BIBLIOGRAPHY CINDY RUTH B. BACASION. APRIL...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CINDY RUTH B. BACASION. APRIL 2012. Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on
the Performance of Broilers.Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Marlene B Atinyao, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to determine the effect of intermittent lighting program on the
growth rate, feed intake, conversion efficiency, morbidity and mortality rates and the return on
investment in broilers.
A total of 120 21-day old broilers were randomly distributed to 3 lighting regimens as
follows: 23-hour light and 1-hour darkness as control, cycle of 45-minute light and 15-minute
darkness, and cycle of 15-minute light and 2-hour darkness.
The result of this study showed that intermittent light did not affect the final weight of
birds at 45 days of age, feed conversion ratio, feed cost per kilogram gain in weight and dressing
percentage. The average feed conversion ratio of broilers obtained in this study was 1.407.
Highly significant differences were observed in the feed intake and gain in weight of birds
exposed to longer light period. Birds exposed to 23-hour light and 1-hour darkness had a higher
daily feed intake (0.155kg) and daily gain in weight (0.042kg) than birds exposed to 45-minute
light and 15-minute darkness that had a daily feed intake of 0.128kg with a daily gain in weight
of 0.0385kg and those exposed to 15-minute light and 2-hour darkness that had a daily feed
intake of 0.127kg with a gain in weight of 0.0363kg.
It is concluded that birds subjected to 23-hour light and 1-hour darkness (cycle for 24
hours) and birds subjected to 15-minute light and 2-hour darkness (cycle for 24 hours) had the
same performance thus subjecting birds to 45-minute light and 15-minute darkness is
recommended.
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography..…………………………………………………………………….... i
Abstract……... …………………………………………………….......................... i
Table of Contents....................................................................................................... ii
INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………… 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ……………………………………………………... 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS …………………………………………………. 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS …………………………………………………. 9
Initial and Final Weight ………...…………………………………………. 9
Total and Average Gain
in Weight ……………………….………………………………………….. 10
Mean Average Daily
Feed Intake .....………………….……………………………………. 10
Feed Conversion Ratio ..…………………………………………
12
Feed Cost per Kilogram
Gain in Weight ……………………………………………………..
12
Mortality and Morbidity Rate …………………………..………….
13
Dressing Percentage ………………………………………………..
13
Return on Investment …………………………………………….... 14
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION
AND RECOMMENDATION ………………………………………………..…... 15
Summary ……………………………………………………………........... 15
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………… 15
Recommendation ……………....………………………………………….. 16
LITERATURE CITED ……………………………………………………………. 17
APPEDDICES …………………………………………………………………….. 18
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
INTRODUCTION
Rearing broiler chicks under continuous lighting conditions has been known for
many years that it would give a maximal early growth rate due to higher feed
consumption. However, there’s a continuous research dealing with the effects of different
lighting programs as part of the production programs.
Lighting programs in broiler production have evolved over the years, with success
in improving live performance. However, the relatively recent and rapid improvement in
broiler growth rate has renewed interest in lighting programs as an aid in restricting early
growth. Since withholding light is a mild form of feed restriction, lighting programs can
be applied during critical periods in the broiler grow out or limit or modify early growth
and then capture compensatory gain in the later part of the grow out (The Alabama
Poultry Engineering and Economics Newsletter, 2006).
Light enables the birds to eat continuously thus; it is believed to result in a
maximum growth rate. Darkness on the other hand helps to stimulate melatonin, vitamin
D3 and other hormone levels in the blood that improve the chick’s immune system and
tissue development (Animal Industry Branch, Manitoba Agriculture and Food, 2007).
Nonetheless basing from competent researches made by authorities, sufficient
light boosts and increase the activity of the birds. That which although fed by much and
greater feeds, the feed conversion ratio is still lower as compared to birds with longer
dark periods with less feed consumption that results to less energy consumption due to
the lessen activity of the birds.
The study was conducted to find out if using intermittent or alternate on and off
lighting program was effective and productive or not. Result of this study not only
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
benefit farmers, but can serve as benchmark data for further studies on better lighting
programs.
The study aimed to determine the effect of lighting programs on the growth
performance of broilers and to determine which lighting program promotes faster growth
and better performance of the broilers. Specifically, the study aimed to determine the
effect of intermittent lighting program on the growth rate, feed intake and conversion
efficiency of broilers; to determine morbidity and mortality rates in broilers subjected to
intermittent lighting program; and to determine effect of intermittent lighting program on
the return on investment in broiler production.
This study was conducted at Midas, Ohio, Ucab, Itogon, Benguet from November
to December, 2011.
