- Email: [email protected]
Modification of an Intermittent Lighting Program for Laying Turkey Hens1
RESEARCH NOTES Modification of an Intermittent Lighting Program for Laying Turkey Hens1 WAYNE L. BACON and KARL E. NESTOR Department of Poultry Science, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, Ohio 44691 (Received for publication March 21, 1980)
1981 Poultry Science 60:482-484 INTRODUCTION
We have described the effects of an intermittent lighting program on reproductive performance of laying turkey hens housed in floor pens (Bacon and Nestor, 1977, 1980). The intermittent lighting program previously used was five 1-hr light periods (51 lx intensity) equally spaced so that from the beginning of the first to the end of the last light period 14 hr elapsed. This intermittent program was initiated in one study (Bacon and Nestor, 1977) when the hens were given stimulatory light. In that study, the hens were difficult to nest train and they laid more floor eggs early in the reproductive period. In the second study (Bacon and Nestor, 1980) the hens were switched to the intermittent lighting program 29 or 92 days after the initiation of egg production, a time when the hens were already nest trained. No differences in reproductive traits or floor eggs were noted in the second study. In the present report different intermittent lighting programs were studied in an attempt to synchronize light periods to times when the caretakers would normally be present in the laying house. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The four strains of medium and five strains
'Approved for publication as Journal Article No. 47-80 of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH 44691.
of heavy weight hens were the same as used previously (Bacon and Nestor, 1980). All hens were reared in confinement until 8 weeks of age. They were then transferred to outside ranges until 20 v.eeks of age (September and October), when they were housed in floor pens in a windowless breeder house. The length of the light day was gradually decreased to 6 hr and then maintained at this length for 8 weeks prior to initiating the stimulatory lighting of 14 hr on February 1 when the hens were 36 to 39 weeks of age. Light intensity was maintained at 55 lx during the restricted and subsequent stimulatory periods as before (Bacon and Nestor, 1977) using incandescent bulbs. Three stimulatory light treatments were compared in 5 pens of medium weight (13 hens per pen, n = 65 per treatment) and 7 pens of heavy weight (11 hens per pen, n = 77 per treatment) lines per lighting treatment. Each pen was 3.05 x 3.65 m. The first treatment was 14 hr of continuous light during the entire reproductive period of 180 days after first egg. The second treatment was begun 8 weeks after initiating stimulatory lighting and consisted of four 1-hr light periods given at 0300 to 0400 hr, 0800 to 0900 hr, 1300 to 1400 hr, and 1600 to 1700 hr. The third treatment was also started 8 weeks after initiating stimulatory lighting and consisted of 7 hr of light given in four periods of unequal length as follows: 0300 to 0400 hr, 0800 to 1200 hr, 1300 to 1400 hr, and 1600 to 1700 hr. In the intermittent lighting programs, an attempt was made to do normal servicing of the birds during the light periods. On some occasions it was necessary for
482
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Michigan State University on February 13, 2015
ABSTRACT Intermittent lighting was initiated 8 weeks after turkey hens were exposed to stimulatory light of 14 hr per day. The first intermittent lighting program consisted of four 1-hr light periods given between 0300 to 0400 hr, 0800 to 0900 hr, 1300 to 1400 hr, and 1600 to 1700 hr. The second intermittent lighting program consisted of four unequal length light periods between 0300 to 0400 hr, 0800 to 1200 hr, 1300 to 1400 hr, and 1600 to 1700 hr for a total of 7 hr of light. Nest egg production was numerically greatest in the first intermittent light program but not significantly greater than those maintained under 14 hr light. Floor egg production was significantly (P<.05) greater in both of the intermittently lighted groups than in the 14 hr lighted group. (Key words: energy, turkey, intermittent lighting, egg production)
RESEARCH NOTE
483
DISCUSSION We c o n d u c t e d t h e present s t u d y in an a t t e m p t to modify the i n t e r m i t t e n t lighting program previously reported t o b e t t e r synchronize with a normal work day. T h e data presented here indicate t h a t either modification will s u p p o r t egg p r o d u c t i o n in the m e d i u m and heavy weight lines used. T h e 4 hr i n t e r m i t t e n t lighting program is obviously m o r e energy efficient than t h e 7 hr i n t e r m i t t e n t lighting program. However, it does not allow as m a n y
RESULTS Only data from t h e hens present at t h e end of t h e e x p e r i m e n t were analyzed. N o n e of t h e interaction effects were significant, indicating t h a t all of t h e lines within t h e m e d i u m and heavy weight groups responded similarly t o t h e lighting
TABLE 1. Nest egg production in medium and heavy weight lines of turkey hens subject to various lighting treatments Nest egg produ<:tion to: Lighting treatment
hens
Prior to intermittent
14 hr
63
24.5
1
64
24.7
intermittent 2 Pooled SE
63
25.0
No.
