Published April 1981. Facts and recommendations in this publication may no longer be valid. Please look for up-to-date information in the OSU Extension Catalog: http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalo

Feltmann, Allen John

Nakaue, Harry Sadao, 1932-

Oregon State University. Agricultural Experiment Station

Undetermined

ScholarsArchive@OSU

Comparison of Broiler Performanceand Economics in Conventional andLight-Tight Floor Pen Houses withContinuous and Intermittent Light ProgramsSpecial Report 612April 1981Agricultural Experiment StationOregon State University, CorvallisSUMMARYBroilers grown in a conventional-type house under natural lighting withintermittent lighting at night were compared to continuous (24-hour) light-ing in two experiments. Broiler growth and feed conversion at seven weekswere not affected by treatments in either experiment. Economic evaluationof the different treatments showed savings ranging from 2.43 to 4.39 centsper bird for the intermittent treatments compared to continuous lighting.Broilers were also grown in a light-tight house to further evaluatethe effect of intermittent light on broiler performance. There were nosignificant differences in mean body weights, feed conversion, feed consump-tion, and mortality at seven weeks of age between treatments for this experi-ment. Economic evaluation showed savings of .25 to 1.36 cents per bird forthe intermittent treatment over the continuous lighting treatment.COMPARISON OF BROILER PERFORMANCE AND ECONOMICSIN CONVENTIONAL AND LIGHT-TIGHT FLOOR PEN HOUSESWITH CONTINUOUS AND INTERMITTENT LIGHT PROGRAMA. J. Feltmann and H. S. NakaueIntermittent lighting is a system of varying periods of light and darkin a cyclic manner over 24 hours in contrast to continuous lighting for 24hours.Intermittent lighting may be an easy and low cost way to increase bodyweight gains and feed efficiencies in broilers (Buckland et al., 1973;McDaniel et al., 1977). Bird density may be increased because of less stresson the birds-T-Buckland et al., 1971, 1976).Buckland et al. (1973, 1976) reported that a long light period (13 hours)interrupting the intermittent lighting cycle adversely affected broiler bodyweight gain and feed conversion when compared to other intermittent lightingtreatments and continuous lighting. Quarles and Kling (1974) compared light-ing treatments of 1/4 hour light (1/4 L): 2 hours dark (2D), recycled and 12hours continuous light followed by intermittent light (1/4 L:2D) for 12 hourswith continuous (24L:OD) lighting. There were no significant differences inbroiler body weight between treatments at four or seven weeks. Feed effi-ciency was significantly improved at seven weeks by the two intermittenttreatments.The studies reported here were conducted to determine if intermittentlighting during the night would be compatible with the continuous naturallighting during the day found in open curtain-type houses still used in thebroiler industry. Economic comparisons were made to determine monetary