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 an enriched 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 used to determine tonic immobility (TI) duration and induction number. The dust accumulation rate (DAR I and DAR II) was recorded to determine the activity of layers under different lighting sources at 25, 35, and 45 weeks of age. The highest DAR I and DAR II were determined 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 FLO group 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 the LED 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 < 0.05). The breast and vent feather scores (P < 0.001), mean body feather score, comb wound, and footpad dermatitis of hens at 45 weeks of age (P < 0.05) were worse in lower cage tiers. In conclusion, using LED light in poultry houses helps to increase some of the welfare parameters. Cage tier significantly affects the welfare parameters, and this effect is clearer around 45 weeks of age in layers.
Highlights
Light-emitting diode (LED) light bulbs have been gaining popularity for use in poultry house lighting in recent years [1]
The objective of the present study was to determine the effects of lighting type (LED and fluorescent lighting (FLO)) and cage tier on feather score, body and comb wounds, bumble foot and footpad dermatitis, beak damage, keel bone deformity, finger damage, aggressive pecking, and avoidance distance test (ADT) in laying hens reared in an enriched cage system
Full body-feather scores of layers were similar in the LED and FLO groups at 25 weeks of age (P > 0.05); the mean feather score value was better in the LED group than in the FLO group at 45 weeks of age (P < 0.01)
Summary
Light-emitting diode (LED) light bulbs have been gaining popularity for use in poultry house lighting in recent years [1]. The different lighting sources and light intensity used in poultry houses lead to changes in physical activity and behavior in hens, and affects their welfare [3,4,5]. Long et al [4] reported that the layers housed under LED lights had a worse vent and back-region feather status than layers under fluorescent light. The light intensity may affect the activity of chickens and feather pecking behavior [5]. Different monochromatic and mixed-color lighting had an effect on the fear behavior of chickens; there was a difference in tonic immobility (TI) duration reaction of broilers [8]. Gallegos and Archer [9] reported that the LED lighting group had a greater TI duration and induction number than the compact fluorescent lighting (FLO) group.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call