G S Archer

Comparison of Two LED Light Bulbs to a Dimmable CFL and their Effects on Broiler Chicken Growth, Stress, and Fear

The poultry industry is currently undergoing a shift to alternative lighting sources as incandescent lights become less available. While LED and CFL bulbs both have associated increased energy savings, they may affect the birds growth and well-being differently as they output different light spectrums. To determine how different LED bulbs and a CFL bulb affected broiler performance, behavior, stress, and overall well-being, we conducted an experiment using Cobb broiler chickens (N=360). A NextGen LED bulb (NextGen), a Once Innovations LED bulb (Once), and a dimmable CFL (CFL) were used, all of which had different spectral outputs. Growth and feed conversion, several stress measures, fear tests, organ characteristics, and animal welfare assessment parameters were collected to determine how each light type affected animal well-being. LED treatments had shorter (P<0.05) latency to right during tonic immobility testing when compared to the CFL treatment; however, no other differences (P>0.05) were seen in the other fear tests. The Once treatment resulted in lower composite physical asymmetry, heterophil/lymphocyte ratio, and basal plasma corticosterone concentrations compared to the other treatments (P<0.05). Differences were observed in some organ measures; notably in the eye dimensions of the Once treatment. The Once treatment also had lower (P<0.05) plumage, hock, and footpad scores when compared to CFL treatment, while the Nextgen treatment had lower (P<0.05) plumage and hock scores than the CFL treatment but no difference between the two was seen in foot pad scores. Weight at the end of the growout was not affected by bulb type, however, both LED treatments had increased feed conversion (P<0.05). These results indicate that LEDs can result in better well-being and feed conversion when compared to CFLs. It is also notable that the LEDs did not have the same effects and this is likely due to the spectrum of light each creates. LEDs were shown to improve production and well-being of broiler chickens compared to CFLs.

Effects of LED lighting during incubation on layer and broiler hatchability, chick quality, stress susceptibility and post-hatch growth.

Providing light during incubation has been shown to affect hatchability, but the use of LED lights has not been evaluated. This experiment evaluated the effects of LED lighting during embryogenesis on White Leghorn and commercial broiler eggs. To determine this, two experiments were conducted, the first using White Leghorn eggs (N=3456) and the second using commercial broiler eggs (N=3456) where eggs were incubated 12 h of light and 12 h of darkness (LED) or complete darkness (DARK); the light level was 250 lux. Hatchability, embryo mortality, and chick quality were measured in both studies, and a subset of one of the broiler egg trials were grown out to investigate fear and stress parameters. There was no effect (P>0.05) on hatchability of layer eggs; however, there was a difference (P=0.02) observed in chick quality, with the LED group having more chicks (75.34%) with no defects than the DARK group (56.53%). Broiler eggs exposed to LED light showed an increase in hatchability (90.12%, P=0.03) and an increase in no-defect chick percentage (86.12%, P=0.04) at hatch compared to the DARK chicks (85.76% and 69.43%, respectively). Differences were observed between treatments during the 14 d grow-out. The LED birds had lower (P<0.05) physical asymmetry (0.90±0.05 mm) and heterophil/lymphocyte ratios (0.279±0.021), indicating that they were less susceptible to stress than the DARK birds (1.16±0.07 mm and 0.347±0.021, respectively). There was no difference (P>0.05) observed between treatments in growth, FCR, or fear measures at 14 d. These results indicate that providing LED light during incubation can improve chick quality in both white layer and broiler eggs; however, it only appears to improve hatchability in broilers, which could be related to shell pigmentation. It was also demonstrated that providing LED light during incubation can reduce the stress susceptibility of broilers post-hatch. Utilizing light during incubation may be useful tool for the poultry industry.

Utilizing original XPC™ in feed to reduce stress susceptibility of broilers.

Abstract Reduction of stress is an important factor in improving poultry welfare, especially during periods of heat stress. A study was conducted to evaluate the effects of feeding the functional metabolites of Diamond V Original XPCTM to broilers reared under ambient or heat stress temperatures. Dietary treatments included: control feed (CON) and Original XPC fed continuously at 1.25 kg/MT (XPC). Half the birds in each dietary treatment were subjected to either no heat stress (24°C constant) or heat stress (35°C:24°C for 18:6 h daily) from 28 to 42 d. At the end of the heat stress period, blood was collected from 40 birds/treatment. Blood was analyzed for plasma corticosterone (CORT), plasma HSP70 (HSP70), and heterophil/lymphocyte ratios (H/L). At 42 d, bilateral metatarsal traits were also measured in 40 birds/treatment to assess physical asymmetry. Birds fed XPC had significantly lower CORT levels than CON (P < 0.001; 5,129 ± 617 vs. 8,433 ± 730, respectively). Physical asymmetry scores were also significantly higher in CON compared to XPC fed broilers (P < 0.001; 1.50 ± 0.13 vs. 0.54 ± 0.05, respectively). H/L ratios were significantly greater in CON than for XPC birds (P = 0.01; 0.81 ± 0.05 mm vs. 0.62 ± 0.05 mm, respectively). No differences were observed between CON and XPC fed broilers in HSP70. However, heat stress did increase (P < 0.0001) HSP70 compared to no heat stress birds (5.65 ± 0.12 vs. 4.78 ± 0.11 pg/mL, for heat stress and no heat stress, respectively). Feeding XPC to broiler chickens improved animal welfare via reduced stress indicators while under heat stress or no heat stress conditions. These results indicate that feeding XPC may improve poultry welfare by reducing heat stress susceptibility.