gainsor losses from lighting, feed consumption, and body weight gains when comparingthe intermittent lighting treatments to continuous lighting.EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURESExperiments '1 and 2 were conducted at different times in an uninsulated,naturally ventilated, curtain-type house. Experiment 3 was run later than thefirst two experiments in an uninsulated, fan ventilated, light-tight house.Each house contained eight pens, with each pen measuring 3 meters x 4.5 meters.Each experiment had four treatments with two replicates or pens pertreatment. Approximately 70 day-old Hubbard broiler chicks of each sex wereassigned to each pen and each bird was allowed .096 square meter floor spacein all experiments.Brooding methods and equipment in all experiments were similar to thosedescribed by Dorminey and Nakaue (1977).In Experiments 1 and 2, the natural daylight was an integral part of thelighting system. The intermittent programs in these two experiments werecarried out during the dark (night) periods of each day. The total lightingprogram would then consist of continuous natural light (NL) + intermittentlight recycled during the night period.In Experiment 1, the natural light period was approximately eight hours.The light treatments were continuous (24L:OD) lighting; 8 hours natural light('1L) + 1-3/4D:3/4L, recycled during the night; 8NL + 1-1/2D:1/2L, recycledduring the night; 8NL + 3/4D:1/4L, recycled during the night.In Experiment 2, the length of daylight was increasing rapidly. There-fore, to standardize the long light period from the start to the end of theexperiment, artificial lights were provided from 5 a.m. to 6:30 a.m. and againfrom 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the beginning of the experiment to give a total of14-1/2 hours of continuous light during the day. The light treatments werecontinuous (24L:00 lighting; 14-1/2L:9-1/2D; 14-1/2L + 2-1/2D:1L, recycledduring the night; and 14-1/2L + 3/4D:1/4L, recycled during the night. Lightintensities were measured with a Weston illumination meter, and they rangedfrom 38 lux in the corners to 215 lux in the center of the rooms during thedaylight hours.The light treatments in Experiment 3 were continuous (24L:OD);1/4L:3/40,recyled; 1L:3D, recycled; and 10 hours continuous light followed by inter-mittent light (1/4L:2D) for 14 hours. The light intensities ranged from 3.2lux in the corners and 5.4 lux in the center of the pens. All the light inthis experiment was provided artificially.Dayton time clocks were used to regulate the light and dark periods inall the experiments. One 25-watt light bulb suspended about 2 meters abovethe center of the pen provided the light in each pen when needed.During the first week, birds were provided with continuous light, afterwhich intermittent treatments were begun in Experiments 1 and 2. In Experi-ment 3, intermittent lighting was initiated at three days of age.Broiler starter was fed from day-old to three weeks of age, and broilerfinisher