©2013 Poultry Science Association, Inc.
Performance and preference of broiler chickens
exposed to different lighting sources
Angélica Signor Mendes,*1 Sandro José Paixão,* Rasiel Restelatto,*
Gabriela Munhoz Morello,† Daniella Jorge de Moura,‡ and Jean Carlo Possenti*
*Animal Science Department, Technological Federal University of Paraná (UTFPR),
Campus Dois Vizinhos, Paraná, 85660-000, Brazil; †Animal Sciences Department,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906; and ‡Agricultural Engineering Department,
State University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
Primary Audience: Researchers, Animal Scientists, Agricultural Engineers, Veterinarians,
Complex Managers, Broiler Farm Personnel
SUMMARY
Vision is important in poultry behavior and welfare. Poultry have highly specialized visual
systems, and the majority of their behavior is mediated by vision. In the present study, we
evaluated the lighting preference of broiler chickens exposed to different lighting sources and
their production performance. In the first portion of the study, we evaluated the preference of
birds for white and yellow lighting provided by light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs. Bird preference was assessed by videos recorded during the experiment. In the second portion of the study,
we evaluated the performance of broiler chickens exposed to LED and compact fluorescent
lamps (CFL). Performance was assessed in terms of mortality rate, bird BW, daily BW gain,
feed consumption, and feed conversion. The chickens occupied environments with yellow and
white LED lighting evenly and did not show any behavioral sign of preference for one of the
environments. However, birds presented greater feed consumption at 21, 28, and 35 d of age
when exposed to white LED lighting. Generally, birds exposed to LED lighting presented better production performance than birds under the CFL. Seven-day-old male chickens presented
better feed conversion under LED illumination than did males of the same age under CFL.
Key words: bird preference, illumination, light-emitting diode, poultry production
2013 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 22:62–70
http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr.2012-00580
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
Lighting is a critical component of the environment of commercial broiler chicken facilities
that can influence the health, productivity, and
welfare of confined broiler chickens [1]. Lighting has been shown to affect the physiology and
behavior of domestic fowl. The progenitors of
1
Corresponding author: [email protected]
broiler chickens lived in a natural environment,
where the natural lighting was substantially different from the artificial lighting used inside
commercial poultry facilities today. First, the
natural light intensity on a sunny day may be as
high as 100,000 lx [2], whereas the light intensity found in broiler barns may be less than 5
lx at the bird level [3], despite the illumination
Mendes et al.: EXPOSURE TO DIFFERENT LIGHTING SOURCES
recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare
Council [4] of at least 20 lx. Moreover, the spectrum of natural light provides a uniform energy
distribution with wavelengths between 350 and
700 nm, whereas artificial light sources provide
a narrower spectrum of wavelengths, thus providing light of a different color than natural light
[3].
Poultry producers have begun switching
from tungsten-filament (incandescent) bulbs to
more energy-efficient and longer-lasting light
sources. The efficient light sources most commonly used in agriculture include low-pressure
mercury (fluorescent) and high-pressure sodium
discharge bulbs, which are generally 4 to 5 times
more luminous efficient and last 10 to 30 times
longer than incandescent bulbs. One advantage
of the discharge lamps is that they can be manufactured to produce light with distinct spectral
characteristics. However, producers should be
careful when choosing a new lighting source because some fluorescent lights can be emitted at
frequencies that may be perceived by birds as
discontinuous [5].
In most studies done to evaluate the relationship between environmental lighting and behavior in poultry, researchers have used 2 distinct
approaches: preference tests and behavioral
observations of birds exposed to different light
sources. Bird preference has been assessed in
response to exposure to different light intensities [6], light sources [7, 8], light colors [9], and
flickering frequencies [10].The visual ability of
birds and their behavior and welfare have been
investigated under exposure to artificial lighting
[11].
