The Impact of Lighting Regimen and Feeding Program during Rearing on Hy-Line Brown Pullets at the End of Rearing and during Early Lay
Abstract
:Simple Summary
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Ethical Approval
2.2. Housing and Management of Pullets during Rearing
2.3. Experimental Design
Treatment | Average Feed Intake (g/Bird/Day) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Weeks of Age | |||||||||||||
Lighting 1 | Feeding 4 | 4–5 | 5–6 | 6–7 | 7–8 | 8–9 | 9–10 | 10–11 | 11–12 | 12–13 | 13–14 | 14–15 | 15–16 10 |
CL 2 | Ad lib 5 | 36.7 | 44.9 | 52.6 | 59.1 | 65.7 | 67.4 | 74.0 | 80.9 | 84.0 | 81.3 | 71.3 | 72.0 |
SEM 6 | 0.26 | 0.11 | 0.42 | 0.86 | 1.47 | 2.06 | 1.24 | 1.37 | 1.69 | 2.39 | 2.31 | 0.91 | |
CL | BSW 7 | 35.0 | 35.0 | 36.3 | 38.4 | 47.0 | 52.6 | 60.7 | 65.7 | 69.3 | 63.3 | 63.9 | 65.6 |
SEM 9 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
CL | Managed 8 | 33.3 | 33.3 | 35.7 | 37.7 | 42.3 | 44.3 | 49.4 | 55.6 | 61.0 | 58.1 | 57.6 | 59.0 |
SEM 9 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
RL 3 | Ad lib | 34.9 | 43.3 | 52.7 | 59.1 | 62.7 | 64.6 | 65.6 | 73.6 | 75.9 | 74.7 | 70.3 | 69.3 |
SEM | 0.44 | 0.89 | 0.61 | 0.72 | 1.19 | 0.78 | 1.30 | 2.04 | 1.76 | 1.56 | 0.92 | 0.75 | |
RL | BSW | 32.1 | 32.1 | 33.1 | 36.7 | 50.9 | 56.0 | 66.0 | 72.9 | 73.4 | 64.0 | 59.1 | 63.4 |
SEM 9 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
RL | Managed | 30.4 | 30.4 | 31.4 | 33.7 | 39.9 | 43.4 | 52.4 | 58.4 | 59.7 | 56.0 | 52.3 | 54.7 |
SEM 9 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Ingredients (%) | Protein (%) | Developer (kg) (12–16 Weeks) 6 | Protein (%) | Pre-lay (kg) (16–17.4 Weeks) 7 | Protein (%) | Early-lay (kg) (17.5–36 Weeks) 8 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sorghum | 10.00 | 240.15 | 8.40 | 250.00 | 10.80 | 245.00 |
Wheat | 11.00 | 239.00 | 11.90 | 295.69 | 12.30 | 265.39 |
Barley | 11.50 | 175.00 | 11.50 | 175.00 | 10.40 | 125.00 |
Millrun 1 | 15.00 | 165.00 | - | - | - | - |
Canola meal solvent | 38.00 | 110.00 | 38.00 | 100.00 | 38.00 | 55.00 |
Soybean meal | 46.50 | 34.00 | 46.50 | 102.00 | 47.30 | 170.00 |
Dicalcium phosphate | 14.00 | 14.00 | 14.00 | |||
Limestone | 9.00 | 25.00 | 20.00 | |||
Limestone grit (38%) | - | 25.00 | 71.00 | |||
Soybean oil | 5.00 | 5.00 | 25.00 | |||
Sodium bicarbonate | 2.70 | 2.40 | 2.40 | |||
Lysine—HCl | 1.65 | 1.15 | 1.20 | |||
Salt (NaCl) | 1.20 | 1.60 | 1.70 | |||
Layer pre-mix 2 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | |||
DL-methionine (conc) | 0.80 | 1.10 | 2.25 | |||
Choline chloride (60%) | 0.75 | 0.75 | 0.50 | |||
Avatec/Bovatec (20%) 3 | 0.50 | - | - | |||
AXTRA XB 201 4 | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.10 | |||
L-Threonine | 0.10 | 0.15 | 0.40 | |||
AXTRAPHY TPT 100 5 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.06 | |||
Total | 1000.00 | 1000.00 | 1000.00 |
Nutrients | Developer Diet (12–16 Weeks) 1 | Pre-lay Diet (16–17.4 Weeks) 2 | Early-lay Diet (17.5–36 Weeks) 3 |
---|---|---|---|
Calculated value | |||
ME-enzyme (MJ/kg) | 11.41 | 11.6 | 11.73 |
NE layer (MJ/kg) | 8.72 | 8.87 | 11.73 |
Crude protein (%) | 15.57 | 16.09 | 17.62 |
