- Email: [email protected]
Sources of Artificial Light for Turkey Breeding Females
Sources of Artificial Light for Turkey Breeding Females T. T. MILBY AND R. B. THOMPSON (Received for publication, February 26,1945)
T
toms were rotated once each week. The birds were housed December 1 and the lights were started a week later. Feeding and management, other than the kind of light, was uniform for all pens. All were kept in complete confinement. The mean percentage egg production for each pen was calculated at various intervals. A period of ten days was chosen
EXPERIMENT I
To answer the above question an experiment was set up in the fall of 1942. Six identical houses, 12X16 ft., were equipped with the following light sources: pen 11, gasoline lantern (mantle type); pen 12, kerosene lantern (wick); pen 13, natural gas light (mantle type with clear glass globe); pen 14, natural gas light (mantle type with frosted glass globe); pen IS, electric light (25 watt); pen 16, no artificial light. All night lights were used. The lights were all located on the side wall of the house, which was the 16 ft. side, eight feet from the front and about five feet above the floor. Young Broad-breasted Bronze hens of similar breeding were divided at random among the six pens, 13 hens to each pen. One torn was placed in each pen, and
2-9
3-21
FIG. 1. The effect of artificial light from various sources of production of Bronze turkeys, 1943.
as best eliminating minor fluctuations in production without obscuring real trends. The production of the pens by ten-day intervals is shown graphically in Figure 1,
438
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 2, 2015
HE use of artificial light in obtaining early turkey hatching eggs has become a common practice among producers. Milby and Thompson (1942) reviewed the literature and reported the effect of morning lights and all night lights on Bronze turkey hens. Scott and Payne (1937), investigating the effect of various kinds of light in stimulating egg production in Bronze turkeys, found that white and red lights were effective while blue light was not. No other experimental work to determine the value of light from different sources has been reported. Turkey growers who do not have electricity have asked whether or not they could use other sources of light.
SOURCES OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHT FOR TURKEY BREEDING FEMALES
439
week's production (Jan. 21 to 28) were incubated in the same forced draft incubator. Fertility for the season was 81, 81, 88, 82, 72 and 76 percent in pens 11 to 16 respectively. The hatchability of fertile eggs was 69, 46, 63, 62, 71, and 57 percent. The differences in fertility and hatchability may be due to chance variation because of the small number of hens in each pen. For example in pen 12 three hens had very low hatchability and since the total number of eggs set was small the pen average was quite low.
The pens appear to fall into three groups of two pens each in their production characteristics. Pens 11 and 14 responded most quickly to the lights and reached the highest rate of production. Pens 13 and 15 were intermediate, and pens 12 and 16 gave the poorest response. Pen 12 (kerosene lantern) shows no stimulation at all, production being essentially the same as pen 16, which had no lights. In mean number of eggs per hen to April 1, pens 12 and 16 were practically equal. Pens 11, 14 and 15 were best in this measure of production, and pen 13 was intermediate. The relatively poor showing of pen 13 was difficult to understand, since the light was almost identical with that in pen 14. When the routine management of the experiment was reviewed the caretaker informed the senior author that the light in this pen gave a lot of trouble. A slight pinhole In the mantle would result in a cracked globe sometime during the night, after which the light would be blown out if the weather was windy. The poor showing of this pen may be due to the lack of regularity in the lighting program. All sound-shelled eggs laid between January 6 and March 31, except one
In the fall of 1943 a second trial was inaugurated to determine whether or not the lack of response of the turkeys to kerosene lanterns was due to chance. Three identical pens, 16X20 ft. in size in a straw-loft, open-front laying house were used. In the first pen kerosene lanterns, four in number, were suspended from the ceiling in the center of the pen from front to rear and spaced equidistant lengthwise in the pen. In the second pen electric lights, two 15-watt bulbs, were similarly located. The third pen received no artificial light. On the first of December, 75 Broadbreasted Bronze pullets of similar breeding were divided at random into the three pens and the lighting program was started at once. All-night lights were used. Two toms were placed in each pen and were rotated once each week among the pens. Feeding and management, except for the lights, was the same for the three pens. Iri good weather the birds had access to winter wheat pasture in yards 16X100 ft. in size. The percentage egg production by tenday intervals, mean date of first egg, and egg production per hen to April 1 are shown in Figure 2. Though trapnesting was continued through April 24, as shown
EXPERIMENT II
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 2, 2015
along with other pertinent data. The date of first egg did not vary greatly among the pens, falling in the period beginning January 1 for pens 11, 14 and 15, and in the next period for the three remaining pens. However, the mean date of first egg shows a much wider variation, from January 16 in pen 14 (gas light) to February 22 in pen 16 (no light). The mean date of first egg for each pen is indicated by the X on the graph of percentage production in Figure 1. The mean number of eggs per hen to April 1 is given at the end of the production curve for that pen.