In various experiments using poultry, researchers have tried to establish whether housing using fluorescent light sources is detrimental to the performance of commercially raised
birds. Fluorescent lighting has been shown to
be preferred to incandescent lighting by hens
(Gallus gallus) and turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) [7, 12]. Some evidence also exists that
housing under different light sources alters bird
behavior. Denbow et al. [13] found that the type
of lighting significantly affected the degree to
which turkeys peck and pull feathers. In addition, Boshouwers and Nicaise [14] found that
laying hens were more active under fluorescent,
as compared with incandescent, lighting.
63
The preference test allows birds to choose
between several environments that may differ in
only one characteristic. The birds can thus indicate their perceptions about the environment by
demonstrating whether they have any attraction
or aversion to that characteristic [15]. An underlying principle is that animals, including poultry,
generally behave in a way that maximizes their
fitness [16]; thus, they preferentially choose features that will most likely satisfy their requirements, regardless of whether these are perceptible to humans.
The objective of this study was to investigate
the preference of domestic broilers of different
sexes and ages for commercially available light
sources and to evaluate bird performance. The
first portion of the study evaluated the preference of 4 groups of 34 broiler chickens, ranging from 1 to 6 wk of age, for white and yellow
lighting from light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs.
The second portion of the study evaluated the
performance of 12 groups of 30 broiler chickens
exposed to 2 different lighting sources: LED and
compact fluorescent lamps (CFL).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was conducted at the Technological University of Paraná, Brazil, in accordance
with the principles and specific guidelines of the
Federation of Animal Science Societies [17],
during August and September of 2010. A total of
496 broiler chickens were provided by the local
broiler hatchery, Pluma Agroavícola [18], integrated by Cobb, and were used in the present
study. The chickens were raised for 40 d. Water
was provided ad libitum through bell drinkers,
with 1.5 cm of drinker space per bird. A 4-stage
commercial diet was provided to the chickens
in tube feeders (2.5 cm of feeder space/bird) 3
times a day, at 0700, 1300, and 1800 h, following the feeding program recommendations from
Cobb. The bedding material consisted of wood
shavings that were turned daily to avoid the formation of solid blocks of compacted bedding
material caused by high moisture concentrations
in these spots.
The birds were placed in 100 × 200 cm pens
located in a 13 × 8 m poultry barn. The barn was
equipped with 2 space heaters located outside
the pens containing the birds. Five additional
JAPR: Research Report
64
Figure 1. Poultry barn, top view (not to scale): 5 brooders, 2 space heaters. Experiment 1: 4 preference test apparatuses, each containing groups of 34 chickens and 2 chambers; experiment 2: treatments (sex and light source)
were randomly assigned to the 12 pens, each containing groups of 30 chickens.
brooders were also placed outside the pens during the growing period, as shown in Figure 1.
The dry bulb temperature and RH were measured once every minute at the bird level, in
the center of each pen, by using data loggers to
ensure that the temperature and RH conditions
were similar in all pens.
The light regimen used in this study consisted
of 19 h of light and 5 h of dark. Two light bulbs,
spaced 100 cm apart, were hung from the ceiling
of each chamber at a height of 175 cm from the
ground. The study was conducted as 2 distinct
experiments at the same time. The first experiment evaluated the preference of broiler chickens for white and yellow lighting from LED
lamps, whereas the second experiment evaluated the performance of broiler chickens exposed
to 2 different lighting sources: LED and CFL illumination. The light intensities provided by the
LED and CFL sources were 20 lx for 1-wk-old
birds and 5 lx for 2- to 6-wk-old birds. Table 1
shows the specifications of the light bulbs.
Experiment 1: Bird Preference
for 2 Distinct Light Colors
A total of 68 male and 68 female broiler chickens were provided by Pluma Agroavícola [18]
hatchery and dorsally marked with an individual
symbol using a nontoxic marker to differentiate
Table 1. Specifications for the light-emitting diode (LED) and compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) bulbs: Voltage, power
consumption, amperage, color temperature, light intensity, luminous efficiency, dimensions, and manufacturers’
information
Light source1
Specifications
CFL
127 V; 15 W (equivalent to a regular 60-W incandescent bulb); 203 mA; color temperature of 6,400 K
(white); light intensity: 788.8 lm; luminous efficiency: 53.4 lm/W; size: 52 mm in diameter, 150 mm in
length
220 V; 5 W; 50 mA; color: 500 nm; light intensity: 280 lm; luminous efficiency: 17 lm/W; size: 70 mm in
diameter, 65 mm in length
220 V; 5 W; 50 mA; color: 635 nm; light intensity: 180 lm; luminous efficiency: 17 lm/W; size: 70 mm in
diameter, 65 mm in length
LED, white
LED, yellow
1
CFL (Philips, Barueri, São Paulo, Brazil; http://www.philips.com.br); white and yellow LED (Inobram, Pato Branco, Paraná,
Brazil; http://www.inobram.com.br).