120 days
180 days
64.0
87.0
48.7
66.1
90.0
49.3
68.0
88.6 3.3
84 days —
Medium weight hens ~ 46.5
4hr
intermittent 7hr
.6 .84
P
14 hr 4 hr intermittent
1.9 .38
2.1 .48
.84
69
24.2
47.8
64.1
84.8
71
24.2
46.5
64.2
86.0
71
23.2
45.5
62.0
84.1
7hr
intermittent Pooled SE P
.5 .24
1.4 .46
2.1 .70
3.2 .92
1
Intermittent light was given 8 weeks after stimulatory light of 14 hr was initiated. Lights on 0300 to 0400 hr, 0800 to 0900 hr, 1300 to 1400 hr, and 1600 to 1700 hr. 2 Intermittent light was given 8 weeks after stimulatory light of 14 hrs was initiated. Lights on 0300 to 0400 hr, 0800 to 1200 hr, 1300 to 1400 hr, and 1600 to 1700 hr.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Michigan State University on February 13, 2015
t r e a t m e n t s . Therefore, only lighting t r e a t m e n t effects on egg p r o d u c t i o n are given in Table 1. No significant differences were present in nest egg p r o d u c t i o n prior to i n t e r m i t t e n t lighting or for t h e t h r e e s u b s e q u e n t times after initiation of either i n t e r m i t t e n t lighting program. Measure of intensity of lay and broodiness (Bacon and Nestor, 1977) were n o t calculated, since t h e y normally d o n o t s h o w significant effects if egg p r o d u c t i o n is n o t different. Floor eggs were lowest in the 14 h r groups (Table 2). This is in contrast to our previous report (Bacon and Nestor, 1980) where i n t e r m i t t e n t light was also initiated after t h e hens were nest trained.
t h e caretakers t o be present during t h e dark periods. Very dim aisle lights were used at those times. Egg p r o d u c t i o n was measured to t h e t i m e of initiation of i n t e r m i t t e n t lighting and t o 84, 120, and 180 days after t h e first egg. Husb a n d r y and m a n a g e m e n t were as previously described (Bacon and Nestor, 1977). Separate least squares analyses of variance were c o n d u c t e d for the m e d i u m and heavy weight lines for nest egg p r o d u c t i o n . Effects tested were line, lighting t r e a t m e n t , and their interactions. Harvey's mixed-model least squares and m a x i m u m likelihood c o m p u t e r program was used (Harvey, 1 9 7 7 ) . Separate analyses of variance using the pen means were c o n d u c t e d for the m e d i u m and heavy weight lines for floor egg p r o d u c t i o n . Lighting t r e a t m e n t was the only effect tested in these analyses.
BACON AND NESTOR
484
TABLE 2. Floor egg production in medium and heavy weight lines of turkey hens subjected to various lighting treatments Floor eggs/hen, to 180 days production 1 No. pens
Medium weight
No. pens
Heavy weight
14hr 4hr intermittent 7hr intermittent Pooled SE P
5
1.1
7
1.2
5
2.4
7
2.2
5
2.1 .27 <.01
7
1.8 .27 <.05
1
Based on pen averages.
hours of programmed lighting for normal maintenance activity. In this study, floor egg production was
REFERENCES Bacon, W. L., and K. E. Nestor, 1977. The effect of various lighting treatments or the presence of toms on reproductive performance of turkey hens. Poultry Sci. 56:415-420. Bacon, W. L., and K. E. Nestor, 1980. Energy savings in turkey hens using an intermittent lighting program. Poultry Sci. 59:1953-1955. Harvey, W. R., 1977. User's guide for SLML mixed model least squares and maximum likelihood computer program. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Michigan State University on February 13, 2015
Lighting treatment
greater in the intermittent groups than in the experiments reported previously (Bacon and Nestor, 1980); this was also true when intermittent light was initiated after the birds were nest trained. This could be due to decreased floor egg production in the previous study or to increased floor egg production in the present study. It is not possible to differentiate between the two.