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Some authorities have expressed the opinion that with continuous lighting, chicks
are able to eat continuously and thereby, grow at a faster rate. Studies have shown
however that although lighted birds consumed more feeds, it does not necessarily mean
they would weigh more than those on shorter light periods. Other authorities, on the other
hand maintain that young chicks need a good rest and a good rest is almost impossible in
the presence of lights (Fronda, 1972).
Aertset al., (2000) as cited by Daghir, (2008) stated that the use of intermittent
light has been shown to increase feed consumption during the cooler part of the day.
Intermittent lighting had been shown to improve feed efficiency in the broilers and this
improvement can be due to the lower heat production during the dark period.
Turning the lights off is one best thing that you can do for the young meat-type
chickens. By giving birds short days and long nights from one week to three weeks of
age, it help maintain a healthy body and rapid growth rate. Long dark periods help
stimulate melatonin, vitamin D3 and other hormone levels in the blood that improves the
chick’s immune system and tissue development. Limiting the hour of light will slow
growth slightly, allowing the birds to develop strong hearts and bones needed to support
rapid growth later in the flocks. Turning the lights off when birds are young produces
benefits that can last in the flocks (Animal Industry Branch, Manitoba Agriculture and
Food, 2007).
The technology of broiler production stipulates a 23-hour light regime (with half
an hour or an hour of darkness) in order to enhance feed intake and weight gain. The
short period of darkness is intended to get the broilers need to the absence of light that
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
may occur to possible power supply failure. The decrease of the light regimen resulted in
a significant decrease of the body weight. Broiler liveability increased in the groups with
higher periods of darkness mainly due to lower incidence of the sudden death syndrome
(Parvuet al., 2004).
Recent studies of Scheele et al., Gordon (1997) as cited by Parvuet al. (2004)
have shown that mortality and the incidence of feet diseases increased in the birds with
longer light regimens. It is an established fact that light influences the activity of the
anterior hypothesis and of the hormonal factors of growth.
There had been various lighting patterns tried like subjecting birds to alternate
light and darkness of varying length. Clegg and Sanford (1951) as cited by Patulot (1984)
observed heavier weight of broilers exposed to short periods alternate light and darkness.
Birds do not normally feed during the dark period but will do so if the photo
period is very short for instance 6 hours or less (Morris, 1967) cited by Appleby et al.,
(2004) intermittent lighting patterns are gaining more increasing acceptance for
commercial rearing, particularly for broiler production, and birds respond by modifying
their feeding activity appropriately (Lewis et al., (1957) as cited by Appleby et al.,
(2004).
Bright lights also have various effects to the behaviors that are adverse for either
the owner or the birds. It increases the activity, and probably for this reason tends to
decrease growth (Cherry and Barwid, 1962) cited by Appleby et al., (2004) because
activity uses energy. It also increases aggression and feather pecking.
Dozier (2002) as cited by Basalong (2006) observed that increasing lighting
program decreased leg abnormalities and total mortality was also significantly reduced,
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
less respiratory lesion and better immunity to respiratory diseases than in poultry that
were exposed to constant light. The health of the bird was improved due to melatonin
hormone produced during the dark periods. Dozier noticed that low light intensity helped
control bird activity, thus, improving feed conversion. He further stated that broiler
growers should consider not only controlling the number of hours but as well as light
intensity. He added that lighting system and programs that is best for a particular
company or producer depends on the type of housing, the type of birds grown, climate
and electricity.
According to the studies of Basalong (2006) and Macliing (2001) the final weight
of the birds were not affected by the light and dark periods.
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The materials and equipment used in this study were the following: 120 21-day-
old cobb broiler chicks, feeds, antibiotics, vitamins and minerals, brooding rearing cages,
feeders, drinkers, electric wiring and sockets, 100-watt bulbs, weighing scale, cleaning
materials, black curtains, disinfectants, newspapers, automatic timer switchers, marking
pen and notebook.
Seven days before the arrival of the chicks, all equipment were cleaned and
disinfected. The brooding-rearing cages were divided to accommodate the three
treatments with four replicates. For treatments 1 and 2, sides of the cages were covered
with plywood except on the top which were covered with black curtains to ensure that no
light penetrate inside. For control treatment cages were all screen. Incandescent bulb was
installed in each cage to provide heat to the birds. For treatments 1 and 2, extra sockets
for bulb covered black were installed to provide heat during the dark period. It was
switched on when the lights were switched off. The floor was covered with newspaper to
serve as receptacles during the first two weeks of the experiment. Four hours before the
arrival of chicks, lights were switched on to attain uniform warmth inside the cages.