440
T. T. MILBY AND R. B. THOMPSON
largely due to five hens. These hens produced 180 eggs, of which 108 were infertile. The remaining hens produced 325 eggs, of which only 52 were infertile, or a fertility percentage of 84. Hatchability of fertile eggs was 71 percent in the kerosene light pen, 59 percent in the electric light pen, and 53 percent in the pen without lights. These differences are of little significance because of the wide variation between hens and the low production in all except the electric light pen. The need for breeding stock with reasonably uniform potential egg production and hatchability in trials of this nature is apparent. DISCUSSION
FIG. 2. The effect of artificial light from various sources on production of Bronze turkeys, 1944. died and one additional hen failed to lay. The mean date of first egg was calculated only for those hens that laid, but the other statistics were calculated on a henshoused basis. All sound-shelled eggs laid between December 28 and March 29, except one week's production (Jan. 12 to 19) were incubated in the same incubator used the previous year. Fertility for the season was 84 percent in the kerosene light pen, 64 percent in the electric light pen, and 88 percent in the pen without light. The poor fertility in the electric light pen was
Nothing in the experiments reported here gives a clue to the reason for the failure of kerosene lights to stimulate turkey hens. An attempt was made to measure the intensity of .the various lights with a Weston light meter, used in photography. The sensitivity of the meter was not high enough in the low range to record differences. The reading in all pens at the center of the roost was in the neighborhood of one foot candle. It was evident to the observer that the kerosene light was not as bright as the other lights. In the first trial the kerosene lantern often smoked until the globe was covered with soot. Better management eliminated this trouble the second year, but with no improvement in the results. Scott and Payne (1937) have reported that turkeys did not respond to blue light. They reported another variable in this experiment, intensity of light. The white and red light pens received 57 and 14 times the intensity of light, respectively, that the blue light pen received, because of the filters used. They reported that the hens could see to get around in the pens, but were not as active as the
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 2, 2015
by the production curves, the mean production per hen was calculated to April 1 to make the data comparable to those of the previous year. Again the hens lighted with kerosene lanterns showed no response to the lights and egg production was very low. The birds were not as good producers as those used the previous year, or else the environment was not as favorable for egg production. In this pen two hens died and three additional hens had not started to lay on April 24, when the flock was culled. In the pen without lights one hen
SOURCES OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHT FOR TURKEY BREEDING FEMALES
SUMMARY
For two successive years young Bronze turkey hens lighted with kerosene lanterns showed no response. The mean date of first egg, egg production to April 1, and percentage production differed little from the record of hens similarly housed and fed but not exposed to lights. Young Bronze turkey hens lighted with
gasoline lanterns or natural gas lights (mantle type) showed essentially the same egg production characteristics as hens lighted with electric lights. Differences In fertility and hatchability were observed, but variation between hens within the pens was so great that no significance could be attached to the variation between pens. REFERENCES
Mkrgolf, P. H. 1940. The effect of lights on the fecundity of turkeys, (abstract) Poultry Sci. 19: 355. Milby, T. T., and R. B. Thompson. 1942. The effect of artificial light on reproduction in poultry: with special reference to turkeys. Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci. 22:41-44. , 1945. Some observations on fertility in turkeys. Poultry Sci. 24:99-104. Scott, H. M., and L. F. Payne. 1937. Light in relation to the experimental modification of the breeding season of turkeys. Poultry Sci. 16: 9096.
News an d Notes (Continued from page 390)
Florida. After practising medicine for 25 years in Massachusetts, Dr. Sanborn spent 27 years in Poultry Husbandry at the University of Florida. He retired in 1935 and was 86 years old at the time of his death. Professor H. E. Cosby, head of the
Poultry Department, Oregon State College, died on July 14 at the age of 58. After having partially recovered from a stroke of last April, he succumbed to successive heart attacks. Professor Cosby became Extension Poultryman in Oregon in 1920 and has been Head of the Poultry Department for the past eight years.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 2, 2015
hens in the other pens. It was observed' in the experiments reported here that the hens in the kerosene lantern pens paid little attention to the light. They usually remained on the roost until daylight, while the hens in the other pens were more or less active at all times of the night. Possibly the amount of light rather than the color may be the critical factor in obtaining early egg production from turkey hens. This point is being investigated.