Lysine (%) | 0.76 | 0.80 | 0.90 |
Methionine (%) | 0.33 | 0.37 | 0.49 |
Methionine & cystine (%) | 0.65 | 0.68 | 0.80 |
Threonine (%) | 0.55 | 0.59 | 0.66 |
Isoleucine (%) | 0.56 | 0.62 | 0.70 |
Leucine (%) | 1.18 | 1.24 | 1.41 |
Tryptophan (%) | 0.20 | 0.21 | 0.22 |
Arginine (%) | 0.82 | 0.90 | 1.02 |
Stand. ileal digest Lys. (%) | 0.67 | 0.73 | 0.82 |
Crude fat (%) | 2.69 | 2.39 | 4.19 |
Linoleic acid (%) | 1.43 | 1.21 | 2.21 |
Total xanthophylls (mg/kg) | 6.00 | 6.00 | 6.00 |
Red xanthophylls (mg/kg) | 3.10 | 3.10 | 3.10 |
Yellow xanthophyl (mg/kg) | 2.90 | 2.90 | 2.90 |
Ash (%) | 5.20 | 9.51 | 13.5 |
Calcium (%) | 1.00 | 2.55 | 4.09 |
Available phosphorus | 0.45 | 0.45 | 0.45 |
Total phosphorus (%) | 0.75 | 0.64 | 0.61 |
Sodium (%) | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.18 |
Chloride (%) | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.18 |
Choline (mg/kg) | 1297.70 | 1365.50 | 1406.90 |
Lasalocid® (mg/kg) | 100.00 | - | - |
Analyzed value | |||
Gross energy (MJ/kg) | 16.35 | 15.80 | 13.90 |
Crude protein (%) | 16.00 | 14.50 | 17.40 |
Crude fat (%) | 3.00 | 2.40 | 4.00 |
Calcium (%) | 0.82 | 2.00 | 4.09 |
Phosphorus (%) | 0.69 | 0.60 | 0.65 |
Treatment | BW 9 (g) 4 WOA 10,11 | BW (kg) 12 WOA | BW (kg) 16 WOA | Cumulative | Cumulative | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lighting 1 | Feeding 5 | FI 12/Bird (g) 0–4 WOA 11 | FI/Bird (kg) 4–16 WOA | |||
CL 2 | Ad lib 6 | 318.0 | 1.25 A | 1.52 A | 513 | 5.53 A |
CL | BSW 7 | 315.9 | 1.10 C | 1.37 C | 511 | 4.43 |
CL | Managed 8 | 314.5 | 0.95 E | 1.21 D | 506 | 3.97 |
RL 3 | Ad lib | 305.7 | 1.23 B | 1.48 B | 492 | 5.23 B |
RL | BSW | 303.1 | 1.09 C | 1.37 C | 489 | 4.48 |
RL | Managed | 310.1 | 1.00 D | 1.23 D | 503 | 3.80 |
SEM 4 | 4.0 | 0.006 | 0.01 | 10 | - | |
Main effects | ||||||
Lighting | CL | 316.1 | 1.10 | 1.37 | 510 | 4.63 |
RL | 306.3 | 1.10 | 1.36 | 494 | 4.50 | |
SEM | 2.3 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 5 | 0.11 | |
Feeding 5 | Ad lib | 311.8 | 1.24 | 1.50 | 502 | 5.40 |
BSW | 309.5 | 1.10 | 1.37 | 500 | 4.47 | |
Managed | 312.3 | 0.97 | 1.22 | 504 | 3.87 | |
SEM | 2.9 | 0.004 | 0.01 | 8 | 0.21 | |
p-Value | ||||||
Lighting | <0.001 | 0.669 | 0.078 | 0.057 | - | |
Feeding | 0.294 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.316 | - | |
Lighting × Feeding | 0.086 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.657 | 0.007 |
2.4. Carcass, Organ, and Femur Characteristics at 16 Weeks of Age
2.5. Hen Management from 16 to 36 Weeks of Age
2.6. Hen Body Weight and Egg Production Performance
2.7. Egg Quality Assessment
2.8. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Diet Composition
3.2. Pullet Body Weight and Feed Intake from Placement to 16 Weeks of Age
3.3. Pullet Carcass, Organ, and Femur Characteristics at 16 Weeks of Age
3.4. Performance Following Transfer to the Laying House
3.5. Hen Performance through 36 Weeks of Age
3.6. Egg Quality at 32–33 Weeks of Age
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Hy-Line International. Hy-Line Brown Commercial Layers, Management Guide. 2018. Available online: https://www.hyline.co.uk/uploadedfiles/1592407567-brn_com_eng.pdf (accessed on 15 May 2020).