On the 21st day of age, the chicks were randomly distributed into three treatments
which were replicated four times with 10 birds per replicate, following the Completely
Randomized Design (CRD). The chicks were weighed individually to obtain their initial
weight. The treatments were as follows:
T0 - 23-hour light and 1- hour darkness (cycle for 24 hours)
T1 - 45-minute light and 15-minute darkness (cycle for 24 hours)
T2 - 15-minute light and 2-hour darkness (cycle for 24 hours)
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
For treatment 0, lights were switched off from 8 PM to 9 PM. For treatment 1,
lights were intermittently switched on for 45 minutes and then switched off for 15
minutes. For treatment 2, lights were intermittently switched on for 15 minutes and then
turned-off for 2 hours. This was a cycle throughout the day throughout the study. All the
switching on and off of lights were done by automatic timer switcher.
Ad libitum feeding was employed from the start until the end of the study. Feeders
were provided inside the cages during the rest of brooding period. The newspaper mats
were removed after 14 days of brooding.
Antibiotics, vitamins and minerals were added to the drinking water following the
prescribed dosage throughout the study. Chick booster was given to the chicks up to two
weeks of age and then gradually shifted to starter ration on the 15th day and to finisher
ration on the 31st day until the end of the study. Shifting of feeds were done by mixing
25% of the new type of feed on the first day, 50% on the second day and 75% on the
third day so that on the fourth day, the birds were fed with new type of feed.
Data Gathered:
1. Initial weight of the broilers (kg). This was obtained by weighing the birds
individually at the start of the study which was on the 21st day of the broilers.
2. Final weight of the broilers (kg). This was obtained by weighing broilers at
the end of the study which was on the 45th day of age.
3. Feed offered (kg). This was the amount of feed given to the broilers in a day.
4. Feed left-over (kg). This was the amount feed left after a day of feeding.
5. Dressed weight (kg). This was the weight of the broilers after being dressed.
6. Number of sick birds. This was obtained by recording the number of birds
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
that got sick throughout the study.
7. Number of dead birds. This was obtained by recording the number of birds
that died throughout the study.
8. Feed cost. This was the purchase cost of feeds at the time of the study.
Data Computed:
1. Average gain in weight of broilers (kg). This was the taking difference between
the initial weight and the final weight.
2. Average feed intake of broilers (kg). This was obtained by taking the difference
between the feed offered and the feed refused divided by the number of days on trial.
3. Feed conversion ratio (FCR). This was obtained by dividing the total feed
intake by the total gain in weight.
4. Feed cost per kilogram gain in weight of broilers (Php). The cost to produce a
kilogram body weight was obtained by multiplying the feed conversion ratio by the cost
of 1 kg feed.
5. Percentage mortality of the broilers (%). This was the number of dead birds
divided by the total population per treatment, and then multiplied by 100.
6. Percentage morbidity of the broilers (%). This was the number of sick birds
divided by the total population per treatment, and then multiplied by 100.
7. Return on investment (ROI). This was computed by taking the net
incomedivided by the total cost, then multiplied by 100.
Data were analyzed using the analysis of variance appropriate for CRD. Means
were compared using DMRT. The carcass data were analyzed using the covariance
analysis, with dressed weight as the covariate.
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Mean Initial and Final Weight (kg)
The initial weight of the birds at 21 days of age is shown in Table 1. Statistical
analysis showed no significant differences in the initial weight of the birds between
treatments. This indicates that the birds were relatively uniform in weight at the start of
the study. The initial weight of birds ranges from 0.43kg to 0.45kg with an average of
0.44kg.
Mean final weight of broilers at the 45 days of age was also shown in Table 1.
Analysis of variance revealed no significant differences among treatment means. The
final weight of birds with 23-hour light and 1-darkness had 1.48 kg, birds with 45-minute
light and 15-minute darkness had 1.40 kg, and birds with 15-minute light and 2-hour
darkness had a 1.36 kg.
The observation on the final weight is same with the study of Basalong (2006)
and Macliing (2001) who reported that final weight of birds were not affected by the
variation in the length of intermittent light and dark period.
Table 1. Mean initial and final weights of broilers
TREATMENTS
INITIAL WEIGHT FINAL WEIGHT
AT 21 DAY
AT 45 DAY
(kg)
(kg)
23-hour light and 1-hour darkness
0.43a
1.48a
45-minute light and 15-minute darkness
0.44a
1.40a
15-minute light and 2-hour darkness
0.45a
1.36a
Means with a common letter(s) are not significantly different at 0.05 level of DMRT.
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Mean Total and Average Gain in Weight
The total and average gain in weight of the birds from the 21 days of age to the 45
days of age is shown in Table 2. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences in
the total and average daily gain (ADG) in weight of the birds. The ADG of birds
subjected to 23-hour light and 1-hour darkness of 0.0420 kg, those subjected to 45-
minute light and 15-minute darkness of 0.0385 is significantly higher than those
subjected to 15-minute light and 2-hour darkness of 0.0363kg.
