Poult. Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Poult Sci 2007. 86:739-743
© 2007 Poultry Science Association
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, P. D.
Right arrow Articles by Leeson, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, P. D.
Right arrow Articles by Leeson, S.

PHYSIOLOGY, ENDOCRINOLOGY, AND REPRODUCTION

Green Light During Rearing Does Not Significantly Affect the Performance of Egg-Type Pullets in the Laying Phase

P. D. Lewis1, L. Caston and S. Leeson

Department of Animal and Poultry Science University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 Canada

1 Corresponding author: northcot.7hg{at}dsl.pipex.com


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Lohmann White pullets were reared in cages and illuminated with 8 h of white light at 2.6 lx or green light at 3.0 lx from commercial incandescent lamps. They were transferred to individual cages and the photo-period was increased to 14 h of white light at 15, 17, or 19 wk. Pullets grown under green light had significantly lighter BW at 6 wk than did birds grown under white light, but BW were similar at 12, 15, 17, and 19 wk. Although mean age at first egg was 1 d earlier for birds reared under white light, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups for any other performance trait. These findings do not support lamp manufacturers’ claim that green fluorescent light during rearing improves performance. As expected, the birds photostimulated at 17 wk matured after the 15-wk birds but before the 19-wk birds. Subsequently, the 15-wk birds laid more eggs to 71 wk, but had a lower mean egg weight and thinner shells (higher deformation) than the other 2 groups. Albumen height and feed intake were similar for all 3 photo-stimulation ages.

Key Words: light • wavelength • egg production • laying hen


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The effect of the wavelength of light on sexual maturity and reproductive performance in domestic hens is equivocal. Harrison et al. (1969) observed that pullets maintained under blue or green light reached sexual maturity 4 to 5 d earlier than birds maintained on red or white light but subsequently had inferior egg production, whereas egg production was similar for other groups of birds that had been reared on blue, green, red, or white light prior to a transfer to white light at 20 wk. It is important to note, however, that the length of day in these trials was reduced from 16 to 9 h at 14 wk, so the later maturity for birds reared on red or white light was undoubtedly due to a greater, and not a lesser, response to the decrease in photoperiod. Carson et al. (1958) and Pyrzak et al. (1986) saw no difference in the rate of gonadal maturation or subsequent egg production in pullets or force-moulted hens illuminated with blue, green, or red monochromatic light compared with others illuminated with white light.

Harrison et al. (1969) reported that egg weight tended to be lower for birds illuminated with blue or green light compared with red or white light, but this was likely a consequence of their earlier sexual development and not an effect of wavelength per se. In contrast, Pyrzak et al. (1984) reported that mean egg weight for hens illuminated with green light was significantly heavier than egg weight for those exposed to red light.

Some manufacturers state that their colored lamps emit monochromatic light and claim improved performance for pullets reared under green light (e.g., Gasolec, 2006). However, one must appreciate that despite giving the sensation of one particular color, incandescent and fluorescent commercial colored lamps have broad spectral emission characteristics and do not emit monochromatic light (Table 1Go). Monochromatic light is produced by LED lamps (Rozenboim et al., 1998) and can be created from a conventional white light source by using filters to screen out extraneous wavelengths; however, neither option is practical for modern poultry operations.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1. Spectral emissions from, and the domestic fowl’s perception of, commercial incandescent white and green lamps
 