- Muir, W.I.; Akter, Y.; Groves, P.J. Nutritional Strategies for Managing Pullets and Improving Late Lay Egg Quality. 2022. Available online: https://www.australianeggs.org.au/what-we-do/leading-research/pullet-to-late-lay-nutrition (accessed on 9 January 2023).
- Muir, W.I.; Akter, Y.; Bruerton, K.; Groves, P.J. The role of hen body weight and diet nutrient density in an extended laying cycle. Poult. Sci. 2023, 102, 102338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lera, R. Lighting Program as a Tool to Manage Sexual Maturity and Adjust Egg Size to Market Requirements. Hendrix Genetics. 2019. Available online: https://layinghens.hendrix-genetics.com/en/articles/lighting-program-tool-manage-sexual-maturity-and-adjust-egg-size-market-requirements/ (accessed on 15 May 2020).
- Muir, W.I.; Akter, Y.; Bruerton, K.; Groves, P.J. An evaluation of bird weight and diet nutrient density during early lay on ISA Brown performance, egg quality, bone characteristics, and liver health at 50 weeks of age. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 101765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anene, D.O.; Akter, Y.; Thomson, P.C.; Groves, P.J.; Liu, S.; O’Shea, C.J. Hens that exhibit poorer feed efficiency produce eggs with lower albumen quality and are prone to being overweight. Animals 2021, 11, 2986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Muir, W.I. Extending Layer Hen Lifespan: Studies in the Australian Context. In Proceedings of the Australian Poultry Science Symposium, Sydney, Australia, 6–8 February 2023; Volume 34, pp. 98–105. [Google Scholar]
- Shini, A.; Shini, S.; Bryden, W.L. Fatty liver haemorrhagic syndrome occurrence in laying hens: Impact of production system. Avian Pathol. 2019, 48, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anene, D.O.; Akter, Y.; Groves, P.J.; Horadagoda, N.; Liu, S.Y.; Moss, A.; Hutchison, C.; O’Shea, C.J. Association of feed efficiency with organ characteristics and fatty liver haemorrhagic syndrome in laying hens. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 5872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, T.R. The manipulation of egg size and egg quality. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 1985, 15, 142–150. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, P.J.W.; Gulliver, A.L.; Morris, T.R. A quantitative analysis of the literature concerning the restricted feeding of growing pullets. Br. Poult. Sci. 1971, 12, 413–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balnave, D. A review of restricted feeding during growth of laying-type pullets. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 1973, 29, 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, D.; Sheridan, A.K. Effects of restricted feeding in the growing and laying periods on the performance of White Leghorn by Australorp Crossbred and White Leghorn Cross Chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 1982, 23, 199–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmad, N.; Rasool, S.; Shah, T.H. Effect of light and feed restriction during rearing on production performance of egg strain layers. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 1997, 10, 657–664. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, J.; Li, Y.F.; Qu, L.; Ma, M.; Yang, X.D.; Shen, M.M.; Wang, X.G.; Guo, J.; Hu, Y.; Dou, T.; et al. Effects of energy-restricted feeding during rearing on sexual maturation and reproductive performance of Rugao layer breeders. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 101225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bahry, M.A.; Hanlon, C.; Ziezold, C.J.; Schaus, S.; Bédécarrats, G.Y. Impact of growth trajectory on sexual maturity in layer chickens. Front. Physiol. 