The result study of this is the same with the statement of Fronda (1972), that with
such continuous lighting, the chicks are enabled to eat continuously and thereby, they
grow at a faster rate. Studies have shown however that although lighted birds consumed
more feeds, it does not necessarily mean they would weigh more than those on shorter
light periods
Table 2.Total and average gain in weight of birds from 21 days to 45 days of age
TREATMENTS
TOTAL GAIN AVERAGE DAILY
IN WEIGHT
GAIN IN WEIGHT
(kg)
(kg)
23-hour light and 1-hour darkness
3.875 a
0.0420
a
45-minute light and 15-minute darkness
3.2 ab
0.0385
ab
15-minute light and 2-hour darkness
3.171b
0.0363
b
Means with a not common letter(s) are not significantly different at 0.05 level of DMRT.
Mean Average Daily Feed Intake (kg)
Table 3 shows the average feed intake of the broilers from day 21 to day 45.
Analysis of variance revealed a highly significant difference in the feed intake of broilers
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Table 3. Total and average daily feed intake of broilers from day 21 to day 45
TREATMENT
TOTAL FEED AVERAGE DAILY
INTAKE FEED INTAKE
(kg) (kg)
23-hour light and 1-hour darkness
3.88a 0.155
a
45-minute light and 15-minute darkness
3.2b 0.128
b
15-minute light and 2-hour darkness
3.71b
0.127
b
Means with a common letter(s) are not significantly different at 0.01 level of DMRT.
among treatments. Birds subjected to 45-minute light and 15-minute darkness had a total
feed intake (TFI) of 3.2kg with an average daily feed intake (ADFI) of 0.128 kg and birds
subjected to15-minute light and 2-hour darkness had an TFI of 3.71kgwith an ADFI of
0.127 kg was significantly lower than the TFI (3.88kg) and ADFI (0.155kg) of birds
subjected to 23-hour light and 1-hour darkness.
This finding agrees with the observation of Parvu et al., where birds exposed to 23
hours light and 1 hour darkness had total feed intake (TFI) of 3.34 kg, those exposed to 8
cycles of 2 hours light and 1 hour darkness with an TFI of 2.94 kg; birds exposed to 6
cycles of 2 hours light and 2 hours darkness with an TFI of 2.90 kg and birds subjected to
12 hours light and 12 hours darkness had 2.20 kg feed intake with a duration of 49 days
that the shorter the period of light the lesser the feed intake.
This shows that light enables the birds to eat continuously. This was showed in
the high feed intake of birds with 23-hour light and 1-hour darkness.(Animal Industry
Branch, Manitoba Agriculture and Food, 2007).
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR.
Table 4 shows the feed conversion ratio (FCR) from day 21 to day 45. Analysis of
variance revealed that the feed conversion ratios of birds were not significantly different
between treatments. This indicates that FCR of birds exposed to 23-hour-light and one
hour darkness of a 1.49, those exposed to 45-minute light and 15-minute darkness of
1.34 and those exposed to 15-minute light and 2-hour darkness of 1.39 feed conversion
ratios are comparable.
This however disagrees with the study of Ingram and Hatten where birds exposed
to 23 hours light and 1 hour darkness had an FCR of 1.96 and birds exposed to 12 hours
light and 12 hours darkness with an of 1.93. Birds exposed to 12 hours light and 12 hours
darkness was significantly lower than birds exposed to 23 hour light and 1 hour darkness
in the FCR. This contrast can be due to the variation in the length of light and dark
periods used in the study. Shorter dark period were used in this study.
Table 4. Mean feed conversion ratio of broilers from day 21 to day 45
TREATMENTS
FEED
CONVERSION
RATIO
23-hour light and 1-hour darkness
1.49a
45-minute light and 15- minute darkness
1.34a
15-minute light and 2-hour darkness
1.39a
Means with a common letter(s) are not significantly different at 0.05 level of DMRT.
Feed Cost per Kilogram Gain in Weight (Php)
Table 5 shows the feed cost per kilogram gain in weight of birds. Analysis of
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Table 5. Feed cost per kilogram gain in weight (Php)
TREATMENTS
FEED COST/KG GAIN IN WEIGHT
23-hour light and 1-hour darkness
34.86
45-minute light and 15-minute darkness
31.30
15-minute
light
and
2-hour
darkness
32.64
Means with a common letter(s) are not significantly different at 0.05 level of DMRT.
variance revealed no significant differences among treatments. This indicates that there
were not differences in the feed cost among the treatments. Birds subjected to 23-hour
light and1-hour darkness had 34.86; birds exposed to 45-minute light and 15-minute
darkness had 31.30 and birds exposed to 15-minute light and 2-hour darkness had 32.64
feed cost per kilograms. There were no significant differences because the feed
conversions were not significant among treatments.