from three to seven weeks of age. The ration composition is listedin Table 1. Feed and water were provided ad libitum.Birds were bulk weighed by sexes and feed consumption determined at fourand seven weeks for each experiment.Data from each of these experiments were analyzed using a one-way analysisof variance. Treatment means were separated using Duncan's multiple rangetest (Steel and Torrie, 1960), when significances were observed.Economic evaluations were calculated for Experiments 2 and 3. Electricalcosts for lighting, feed costs, and revenue from sale of the birds were com-pared between the continuously lighted group and the intermittently lightedgroups in each experiment. All the other costs in the experiments were con-sidered to be equal. Electrical cost was calculated at the 1977 rate of 2.21cents per kilowatt hour. Electrical consumption for lighting was calculatedby adding up the total hours of light used in each treatment throughout eachexperiment. Feed costs for the starter and finisher feeds were 12.5 and 11cents per pound, respectively, in Experiment 2. Revenue received per poundlive weight for this experiment was 30 cents. In Experiment 3, feed costswere 13 and 12 cents for the starter and finisher feeds, respectively, and27 cents per pound live weight for bird revenue.RESULTSMean body weights, feed conversion, and feed consumption data for sevenweeks of age for Experiment 1 are presented in Table 2. The data showed nosignificant differences between treatments for mean male, female, and com-bined body weights, feed conversion, and feed consumption. Mortality wasnot affected by the light treatment during the experiment.There were also no significant differences in mean male, female, andcombined sex body weights, feed conversion, and feed consumption between anyof the treatments at seven weeks of age for Experiment 2 (Table 3). However,feed consumption was numerically lower, ranging from 0.20 to 0.23 kilogramsper bird for the intermittent lighting treatments compared to the continuouslighting. Light treatment did not affect mortality.The economic evaluation (Table 4) shows electrical savings from 0.38 to0.43 cents per bird and feed savings of 6.0 cents per bird for Treatments 2,3, and 4, compared to Treatment 1. The overall savings were 2.43, 4.39, and3.38 cents per bird for Treatments 2, 3, and 4, respectively, when comparedto Treatment 1, which was the continuous lighting.No significant differences between treatments at seven weeks for meanbody weight, feed conversion, and feed consumption were observed in Experi-ment 3 (Table 5). Because of relatively warm daytime temperatures (32 to37°C) during the fifth to the seventh week, mean body weights were loweroverall than in the first two experiments. Mortality was not affected bylight treatments.All three intermittent lighting programs in Experiment 3 produced savingsper broiler, ranging from 0.25 to 1.36 cents (Table 6). The greatest advan-tage was obtained from Treatment 2 (1/4L:3/4D, recycled) with 1.36 