Performance and preference of broilers provided dual light warmth

SUMMARY: The present studies evaluated the use of 2 common poultry specific Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) of differing light warmth (2,700 K and 5,000 K). Additionally, the studies evaluated the effects of providing a choice between LED bulbs of differing light warmth to broilers for production, dist...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	D.J. Aldridge, C.G. Scanes, M.T. Kidd
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Elsevier 2021
Materias:	lighting LED warmth Animal culture SF1-1100 Food processing and manufacture TP368-456
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/49f6b5657dd34ef7ab8d1af58004e6d2
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:49f6b5657dd34ef7ab8d1af58004e6d2
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:49f6b5657dd34ef7ab8d1af58004e6d22021-11-22T04:19:01ZPerformance and preference of broilers provided dual light warmth1056-617110.1016/j.japr.2021.100187https://doaj.org/article/49f6b5657dd34ef7ab8d1af58004e6d22021-12-01T00:00:00Zhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1056617121000507https://doaj.org/toc/1056-6171SUMMARY: The present studies evaluated the use of 2 common poultry specific Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) of differing light warmth (2,700 K and 5,000 K). Additionally, the studies evaluated the effects of providing a choice between LED bulbs of differing light warmth to broilers for production, distribution, feeding, and drinking behavior. Chicks were housed in choice systems consisting of 2 rooms with separate illumination. Systems were divided into 3 treatments: 1) Cool-cool LED at 5,000 K on both rooms; 2) warm-warm at 2,700 K on both rooms, and 3) cool-warm with one side at 5,000 K and the other at 2,700 K. Distribution and consumption behaviors were observed for the cool-warm treatment using a remote video system. Production was assessed for all treatments and 2 consecutive trials were conducted. The BW of cool-warm treatment (study 1: 2.954 kg, study 2: 3.240 kg) were greater (P ≤ 0.05) than warm-warm (study 1: 2.816 kg and study 2: 3.110 kg) while cool-cool were intermediate (2.867 kg and 3.164 kg). There was no effect of treatment on feed:gain in either trial. Birds in the cool-warm treatment exhibited a clear preferential (P ≤ 0.05) pattern for warm light during the first and last hour of the 16 h light period. No treatment differences (P ≥ 0.05) were observed for feeding and drinking. Lights of differing light warmth improved final BW of broiler chickens.D.J. AldridgeC.G. ScanesM.T. KiddElsevierarticlelightingLEDwarmthAnimal cultureSF1-1100Food processing and manufactureTP368-456ENJournal of Applied Poultry Research, Vol 30, Iss 4, Pp 100187- (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	lighting LED warmth Animal culture SF1-1100 Food processing and manufacture TP368-456
spellingShingle	lighting LED warmth Animal culture SF1-1100 Food processing and manufacture TP368-456 D.J. Aldridge C.G. Scanes M.T. Kidd Performance and preference of broilers provided dual light warmth
description	SUMMARY: The present studies evaluated the use of 2 common poultry specific Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) of differing light warmth (2,700 K and 5,000 K). Additionally, the studies evaluated the effects of providing a choice between LED bulbs of differing light warmth to broilers for production, distribution, feeding, and drinking behavior. Chicks were housed in choice systems consisting of 2 rooms with separate illumination. Systems were divided into 3 treatments: 1) Cool-cool LED at 5,000 K on both rooms; 2) warm-warm at 2,700 K on both rooms, and 3) cool-warm with one side at 5,000 K and the other at 2,700 K. Distribution and consumption behaviors were observed for the cool-warm treatment using a remote video system. Production was assessed for all treatments and 2 consecutive trials were conducted. The BW of cool-warm treatment (study 1: 2.954 kg, study 2: 3.240 kg) were greater (P ≤ 0.05) than warm-warm (study 1: 2.816 kg and study 2: 3.110 kg) while cool-cool were intermediate (2.867 kg and 3.164 kg). There was no effect of treatment on feed:gain in either trial. Birds in the cool-warm treatment exhibited a clear preferential (P ≤ 0.05) pattern for warm light during the first and last hour of the 16 h light period. No treatment differences (P ≥ 0.05) were observed for feeding and drinking. Lights of differing light warmth improved final BW of broiler chickens.
format	article
author	D.J. Aldridge C.G. Scanes M.T. Kidd
author_facet	D.J. Aldridge C.G. Scanes M.T. Kidd
author_sort	D.J. Aldridge
title	Performance and preference of broilers provided dual light warmth
title_short	Performance and preference of broilers provided dual light warmth
title_full	Performance and preference of broilers provided dual light warmth
title_fullStr	Performance and preference of broilers provided dual light warmth
title_full_unstemmed	Performance and preference of broilers provided dual light warmth
title_sort	performance and preference of broilers provided dual light warmth
publisher	Elsevier
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/49f6b5657dd34ef7ab8d1af58004e6d2
work_keys_str_mv	AT djaldridge performanceandpreferenceofbroilersprovidedduallightwarmth AT cgscanes performanceandpreferenceofbroilersprovidedduallightwarmth AT mtkidd performanceandpreferenceofbroilersprovidedduallightwarmth
_version_	1718418219750916096

Performance and preference of broilers provided dual light warmth

Ejemplares similares