Mortality and Morbidity of Birds
Mortality and morbidity of birds were not observed in the study. Providing
vitamins and minerals not only in the brooding period but until the 35th days of age could
help why mortality and morbidity are not observed in the study. And the weather and
environment could be a factor too.
Dressing Percentage
The dressing percentage is shown in Table 6. Analysis of variance shows no
significant differences between the dressing percentages of broilers. This indicates that
the dressing percentage of broilers was not significantly affected by intermittent light.
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Table 6. Dressing percentage of 1.5 kg birds
TREATMENT
SLAUGHTER DRESSED DRESSING %
WEIGHT (KG) WEIGHT (KG)
23-hour light and 1-hour darkness
1.5
1.05
69.99
45-minute light and 15-minute darkness
1.5
1
66.67
15-minute light and 2-hour darkness
1.5
1
66.67
Means with a common letter(s) are not significantly different at 0.05 level of DMRT.
The average the dressing percentage of broilers is 67.78%. The dressed weight of
birds excluded thehead, feet and entrails. This differ from the 69 dressing percentage of
Ibarra, may due on how the head was cut.
Return on Investment
The return on investment (ROI) of birds subjected to 23-hour light and 1-hour
darkness of -21.08% and those subjected to 45-minute light and 15-minute darkness of -
16.07 % was significantly lower than the ROI of birds subjected to 15-minute light and 2-
hour darkness of -4.93%. This is due to higher feed intake and electric consumption of
bird’s subjected to longer light periods, thus higher feed and electric costs.
Table 7. Return on investment(%)
TREATMENT
ROI
(%)
23-hour light and 1-hour darkness
-31.47
45-minute light and 15-minute darkness
-28.20
15-minute light and 2 hour-darkness
-20.65
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
This study was conducted to determine the effect of intermittent lighting program
on the performance of broilers giving three treatments. Birds were subjected to 3 lighting
regimens as follows: 23 hour light and 1 hour darkness as control, cycle of 45 minutes
light and 15 minutes darkness, and cycle of 15 minutes light and 2 hours darkness.
Results showed that intermittent light did not affect the final weight of birds at 45
days of age, feed conversion ratio, feed cost per kilogram gain in weight and dressing
percentage. The average initial weight of birds at 21 days was 0.44 kg and the final
weight of birds at 45 days was 1.411 kg. The average daily gain was 0.04kg with an
average feed conversion ratio of 1.407. Feed cost to produce a kg gain in weight was
32.93 pesos and the average dressing percentage was 67.78%. Highly significant
differences were observed in the feed intake and gain in weight of birds exposed to
longer light period.
Daily gain in weight of birds exposed to 23-hour-light and one hour darkness
(0.0420) were significantly higher different on gain in weight with those on shorter light
periods on the final weight of birds were mot comparable among treatments. This shows
that as the birds are growing, birds with longer light were gaining more weight compared
with those of shorter light, but in the final weight they were not significantly different.
This result was affected by little differences on the initial weight of birds.
Conclusion
Result of this study showed that exposing broiler birds to intermittent light did not
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
affect the growth performance of broilers. However the performance of birds subjected to
23-hour light and 1-hour darkness (cycle for 24 hours) and birds subjected to 15-minute
light and 2-hour darkness (cycle for 24 hours) are almost the same.
Recommendation
Basing from the result of the study, 45-minute light and 15-minute darkness is
recommended.
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
LITERATURE CITED
ANIMAL INDUSTRY BRANCH, MANITOBA, AGRICULTURE AND
FOOD.2007.Lighting Program for Small Roaster Flocks. ( www.gov.mb.ca)
APPLEBY, M.C, MENCH, J.A, and HUGHES,B.O. 2004. Poultry Behaviour and
Welfare.UK. CABI Publishing. Pp. 56
BASALONG, C.M 2006.Effect of lighting program on the performance of broiler,
Thesis.Benguet State University, College of Agriculture, La Trinidad, Benguet.
DAGHIR, N.J.2008. Poultry Production in the Hot Climate.2nd Edition.Uk. CABI
Publishing. Pp. 251
FRONDA, F.M 1972. Poultry Science and Production.2nd Edition.Manila. G.M.S
Publishing Corporation, Inc. Pp.100-101
INGRAM, D.R and HATTEN, L.F. 2000.Effect of light restriction on broiler
performance and specific body structure measurement. Poultry Science
Association, Inc.