Effect of the combination of white and red LED lighting during incubation on layer, broiler, and Pekin duck hatchability

&NA; Previous research has shown that providing light during incubation can have positive effects on hatchability and chick quality; however, white light alone has been observed to improve these factors only in pigmented broiler eggs and non‐pigmented white layer eggs. Monochromatic red light has been shown to improve hatchability in layer eggs. Therefore the objective of this study was to utilize one light fixture that emitted both white and monochromatic red light to determine if this one light source could improve hatchability in both types of chicken eggs and pigmented Pekin duck egg. To determine this, 3 experiments were conducted, the first using White Leghorn eggs (N = 6912), the second using commercial broiler eggs (N = 4608), and the third using commercial Pekin duck eggs (N = 3564) in which eggs were incubated with 12 h of light and 12 h of darkness (LED) or complete darkness (DARK); the light level was 250 lux. Hatchability, embryo mortality, and hatchling quality were measured. In Experiment 1, LED had fewer early dead embryos (P = 0.03), less overall embryo mortality (P = 0.05), fewer chicks with unhealed navels (P < 0.001), fewer chicks with defects (P < 0.001), and a higher percentage of fertile eggs that hatched (P = 0.05) than DARK. In Experiment 2, LED had fewer chicks with unhealed navels (P = 0.003), fewer chicks with defects (P = 0.001), and a higher percentage of fertile eggs that hatched (P = 0.04) than DARK. In Experiment 3, LED had fewer early dead embryos (P = 0.05), lower overall embryo mortality (P = 0.04), and a higher percentage of fertile eggs that hatched (P = 0.05), and had ducklings with lower bodyweights at hatch (P = 0.04) than DARK. These results indicate that providing both white and red light during incubation can improve chick quality across poultry varieties. This type of fixture could be used to improve commercial hatchery efficiency and chick quality.

Evaluation of the performance of Hy-Line Brown laying hens fed soybean or soybean-free diets using cage or free-range rearing systems

Abstract This study evaluated egg production and quality variables of caged and free‐range Hy‐Line Brown laying hens fed soybean meal (SBM) and soybean‐meal‐free (SBMF) diets. Hens were randomly assigned to the same 2 dietary treatments within 3 location blocks. SBM and SBMF diets with equivalent calculated nutrient content were prepared based on Hy‐Line Brown rearing guidelines. The SBMF diets utilized cottonseed meal, corn distillers dried grains with solubles, corn gluten meal, and wheat middlings in place of dehulled soybean meal. The experiment was conducted between August 2015 and January of 2016 within the TAMU Poultry Research Center and data analyzed over 6 consecutive 28‐day periods. Data were analyzed as a split‐plot with rearing systems designated whole plots and diets designated as subplots. Hens reared in the free‐range rearing system peaked a couple of wk later than those hens within the more conventional indoor caged system, and cumulative production data were considerably more variable for hens raised in the free‐range environment. Cumulative egg production, feed per dozen eggs and feed conversion ratio (g feed/g egg) were 92 ± 1.23 and 86 ± 1.84%, 1.45 ± 0.02 and 1.89 ± 0.05 kg, and 2.14 ± 0.04 and 2.77 ± 0.08 (P < 0.05), respectively, for the caged vs. free‐range rearing systems. Cumulative egg weight, feed per dozen eggs, and feed conversion ratio were 59.9 ± 0.59 and 56.5 ± 0.60 g, 1.57 ± 0.04 and 1.77 ± 0.05 kg, and 2.24 ± 0.06 and 2.67 ± 0.08 kg (P < 0.05) for SBM and SBMF diets, respectively. Diet did not affect cumulative egg production (P > 0.05). With respect to egg quality, there were no differences in cumulative albumen height, Haugh unit, or breaking strength, but there was a significant rearing system by diet interaction for shell thickness, with the free‐range hens averaging 40.77 ± 0.19 and 39.86 ± 0.31 &mgr;m (P < 0.05), respectively, for the hens fed SBM vs. SBMF diets. In conclusion, the results suggested free‐range production is more variable than traditional closed‐house cage systems based on standard errors, and SBMF diets containing cottonseed meal can be used in both caged and free‐range production systems without affecting egg production, although one might see lower egg weights.

How does red light affect layer production, fear, and stress

&NA; Light‐emitting diode (LED) light bulbs are becoming more prevalent in layer production as unlike CFLs they are dimmable and are even more energy‐efficient than CFLs. There is also discussion on whether the spectrum of light that is produced by the bulb can affect production, stress, and behavior of laying hens. To investigate if differences between how the bulb that produce different wavelengths of light affect these factors, we raised White Leghorn hens under either a bulb that produced white light with the addition of red light (Once, Inc, AgriShift MLL; RED) or a bulb that produced only white light (Overdrive, L10NA19DIM 3000 K; WHITE). Each treatment consisted of 36 White Leghorn hens, and the experiment was replicated three times for a total of 108 hens per treatment. Production parameters including % hens in lay, feed conversion, average egg weight, total eggs per hen, eggshell breaking strength, and Haugh units were measured. Hen fear response during tonic immobility and inversion was documented at 3 time points during the study (18, 42, and 72 wk of age). Stress susceptibility was also quantified using plasma corticosterone, heterophil to lymphocyte ratio, and composite asymmetry score at the same time points as the fear testing. No production parameters were affected by lighting type (P > 0.05). Lighting type did not affect tonic immobility or inversion response (P > 0.05). By 42 wk of age and continuing on until 72 wk of age, the RED treatment had lower plasma corticosterone concentrations, lower heterophil to lymphocyte ratios, and lower composite asymmetry scores than the WHITE treatment (P < 0.05). The results indicate that including red light in the spectrum of light layers are reared under can lower stress susceptibility but had no effect on fear response or production parameters when compared to white light.