1981 Poultry Science 60:482-484 INTRODUCTION
We have described the effects of an intermittent lighting program on reproductive performance of laying turkey hens housed in floor pens (Bacon and Nestor, 1977, 1980). The intermittent lighting program previously used was five 1-hr light periods (51 lx intensity) equally spaced so that from the beginning of the first to the end of the last light period 14 hr elapsed. This intermittent program was initiated in one study (Bacon and Nestor, 1977) when the hens were given stimulatory light. In that study, the hens were difficult to nest train and they laid more floor eggs early in the reproductive period. In the second study (Bacon and Nestor, 1980) the hens were switched to the intermittent lighting program 29 or 92 days after the initiation of egg production, a time when the hens were already nest trained. No differences in reproductive traits or floor eggs were noted in the second study. In the present report different intermittent lighting programs were studied in an attempt to synchronize light periods to times when the caretakers would normally be present in the laying house. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The four strains of medium and five strains
'Approved for publication as Journal Article No. 47-80 of the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, Wooster, OH 44691.
of heavy weight hens were the same as used previously (Bacon and Nestor, 1980). All hens were reared in confinement until 8 weeks of age. They were then transferred to outside ranges until 20 v.eeks of age (September and October), when they were housed in floor pens in a windowless breeder house. The length of the light day was gradually decreased to 6 hr and then maintained at this length for 8 weeks prior to initiating the stimulatory lighting of 14 hr on February 1 when the hens were 36 to 39 weeks of age. Light intensity was maintained at 55 lx during the restricted and subsequent stimulatory periods as before (Bacon and Nestor, 1977) using incandescent bulbs. Three stimulatory light treatments were compared in 5 pens of medium weight (13 hens per pen, n = 65 per treatment) and 7 pens of heavy weight (11 hens per pen, n = 77 per treatment) lines per lighting treatment. Each pen was 3.05 x 3.65 m. The first treatment was 14 hr of continuous light during the entire reproductive period of 180 days after first egg. The second treatment was begun 8 weeks after initiating stimulatory lighting and consisted of four 1-hr light periods given at 0300 to 0400 hr, 0800 to 0900 hr, 1300 to 1400 hr, and 1600 to 1700 hr. The third treatment was also started 8 weeks after initiating stimulatory lighting and consisted of 7 hr of light given in four periods of unequal length as follows: 0300 to 0400 hr, 0800 to 1200 hr, 1300 to 1400 hr, and 1600 to 1700 hr. In the intermittent lighting programs, an attempt was made to do normal servicing of the birds during the light periods. On some occasions it was necessary for
482
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Michigan State University on February 13, 2015
ABSTRACT Intermittent lighting was initiated 8 weeks after turkey hens were exposed to stimulatory light of 14 hr per day. The first intermittent lighting program consisted of four 1-hr light periods given between 0300 to 0400 hr, 0800 to 0900 hr, 1300 to 1400 hr, and 1600 to 1700 hr. The second intermittent lighting program consisted of four unequal length light periods between 0300 to 0400 hr, 0800 to 1200 hr, 1300 to 1400 hr, and 1600 to 1700 hr for a total of 7 hr of light. Nest egg production was numerically greatest in the first intermittent light program but not significantly greater than those maintained under 14 hr light. Floor egg production was significantly (P<.05) greater in both of the intermittently lighted groups than in the 14 hr lighted group. (Key words: energy, turkey, intermittent lighting, egg production)
RESEARCH NOTE
483
DISCUSSION We c o n d u c t e d t h e present s t u d y in an a t t e m p t to modify the i n t e r m i t t e n t lighting program previously reported t o b e t t e r synchronize with a normal work day. T h e data presented here indicate t h a t either modification will s u p p o r t egg p r o d u c t i o n in the m e d i u m and heavy weight lines used. T h e 4 hr i n t e r m i t t e n t lighting program is obviously m o r e energy efficient than t h e 7 hr i n t e r m i t t e n t lighting program. However, it does not allow as m a n y
RESULTS Only data from t h e hens present at t h e end of t h e e x p e r i m e n t were analyzed. N o n e of t h e interaction effects were significant, indicating t h a t all of t h e lines within t h e m e d i u m and heavy weight groups responded similarly t o t h e lighting
TABLE 1. Nest egg production in medium and heavy weight lines of turkey hens subject to various lighting treatments Nest egg produ<:tion to: Lighting treatment
hens
Prior to intermittent
14 hr
63
24.5
1
64
24.7
intermittent 2 Pooled SE
63
25.0
No.
120 days
180 days
64.0
87.0
48.7
66.1
90.0
49.3
68.0
88.6 3.3
84 days —
Medium weight hens ~ 46.5
4hr
intermittent 7hr
.6 .84
P
14 hr 4 hr intermittent
1.9 .38
2.1 .48
.84
69
24.2
47.8
64.1
84.8
71
24.2
46.5
64.2
86.0
71
23.2
45.5
62.0
84.1
7hr
intermittent Pooled SE P
.5 .24
1.4 .46
2.1 .70
3.2 .92
1
Intermittent light was given 8 weeks after stimulatory light of 14 hr was initiated. Lights on 0300 to 0400 hr, 0800 to 0900 hr, 1300 to 1400 hr, and 1600 to 1700 hr. 2 Intermittent light was given 8 weeks after stimulatory light of 14 hrs was initiated. Lights on 0300 to 0400 hr, 0800 to 1200 hr, 1300 to 1400 hr, and 1600 to 1700 hr.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Michigan State University on February 13, 2015
t r e a t m e n t s . Therefore, only lighting t r e a t m e n t effects on egg p r o d u c t i o n are given in Table 1. No significant differences were present in nest egg p r o d u c t i o n prior to i n t e r m i t t e n t lighting or for t h e t h r e e s u b s e q u e n t times after initiation of either i n t e r m i t t e n t lighting program. Measure of intensity of lay and broodiness (Bacon and Nestor, 1977) were n o t calculated, since t h e y normally d o n o t s h o w significant effects if egg p r o d u c t i o n is n o t different. Floor eggs were lowest in the 14 h r groups (Table 2). This is in contrast to our previous report (Bacon and Nestor, 1980) where i n t e r m i t t e n t light was also initiated after t h e hens were nest trained.
t h e caretakers t o be present during t h e dark periods. Very dim aisle lights were used at those times. Egg p r o d u c t i o n was measured to t h e t i m e of initiation of i n t e r m i t t e n t lighting and t o 84, 120, and 180 days after t h e first egg. Husb a n d r y and m a n a g e m e n t were as previously described (Bacon and Nestor, 1977). Separate least squares analyses of variance were c o n d u c t e d for the m e d i u m and heavy weight lines for nest egg p r o d u c t i o n . Effects tested were line, lighting t r e a t m e n t , and their interactions. Harvey's mixed-model least squares and m a x i m u m likelihood c o m p u t e r program was used (Harvey, 1 9 7 7 ) . Separate analyses of variance using the pen means were c o n d u c t e d for the m e d i u m and heavy weight lines for floor egg p r o d u c t i o n . Lighting t r e a t m e n t was the only effect tested in these analyses.
BACON AND NESTOR
484
TABLE 2. Floor egg production in medium and heavy weight lines of turkey hens subjected to various lighting treatments Floor eggs/hen, to 180 days production 1 No. pens
Medium weight
No. pens
Heavy weight
14hr 4hr intermittent 7hr intermittent Pooled SE P
5
1.1
7
1.2
5
2.4
7
2.2
5
2.1 .27 <.01
7
1.8 .27 <.05
1
Based on pen averages.
hours of programmed lighting for normal maintenance activity. In this study, floor egg production was
REFERENCES Bacon, W. L., and K. E. Nestor, 1977. The effect of various lighting treatments or the presence of toms on reproductive performance of turkey hens. Poultry Sci. 56:415-420. Bacon, W. L., and K. E. Nestor, 1980. Energy savings in turkey hens using an intermittent lighting program. Poultry Sci. 59:1953-1955. Harvey, W. R., 1977. User's guide for SLML mixed model least squares and maximum likelihood computer program. Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Michigan State University on February 13, 2015
Lighting treatment
greater in the intermittent groups than in the experiments reported previously (Bacon and Nestor, 1980); this was also true when intermittent light was initiated after the birds were nest trained. This could be due to decreased floor egg production in the previous study or to increased floor egg production in the present study. It is not possible to differentiate between the two.