Mendes et al.: EXPOSURE TO DIFFERENT LIGHTING SOURCES
65
Experiment 2: Bird Performance
at 2 Distinct Light Sources
Figure 2. Preference test setup, top view (not to
scale): birds were initially placed in the center tunnel
(dark, with no feed or water), which gave easy access
to a chamber equipped with yellow light-emitting diode
(LED) bulbs (right) and to another chamber equipped
with white LED bulbs (left). Both chambers were
equipped with a feeder and a drinker.
the sexes. The chickens were separated into 4
groups of 34 birds (17 males and 17 females)
and were placed in 4 preference test apparatuses
(Figure 1), each composed of 2 distinct chambers (floor area of 2 m2) connected through an
access tunnel (70 × 40 × 60 cm) that allowed the
birds to move back and forth, according to their
preference (Figure 2). One of the chambers was
equipped with white LED lamps, and the other
was equipped with yellow LED lamps.
Each group (replicate, experimental unit) of
34 chickens was initially placed in the access
tunnel, which did not offer any light, water, or
food to discourage the birds from remaining in
this area and to motivate them to choose one
of the chambers. Bird preference was assessed
through videos captured by polychromatic video
cameras located on the ceiling of each chamber.
Fifteen-minute videos were recorded daily at 3
distinct times of the day, 0800, 1300, and 2000
h, according to the methodologies proposed by
Bizeray et al. [19] and Estevez et al. [20]. The
number of males and females in each chamber
was recorded at each assessment.
Feed intake was measured weekly for each
chamber. The chambers were cleaned once a
day and food, water, and wood shavings were
replaced daily to prevent any preferences by the
birds caused by familiar odors. Air temperature
and RH measurements helped to ensure that
any preference for a particular compartment occurred because of the light environment and not
the temperature or RH conditions. Therefore,
the environment in each chamber was identical
with the exception of the light sources.
Data were evaluated through ANOVA, and
means were compared through the Tukey and
Fisher tests, considering a 95% confidence level,
by using the computer software SANEST [21].
A total of 360 one-day-old Cobb broiler
chickens (180 males and 180 females) were
obtained from a local commercial supplier and
randomly distributed into 12 pens (100 × 200
cm), each containing 30 chickens (6 pens with
males and 6 pens with females). The sex and
light treatments were randomly assigned to the
12 pens, as illustrated in Figure 1. The pens were
identical in every aspect, with the exception of
the light environment; half of the pens were
equipped with white LED bulbs and the other
half were equipped with CFL bulbs. All pens
were surrounded with a black fabric, which prevented the lighting of one pen from affecting the
next pens. Chicken performance was assessed
for each of the light environments.
The chickens (subsampling) remained within
their pens (experimental units) from d 1 through
41. The performance parameters mortality rate,
bird BW, BW gain, feed intake, and feed conversion were measured weekly, according to the
methodology proposed by Miragliotta [22]. The
structure of experiment 2 was a completely randomized design with 3 replicates and a 2 (light
source) × 2 (sex) factorial arrangement of treatments. Data were evaluated through ANOVA,
and means were compared by Tukey’s test, considering a 95% confidence level. The analysis
was done using the computer software SANEST
[21].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Experiment 1: Bird Preference
for the 2 Distinct Light Colors
Figure 3 shows the mean percentage of birds
in each of the light environments (white vs. yellow LED) at the time of the assessments. No
significant (P > 0.05) differences were found
between the number of male and female birds
occupying each of the light environments (white
vs. yellow LED) for all assessment events
(morning, 0800 h; afternoon, 1300 h; and evening, 2000 h), as illustrated in Figure 3. The distribution of birds seemed to be uniform between
the 2 chambers.
