Choice Between Fluorescent and Poultry-Specific LED Lights by Pullets and Laying Hens
Date
Authors
Major Professor
Advisor
Committee Member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Authors
Research Projects
Organizational Units
The Department of Animal Science originally concerned itself with teaching the selection, breeding, feeding and care of livestock. Today it continues this study of the symbiotic relationship between animals and humans, with practical focuses on agribusiness, science, and animal management.
History
The Department of Animal Husbandry was established in 1898. The name of the department was changed to the Department of Animal Science in 1962. The Department of Poultry Science was merged into the department in 1971.
Historical Names
- Department of Animal Husbandry (1898–1962)
- College of Agricultural and Life Sciences (parent college)
- Department of Poultry Science (merged with, 1971)
Related Units
Since 1905, the Department of Agricultural Engineering, now the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (ABE), has been a leader in providing engineering solutions to agricultural problems in the United States and the world. The department’s original mission was to mechanize agriculture. That mission has evolved to encompass a global view of the entire food production system–the wise management of natural resources in the production, processing, storage, handling, and use of food fiber and other biological products.
History
In 1905 Agricultural Engineering was recognized as a subdivision of the Department of Agronomy, and in 1907 it was recognized as a unique department. It was renamed the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering in 1990. The department merged with the Department of Industrial Education and Technology in 2004.
Dates of Existence
1905–present
Historical Names
- Department of Agricultural Engineering (1907–1990)
Related Units
- College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (parent college)
- College of Engineering (parent college)
- Department of Industrial Education and Technology, (merged, 2004)
Journal Issue
Is Version Of
Versions
Series
Department
Abstract
Light plays an important role in poultry development, production performance, health, and well-being. Light technology continues to advance, and accordingly new light products are finding applications in poultry operations. However, research concerning responses of young and adult laying hens to light sources is relatively lacking. This study assessed the choice between a Dim-to-Red poultry-specific light-emitting diode (LED) light (PS-LED, correlated color temperature or CCT = 2000K) and a warm-white fluorescent light (FL, CCT = 2700K) by pullets and laying hens (W-36 breed) via preference test. Birds with different prior lighting experiences were evaluated for their light choice, including (1) pullets (14 to 16 weeks of age or WOA) reared under incandescent light (designated as PINC), (2) layers (44 to 50 WOA) under PSLED (LLED) throughout the pullet and laying phases, and (3) layers under FL (LFL) throughout the pullet and laying phases. Each bird category consisted of 12 replicates, three birds per replicate. Each replicate involved a 6-day preference test, during which the birds could move freely between two interconnected compartments that contained PS-LED and FL, respectively. Time spent and feed intake by the birds under each light were measured and then analyzed with generalized linear mixed models. Results showed that regardless of prior lighting experience, birds in all cases showed stronger choice for FL (p = 0.001 to 0.030), as evidenced by higher proportions of time spent under it. Specifically, the proportion of time spent (mean ±SEM) under FL versus PS-LED was 58.0% ±2.9% vs. 42.0% ±2.9% for PINC, 53.7% ±1.6% vs. 46.3% ±1.6% for LLED, and 54.2% ±1.2% vs. 45.8% ±1.2% for LFL. However, the proportions of daily feed intake occurring under FL and PS-LED were comparable in all cases (p = 0.419 to 0.749). The study thus reveals that prior lighting experience of the pullets or layers did not affect their choice of FL versus PS-LED. While the birds exhibited a somewhat stronger choice for FL, this tendency did not translate into differences in the proportion of feed use under each light type.
Comments
This article is published as Liu, Kai, Hongwei Xin, and Lilong Chai. "Choice Between Fluorescent and Poultry-Specific LED Lights by Pullets and Laying Hens." Transactions of the ASABE 60, no. 6 (2017): 2185-2195. DOI: 10.13031/trans.12402. Posted with permission.