2023, 14, 1174238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lewis, P.D.; Perry, G.C.; Morris, T.R. Effect of size and timing of photoperiod increase on age at first egg and subsequent performance of two breeds of laying hen. Br. Poult. Sci. 1997, 38, 142–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lewis, P.D.; Morris, T.R.; Perry, G.C. A Model for predicting the age at sexual maturity for growing pullets of layer strains given a single change in photoperiod. J. Agric. Sci. 2002, 138, 441–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, T.R. Environmental control for layers. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2004, 60, 163–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, P.D.; Caston, L.; Leeson, S. Rearing photoperiod and abrupt versus gradual photostimulation for egg-type pullets. Br. Poult. Sci. 2007, 48, 276–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leeson, S.; Caston, L.; Lewis, P.D. Rearing and laying performance following various step-down lighting regimens in rearing period. Poult. Sci. 2005, 84, 626–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Sullivan, N.P.; Settar, P.; Arango, J.A.; Saxena, S.; Arthur, J. Effects of three lighting programs during grow on performance of commercial egg laying varieties. 1. Growing period. Abstract. Poult. Sci. 2007, 86 (Suppl. 1), 750. [Google Scholar]
- Hester, P.Y.; Wilson, D.A.; Settar, P.; Arango, J.A.; O’Sullivan, N.P. Effect of lighting programs during the pullet phase on skeletal integrity of egg-laying strains of chickens. Poult. Sci. 2011, 90, 1645–1651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gous, R.M.; Bradford, G.D.; Johnston, S.A.; Morris, T.R. Effect of age of release from light or food restriction on age at sexual maturity and egg production of laying pullets. Br. Poult. Sci. 2000, 41, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, Y.K.; Singh, M.; Muir, W.I.; Kotiw, M.; Groves, P.J. Scratch area as an epidemiological risk factor for spotty liver disease in cage-free layers in Australia. Poult. Sci. 2023, 102, 102922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- National Health and Medical Research Council. Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, 8th ed.; Australian Government: Canberra, ACT, Australia, 2013.
- Hy-Line International. Understanding the Role of the Skeleton in Egg Production. Technical Update. 2016. Available online: https://www.hyline.com/ViewFile?id=8a507684-c8c8-486f-afd9-9cf407e00da7 (accessed on 10 March 2021).
- Souza, C.; Santos, T.C.; Murakami, A.E.; Iwak, L.C.V.; Mello, J.F. Influence of graded levels of calcium and vitamin K in the diets of laying hens during the growing phase and their effects on the laying phase. J. Anim. Phys. Anim. Nutr. 2017, 101, 974–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Panda, P.C. Shape and texture. In Textbook on Egg and Poultry Technology, 3rd ed.; Vikas Publishing House: New Delhi, India, 1996; p. 57. [Google Scholar]
- Şekeroǧlu, A.; Altuntaş, E. Effects of egg weight on egg quality characteristics. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2009, 89, 379–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statsoft Inc. STATISTICA (Data Analysis and Software System) Version 6. 2003. Available online: https://www.statsoft.com (accessed on 21 May 2021).