However, feed intake was significantly (P <
0.05) different between chambers when chick-
JAPR: Research Report
66
Figure 3. Mean percentage of male and female birds present in each light environment [white vs. yellow lightemitting diode (LED)], during the 3 assessment times (0800 h, morning; 1300 h, afternoon and 2000 h, evening).
ens were 21, 28, and 35 d old. Birds at these ages
ate substantially more in the chamber equipped
with white LED lamps (Table 2). There was also
an indication that the younger birds ate more in
the environment with the white LED lamps, with
exception of those at 14 d of age. Nevertheless,
no statistical difference was observed in feed
intake for younger birds between the chambers.
The difference in feed intake may also be attributed to the spectral sensitivity of the chickens. Chickens have the ability to see colored
light differently from humans [23]. Chickens
are less sensitive than humans to the blue-green
Table 2. Comparison of the effects of light source
[white vs. yellow light-emitting diode (LED)] on feed
intake (kg of feed/bird) of broiler chickens within each
of the age groups (7 through 40 d of age)
Age, d
7
14
21
28
35
40
LED, white
a
0.222 ± 0.01
0.296 ± 0.01a
0.847 ± 0.01a
1.164 ± 0.02a
1.132 ± 0.02a
0.511 ± 0.01a
LED, yellow
0.158 ± 0.01a
0.345 ± 0.01a
0.808 ± 0.01b
0.999 ± 0.01b
0.793 ± 0.011b
0.496 ± 0.01a
a,b
Means followed by different superscript letters within the
same line are different by Tukey’s test (P < 0.05).
color range and much more sensitive to orangered wavelengths (600 to 650 nm). In addition,
they can see UV light (350 to 450 nm), which
humans cannot detect. Therefore, the chickens
under white LED exposure may have perceived
an increase in brightness from these light bulbs,
which caused their feed intake to increase.
Others have suggested that birds prefer specific types of lighting sources. Kristensen et al.
[24] evaluated the preference of 4 groups of 6
chickens each (1 to 6 d old) to 4 distinct lighting sources (Biolux, incandescent, warm white,
and spectral sensitivity-matched light) and 2 different light intensities. The authors found that
6-wk-old birds preferred Biolux and warm white
light bulbs over the other light sources studied,
independently of light intensity. In addition,
broiler chickens foraged significantly more and
stood significantly less under low light intensity
(5 lx) than under high light intensity (100 lx),
regardless of the lighting type.
In several studies, researchers examined
the behavior of chickens under different light
sources or colors that produced different light
intensities. Vandenberg and Widowski [8] examined hens’ preferences for high-intensity
high-pressure sodium (HPS) lighting compared
Mendes et al.: EXPOSURE TO DIFFERENT LIGHTING SOURCES
with low-intensity incandescent lighting. They
observed that hens spent significantly more time
preening, nesting, and pecking in the HPS light
than in the incandescent light environment and
significantly more time sitting and eating in the
incandescent light than in the HPS environment.
However, hens sat more often in the dark central
compartment of the preference setup, suggesting
that they may prefer to rest in a darker environment.
Light color has also been shown to affect
bird behavior. Broiler chickens were found to be
less active in blue and green light than in red or
white light, and they chose to spend more time
under the blue and green light during a preference test [9, 25]. Laying hens preferred fluorescent to incandescent light [7], probably because
of the difference in wavelengths between the 2
sources.
In the present study, we did not evaluate
which specific light characteristics (e.g., intensity, wavelength, or variation) were the most
preferred by the birds. Prayitno et al. [9] showed
that broilers had an immediate preference for the
light color to which they were accustomed. The
authors considered the birds’ general preferences, as well as their rearing experience. Prescott
et al. [11] suggested that exposure to natural
67
light would be an ideal solution to many lighting
problems and that natural light would generally
increase the welfare of domestic fowl.
