugh unit score in the birds fed the lower energy feed. The hens on restricted feeding produced yolks which were six percent lighter than those on full feed. This was offset by a corresponding increase in albumen percentage. DISCUSSION

Sources of variation and degrees of freedom are shown in Table 6. The results of the two experiments

TABLE 5.—The effect of feed and light restriction and ration on egg componentsExperiment 2 (68 weeks of age) Yolk gLights 17 hours 19.2 n.s Six 10-minute periods 20.0 Feeding time Ad libitum 20.2f Six 10-minute periods 18.9 Ration 2817 kcal. 19.If 3029 kcal. 20.0 n.s. = Not significant. t = Significant at .01 level. t = Significant at .001 level.

Shell

Albumen

%

g-

%

g-

%

29.8 n.s. 30.3

38.8 n.s. 40.3

60.8 n.s. 60.4

6.0 n.s. 6.2

9.4 n.s. 9.3

30.8| 29.3

39.4 n.s. 39.7

59.9f 61.4

6.1 n.s. 6.1

9.4 n.s. 9.4

30.0 n.s. 30.1

38.9 n.s. 40.2

60.6 n.s. 60.6

6.0 n.s. 6.1

9.5 n.s. 9.2

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Michigan State University on January 28, 2015

Lights 17 hours Six 10-minute periods Feeding time Ad libitum Six 10-minute periods Ration 2817 kcal. 3029 kcal.

Specific gravity % 1.065 or less

990

D . D . B E L L AND R. E.

TABLE 6.—Sources of variation and degrees of freedom—Experiments 1 and 2

Source of variation

Number of groups

Degrees of freedom

16

1 2

Side of room Error

16

1 3

Feeding time Feeding time X lights Error

16 8

1 1 6

Ration Lights X ration Feeding time X ration Feeding X lights X ration Error

16 8 8 4

1 1 1 1 12

Adjusted total Correction term Unadjusted total

31 1 32

egg). Egg size was significantly larger in the hens on intermittent lighting in both experiments. These results agree with those reported by Pope (1971b). Abplanalp (1966) found that the average period between successive eggs in a clutch, when hens were given one minute of light per hour, was two hours greater than t h a t for hens on a 14 hour per day light program. This may explain why fewer and larger eggs were obtained from the intermittently lighted hens. A longer cycle between ovipositions could explain these differences. Feed efficiency was improved by restricting feeding time in both experiments. This agrees with reports of Donaldson and Millar (1962), Jackson (1970) and Pope (1971a) and offers proof of reduced maintenance requirements in hens on restricted feed intake. Restricted lighting appeared to result in improved feed efficiency in both experiments, but this failed to reach the five percent level of significance.

agree in most of the factors studied. Restriction of feeding time to six ten-minute periods per day resulted in a reduction of feed intake of approximately 20 percent. A similar program of light restriction reduced feed consumption by 10 to 12 percent. These responses were not additive. Egg production tended to be adversely affected by restriction of feeding time in the first experiment and was significantly reduced in the second. The severity of the production drop in the second experiment was probably accentuated by cold weather stress.

Intermittent lighting may be advantageous commercially if adequate premiums are paid for the larger eggs or at different feed to egg price relationships. Other programs of intermittent light should be tested to determine if egg production can be maintained at comparable levels to conventional programs and still retain the egg size advantage.

Hens on intermittent lighting produced fewer eggs in both experiments, b u t these differences were not significant. T h e fact that significance was not attained was probably due to experimental design since there were only two replications of each light treatment. Average egg size was reduced in the restricted-fed groups. This response was significant in the first experiment but not in the second. The reduction was the same in each experiment (0.4 grams per

F u t u r e experimentation with feed a n d / or light restriction should emphasize a feeding program which assures recommended levels of nutrients to all hens. Energy savings appear to be a real possibility if care is taken to avoid environmental temperatures below 10°C. If feed restriction is to succeed, it should be applied equally to all chickens in the flock. Some of the earlier experiments provided a limited amount of feed to a flock, b u t individual hens consumed