- Akter, Y.; Greenhalgh, S.; Islam, M.R.; Hutchison, C.; O’Shea, C.J. Hens ranked as highly feed efficient have an improved albumen quality profile and increased polyunsaturated fatty acids in the yolk. J. Anim. Sci. 2018, 96, 3482–3490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rossi, J.E.; Loerch, S.C. Effects of duration of feed restriction on carcass composition of Leghorn cockerels. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2003, 23, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekmay, R.D.; De Beer, M.; Mei, S.J.; Manangi, M.; Coon, C.N. Amino acid requirements of broiler breeders at peak production for egg mass, body weight, and fertility. Poult. Sci. 2013, 92, 992–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhong, C.; Nakaue, H.S.; Hu, C.Y.; Mirosh, L.W. Effect of full food and early food restriction on broiler performance, abdominal fat level, cellularity, and fat metabolism in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 1995, 74, 1636–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinchasov, Y.; Nir, I.; Nitsan, Z. Metabolic and anatomical adaptations of heavy-bodied chicks to intermittent feeding. I. Food intake, growth rate, organ weight and body composition. Poult. Sci. 1985, 64, 2098–2109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Andersson, B.; Icken, W.; Kaufmann, F.; Schmutz, M. Genetic aspects of keel bone deformities and fractures determined by palpation in laying hens. Lohmann Inf 2017, 51, 36–41. [Google Scholar]
- Habig, C.; Henning, M.; Baulain, U.; Jansen, S.; Scholz, A.M.; Weigand, S. Keel bone damage in laying hens–Its relationship to bone mineral Density, Body Growth Rate and Laying Performance. Animals 2021, 11, 1546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilkins, L.J.; McKinstry, J.L.; Avery, N.C.; Knowles, T.G.; Brown, S.N.; Tarlton, J.; Nicol, C.J. Influence of housing system and design on bone strength and keel bone fractures in laying hens. Vet. Rec. 2011, 169, 414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Warren, D.C. Physiologic and genetic studies of crooked keels in chickens. Tech. Bull. Kans. Agric. Exp. Stn. 1937, 44, 2–32. [Google Scholar]
- Casey-Trott, T.; Heerkens, J.L.T.; Petrik, M.T.; Regmi, P.; Schrader, L.; Toscano, M.J.; Widowski, T.M. Methods for assessment of keel bone damage in poultry. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 2339–2350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rufener, C.; Makagon, M. Keel bone fractures in laying hens: A systematic review of prevalence across age, housing systems, and strains. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 98 (Suppl. 1), S36–S51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muir, W.I.; Akter, Y.; Bruerton, K.; Groves, P.J. The influence of hen size and diet nutrient density in early lay on hen performance, egg quality, and hen health in late lay. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 102041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kraus, A.; Krunt, O.; Zita, L.; Vejvodova, L.K.; Drabek, O. Laying hens under smallholder conditions: Laying performance, growth and bone quality of tibia and femur including essential elements. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 101927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwakkel, R.P.; De Koning, F.L.S.M.; Verstegen, M.W.A.; Hof, G. Effect of method and phase of nutrient restriction during rearing on productive performance of light hybrid pullets and hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 1991, 32, 747–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, R.J.; Cumming, R.B.; Farrell, D.J. Influence of food restriction during rearing on the body composition of layer-strain pullets and hens. Br. Poult. Sci. 1985, 26, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Poultry Site. Optimising Egg Size in Commercial Layers. 2018. Available online: https://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/optimising-egg-size-in-commercial-layers#:~:text=For%20increased%20egg%20size%2C%20use,fat%20content%20in%20the%20diets (accessed on 11 March 2020).