Experiment 2: Bird Performance
at 2 Distinct Light Sources
Table 3 shows the mean values for feed intake per bird, BW gain, and BW for broiler
chickens of different ages and sexes. Significant
differences between sexes were found among all
response variables (Table 3). Male chickens had
significantly higher feed intakes than females after 21 d of age (P < 0.05) and had increased live
weight (P < 0.05) and better feed conversion (P
< 0.05). Overall, male chickens presented better production performance than did females, as
expected. Mortality rate was not statistically different between treatments. These results agree
with those of Goldflus [26].
Light source (white LED vs. CFL) alone
did not significantly (P > 0.05) influence bird
performance. However, significant (P < 0.05)
interactions were found between the sex and
light source treatments for different chicken
ages. Table 4 shows the interaction results between sex and light source for each distinct
bird age.
Table 3. Comparison of the effects of sex (female vs. male) and light source [light-emitting diode (LED) vs. compact
fluorescent lamp (CFL)] on mean values for feed intake (kg/bird), live weight (kg), and feed conversion (kg/kg) of
broiler chickens within each of the age groups (7 through 40 d of age)
Age, d
Factor
Feed intake, kg/bird
Male
Female
LED, white
CFL
CV, %
Live weight, kg
Male
Female
LED, white
CFL
CV, %
Feed conversion, kg/kg
Male
Female
LED, white
CFL
CV (%)
a,b
7
14
21
28
35
40
5.87 ± 0.15a
6.04 ± 0.19a
5.98 ± 0.24a
5.92 ± 0.13a
1.18
12.57 ± 0.24a
12.68 ± 1.44a
12.33 ± 0.56a
12.92 ± 1.27a
3.75
24.85 ± 1.59ª
22.21 ± 1.41b
23.88 ± 2.77a
23.14 ± 0.80a
2.55
32.6 ± 2.91a
28.73 ± 0.73b
29.7 ± 2.04a
31.59 ± 3.44a
2.84
36.15 ± 3.44a
32.13 ± 2.37b
34.97 ± 3.60a
33.26 ± 3.54a
4.32
19.89 ± 3.36a
19.13 ± 0.68b
19.78 ± 3.01a
18.74 ± 1.46a
5.63
0.19 ± 0.01a
0.18 ± 0.01b
0.19 ± 0.01a
0.19 ± 0.01a
0.18
0.52 ± 0.01a
0.48 ± 0.05a
0.51 ± 0.05a
0.5 ± 0.04a
1.27
0.99 ± 0.04a
0.87 ± 0.07b
0.93 ± 0.09a
0.93 ± 0.07a
1.43
1.76 ± 0.09a
1.57 ± 0.09b
1.66 ± 0.16a
1.67 ± 0.10a
1.67
2.37 ± 0.12a
2.06 ± 0.08b
2.21 ± 0.17a
2.21 ± 0.22a
1.48
2.77 ± 0.16a
2.42 ± 0.06b
2.6 ± 0.23a
2.6 ± 0.23a
1.81
1.23 ± 0.06b
1.33 ± 0.04a
1.27 ± 0.110a
1.29 ± 0.03a
0.89
1.51 ± 0.09a
1.72 ± 0.33a
1.56 ± 0.26a
1.67 ± 0.27a
4.66
2.17 ± 0.17a
2.54 ± 0.47a
2.34 ± 0.47a
2.37 ± 0.33a
5.7
2.61 ± 0.17a
2.62 ± 0.18a
2.63 ± 0.12a
2.67 ± 0.22a
3.05
2.47 ± 0.60a
2.66 ± 0.55a
2.62 ± 0.54a
2.51 ± 0.62a
6.76
1.97 ± 0.34a
2.28 ± 0.37a
2.14 ± 0.47a
2.11 ± 0.30a
6.35
Means followed by different superscript letters within a row are significantly different by Tukey’s test (P < 0.05).