Although the scientific evidence is ambiguous and no controlled trials have been conducted to substantiate the beneficial claims for commercial colored lamps, it is unlikely that the response of pullets to them will be the same as their response to truly monochromatic light sources. This paper investigates the effect of illuminating pullets with green or white light from incandescent lamps for 8 h during rearing and photostimulating them with 14 h of white light at 15, 17, or 19 wk of age.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Four hundred forty-eight Lohmann White pullets were randomly allocated to each one of 4 ostensibly identical controlled-environment rooms at 1 d of age, and, within each room, 8 birds were placed in each of 56 top-tier cages (56 cages x 8 birds x 4 rooms = 1,792 birds). Continuous white light illumination, with a mean illuminance of 63 ± 1.4 lx at the feed trough, was provided by spotlights above the cages for the first 3 d, followed by 8-h photoperiods of white light in 2 rooms and 8 h of green light in the other 2 rooms until the birds were transferred to the adult rooms at 15, 17, or 19 wk of age. The white light was provided by 3 rows of B10 25W Décor Clear (Osram Sylvania Ltd., Mississauga, Canada) incandescent lamps located in the corridors at a minimum distance of 145 cm from the feed trough, and the green light was provided by A19 25W Transparent Green (Osram Sylvania Ltd.) incandescent lamps. A computation of the birds’ perception of illuminance, using power output data provided by the lamp manufacturer and the domestic fowl’s spectral sensitivity curve (Prescott and Wathes, 1999), indicated that, for the same human illuminance (lx), the birds would perceive the green light to be 0.82 that of the white light. Accordingly, the mean illuminance of green light at the feed trough was set at 3.0 ± 0.05 lx and the white light at 2.6 ± 0.03 lx by screening the lamps with aluminum foil, and both intensities exceeded the 2-lx threshold required to accelerate gonadal development in domestic pullets (Lewis and Morris, 1999). Figure 1Go shows the pullets’ perception of light from the 2 lamps at 5-nm intervals. The lower mean spectral sensitivity of poultry to white, compared with green, light dictated that a higher irradiance was required to achieve similar illuminance for the 2 light sources, so irradiance for the green and white light lamps was 0.006 and 0.020 W/m2, respectively.


Figure 1
View larger version (11K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Figure 1. Proportion of light output perceived in 5-nm intervals by domestic fowl from Sylvania 25-W Décor Clear (Osram Sylvania Ltd., Mississauga, Canada; {circ}) and 25-W Transparent Green (Osram Sylvania Ltd.; •) lamps. Domestic fowl illuminance = lamp power output (W) x 683 x spectral response curve for domestic fowl (Prescott and Wathes, 1999).

 
At each transfer age, 24 pullets were randomly selected from each of the 4 rearing rooms (48 birds from each lighting treatment) and placed in individual cages in each of 2 identical adult controlled-environment rooms (4 rearing rooms x 24 birds x 3 transfer ages x 2 adult rooms = 576 birds). Within each adult room, there were 72 recording plots, each of 4 consecutive individual-bird cages. The pullets received an abrupt increase in photoperiod from 8 to 14 h on transfer, with white light illumination in both rooms providing a mean illuminance of 31 ± 0.3 lx at the feed trough of the upper tier and 20 ± 0.02 lx on the lower tier. All birds were fed typical commercial diets in crumbed form: a pullet starter diet to 6 wk, a pullet grower diet to transfer at 15, 17, or 19 wk, and a layer diet thereafter.

In each rearing room, 6 birds within each of 12 designated cages were wing tagged and individually weighed at 6 and 12 wk (144 birds per light-color group), and all birds were weighed on transfer to the adult rooms at 15, 17, or 19 wk. Feed intake was recorded for each of the 4 rows of cages (112 birds per row) in each room between 0 and 6 wk, and between 6 wk and each transfer to the adult rooms. Ages at first egg production and daily egg production were recorded for individual birds. Egg weight of the last 2 eggs laid by each bird was determined at 27, 35, 43, 55, 63, and 71 wk; shell deformation (µm/ 500 x g of force) was determined at 27, 43, 55, and 71 wk; and albumen height was determined at 43 and 71 wk. Feed intake was recorded for each 4-cage recording plot for six 28-d periods starting at 23, 31, 39, 51, 59, and 67 wk.

Because of partial confounding of treatment and room factors during the rearing period, the variance components for room and room x treatment were analyzed using a linear mixed residual maximum likelihood model (REML) from Genstat, ninth edition (Lawes Agricultural Trust, 2006) to determine whether room could be dropped from the ANOVA, with treatment as the variable. This was possible, so the data were blocked on tier and analyzed using a general linear ANOVA. Significant differences (P < 0.05) between means were identified using a Student’s t-test.