MACLIING, E.G.2001. The effect of light and dark periods on the performance of
broiler.Thesis.Benguet State University, College of Agriculture, La Trinidad,
Benguet.
PARVU ET AL., 2004. Influence of the light program on the growth performance of
broiler. (www.ibna.ro/archival/Az%207_05_Parvu.pdf)
PATULOT, V.M.1984. Effect of the three lighting regiment on the growth and mortality
of commercial broiler chicks, Thesis. Benguet State University, College of
Agriculture, La Trinidad, Benguet.
THE ALABAMA POULTRY ENGINEERING AND ECONOMICS NEWSLETTER.
2006. Controlling light in broiler production.
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Initial weight of birds (kg)
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
IV
T0
0.4270
0.433
0.415
0.443 1.718
0.43
T1
0.4410
0.471
0.44
0.419 1.771 0.443
T2
0.4450
0.414
0.459
0.463 1.781 0.445
TOTAL
5.27
MEAN
0.44
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE SUMS
MEAN COMPUTED
TABULAROF
OFOF OF
F
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Treatment
2
0.0006
0.000287
0.7901 4.257 8.022
Error
9
0.0033
0.00036272
Total
11
0.0039
CV = 4.34 %
Not significant
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Appendix Table 2.Final weight of birds (kg)
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
IV
T0
1.52
1.51
1.38
1.49
5.9
1.475
T1
1.36
1.35
1.43
1.47
5.61
1.403
T2
1.4
1.27
1.35
1.4
5.42
1.355
TOTAL 16.93
MEAN
1.411
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE SUMS
MEAN COMPUTED
TABULAROF
OFOFOF
F
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Treatment
2
0.0292
0.014608
3.9042
4.257 8.022
Error
9
0.0337
0.003742
Total
11
0.0629
CV = 4.34 %
Not significant
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Appendix Table 3.Average daily gain in weight (kg)
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
IV
T0
0.0440
0.0430
0.0390
0.0420 0.1680
0.0420
T1
0.037
0.0350
0.0400
0.0420 0.1540
0.0385
T2
0.0380
0.0340
0.0360
0.0370 0.1450
0.0363
TOTAL
0.47
MEAN
0.04
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE SUMS
MEAN COMPUTED
TABULAROF
OFOFOF
F
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
0.05
0.01
Treatment
2
0.0001
0.000034
5.8406 4.2565 8.0215
Error
9
0.001
0.0000057
Total
11
0.002
CV = 6.16 %
Highly significant
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Appendix Table 4. Total gain in weight (kg)
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
IV
T0
1.093
1.077
0.965
1.047 4.18
1.05
T1
0.919
0.879
0.990
1.051 3.84
0.96
T2
0.955
0.856
0.891
0.937 3.64
0.91
TOTAL
11.66
MEAN
0.97
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE SUMS
MEAN COMPUTED
TABULAROF
OFOFOF
F
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
0.05
0.01
Treatment
2
0.0377
0.018854
5.1134 4.2565 8.0215
Error
9
0.0332
0.00368717
Total
11
0.0709
CV = 6.25 %
Significant
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Appendix Table 5. Feed conversion ratio
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
IV
T1
1.424
1.499
1.608
1.478 5.959
1.49
T2
1.385
1.461
1.287
1.218 5.351 1.338
T3
1.352
1.457
1.411 1.359 5.579
1.395
TOTAL
16.89
MEAN
1.407
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE SUMS
MEAN COMPUTED
TABULAROF
OFOFOF
F
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
0.05
0.01
Treatment
2
0.047171
0.023585
3.4410 4.2565 8.0215
Error
9
0.061688
0.006854
Total
11
0.108859
CV = 5.88 %
Significant
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Appendix Table 6. Dressing percentage
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
IV
T1
73.33
66.67
66.67
73.3 280
79.99
T2
66.67
66.67
66.67
66.67 266.67
66.67
T3
66.67
66.67`
66.67
66.67 266.67
66.67
TOTAL
813
MEAN
67.78
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE SUMS
MEAN COMPUTED
TABULAROF
OFOFOF
F
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
0.05
0.01
Treatment
2
29.43735
14.718675
3.0000 4.2565 8.0215
Error
9
44.156475 4.906275
Total
11
0.108859
CV = 53.27 %
Not significant
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Appendix Table 7. Feed cost per kilogram gain in weight (Php)
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
IV
T1
33.32
33.91
37.63
34.59 139.4