JAPR: Research Report
68
Table 4. Comparison of the effects of sex (female vs.
male) and light source [light-emitting diode (LED) vs.
compact fluorescent lamp (CFL)] on feed intake (kg),
live weight (kg), and feed conversion (kg/kg) results,
accounting for the interaction between sex and light
source, within each of the age groups (7 through 40
d of age)
Table 4 (Continued). Comparison of the effects of
sex (female vs. male) and light source [light-emitting
diode (LED) vs. compact fluorescent lamp (CFL)] on
feed intake (kg), live weight (kg), and feed conversion
(kg/kg) results, accounting for the interaction between
sex and light source, within each of the age groups (7
through 40 d of age)
Item
Item
Feed intake, kg/bird
7 d of age
Male
Female
14 d of age
Male
Female
21 d of age
Male
Female
28 d of age
Male
Female
35 d of age
Male
Female
40 d of age
Male
Female
Live weight, kg
7 d of age
Male
Female
14 d of age
Male
Female
21 d of age
Male
Female
28 d of age
Male
Female
35 d of age
Male
Female
40 d of age
Male
Female
Feed conversion, kg/kg
7 d of age
Male
Female
14 d of age
Male
Female
21 d of age
Male
Female
28 d of age
Male
Female
LED, white
CFL
5.82 ± 0.29a,B
6.14 ± 0.22a,A
5.92 ± 0.31a,A
5.93 ± 0.31a,A
a,A
a,A
12.54 ± 0.90
12.6 ± 0.55
12.12 ± 0.58a,A 13.25 ± 1.01a,A
a,A
a,A
26.11 ± 1.29
23.61 ± 1.30
21.76 ± 1.11a,B 22.67 ± 1.08b,A
30.89 ± 2.02a,A 34.35 ± 2.30a,A
28.53 ± 1.80a,A 28.94 ± 1.89a,B
36.59 ± 2.00a,A 35.71 ± 1.99a,A
33.4 ± 1.80a,A 30.9 ± 1.50a,A
20.86 ± 0.90a,A 17.97 ± 0.85a,A
18.73 ± 0.90a,A 19.53 ± 0.95a,A
0.19 ± 0.02a,A
0.18 ± 0.02a,A
0.19 ± 0.03a,A
0.18 ± 0.02b,A
0.52 ± 0.02a,A
0.5 ± 0.03a,A
0.53 ± 0.03a,A
0.47 ± 0.02b,A
1.00 ± 0.01a,A
0.86 ± 0.01a,B
0.97 ± 0.01a,A
0.89 ± 0.02a,A
1.8 ± 0.05a,A
1.53 ± 0.04a,B
2.73 ± 0.19a,A
2.61 ± 0.19a,A
2.32 ± 0.20a,A
2.1 ± 0.20a,A
2.42 ± 0.50a,A
2.02 ± 0.45a,A
2.75 ± 0.60a,A
2.44 ± 0.55a,A
2.79 ± 0.60a,A
2.39 ± 0.50a,A
1.19 ± 0.20b,B
1.36 ± 0.21a,A
1.27 ± 0.22a,A
1.3 ± 0.22a,A
1.53 ± 0.11a,A
1.58 ± 0.12a,A
1.49 ± 0.21a,A
1.86 ± 0.22a,A
2.19 ± 0.55a,A
2.48 ± 0.60a,A
2.16 ± 0.50a,A
2.59 ± 0.60a,A
1.57 ± 0.30a,A
1.69 ± 0.33a,A
2.79 ± 0.60a,A
2.55 ± 0.50a,A
Continued
35 d of age
Male
Female
40 d of age
Male
Female
LED, white
CFL
2.86 ± 0.60a,A
2.38 ± 0.58a,A
2.10 ± 0.60a,A
2.95 ± 0.58a,A
2.02 ± 0.70a,A
2.27 ± 0.65a,A
1.93 ± 0.60a,A
2.29 ± 0.65a,A
a,b
Means followed by different superscript lowercase letters
within a column and within age are different by Tukey’s test
(P < 0.05).
A,B
Means followed by different superscript uppercase letters
within a row are different by Tukey’s test (P < 0.05).