The birds in both the rearing and laying periods were maintained according to guidelines established by the Animal Care Committee of the University of Guelph. Pullets illuminated with white light during rearing are described as the white light group, and those reared under green light as the green light group.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
There were no significant interactions between light color during rearing and age at transfer to white light illumination for any performance parameter.

Light Color

Although pullets in the white light group were significantly heavier than those in the green light group at 6 wk, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups at 12, 15, 17, or 19 wk (Table 2Go). Feed intake during rearing was similar for the 2 groups at all ages.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2. BW and feed intake during the rearing period for Lohmann White pullets given 8-h photoperiods of white or green incandescent light from 4 d of age
 
Pullets in the green light group matured significantly earlier than those in the white light group, but the difference was only 1 d. There were no significant differences between the groups for any trait during the laying period (Table 3Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3. Age at first egg, egg production, mean egg weight, and shell strength to 71 wk of age for Lohmann White pullets given 8-h photoperiods of white or green incandescent light from 4 d, and transferred abruptly to 14-h photoperiods at 15, 17, or 19 wk
 
Age at Photostimulation

Table 3Go shows that pullets photostimulated at 17 wk matured significantly later than those transferred to 14 h at 15 wk but significantly earlier than those moved at 19 wk. Birds moved at 19 wk produced fewer eggs than those moved at 15 wk. Pullets photostimulated at 15 wk had a significantly lower BW at first egg, lower egg weights at all ages, and higher shell deformation than those photostimulated at 17 or 19 wk. Internal egg quality and mean daily feed intake were similar for all groups.


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Light Color

There is no obvious explanation for the significantly lower BW of pullets in the green group at 6 wk, because cumulative feed intake to 6 wk was similar for both light-color groups and, compared with red or white light, green light has consistently been associated with faster, and not slower, growth (e.g., Wabeck and Skoglund, 1974; Prayitno et al., 1997; Rozenboim et al., 1999, 2004).

Despite the mean age at first egg being 1 d later for pullets in the green light group than for those in the white light group, this difference would not be significant to the poultry industry, and this minimal effect of light color on sexual maturation agrees with the findings of Carson et al. (1958) and Pyrzak et al. (1986). Although direct hypothalamic photoreception is the main mechanism by which light initiates an avian photosexual response at bright light intensities, and shorter wavelengths of light (such as green) penetrate through the feathers, skull, and cranial tissues to the hypothalamus less efficiently than light of longer wavelengths (white incandescent light ≥70% red), retinal is thought to be more important than hypothalamic photoreception at illuminances similar to those used in this trial (Siopes and Wilson, 1980). Thus, differences in transmission efficiency to the hypothalamus and lamp irradiance are unlikely to have influenced sexual development in the current birds because the pullet’s visual perception of the green and white light was similar.

The similarity between pullets in the white and green light groups for all the adult production parameters agrees with the conclusion of Lewis and Morris (2000) that light color has a minimal influence on performance in laying hens. It also discounts the claims of improved performance from using green commercial fluorescent lamps in rearing. Although the findings may have been different had the green light been monochromatic, this is unlikely because no significant effect was found in earlier trials (Carson et al., 1958; Pyrzak et al., 1986).