34.86
T2
32.41
34.19
30.12
28.5 125.2
31.3
T3
31.64 34.09
33.02
31.8 130.5
32.64
TOTAL
395.2
MEAN
32.93
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE SUMS
MEAN COMPUTED
TABULAROF
OFOFOF
F
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
0.05
0.01
Treatment
2
25.82877
12.9143851 3.44 4.2565 8.0215
Error
9
33.77802
3.75311313
Total
11
59.60689
CV = 5.88 %
Not significant
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Appendix Table 8.Average Daily Feed Intake (kg)
TREATMENT REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
IV
T1
0.1556
0.1561
0.1552
0.1547 0.6216
0.1554
T2
0.1273
0.1284
0.1274
0.128 0.5112 0.1278
T3
0.1292 0.1247
0.1258
0.1273 0.507
0.1267
TOTAL
0.164
MEAN
0.1366
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE SUMS
MEAN COMPUTED
TABULAROF
OFOFOF
F
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
0.05
0.01
Treatment
2
0.211088
0.10554361 724.38 4.2565 8.0215
Error
9
0.001311
0.0001457
Total
11
0.212398
CV = 0.88 %
Highly significant
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Appendix Table 9. Return on investment
Production
costs
T0
T1
T2
Broiler
chicks
=
1,800
1,800
1,800
Feed
cost
=
4,697.764
4,058.008
4,025.716
Electricity
=
2,112.9492
1,717.7592
472.9107
Vitamins and minerals = 250
250
250
Labor
=
2,250
2,250
2,250
Cages
= 82.2
82.2
82.2
Total production cost
11,192.9132 10,157.9672
8,880.8267
_ _ _
SALES
7,670
7,293
7047
NETPROFIT
-3,522.9132 - 2,864.9672 - 1,833.8267
*Feed cost: total feed consumed x 1kg feed cost
T0 = 155.46 x 23.4 = 3637.764
T1 = 128.12 x 23.4 = 2998.008
T2 = 126.74 x 23.4 = 2965. 716
*feed cost from day 1-20 = 3180/ 3 = 1060 per treatment
*Labor: 150/ day X 45 days = 6,750/3 = 2,250 per treatment
*Depreciation of cages:
Cage= 10,000 ; Life span+ 10 years
10,000/ 5 years = 2,000/year X 1year/365days = 5.48/day
45 days X 5.48 = 246.6/ 3 = 82.2 per treatment
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Electricity
Beneco rate = Php 7.9038 / KWh
*per treatment 400 watt bulbs used
T0 = 23 hr x 25 days = 575 hrs x 400 watt = 230000 watt/hr
230000 watt/ hr x 1 KW/1000watt = 230 KWh
230 KWh x Php 7.9038 /KWh = Php 1817.874
T1 = 18 hr x 25 days = 450hrs x 400 watt = 180000 watt/ hr
180000 watt/hr x 1 KW/ 1000watt = 180 KWh
180 KWh x Php 7.9038 KWh = Php1422.684
T2 = 2hrs and 15 minutes x 25 days = 56.25 hrs x 400 watt = 22500watt/hr
22500watt/hr x 1 KWh/1000 watt = 22.5 KWh
22.5 KWh x Php 7.9038 = Php 177.8355
*from day 1 – 20
24 hrs x 20 days= 280 hrs x 400 watt = 112000 watt / hr
112000 watt/ hr x 1 KWh/ 1000watt = 112KWh
112 KWh x Php 7.9038 = Php 885.2256
*885.2256 / 3 = 295.0752 per treatment
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
CINDY RUTH B. BACASION. APRIL 2012. Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on
the Performance of Broilers.Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Marlene B Atinyao, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to determine the effect of intermittent lighting program on the
growth rate, feed intake, conversion efficiency, morbidity and mortality rates and the return on
investment in broilers.
A total of 120 21-day old broilers were randomly distributed to 3 lighting regimens as
follows: 23-hour light and 1-hour darkness as control, cycle of 45-minute light and 15-minute
darkness, and cycle of 15-minute light and 2-hour darkness.
The result of this study showed that intermittent light did not affect the final weight of
birds at 45 days of age, feed conversion ratio, feed cost per kilogram gain in weight and dressing
percentage. The average feed conversion ratio of broilers obtained in this study was 1.407.
Highly significant differences were observed in the feed intake and gain in weight of birds
exposed to longer light period. Birds exposed to 23-hour light and 1-hour darkness had a higher
daily feed intake (0.155kg) and daily gain in weight (0.042kg) than birds exposed to 45-minute
light and 15-minute darkness that had a daily feed intake of 0.128kg with a daily gain in weight
of 0.0385kg and those exposed to 15-minute light and 2-hour darkness that had a daily feed
intake of 0.127kg with a gain in weight of 0.0363kg.