cents savings per bird. The cost differences between treatments were small comparedto Experiment 2 and may be attributed to the hot weather during the experiment.These three experiments show that intermittent lighting regimes underboth conventional and light-tight housing are workable systems. Electricalcosts for lighting may be reduced as much as 0.4 cents per bird and the feedcosts by 6.0 cents per bird. Overall savings in the experiments ranged from0.25 to 4.39 cents per bird when compared to continuous lighting. An inter-mittent system of 1/2 to 1 hour of light followed by 2 hours of dark wouldseem to be the best with continuous natural light during the day. A systemof 1 hour light and 3 hours dark would be a good system in a light-tight house.-3-REFERENCES1. Buckland, R. B., H. C. Gasperdone, and D. B. Bragg, 1971. Interaction ofstrain, density, and ration with two light systems on broiler performance.Canadian Journal of Animal Science 51:613-619.2. Buckland, R. B., A. T. Hill, and D. E. Bernon, 1973. Effects of fourlighting regimes on the performance of broilers and roasters. CanadianJournal of Animal Science 53:21-24.3. Buckland, R. B., D. E. Bernon, and A. Goldrosen, 1976. Effects of fourlighting regimes on broiler performance, leg abnormalities, and plasmacorticord levels. Poultry Science 55:1072-1076.. Dorminey, R. W., and H. S. Nakaue, 1977. Intermittent light and lightintensity effects on broilers in light-proof pens. Poultry Science56:1868-1875.5. McDaniel, G. R., J. L. Koon, and C. A. Flood, 1977. The effect of inter-mittent light on broiler performance, dust production, and litter moisture.Poultry Science 56:1381-1383.6. Quarles, C. L., and H. F. Kling, 1974. The effect of three lightingregimes on broiler performance. Poultry Science 53:1435-1438.7. Steel, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie, 1960. Principles and Procedures ofStatistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, New York.Table 1:	 Composition of broiler starter and finisher rationsIngredients Starter FinisherCorn, Yellow 55.02 56.00Soybean meal, solvent 47.5% 32.75 33.50Fat, animal 4.00 5.00Fish meal,	 herring 3.00Alfalfa meal, dehydrated 17% 2.00 2.00Defluorinated	 phosphate 1.75 1.75Limestone flour 0.75 1.00Salt,	 iodized 0.25 0.25Trace mineral	 premix' 0.10 0.102Vitamin premix 0.25 0.25DL-methionine, 98% 0.08 0.10Zoamix, 25%3 0.05 0.05Baciferm, 40g/lb4 + +Calculated analysis:Protein, % 23.00 21.00Metab.	 energy, kcal/kg. 3091 3135Calcium, % 1.10 1.10Avail.	 Phosphorus 0.48 0.44Methionine + cystine 0.86 0.81'Supplied per kilogram of ration: Calcium, 97.5 mg.; Manganese, 60 mg.;Iron, 20 mg.; Copper, 2 mg.; Iodine, 1.2 mg.; Zinc, 27.5 mg.2Supplied per kilogram of ration: vit. A, 3304 I.U.; vit. 0, 1111 I.C.U.;riboflavin, 3.3 mg.; d-pantothenic acid, 5.51 mg.; niacin, 22.01 mg.;choline, 191 mg.; vit. B 12 , 5.51 mcg.; vit. E, 1.1 I.U.; vit K, .55 mg.;folacin, .22 mg.3Provided gratuitously by Salsbury Laboratories, Charles City, Iowa.4Provided gratuitously by International Minerals Co., Terre Haute, Indiana.Suggested at a level of 0.05 percent.0r .