When raised under exposure to CFL, male
chickens presented significantly (P < 0.05)
higher live weights than did female chickens
at 7 and 14 d of age. However, live weight was
not significantly different between sexes for the
remaining ages and for birds raised under the
white LED bulbs. Feed conversion was significantly (P < 0.05) lower for 7-d-old male chickens exposed to white LED bulbs. These results
suggest that the CFL may have had a negative
effect on the feed conversion of 7-d-old male
birds, whereas feed conversion was not affected
by the light source in older birds (Table 4).
Male chickens generally consumed more
feed than did female chickens at 21 d when
exposed to CFL (P < 0.05). However, no significant effects of light source were observed
relative to BW and feed conversion for this age
of bird. These results indicate that, under white
LED lamps, 21-d-old male chickens ate less and
had the same performance results as birds exposed to CFL.
Feed intake and live weight were significantly (P < 0.05) higher for 21- and 28-d-old female
birds raised under CFL. However, light source
did not affect the feed conversion of these birds,
indicating that the LED lamps resulted in better performance with the same feed conversion
as for the 21- and 28-d-old female birds raised
under CFL.
The LED bulbs used in this study are currently available on the global market. The major benefits of LED lamps compared with other
Mendes et al.: EXPOSURE TO DIFFERENT LIGHTING SOURCES
light sources commonly used in agriculture are
their good luminous efficiency, long operating
life, resistance to moisture, and availability in
different peak wavelengths. However, although
researchers have been studying the effect of different light intensities [1, 27, 28] and the use
of dimmers [29] on bird performance, data are
lacking in the literature on the effect of LED
lighting on the performance and welfare of agricultural animals and poultry.
Others [30] have suggested that green LED
lighting enhances broiler growth at an early age,
whereas blue LED lighting enhances growth
at older ages. Switching lighting from blue to
green at 20 d of age also improved growth as
compared with white light (CFL). The average
FE and mortality rate did not differ between
groups.
Light has been shown to affect bird performance. Nevertheless, researchers indicate wide
variation in performance results attributable to
lighting effects, especially with respect to the
use of colored light. This variation in results
may be due to differences in light source and
light schedule, as well as age, species, and breed
of experimental animals.
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
1. The distribution of broiler chickens was
uniform and even between the 2 chambers; thus, the birds did not show any
preference for white vs. yellow LED environments.
2. Feed intake was significantly (P < 0.05)
higher in the chamber equipped with
white LED lights when chickens were
21, 28, and 35 d old.
3. Seven-day-old male chickens raised under LED bulbs had better feed conversion than did chickens of the same age
raised under CFL.
4. Generally, the chickens raised under
white LED bulbs had better production
performance than did chickens raised
under CFL.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. Olanrewaju, H. A., J. P. Thaxton, W. A. Dozier, J.
Purswell, W. B. Roush, and S. L. Branton. 2006. A review of
69
lighting programs for broiler production. Int. J. Poult. Sci.
5:301–308.
2. Théry, M. 2001. Forest light and its influence on habitat selection. Plant Ecol. 153:251–261.
3. Prescott, N. B., and C. M. Wathes. 1999. Reflective
properties of domestic fowl (Gallus g. domesticus), the fabric of their housing and the characteristics of the light environment in environmentally controlled poultry houses. Br.
Poult. Sci. 40:185–193.
4. Farm Animal Welfare Council. 1992. Report on the
Welfare of Broiler Chickens. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London, UK.
5. Lewis, P. D., and T. Morris. 2006. Poultry Lighting—
The Theory and Practice. Nottingham Univ. Press, Nottingham, UK.
6. Davis, N. J., N. B. Prescott, C. J. Savory, and C.
M. Wathes. 1999. Preferences of growing fowls for different light intensities in relation to age, strain and behaviour.
Anim. Welf. 8:193–203.
7. Widowski, T. M., L. J. Keeling, and I. J. H. Duncan.
1992. The preferences of hens for compact fluorescent over
incandescent lighting. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 72:203–211.
8. Vandenberg, C., and T. M. Widowski. 2000. Hens’
preferences for high-intensity high-pressure sodium or lowintensity incandescent lighting. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 9:172–
178.