- Berg, L.R.; Bearse, G.E. Restricted feeding with restricted light for developing pullets. Poult. Sci. 1961, 40, 180–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fuller, H.L.; Potter, D.K.; Kirkland, W.M. Effect of delayed maturity and carcass fat on reproductive performance of broiler breeder pullets. Poult. Sci. 1969, 48, 801–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolnik, P. Transfer to the Laying House. Hendrix Genetics. 2021. Available online: https://layinghens.hendrix-genetics.com/en/articles/Transfer-of-pullets-to-the-laying-house/ (accessed on 14 May 2021).
- Bain, M.M.; Nys, Y.; Dunn, I.C. Increasing persistency in lay and stabilising egg quality in longer laying cycles. What are the challenges? Br. Poult. Sci. 2016, 57, 330–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Akbas, Y.; Takma, C. Canonical correlation analysis for studying the relationship between egg production traits and body weight, egg weight and age at sexual maturity in layers. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 50, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harms, R.H.; Costa, P.T.; Miles, R.D. Daily Feed intake and performance of laying hens grouped according to their body weight. Poult. Sci. 1982, 61, 1021–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connor, J.K.; Fuelling, D.E.; Barram, K.M. Controlled feeding of the layer. 1. Restricted lysine and total feed intake of the pullet in the starter, grower and developer phases. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1977, 17, 581–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerolini, S.; Mariani, P.; Cavalchini, L.G.; Filoni, P. Effects of body weight and feed restriction on the productive efficiency of laying hens. Arch. Für Geflügelkunde 1994, 58, 30–33. [Google Scholar]
- Roberts, J.R. Factors affecting internal quality and eggshell quality in laying hens. J. Poult. Sci. 2004, 41, 161–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lacin, E.; Yildiz, A.; Esenbuga, N.; Macit, M. Effects of differences in the initial body weight of groups on laying performance and egg quality parameters of Lohmann laying hens. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2008, 53, 466–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdallah, A.G.; Harms, R.H.; El-Husseiny, O. Various methods of measuring shell quality in relation to percentage of cracked eggs. Poult. Sci. 1993, 72, 2038–2043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Treatment | Breast Score 9 (0–3) | Keel Curvature 10 (1–4) | Abdominal Fat Pad Weight 11 (%) | Liver Weight 12 (%) | Ovum Width 13 (mm) | Oviduct Length 14 (cm) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lighting 1 | Feeding 5 | ||||||
CL 2 | Ad lib 6 | 1.93 | 1.67 | 1.71 | 1.04 | 4.00 | 11.0 |
CL | BSW 7 | 1.93 | 1.47 | 0.40 | 1.27 | 2.67 | 7.5 |
CL | Managed 8 | 1.53 | 1.27 | 0.21 | 1.33 | 2.40 | 7.5 |
RL 3 | Ad lib | 2.00 | 1.53 | 1.81 | 1.06 | 3.67 | 12.5 |
RL | BSW | 1.93 | 1.67 | 0.43 | 1.21 | 3.27 | 8.6 |
RL | Managed | 1.60 | 1.27 | 0.20 | 1.25 | 2.00 | 7.7 |
SEM 4 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 0.36 | 0.85 | |
Main effects | |||||||
Lighting | CL | 1.80 | 1.47 | 0.77 | 1.21 | 2.89 | 8.67 |
RL | 1.84 | 1.49 | 0.81 | 1.17 | 2.98 | 9.60 | |
SEM | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 0.21 | 0.50 | |
Feeding | Ad lib | 1.97 a | 1.60 a | 1.76 a | 1.05 b | 3.83 a | 11.7 a |
BSW | 1.93 a | 1.57 a | 0.42 b | 1.24 a | 2.77 b | 8.1 b | |
Managed | 1.57 b | 1.27 b | 0.21 b | 1.29 a | 2.20 b | 7.6 b | |
SEM | 0.09 | 0.09 | 0.08 | 0.02 | 0.25 | 0.60 | |
p-Value | |||||||
Lighting | 0.651 | 0.837 | 0.667 | 0.136 | 0.763 | 0.187 | |
Feeding | <0.01 | 0.025 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
Lighting × Feeding | 0.949 | 0.450 | 0.871 | 0.271 | 0.096 | 0.771 |