---..-0U1O•E r- a) S— (cs RS' 111 MS O(13 E •r- Cr) 01 CO LC)S-a) U)-CD...... CD CD• CO ODV0 CD LL. C 01 Cl- d- Cr) M 0-S- E 0 .-CL UI3) 4-)-C CL.0) XCa)W S-4-)	 r. 0 0ccCr) CVct)COQ) 4-) CL.1 C).1 n-•0) GS • •4--) 1.1-	 0) S.- CV CV CV C.)4-E 0 4-)S-e) V)C1154-) UO CU ••-•n.t-	 a) U- rc) co rts 4-3 E n501 M d'' ef)CU CO 1--- M to COG) S- CO CO N. r-- 014-)0)•.--.•r r r r-4)	 ftr- CU-0 CI)4-) U4-)-CS`a•,-- 01 33 nz••-n Eor—cl)3 F-.--,V)EMSN.ftCO GSL.0 GISr•••CE-J 0 roE110 Cr)LOLf)toIS)LC)COLO 1--"CS CU 01 I-- r- r I-- 00 LL- ......, U4-) CL(CC) S- C•r-	 a)r r- (ta)C• n-0.•••••nV) 0:5 ns •-)CO S- E CO CO M MSCr) N.S- .0 c CD CD I's COS. CD CD 0) 014-) 01 CV CV I.–MS 0 4-)o.•-)4- -C s-0 0) --I -I U.4* CU-..... - -IS- M 0)•	 • =I- 0)•	 • C.t. 0)s..... =0 EMS S-CO rCI' 5-LM rCV S.r or.•	 •	 S.- V)OD4--S-	 It50 "S.-V)S-\ =CO -ri (--11	 4.)r- - ...=\ =.-- -13 r-11	 4)r- -0 ..01=1 =d- 'V r--1"•-..	 4-)M -0 -C4-)C0 CL = 1--.1 G) 0) 1.,...1	 0)	 C) 1......1 CU	 0) S.0 CD r-- . 1.- r- 0r- r- • I- CU4-)Ua)4-, 4-)CT C))..05-CD•-J+ C.) C>1-.I U CU4-	 t.) C>)J L.) 0)+	 C.) C>)--I U CU9-4- r •r- cd- CD .0 Z Q) .0 Z CU -04- -J r- CnJ CO 5- 4-) CO S- •-) CO	 S- -1-)W -C4-,3V)CL) 4-) CCZ	 • CO-0 G) 0 C).1 GUI-4-)•••-nS-CD•4.0n 1.4n3••nn••EIS) S-SCr) -C)0 • •s..0- —ICa) 0)•r- •r--.1 I--4-)01 •CU 0OCiNIx;Cf)a)_c4-)CID CVci) 4-)Eto a)S- E•r-0 S-S.- a)CLXL.LI01•1-• aa•-• G)O4-) 03CCI) 4-4-) 04-)ar-ES-CU CU-N 3•r-o 4-)3 rrs4-)>)-04-)0)a)3 cu..--...N	 fr;E	 LO(ts 01	 Cv)E3 0 o_oEu_S-	 L.0II)	 r......0 4—S- Cr— a)0 0- (rsa)4—S..4-3 CD a)t-01•1-9-- 0 Its (0	 1.0S-	 0r- 01	 CVS- C00-CC\114-O4-4U4-1.0CO04-)r-400)E(1)u)LL. C0UCa) -.—a) 01LL cnL.L.r-LOOOVc)_4-)CaJa)4-4—•r-O4-)Cets•r-4—0)a)CJJC0UC•1—4-)4-)ca.Us-a)CL4-)Ca)S.cu0-CtiCrta)r0	 rcs	 f/CV	 Cr)	 C)	01 CO	 CVLC)	 4.0	 ID	r r-	 rrtsCO CO00 C)	 CDCV CV-Icr.•• 01	 --....c) C	 Cr)CV •--	 • •\ S.	 CZ 1:7)-- =	 d'CI -0 	 -,...r-(11	 r•-• S.-L-1-0	 1.--.) 0W r--1-I- r- 4-)	 + -C3 I-14-)C.) .0--I >1 a) --I Tu --cas(\I 0 .1--	 CV I--•1-s--... a, C	 ----. C.) Cr— S.	 r-• >-)I	 CU	 I	 (..) CUd• J -C	 •::1- a) -Ct-- r-- 4-)	 r-- S- 4-)S-	 its	 rcs	 (Ts•r-	 CO	 LO	 CO	 LID-0	 CO 4.0	 LO• •0) CO CO CO•—nO its	 rts	 cri	 li•r—	 i—	 LO	 co	 LO-I-1 r 0 0	 C)05	 •	 •	 •S- CV CV N	 CV...--.v) MS	 01	 01	 01E LC)	 CD	 L.0	 N.ci- 0)	 0Ste- c0 N. CO	 CO0) r r-- r	 r-......0S- 4-)•r•S..S3••-•0cr)0W-C4)•r-0Or)0V)..0N CY Cr)•r-S-(U00-J 0	 • 0>b)JZI>, a) ,..c0 -0 E 0CU • r- (0"O S- CI0 CD CD4-) CL S-I.-. I",O C‘.1O Xr 0.)04-=4-3 U N V)4-) C V)-C 115E CD 0 U+3--Jr C S- O CD CD CCU W V)V) a. > 0-) -CI C,..1 Cr) ITS= X CD C0 L.1-1 • 1--. -13-> CU C 4-3• r-(1)S-0VI•r-C•-,-C>•r-r--c1:30 S- r---c-ID	 S. •1-4-) C 4-30 a)(0 0 L.)cIII-C S--0 0 4-3V) CU CnJ -0' CDr-- -C 0 4_	 es4-) -J "C) l••••0 5- 0 CD C3 ... CS+.3 CT) N V) •r- • r-- 4-) CCD Cr) -0 1/40 IC) VD 0 C MS73 •r-QS S-. •r• "ra)-L.)	 CD••-•	 EO (t5 S- 4-3-I-)	 MSV)Q.)CL V) U CL) V)4-3a) _c CU S-,—. F-•=I—•V) •V)E(Q)—0-0..CDC) S- C = _cI- 4-,C0 C)-0 4-)0)0S-0.E 0= S-1-, CT)00 r-4-3r--•r-•ra01 0E0 S-4- a)C••-•4-3>) S•-S- -1-30 CCT)C•.