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Michigan State University on January 28, 2015

Lights Error

MORENG

INTERMITTENT FEEDING AND LIGHTING

varying quantities depending upon their aggressiveness. It is also important that sufficient nutrients are contained in the quantity of feed consumed with restriction to support normal performance. Energy savings would be the goal with these programs. REFERENCES

of limiting feeding time on the performance of White Leghorn laying hens. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, Washington State University. Heywang, B. W., 1940. The effect of restricted feed intake on egg weight, egg production and body weight. Poultry Sci. 19: 29-34. Jackson, N., 1970. The effect of restricting the individual daily energy intake of caged layers on the efficiency of egg production. British Poultry Sci. 11:93-102. Moreng, R. E., J. D. Helbig and J. V. Shutze, 1968. The Cyclo house—a controlled environment for egg production. Agri. Eng. 49: 730-731. Pope, D. L., 1971a. Limiting the feeding time of layers. Brookhurst Mill Report, XIX (2). Pope, D. L., 1971b. Restricting light to laying hens. Brookhurst Mill Report, XIX (4). Walter, E. D., and J. R. Aitken, 1961. Performance of laying hens subjected to restricted feeding during rearing and laying periods. Poultry Sci. 40:345-354. Wilson, W. O. and H. Abplanalp, 1956. Intermittent light stimuli in egg production of chickens. Poultry Sci. 35: 532-538.

NEWS AND NOTES {Continued from page 966) low at the Institute of Biomedical Research, University of Texas. He returned to Texas A and M in the fall of 1972 as a Post Doctoral Fellow in the Department of Biochemistry-Biophysics. BIG DUTCHMAN NOTES John Buckingham has been appointed Marketing Services Manager for Big Dutchman, Zeeland, Michigan. He will be responsible for marketing research activities, advertising, sales promotion and public relations for the company's complete line of poultry and livestock equipment. Prior to joining Big Dutchman, he was with Thompson-Hayward Chemical Company. Juan Chiarella has been appointed Director of Latin American Operations at Big Dutchman. He will be responsible for all marketing activities for the company's complete line of poultry and livestock equipment in Mexico and South America. He will also be responsible for all marketing activities for the Barker Division line of poultry processing equipment in these areas. Jacques Ph. Frocheur has been appointed Direc-

tor of Far East Operations at Big Dutchman. He will be covering all marketing activities for the company's complete line of poultry and livestock equipment in Japan, Southeast Asia, the trust Territories and the South Pacific area. He will also be responsible for all marketing activities for the Barker Division line of poultry processing equipment in these areas. Warren Stuk has been promoted to Executive Vice President of Finance. He will have complete responsibility for the Big Dutchman domestic operations including the Zeeland and branch operations, as well as five manufacturing divisions. Prior to this promotion, Stuk, who joined the company in 1967, has held various positions in the accounting and financial areas. ARBOR ACRES NOTES Henry Saglio, Chairman of the Board of Arbor Acres Farm, Inc., has relinquished operational responsibilities in the worldwide breeding firm he founded. Although he will continue as Board Chairman and take an active role in industry affairs as well as policy making within-Arbor Acres, he has

{Continued on page 1052)

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Michigan State University on January 28, 2015

Abplanalp, H., 1966. Selection for egg number in chicken and quail population held under diverse lighting. Proc. Thirteenth World's Poultry Congress: 70-74. Burmester, B. R., and L. E. Card, 1939. The effect of restricted feeding time on food intake, body weight and egg production. Poultry Sci. 18: 402. Cherry, J., 1959. Restricted feeding time for the laying bird. World's Poultry Sci. J. 15: 371-377. Donaldson, W. E., and R. I. Millar, 1962. Effects of energy restriction on laying hens. Poultry Sci. 41:353-359. Dronawat, N. S., 1968. Effect of feed restriction and

991