9. Prayitno, D. S., C. J. C. Phillips, and H. Omed. 1997.
The effects of color of lighting on the behavior and production of meat chickens. Poult. Sci. 76:452–457.
10.Widowski, T. M., and I. J. H. Duncan. 1996. Laying
hens do not have a preference for high-frequency versus
low-frequency compact fluorescent light sources. Can. J.
Anim. Sci. 76:177–181.
11.Prescott, N. B., C. M. Wathes, and J. R. Jarvis.
2003. Light, vision and the welfare of poultry. Anim. Welf.
12:269–288.
12.Sherwin, C. M. 1998. Light intensity preferences of
domestic male turkeys. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 58:121–
130.
13.Denbow, D. M., A. T. Leighton, and R. M. Hulet.
1990. Effect of light sources and light intensity on growth,
performance, and behaviour of female turkeys. Br. Poult.
Sci. 31:439–443.
14.Boshouwers, F. M. G., and E. Nicaise. 1993. Artificial light sources and their influences on physical activity and energy expenditure of laying hens. Br. Poult. Sci.
34:11–19.
15.Duncan, I. J. H. 1992. Designing environments for
animals—Not for public perceptions. Br. Vet. J. 148:475–
477.
16.Dawkins, M. S. 1990. From an animal’s point of
view: Motivation, fitness, and animal welfare. Behav. Brain
Sci. 13:1–61.
17.Federation of Animal Science Societies. 2010. Guide
for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Research
and Teaching. 3rd ed. Fed. Anim. Sci. Soc., Champaign, IL.
18.Pluma Agroavícola, Linha Santo Izidoro, Dois Vizinhos, Paraná State, Brazil.
19.Bizeray, D., I. Estevez, C. Leterrier, and F. M. Faure.
2002. Effects of increasing environmental complexity on the
physical activity of broiler chickens. Appl. Anim. Behav.
Sci. 79:27–41.
70
20.Estevez, I., L. J. Keeling, and R. C. Newberry. 2003.
Decreasing aggression with increasing group size in young
domestic fowl. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 84:213–218.
21.Zonta, E. P., and A. A. Machado. 1984. SANEST—
Sistema de Análise Estatística para Microcomputadores.
Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil.
22.Miragliotta, M. Y. 2005. Avaliação das condições do
ambiente interno em dois galpões de produção comercial de
frangos de corte, com ventilação e densidade populacional
diferenciados. PhD Diss. State Univ. of Campinas, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil.
23.Nuboer, J. F. W., M. A. J. M. Coemans, and J. J. Vos.
1992. Artificial lighting in poultry houses: Are photometric
units appropriate for describing illumination intensities? Br.
Poult. Sci. 33:135–140.
24.Kristensen, H. H., N. B. Prescott, G. C. Perry, J.
Ladewig, A. K. Ersbøll, K. C. Overvad, and C. M. Wathes.
2007. The behaviour of broiler chickens in different light
sources and illuminances. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 103:75–
89.
25.Prayitno, D. S., C. J. C. Phillips, and H. M. Omed.
1993. The initial and long-term preference of broilers for
JAPR: Research Report
red, blue, or green light after being reared in red, blue, green,
or white light. Anim. Prod. 56:438–445.
26.Goldflus, F. 1994. Viabilidade da criação de frangos de corte sob alta densidade populacional. MS Thesis.
College of Agrarian Sciences and Veterinary, Paulista State
Univ., Jaboticabal, São Paulo, Brazil.
27.Yahav, S., S. Hurwitz, and I. Rozenboim. 2000. The
effect of light intensity on growth and development of turkey
toms. Br. Poult. Sci. 41:101–106.
28.Deep, A., K. Schwean-Lardnera, T. G. Croweb, B. I.
Fancherc, and H. L. Classena. 2012. Effect of light intensity
on broiler behaviour and diurnal rhythms. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 136:50–56.
29.Downs, K. M., R. J. Lien, J. B. Hess, S. F. Bilgili, and
W. A. Dozier. 2006. The effects of photoperiod length, light
intensity, and feed energy on growth responses and meat
yield of broilers. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 15:406–416.
30.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.