--4-) I-•• 0 -C Cc) 0 0C C0 •r•( jC.)0-.J....-...-CSCY)•r-W O4-)-00•r. •....... S. CY') al CT I-- 0 CD4-3 S.- V) •1-- I szr CO C.) -C >")M1 0 4-3 a) -C1 S. 4-) -C)0 C .....„ CD CD C3 0 -C-1-3Ctl>CL) •1-C)r--LLICV•.->MSCi")-(=J-n-.• + + + 4-4)X(1)U 5.-(il 0N 4-C V)-0(I)4-)r--U •-3 •1--	 W =0 -C,cco=V) r-V)	 (13o >0r-(Uc)0 I-.U M •-3 CLIJ S--	 V) ECDr-0 0(.)=r--0 (!) 0(U CT) CL) 04-) I--• = -C•I- 4 , V)MS	 • CD > •o-0 CD 0S.- 7,• CDV)(tS 0V) 4-,-CI--r- CNJ CO 1- C \J CO>")•r-n:s4-1kr)cr)fctOES-O4-...-n-0 E-CD5.-•r-(TsCOsoCI-n:s0.1RSC‘..1LC)CD5-a) CU V) .....s.ces ce-) •zi- cl- O•	r14- C00)-XCO 01 M V0 0..4-)0to -0 C0 rt:sLnn:sl0 LF-a) .1-- 4) 01 (11 01CD (CS4-- CY) S.. r-•-)r---Cr, C•	 r-	 aJ4-) EI	 • r- ...--.4) S. LL (I) co al rci ft ••-•-C0-) 0-• e-'	 Xr- LU EE(CSCY)CON.r--Is,r-is,f---ctc'-ts,ICOCON.r--LI• r-C.........•	 r•4-)N c7)E coS- 4-...0r•CD W n:sL-a)O) 0 3 r-- E c-rs r oo N. C0Cn0..CI)-I-)	 CU_ccrs-0ocoEa)MS0)Cr'r-C1-srs1-•LOrLC)s--En—•0•	 r N. (t$a) C4-) .---... •r-4) co 0 (LS CO (CS ITS -Ca)cur-ErciO)COCO0101CV0)014-) ttl S- CO CO 01 co4) 0) r-- r-- n-• 1-••r- ........Es-4-)CLa)S-1=1E  -rO S--J•r-s-a)-C4-3S- (CSCr) -0 ..---- r--(1)0 • • tr) .. 4-)4-0 0- -.IS.=0 CMcl- -0--,.. CUM r-0Wr-0 -CD0.1 CU a)S.4-) -C 0 •	 •	 0 0 C.) + C.)a)4---C ...00)......•-JCr--J	 >-)C.)""•-n a)M•	 •--I>•.,C.)CU-1CD>)(-)a)4- CNJ 1---	 S.- r- S.- n-• S.LU4)C• n–•LOa)_sostsI-4-)crs	 •a) 05- 77:itsa)11-•	 CNJ	 C"")	 n:sa•	 r-to..--.-0C0its(...0 5-•,--LOMLO01U1C1.14-4 S- -0 I0 0 -..... P CD CDI--M V)14-....... + + 0.E •0	 •0-J O 5.-00 >, W-C EC))-o s-cu4-)	 c)_(tsa)•r- MI X S-P 0O 4-4-)ZT 0 coul13) U •-3 L/)C CU CCD 0) .1-- LO CD S- ••••• •r••••••.)>aJC> + -I-•••-nECUri) V)W C•r--C4-)C 4-)CU -C> CY) s--••-) •1-a)4-)4-)E•r-5.-4-) COS-s-(rs o"CD czi.cCr)C•	 r-4•)rtSs-4-)C 0•1- •-) --1 - 4-	 "\ "00 CD "CD Ci) S-E W 0) •r- 0 CD 4-)a) = -0 I ctS C"0 S-O CUI.J.- •	r->n.,-(=)-P+s-IL.)	 a)• r••• 	 E ISSU) CI- (15 ...--• 4-)O X V) 4-) COCL LLIx U CUS-CUa, ......... 0(I)S-a)r-(ti5.-0)E 0C =E 0a)_c4-)OS-Ct0S...0-= S-P O)0t.) r-`r•r•-MS0) 0C >1 S- 01OI--NV)•r..,4-,-CS- 4-,0 C01 0C-1-'VC RD 0 .---.. C) W L.) -CD0 C.)•r--J--.._-0S. lC) LO LC).1-i—4-)co	 (1.)(CI4-3 S. V) •-- Cr) er) C \I L.) -C >1-1-3 01 JD S- 4) -0L.) C •-..... CD C) CD 0 -Ctt,a)n-•r->—...... + + +4- L.)	 S-RS 010a)LLJC1J0 4-)XCU 4- •-3MSCU C V) n-••r-4-) ••-•	 CU==liE0C0CroTD V) 1...•V) RSo >r-1-.•(oL.)LO 4-) CLU S- v) EW 0 0 =P_CIal0v)Ci) CUI--004-) I-- = -C• ..--	 4-) V)rcsW 0S-r-••CUa)V)>CO 0V) 4-)C1J•r•-CI.-CO

Comparison of broiler performance and economics in conventional and light-tight floor pen houses with continuous and intermittent light programs

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/downloads/0r9674654

Comparison of broiler performance and economics in conventional and light-tight floor pen houses with continuous and intermittent light programs

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarsArchive@OSU