441
T
toms were rotated once each week. The birds were housed December 1 and the lights were started a week later. Feeding and management, other than the kind of light, was uniform for all pens. All were kept in complete confinement. The mean percentage egg production for each pen was calculated at various intervals. A period of ten days was chosen
EXPERIMENT I
To answer the above question an experiment was set up in the fall of 1942. Six identical houses, 12X16 ft., were equipped with the following light sources: pen 11, gasoline lantern (mantle type); pen 12, kerosene lantern (wick); pen 13, natural gas light (mantle type with clear glass globe); pen 14, natural gas light (mantle type with frosted glass globe); pen IS, electric light (25 watt); pen 16, no artificial light. All night lights were used. The lights were all located on the side wall of the house, which was the 16 ft. side, eight feet from the front and about five feet above the floor. Young Broad-breasted Bronze hens of similar breeding were divided at random among the six pens, 13 hens to each pen. One torn was placed in each pen, and
2-9
3-21
FIG. 1. The effect of artificial light from various sources of production of Bronze turkeys, 1943.
as best eliminating minor fluctuations in production without obscuring real trends. The production of the pens by ten-day intervals is shown graphically in Figure 1,
438
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 2, 2015
HE use of artificial light in obtaining early turkey hatching eggs has become a common practice among producers. Milby and Thompson (1942) reviewed the literature and reported the effect of morning lights and all night lights on Bronze turkey hens. Scott and Payne (1937), investigating the effect of various kinds of light in stimulating egg production in Bronze turkeys, found that white and red lights were effective while blue light was not. No other experimental work to determine the value of light from different sources has been reported. Turkey growers who do not have electricity have asked whether or not they could use other sources of light.
SOURCES OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHT FOR TURKEY BREEDING FEMALES
439
week's production (Jan. 21 to 28) were incubated in the same forced draft incubator. Fertility for the season was 81, 81, 88, 82, 72 and 76 percent in pens 11 to 16 respectively. The hatchability of fertile eggs was 69, 46, 63, 62, 71, and 57 percent. The differences in fertility and hatchability may be due to chance variation because of the small number of hens in each pen. For example in pen 12 three hens had very low hatchability and since the total number of eggs set was small the pen average was quite low.
The pens appear to fall into three groups of two pens each in their production characteristics. Pens 11 and 14 responded most quickly to the lights and reached the highest rate of production. Pens 13 and 15 were intermediate, and pens 12 and 16 gave the poorest response. Pen 12 (kerosene lantern) shows no stimulation at all, production being essentially the same as pen 16, which had no lights. In mean number of eggs per hen to April 1, pens 12 and 16 were practically equal. Pens 11, 14 and 15 were best in this measure of production, and pen 13 was intermediate. The relatively poor showing of pen 13 was difficult to understand, since the light was almost identical with that in pen 14. When the routine management of the experiment was reviewed the caretaker informed the senior author that the light in this pen gave a lot of trouble. A slight pinhole In the mantle would result in a cracked globe sometime during the night, after which the light would be blown out if the weather was windy. The poor showing of this pen may be due to the lack of regularity in the lighting program. All sound-shelled eggs laid between January 6 and March 31, except one
In the fall of 1943 a second trial was inaugurated to determine whether or not the lack of response of the turkeys to kerosene lanterns was due to chance. Three identical pens, 16X20 ft. in size in a straw-loft, open-front laying house were used. In the first pen kerosene lanterns, four in number, were suspended from the ceiling in the center of the pen from front to rear and spaced equidistant lengthwise in the pen. In the second pen electric lights, two 15-watt bulbs, were similarly located. The third pen received no artificial light. On the first of December, 75 Broadbreasted Bronze pullets of similar breeding were divided at random into the three pens and the lighting program was started at once. All-night lights were used. Two toms were placed in each pen and were rotated once each week among the pens. Feeding and management, except for the lights, was the same for the three pens. Iri good weather the birds had access to winter wheat pasture in yards 16X100 ft. in size. The percentage egg production by tenday intervals, mean date of first egg, and egg production per hen to April 1 are shown in Figure 2. Though trapnesting was continued through April 24, as shown
EXPERIMENT II
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 2, 2015
along with other pertinent data. The date of first egg did not vary greatly among the pens, falling in the period beginning January 1 for pens 11, 14 and 15, and in the next period for the three remaining pens. However, the mean date of first egg shows a much wider variation, from January 16 in pen 14 (gas light) to February 22 in pen 16 (no light). The mean date of first egg for each pen is indicated by the X on the graph of percentage production in Figure 1. The mean number of eggs per hen to April 1 is given at the end of the production curve for that pen.