Age at Photostimulation

The rates of delay in mean age at first egg, reduction in egg numbers, and increase in mean egg weight following the 3 transfer times were similar to those reported by Lewis et al. (1997) for a different white-egg hybrid transferred from 8 to 13 h. The thinner shells (as indicated by the larger deformation; Table 3Go) of the eggs laid by pullets photostimulated at 15 wk may be a consequence of this group’s lower mean egg weight. A regression of shell deformation (µm/500 x g of force) on mean egg weight (g) for the 6 color x photostimulation age combinations revealed a significant negative correlation (deformation = 64.0 – 0.682EW, P < 0.001, r2 = 0.956, slope SE = 0.007, where EW is egg weight) that was not significantly different from the one reported by Lewis et al. (2007) for the same white-egg hybrid when it was exposed to different photoperiods during rearing. We concluded that the use of green light during rearing provided no benefit to the immature pullet, its maturation, or its subsequent productivity in the laying house

Received for publication December 15, 2006. Accepted for publication January 8, 2007.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Carson, J. R., W. A. Junnila, and B. F. Bacon. 1958. Sexual maturity and productivity in the chicken as affected by the quality of illumination during the growing period. Poult. Sci. 37:102–112.

Gasolec, B. V. 2006. Monochromatic light—Rearing layers. http://www.gasolec.com Accessed Dec. 2006.

Harrison, P., 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. Poult. Sci. 48:878–883.[Web of Science][Medline]

Lawes Agricultural Trust. 2006. Genstat 9th Edition, Version 9.1.0.147. VSN International, Oxford, UK.

Lewis, P. D., L. Caston, and S. Leeson. 2007. Rearing photoperiod, and abrupt versus gradual photostimulation for egg-type pullets. Br. Poult. Sci. (In press)

Lewis, P. D., and T. R. Morris. 1999. Light intensity and performance of domestic pullets. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 55:241–250.

Lewis, P. D., and T. R. Morris. 2000. Poultry and coloured light. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 56:189–207.

Lewis, P. D., G. C. Perry, and T. R. Morris. 1997. Effect of size and timing of photoperiod increase on age at first egg and subsequent performance on two breeds of laying hen. Br. Poult. Sci. 38:142–150.[Web of Science][Medline]

Prayitno, D. S., C. J. C. Phillips, and H. Omed. 1997. The effects of color of lighting on the behaviour and production of meat chickens. Poult. Sci. 76:452–457.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Prescott, N. B., and C. M. Wathes. 1999. Spectral sensitivity of the domestic fowl. Br. Poult. Sci. 40:332–339.[Web of Science][Medline]

Pyrzak, R., N. Snapir, G. Goodman, E. Arnon, and M. Perek. 1986. The influence of light quality on initiation of egg laying by hens. Poult. Sci. 65:190–193.

Pyrzak, R., N. Snapir, G. Goodman, and M. Perek. 1984. The influence of light quality on egg production and egg quality of the domestic hen. Poult. Sci. 63(Suppl.):30. (Abstr.)

Rozenboim, I., I. Biran, Z. Uni, B. Robinzon, and O. Halevy. 1999. The involvement of monochromatic light in growth, development and endocrine parameters of broilers. Poult. Sci. 78:135–138.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Rozenboim, I., I. Biran, Y. Chaiseha, S. Yahav, A. Rosenstrauch, D. Sklan, and O. Halevy. 2004. The effect of a green and blue monochromatic light combination on broiler growth and development. Poult. Sci. 83:842–845.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Rozenboim, I., E. Zilberman, and G. Gvaryahu. 1998. New monochromatic light source for laying hens. Poult. Sci. 77:1695–1698.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Siopes, T. D., and W. O. Wilson. 1980. Participation of the eyes in the photosexual response of Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica). Biol. Reprod. 23:352–357.[Abstract]

Wabeck, C. J., and W. C. Skoglund. 1974. Influence of radiant energy from fluorescent light sources on growth, mortality and feed conversion of broilers. Poult. Sci. 53:2055–2059[Web of Science][Medline]




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Poult. Sci.Home page
D. Xie, Z. X. Wang, Y. L. Dong, J. Cao, J. F. Wang, J. L. Chen, and Y. X. Chen
Effects of Monochromatic Light on Immune Response of Broilers
Poult. Sci., August 1, 2008; 87(8): 1535 - 1539.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, P. D.
Right arrow Articles by Leeson, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lewis, P. D.
Right arrow Articles by Leeson, S.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS