SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences / 2019 / Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 5

Impact of light-emitting diode and compact fluorescent lighting type and cage tier on layers reared in an enriched cage system, part 2: some welfare traits

Gülsüm TÜNAYDIN
Bilgehan YILMAZ DİKMEN
Pages
627–635
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In addition, aggressive pecking behavior (P < 0.01) was observed more in the FLO group at 45 weeks of age (P

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to determine the effects of lighting type [light-emitting diode (LED) and compact fluorescent (FLO)light] and cage tier on welfare traits such as feather score, body and comb wounds, bumble foot and footpad dermatitis, beak damage,keel bone deformity, finger damage, aggressive pecking behavior, and the avoidance distance test (ADT) in laying hens reared in anenriched cage system.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 400 layers were used to determine these traits at 25 and 45 weeks of age.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In addition, aggressive pecking behavior (P < 0.01) was observed more in the FLO group at 45 weeks of age (P
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the effects of lighting type [light-emitting diode (LED) and compact fluorescent (FLO)light] and cage tier on welfare traits such as feather score, body and comb wounds, bumble foot and footpad dermatitis, beak damage,keel bone deformity, finger damage, aggressive pecking behavior, and the avoidance distance test (ADT) in laying hens reared in anenriched cage system. A total of 400 layers were used to determine these traits at 25 and 45 weeks of age. A total of 80 layers were usedto determine tonic immobility (TI) duration and induction number. The dust accumulation rate (DAR I and DAR II) was recordedto determine the activity of layers under different lighting sources at 25, 35, and 45 weeks of age. The highest DAR I and DAR II weredetermined in the FLO group at 35 and 45 weeks of age (P < 0.05). The worst comb wound and highest ADT were found in the FLOgroup at 25 weeks of age (P < 0.05). In the FLO group the mean feather score, comb wound, and finger damage were worse than in theLED group (P < 0.01). In addition, aggressive pecking behavior (P < 0.01) was observed more in the FLO group at 45 weeks of age (P

🔖

Cite This Article

TÜNAYDIN, G., DİKMEN, B. Y. (2022). Impact of light-emitting diode and compact fluorescent lighting type and cage tier on layers reared in an enriched cage system, part 2: some welfare traits. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 5, 627–635. https://ajindex.com/articles/615180

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (5)

  1. Bayraktar H, Altan A. Effects of light wavelength on broiler performance. Journal of Animal Production 2005; 46 (2): 22- 32 (in Turkish with an abstract in English)
  2. Rozenboim I, Zilberman E, Gvaryahu G. New monochromatic light source for laying hens. Poultry Science 1998; 77 (11): 1695-1698. doi: 10.1093/ps/77.11.1695 3. Kjaer JB, Vestergaard KS. Development of feather pecking in relation to light intensity. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 1999; 62 (2-3): 243-254. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1591(98)00217-2 4. Long H, Zhao Y, Wang T, Xin H, Ning Z. Comparative evaluation of light-emitting diode (LED) vs. fluorescent (FL) lighting in commercial aviary hen houses. In: Proceedings of the ASABE and CSBE/SCGAB Annual International Meeting; Montreal, Quebec, Canada; 2014. pp. 1-15
  3. Kristensen HH. The effects of light intensity, gradual changes between light and dark and definition of darkness for the behaviour and welfare of broiler chickens, laying hens, pullets and turkeys. Scientific Report for the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety 2008; (June): 1-44
  4. Moinard C, Statham P, Haskell MJ, McCorquodale C, Jones RB et al. Accuracy of laying hens in jumping upwards and downwards between perches in different light environments. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2004; 85 (1-2): 77-92. doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2003.08.008 7. Harlander-Matauschek A, Rodenburg TB, Sandilands V, Tobalske BW, Toscano MJ. Causes of keel bone damage and their solutions in laying hens. World’s Poultry Science Journal 2015; 71(3): 461-472. doi: 10.1017/S0043933915002135 8. Sultana S, Hassan MDR, Choe HS, Ryu KS. The effect of monochromatic and mixed LED light colour on the behaviour and fear responses of broiler chicken. Avian Biology Research 2013; 6 (3): 207-214. doi: 10.3184/175815513X13739879772128 9. Gallegos K, Archer GS. Comparison of the effect of lightemitting diode (LED) versus compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) lighting on hen production, egg quality, fear, and stress. Poultry Science 2014; 93 (E-Suppl. 1): 95
  5. Nielsen BL, Litherland M, Nøddegaard F. Effects of qualitative and quantitative feed restriction on the activity of broiler chickens. Applied Animal Behavior Science 2003; 83 (4): 309- 323. doi: 0.1016/S0168-1591(03)00137-0 11. Al Homidan A, Robertson JF, Petchey AM. Review of the effect of ammonia and dust concentrations on broiler performance. World’s Poultry Science Journal 2003; 59 (3): 340-349. doi: 10.1079/WPS20030021 12. Calvet S, Van den Weghe H, Kosch