- Email: [email protected]
Performance of Laying Hens Subjected to Intermittent Lighting Initiated at 24 Weeks of Age
Performance of Laying Hens Subjected to Intermittent Lighting Initiated at 24 Weeks of Age S. LEESON, J.P.WALKER, and J. D.SUMMERS Department of Animal and Poultry Science, University Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada NIG 2W1 (Received for publication June 15, 1981) ABSTRACT Leghorn pullets of a commercial strain were subjected to a conventional light program of constant photoperiod or an intermittent programming involving, during the hours of conventional "lights-on", 45 min light (L): 15 min dark (D) from 24 to 27 weeks of age; 30 min L:30 min D from 28 to 35 weeks; and 15 min L:45 min D from 36 weeks to the duration of the trial. Each light treatment was tested with 12 replicate groups of 14 individually caged birds housed in adjacent rooms, with all birds fed a standard 15% crude protein, 2750 kcal ME/kg diet. Intermittent lighting resulted in a significant (P<.05) reduction in feed intake and a consistent but nonsignificant (P>.05) reduction in egg production. Egg size, egg shell quality, and albumen quality, as assessed by Haugh units, were not affected by light treatment. Due to the effect on egg production, it is concluded that intermittent lighting programs should not be initiated close to time of peak egg production. (Key words: lighting, layers, egg production, egg size, egg quality, intermittent) 1982 Poultry Science 61:567-568 INTRODUCTION I n t e r m i t t e n t lighting programs for laying h e n s generally result in e c o n o m i c savings through reduced feed intake and lowered energy i n p u t s (Moreng et al, 1 9 6 8 ; Bell and Moreng, 1 9 7 3 ; Riskowski et al., 1977). T h e so called " b i o m i t t e n t " lighting program, involving an "on-off" schedule t h r o u g h o u t the day, has also been shown t o have e c o n o m i c advantages. It is often r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t such programs n o t be initiated before peak egg p r o d u c t i o n , although there is little d o c u m e n t e d evidence to s u p p o r t this idea. A trial was, therefore, conducted to test t h e effect of an i n t e r m i t t e n t light program o n the performance of Leghorn t y p e pullets. MATERIALS AND METHODS Nineteen-week-old Leghorn t y p e pullets of a commercial strain were r a n d o m l y allocated to one of t w o r o o m s m a i n t a i n e d in an environmentally controlled building. Each room contained 168 individual cages arranged as 12 replicate groups of 14 adjacent cages. All birds received the same mash diet, this being a corn-soybean meal diet with 15% crude p r o t e i n and 2 7 5 0 kcal metabolizable energy p e r kilogram. Birds in the control r o o m received 10 h r of light during weeks 19 and 20 and 14 hr light during week 2 1 . After this t i m e p h o t o p e r i o d was increased by 15 m i n u t e s per week to a
m a x i m u m of 17 hr light per day. Birds in t h e experimental r o o m were subjected t o t h e same increasing p h o t o p e r i o d , although starting at 24 weeks of age an i n t e r m i t t e n t light program was initiated. Thus, from 2 4 t o 27 weeks, birds received 4 5 min light (L): 15 m i n d a r k (D) per h o u r (of p h o t o p e r i o d as specified for t h e control r o o m ) . F r o m 28 to 35 weeks of age t h e i n t e r m i t t e n t program was changed to 30 m i n L : 3 0 min D and from 36 weeks t o d u r a t i o n of the trial, 15 m i n L : 4 5 min D. Feed intake and egg p r o d u c t i o n were recorded for each of 13 4-week periods. Eggs collected on t h e last day of each period were weighed, shell deformation recorded ( S u m m e r s et al, 1976) and eggs subsequently b r o k e n o u t for m e a s u r e m e n t of Haugh units. Electrical energy used for the lighting system in each r o o m was also m o n i t o r e d . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION T h e i n t e r m i t t e n t lighting program resulted in a significant ( P < . 0 5 ) reduction in feed intake when comparing m e a n values t h r o u g h o u t the laying cycle (Table 1). This effect was m o s t p r o n o u n c e d during t h e initial periods of production, aldiough as can be seen from Figure 1, the effect was consistent t h r o u g h o u t lay. This reduced intake was associated with a nonsignificant ( P > . 0 5 ) , b u t consistent, r e d u c t i o n in egg p r o d u c t i o n (Fig. 1). Egg weight, egg shell deformation, and Haugh units were n o t sig-
567
LEESON ET AL.
568
TABLE 1. Effect of ntermittent lighting on laying performance over a 13 month period
Lighting
Feed intake (g/bird/day)
Egg production (% HDB)1
Egg weight (g)
Egg shell deformation (Mm)
Haugh units
* Control Intermittent
114.6 110.2
NS 2 77.4 72.9
NS 56.8 56.8
NS 25.7 25.3
NS 83.3 82.7
1
HDB, hen-day basis. NS, nonsignificant P>.05. * Significantly different P<.05.
2
Feed Intake g/b/d r 120.0
115.0 112.5 . 110.0 107.5 117.5
1 '\ m
92.5
^-
V
\ J
1
Control Intermittent Lighting
s
4
\I
SD
K
V ^' * /
\
1
105.0
90.0
P~~~+-—4
(
,
2
3
, , , 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2B day period NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 4.2 4.7 3.0 4.7 4.9 5.2 4.7 8.9 6.7 7.9 6.0 5.7 7.4
of Engster et al. (1979), who intimated that depressed egg mass production results when intermittent light programs are initiated prior to 35 weeks of age. As previously stated, one of the potential advantages with intermittent lighting is savings in electrical energy. Although no replicate observations were made, an assessment of overall electrical energy used for the lighting systems was made. The intermittent program resulted in a saving, expressed per 1,000 birds, of 2240 kwh, which at 5e7kwh represents a saving of $112. However, against this must be weighed the loss in egg production noted in Figure. 1 and the possibility of loss in egg weight as observed by Engster et al. 1979. These data thus support the contention that intermittent lighting programs should not be initiated for laying flocks around the time of peak egg production. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ontario Egg Producers Marketing Board.
3
SD
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12 13
28 day period NS NS NS NS NS NS ' NS NS NS NS NS NS 7.1 4.7 4.9 6.0 6.1 7.5 6.7 9.3 9.0 7.3 9.5 7.9 7.6
FIG. 1. Effect of intermittent lighting on egg production and feed intake.
nificantly (P>.05) affected by the lighting programs. It is tempting to speculate that reduced egg production was associated with reduced feed intake even though the birds maintained a daily protein intake of ca. 17 g per day around peak production. This data confirms the observation
REFERENCES Bell, D. D., and R. E. Moreng, 1973. Intermittent feeding and lighting of mature Leghorn hens. Poultry Sci. 52:982-991. Engster, H. M., D. C. Snetsinger, and W. W. Ragland, 1979. Bio-mittent lighting for pullets and layers. Poultry Dig. Nov. 1979. Moreng, R. E., J. D. Helbig, and J. V. Shutze, 1968. The cyclo-house: a controlled environment for egg production. Agr. Eng. 49:730-731. Riskowski, G. L., J. A. Deshazer, and F. B. Mather, 1977. Heat loss of White Leghorn hens as affected by intermittent lighting schedules. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. 20:727-731. Summers, J. D., R. Grandhi, and S. Leeson, 1976. Calcium and phosphorus requirements of the laying hen. Poultry Sci. 55:402-413.
m a x i m u m of 17 hr light per day. Birds in t h e experimental r o o m were subjected t o t h e same increasing p h o t o p e r i o d , although starting at 24 weeks of age an i n t e r m i t t e n t light program was initiated. Thus, from 2 4 t o 27 weeks, birds received 4 5 min light (L): 15 m i n d a r k (D) per h o u r (of p h o t o p e r i o d as specified for t h e control r o o m ) . F r o m 28 to 35 weeks of age t h e i n t e r m i t t e n t program was changed to 30 m i n L : 3 0 min D and from 36 weeks t o d u r a t i o n of the trial, 15 m i n L : 4 5 min D. Feed intake and egg p r o d u c t i o n were recorded for each of 13 4-week periods. Eggs collected on t h e last day of each period were weighed, shell deformation recorded ( S u m m e r s et al, 1976) and eggs subsequently b r o k e n o u t for m e a s u r e m e n t of Haugh units. Electrical energy used for the lighting system in each r o o m was also m o n i t o r e d . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION T h e i n t e r m i t t e n t lighting program resulted in a significant ( P < . 0 5 ) reduction in feed intake when comparing m e a n values t h r o u g h o u t the laying cycle (Table 1). This effect was m o s t p r o n o u n c e d during t h e initial periods of production, aldiough as can be seen from Figure 1, the effect was consistent t h r o u g h o u t lay. This reduced intake was associated with a nonsignificant ( P > . 0 5 ) , b u t consistent, r e d u c t i o n in egg p r o d u c t i o n (Fig. 1). Egg weight, egg shell deformation, and Haugh units were n o t sig-
567
LEESON ET AL.
568
TABLE 1. Effect of ntermittent lighting on laying performance over a 13 month period
Lighting
Feed intake (g/bird/day)
Egg production (% HDB)1
Egg weight (g)
Egg shell deformation (Mm)
Haugh units
* Control Intermittent
114.6 110.2
NS 2 77.4 72.9
NS 56.8 56.8
NS 25.7 25.3
NS 83.3 82.7
1
HDB, hen-day basis. NS, nonsignificant P>.05. * Significantly different P<.05.
2
Feed Intake g/b/d r 120.0
115.0 112.5 . 110.0 107.5 117.5
1 '\ m
92.5
^-
V
\ J
1
Control Intermittent Lighting
s
4
\I
SD
K
V ^' * /
\
1
105.0
90.0
P~~~+-—4
(
,
2
3
, , , 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2B day period NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS 4.2 4.7 3.0 4.7 4.9 5.2 4.7 8.9 6.7 7.9 6.0 5.7 7.4
of Engster et al. (1979), who intimated that depressed egg mass production results when intermittent light programs are initiated prior to 35 weeks of age. As previously stated, one of the potential advantages with intermittent lighting is savings in electrical energy. Although no replicate observations were made, an assessment of overall electrical energy used for the lighting systems was made. The intermittent program resulted in a saving, expressed per 1,000 birds, of 2240 kwh, which at 5e7kwh represents a saving of $112. However, against this must be weighed the loss in egg production noted in Figure. 1 and the possibility of loss in egg weight as observed by Engster et al. 1979. These data thus support the contention that intermittent lighting programs should not be initiated for laying flocks around the time of peak egg production. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ontario Egg Producers Marketing Board.
3
SD
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12 13
28 day period NS NS NS NS NS NS ' NS NS NS NS NS NS 7.1 4.7 4.9 6.0 6.1 7.5 6.7 9.3 9.0 7.3 9.5 7.9 7.6
FIG. 1. Effect of intermittent lighting on egg production and feed intake.
nificantly (P>.05) affected by the lighting programs. It is tempting to speculate that reduced egg production was associated with reduced feed intake even though the birds maintained a daily protein intake of ca. 17 g per day around peak production. This data confirms the observation
REFERENCES Bell, D. D., and R. E. Moreng, 1973. Intermittent feeding and lighting of mature Leghorn hens. Poultry Sci. 52:982-991. Engster, H. M., D. C. Snetsinger, and W. W. Ragland, 1979. Bio-mittent lighting for pullets and layers. Poultry Dig. Nov. 1979. Moreng, R. E., J. D. Helbig, and J. V. Shutze, 1968. The cyclo-house: a controlled environment for egg production. Agr. Eng. 49:730-731. Riskowski, G. L., J. A. Deshazer, and F. B. Mather, 1977. Heat loss of White Leghorn hens as affected by intermittent lighting schedules. Trans. Amer. Soc. Agr. Eng. 20:727-731. Summers, J. D., R. Grandhi, and S. Leeson, 1976. Calcium and phosphorus requirements of the laying hen. Poultry Sci. 55:402-413.