Treatment | Fresh Weight (g) | Dry Weight (g) | Length (mm) | Width (mm) | W:L Index 9 | Bone Marrow Diameter (mm) | Cortical Thickness (mm) | Ash 10 (%) | Breaking Strength (N) 11 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lighting 1 | Feeding 5 | |||||||||
CL 2 | Ad lib 6 | 9.09 | 6.24 | 87.9 | 8.20 | 10.34 | 7.24 | 0.966 | 31.8 | 162.1 |
CL | BSW 7 | 8.69 | 5.55 | 86.6 | 7.83 | 10.04 | 6.86 | 0.971 | 33.6 | 166.5 |
CL | Managed 8 | 7.82 | 5.00 | 84.8 | 7.73 | 9.23 | 6.76 | 0.965 | 32.4 | 169.9 |
RL 3 | Ad lib | 8.90 | 6.01 | 86.8 | 8.25 | 10.26 | 7.28 | 0.965 | 32.4 | 160.4 |
RL | BSW | 8.41 | 5.44 | 85.4 | 7.88 | 9.85 | 6.92 | 0.958 | 32.9 | 161.9 |
RL | Managed | 8.10 | 5.21 | 85.0 | 7.71 | 9.52 | 6.75 | 0.964 | 32.4 | 167.8 |
SEM 4 | 0.17 | 0.13 | 0.60 | 0.10 | 0.16 | 0.10 | 0.005 | 0.46 | 4.70 | |
Main effects | ||||||||||
Lighting | CL | 8.53 | 5.60 | 86.4 | 7.92 | 9.87 | 6.95 | 0.968 | 32.6 | 166.2 |
RL | 8.47 | 5.55 | 85.7 | 7.95 | 9.88 | 6.98 | 0.962 | 32.5 | 163.3 | |
SEM | 0.10 | 0.08 | 0.35 | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.003 | 0.26 | 2.65 | |
Feeding | Ad lib | 8.99 a | 6.13 a | 87.3 a | 8.23 a | 10.30 a | 7.26 a | 0.966 | 32.1 b | 161.3 |
BSW | 8.55 b | 5.50 b | 86.0 ab | 7.85 b | 9.94 b | 6.89 b | 0.965 | 33.2 a | 164.2 | |
Managed | 7.96 c | 5.10 c | 84.9 b | 7.72 b | 9.37 c | 6.76 b | 0.965 | 32.4 ab | 168.9 | |
SEM | 0.12 | 0.09 | 0.42 | 0.07 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.004 | 0.32 | 3.34 | |
p-Value | ||||||||||
Lighting | 0.657 | 0.691 | 0.151 | 0.73 | 0.942 | 0.682 | 0.151 | 0.874 | 0.466 | |
Feeding | <0.01 | 0.025 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.997 | 0.038 | 0.260 | |
Lighting×Feeding | 0.211 | 0.229 | 0.423 | 0.93 | 0.299 | 0.916 | 0.424 | 0.384 | 0.942 |
Treatment | BW 9 (kg) 17 WOA 10 | BW (kg) 18 WOA | BW (kg) 19 WOA | FI 11 (g/d) 16–17 WOA | FI (g/d) 17–18 WOA | FI (g/d) 18–19 WOA | Age First Egg (wks) | Weight | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lighting 1 | Feeding 5 | First 3 Eggs (g) | |||||||
CL 2 | Ad lib 6 | 1.56 | 1.67 | 1.79 | 48.8 | 51.4 | 91.0 | 19.53 C | 48.5 |
CL | BSW 7 | 1.48 | 1.54 | 1.67 | 57.2 | 53.7 | 97.1 | 19.86 B | 50.0 |
CL | Managed 8 | 1.44 | 1.43 | 1.54 | 62.4 | 54.2 | 90.8 | 20.33 A | 50.0 |
RL 3 | Ad lib | 1.55 | 1.65 | 1.76 | 48.2 | 53.8 | 91.5 | 19.16 D | 47.6 |
RL | BSW | 1.49 | 1.51 | 1.66 | 54.2 | 53.7 | 97.7 | 19.67 BC | 49.0 |
RL | Managed | 1.46 | 1.42 | 1.56 | 63.3 | 55.2 | 95.9 | 19.73 BC | 48.4 |
SEM 4 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 9.33 | 7.69 | 1.41 | 0.09 | 0.50 | |
Main effects | |||||||||
Lighting | CL | 1.49 | 1.54 | 1.66 | 56.1 | 53.1 | 93.0 | 19.91 | 49.5 |
RL | 1.49 | 1.53 | 1.66 | 55.2 | 54.3 | 95.0 | 19.52 | 48.3 | |
SEM | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 5.39 | 4.44 | 0.81 | 0.04 | 0.30 | |
Feeding | Ad lib | 1.55 a | 1.66 a | 1.78 a | 48.5 c | 52.6 | 91.3 b | 19.35 | 48.0 b |
BSW | 1.48 b | 1.53 b | 1.66 b | 55.7 b | 53.7 | 97.4 a | 19.77 | 49.5 a | |
Managed | 1.45 c | 1.42 c | 1.55 c | 62.9 a | 54.7 | 93.3 b | 20.03 | 49.2 ab | |
SEM | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 6.00 | 5.44 | 1.00 | 0.06 | 0.40 | |
p-Value | |||||||||
Lighting | 0.554 | 0.115 | 1.00 | 0.386 | 0.188 | 0.078 | <0.001 | 0.007 | |
Feeding | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.166 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.021 | |
Lighting×Feeding | 0.313 | 0.618 | 0.092 | 0.350 | 0.566 | 0.201 | <0.038 | 0.793 |
Treatment | BW 9 (kg) 36 WOA 10 | Cum. 11 FI 12 (kg) /Hen 17.5–36 WOA | Egg Production Eggs/Hen 36 WOA | Cum. Egg Production/ Hen 17.5–36 WOA | Egg Weight (g/d) 36 WOA | Cum. Egg Mass/Hen (kg) 17.5–36 WOA | Cum. FCR 13 (g Feed/g Egg Mass)/Hen 17.5–36 WOA | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lighting 1 | Feeding 5 | |||||||