440
T. T. MILBY AND R. B. THOMPSON
largely due to five hens. These hens produced 180 eggs, of which 108 were infertile. The remaining hens produced 325 eggs, of which only 52 were infertile, or a fertility percentage of 84. Hatchability of fertile eggs was 71 percent in the kerosene light pen, 59 percent in the electric light pen, and 53 percent in the pen without lights. These differences are of little significance because of the wide variation between hens and the low production in all except the electric light pen. The need for breeding stock with reasonably uniform potential egg production and hatchability in trials of this nature is apparent. DISCUSSION
FIG. 2. The effect of artificial light from various sources on production of Bronze turkeys, 1944. died and one additional hen failed to lay. The mean date of first egg was calculated only for those hens that laid, but the other statistics were calculated on a henshoused basis. All sound-shelled eggs laid between December 28 and March 29, except one week's production (Jan. 12 to 19) were incubated in the same incubator used the previous year. Fertility for the season was 84 percent in the kerosene light pen, 64 percent in the electric light pen, and 88 percent in the pen without light. The poor fertility in the electric light pen was
Nothing in the experiments reported here gives a clue to the reason for the failure of kerosene lights to stimulate turkey hens. An attempt was made to measure the intensity of .the various lights with a Weston light meter, used in photography. The sensitivity of the meter was not high enough in the low range to record differences. The reading in all pens at the center of the roost was in the neighborhood of one foot candle. It was evident to the observer that the kerosene light was not as bright as the other lights. In the first trial the kerosene lantern often smoked until the globe was covered with soot. Better management eliminated this trouble the second year, but with no improvement in the results. Scott and Payne (1937) have reported that turkeys did not respond to blue light. They reported another variable in this experiment, intensity of light. The white and red light pens received 57 and 14 times the intensity of light, respectively, that the blue light pen received, because of the filters used. They reported that the hens could see to get around in the pens, but were not as active as the
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 2, 2015
by the production curves, the mean production per hen was calculated to April 1 to make the data comparable to those of the previous year. Again the hens lighted with kerosene lanterns showed no response to the lights and egg production was very low. The birds were not as good producers as those used the previous year, or else the environment was not as favorable for egg production. In this pen two hens died and three additional hens had not started to lay on April 24, when the flock was culled. In the pen without lights one hen
SOURCES OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHT FOR TURKEY BREEDING FEMALES
SUMMARY
For two successive years young Bronze turkey hens lighted with kerosene lanterns showed no response. The mean date of first egg, egg production to April 1, and percentage production differed little from the record of hens similarly housed and fed but not exposed to lights. Young Bronze turkey hens lighted with
gasoline lanterns or natural gas lights (mantle type) showed essentially the same egg production characteristics as hens lighted with electric lights. Differences In fertility and hatchability were observed, but variation between hens within the pens was so great that no significance could be attached to the variation between pens. REFERENCES
Mkrgolf, P. H. 1940. The effect of lights on the fecundity of turkeys, (abstract) Poultry Sci. 19: 355. Milby, T. T., and R. B. Thompson. 1942. The effect of artificial light on reproduction in poultry: with special reference to turkeys. Proc. Okla. Acad. Sci. 22:41-44. , 1945. Some observations on fertility in turkeys. Poultry Sci. 24:99-104. Scott, H. M., and L. F. Payne. 1937. Light in relation to the experimental modification of the breeding season of turkeys. Poultry Sci. 16: 9096.
News an d Notes (Continued from page 390)
Florida. After practising medicine for 25 years in Massachusetts, Dr. Sanborn spent 27 years in Poultry Husbandry at the University of Florida. He retired in 1935 and was 86 years old at the time of his death. Professor H. E. Cosby, head of the
Poultry Department, Oregon State College, died on July 14 at the age of 58. After having partially recovered from a stroke of last April, he succumbed to successive heart attacks. Professor Cosby became Extension Poultryman in Oregon in 1920 and has been Head of the Poultry Department for the past eight years.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Simon Fraser University on June 2, 2015
hens in the other pens. It was observed' in the experiments reported here that the hens in the kerosene lantern pens paid little attention to the light. They usually remained on the roost until daylight, while the hens in the other pens were more or less active at all times of the night. Possibly the amount of light rather than the color may be the critical factor in obtaining early egg production from turkey hens. This point is being investigated.
441