CL 2 | Ad lib 6 | 2.22 | 15.5 | 6.89 | 114 | 63.7 | 6.63 | 2.34 |
CL | BSW 7 | 2.14 | 15.3 | 6.84 | 110 | 63.5 | 6.45 | 2.40 |
CL | Managed 8 | 2.04 | 15.1 | 6.94 | 107 | 62.8 | 6.24 | 2.42 |
RL 3 | Ad lib | 2.13 | 15.2 | 6.81 | 115 | 63.0 | 6.64 | 2.39 |
RL | BSW | 2.11 | 15.3 | 6.88 | 112 | 62.7 | 6.56 | 2.34 |
RL | Managed | 1.98 | 15.1 | 6.87 | 111 | 61.6 | 6.35 | 2.39 |
SEM 4 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.09 | 0.8 | 0.46 | 0.06 | 0.03 | |
Main effects | ||||||||
Lighting | CL | 2.13 | 15.3 | 6.90 | 110 | 63.3 | 6.44 | 2.39 |
RL | 2.07 | 15.2 | 6.85 | 113 | 62.4 | 6.52 | 2.36 | |
SEM | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.5 | 0.27 | 0.04 | 0.02 | |
Feeding | Ad lib | 2.17 a | 15.4 a | 6.85 | 114 a | 63.3 a | 6.63 a | 2.34 |
BSW | 2.12 b | 15.3 ab | 6.86 | 111 b | 63.1 ab | 6.50 a | 2.37 | |
Managed | 2.01 c | 15.1 b | 6.91 | 109 c | 62.7 b | 6.30 b | 2.40 | |
SEM | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.6 | 0.33 | 0.04 | 0.02 | |
p-Value | ||||||||
Lighting | <0.001 | 0.309 | 0.427 | <0.001 | 0.015 | 0.131 | 0.229 | |
Feeding | <0.001 | 0.012 | 0.605 | <0.001 | 0.029 | <0.001 | 0.094 | |
Lighting×Feeding | 0.386 | 0.510 | 0.503 | 0.081 | 0.846 | 0.674 | 0.644 |
Treatment | Egg Weight (g) | Egg Shape Index 9 (%) | Haugh Unit (HU) | Yolk Color Score 10 (1–15) | Shell Weight 11 (%) | Shell Thickness (mm) | Shell Breaking Strength (N) 12 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lighting 1 | Feeding 5 | |||||||
CL 2 | Ad lib 6 | 62.9 | 77.9 | 97.9 C | 11.7 | 10.2 | 0.392 | 45.1 |
CL | BSW 7 | 63.4 | 78.4 | 99.5 B | 11.5 | 10.2 | 0.406 | 49.2 |
CL | Managed 8 | 60.8 | 78.8 | 108.2 A | 11.5 | 10.5 | 0.401 | 48.0 |
RL 3 | Ad lib | 60.5 | 78.5 | 101.1 BC | 11.8 | 10.6 | 0.405 | 50.6 |
RL | BSW | 62.1 | 78.8 | 104.2 AB | 11.8 | 10.5 | 0.409 | 49.7 |
RL | Managed | 60.4 | 80.5 | 106.7 A | 11.7 | 10.6 | 0.405 | 47.9 |
SEM 4 | 1.13 | 0.64 | 1.24 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.01 | 2.20 | |
Main effects | ||||||||
Lighting | CL | 62.4 | 78.4 | 101.9 | 11.6 | 10.3 | 0.400 | 47.5 |
RL | 61.0 | 79.2 | 104.0 | 11.7 | 10.6 | 0.407 | 49.3 | |
SEM | 0.65 | 0.37 | 0.71 | 0.08 | 0.11 | 0.004 | 1.3 | |
Feeding | Ad lib | 61.7 | 78.2 | 99.4 | 11.7 | 10.4 | 0.399 | 47.9 |
BSW | 62.8 | 78.6 | 101.8 | 11.7 | 10.3 | 0.408 | 49.4 | |
Managed | 60.6 | 79.6 | 107.5 | 11.6 | 10.6 | 0.403 | 47.9 | |
SEM | 0.80 | 0.46 | 0.88 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.01 | 1.5 | |
p-Value | ||||||||
Lighting | 0.135 | 0.098 | 0.040 | 0.138 | 0.061 | 0.264 | 0.271 | |
Feeding | 0.171 | 0.074 | <0.001 | 0.550 | 0.507 | 0.495 | 0.693 | |
Lighting×Feeding | 0.617 | 0.537 | 0.041 | 0.795 | 0.711 | 0.760 | 0.377 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Muir, W.I.; Akter, Y.; Kho, S.K.Y.; Bruerton, K.; Groves, P.J. The Impact of Lighting Regimen and Feeding Program during Rearing on Hy-Line Brown Pullets at the End of Rearing and during Early Lay. Animals 2024, 14, 2850. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14192850
Muir WI, Akter Y, Kho SKY, Bruerton K, Groves PJ. The Impact of Lighting Regimen and Feeding Program during Rearing on Hy-Line Brown Pullets at the End of Rearing and during Early Lay. Animals. 2024; 14(19):2850. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14192850
Chicago/Turabian StyleMuir, Wendy Isabelle, Yeasmin Akter, Sebastian Kai Yi Kho, Kenneth Bruerton, and Peter John Groves. 2024. "The Impact of Lighting Regimen and Feeding Program during Rearing on Hy-Line Brown Pullets at the End of Rearing and during Early Lay" Animals 14, no. 19: 2850. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani14192850