It is concluded that birds subjected to 23-hour light and 1-hour darkness (cycle for 24
hours) and birds subjected to 15-minute light and 2-hour darkness (cycle for 24 hours) had the
same performance thus subjecting birds to 45-minute light and 15-minute darkness is
recommended.
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography..…………………………………………………………………….... i
Abstract……... …………………………………………………….......................... i
Table of Contents....................................................................................................... ii
INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………… 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ……………………………………………………... 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS …………………………………………………. 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS …………………………………………………. 9
Initial and Final Weight ………...…………………………………………. 9
Total and Average Gain
in Weight ……………………….………………………………………….. 10
Mean Average Daily
Feed Intake .....………………….……………………………………. 10
Feed Conversion Ratio ..…………………………………………
12
Feed Cost per Kilogram
Gain in Weight ……………………………………………………..
12
Mortality and Morbidity Rate …………………………..………….
13
Dressing Percentage ………………………………………………..
13
Return on Investment …………………………………………….... 14
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION
AND RECOMMENDATION ………………………………………………..…... 15
Summary ……………………………………………………………........... 15
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………… 15
Recommendation ……………....………………………………………….. 16
LITERATURE CITED ……………………………………………………………. 17
APPEDDICES …………………………………………………………………….. 18
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
INTRODUCTION
Rearing broiler chicks under continuous lighting conditions has been known for
many years that it would give a maximal early growth rate due to higher feed
consumption. However, there’s a continuous research dealing with the effects of different
lighting programs as part of the production programs.
Lighting programs in broiler production have evolved over the years, with success
in improving live performance. However, the relatively recent and rapid improvement in
broiler growth rate has renewed interest in lighting programs as an aid in restricting early
growth. Since withholding light is a mild form of feed restriction, lighting programs can
be applied during critical periods in the broiler grow out or limit or modify early growth
and then capture compensatory gain in the later part of the grow out (The Alabama
Poultry Engineering and Economics Newsletter, 2006).
Light enables the birds to eat continuously thus; it is believed to result in a
maximum growth rate. Darkness on the other hand helps to stimulate melatonin, vitamin
D3 and other hormone levels in the blood that improve the chick’s immune system and
tissue development (Animal Industry Branch, Manitoba Agriculture and Food, 2007).
Nonetheless basing from competent researches made by authorities, sufficient
light boosts and increase the activity of the birds. That which although fed by much and
greater feeds, the feed conversion ratio is still lower as compared to birds with longer
dark periods with less feed consumption that results to less energy consumption due to
the lessen activity of the birds.
The study was conducted to find out if using intermittent or alternate on and off
lighting program was effective and productive or not. Result of this study not only
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
benefit farmers, but can serve as benchmark data for further studies on better lighting
programs.
The study aimed to determine the effect of lighting programs on the growth
performance of broilers and to determine which lighting program promotes faster growth
and better performance of the broilers. Specifically, the study aimed to determine the
effect of intermittent lighting program on the growth rate, feed intake and conversion
efficiency of broilers; to determine morbidity and mortality rates in broilers subjected to
intermittent lighting program; and to determine effect of intermittent lighting program on
the return on investment in broiler production.
This study was conducted at Midas, Ohio, Ucab, Itogon, Benguet from November
to December, 2011.
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Some authorities have expressed the opinion that with continuous lighting, chicks
are able to eat continuously and thereby, grow at a faster rate. Studies have shown
however that although lighted birds consumed more feeds, it does not necessarily mean
they would weigh more than those on shorter light periods. Other authorities, on the other
hand maintain that young chicks need a good rest and a good rest is almost impossible in
the presence of lights (Fronda, 1972).
Aertset al., (2000) as cited by Daghir, (2008) stated that the use of intermittent
light has been shown to increase feed consumption during the cooler part of the day.
Intermittent lighting had been shown to improve feed efficiency in the broilers and this
improvement can be due to the lower heat production during the dark period.
Turning the lights off is one best thing that you can do for the young meat-type
chickens. By giving birds short days and long nights from one week to three weeks of
age, it help maintain a healthy body and rapid growth rate. Long dark periods help
stimulate melatonin, vitamin D3 and other hormone levels in the blood that improves the
chick’s immune system and tissue development. Limiting the hour of light will slow
growth slightly, allowing the birds to develop strong hearts and bones needed to support
rapid growth later in the flocks. Turning the lights off when birds are young produces
benefits that can last in the flocks (Animal Industry Branch, Manitoba Agriculture and
Food, 2007).
The technology of broiler production stipulates a 23-hour light regime (with half
an hour or an hour of darkness) in order to enhance feed intake and weight gain. The
short period of darkness is intended to get the broilers need to the absence of light that
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
may occur to possible power supply failure. The decrease of the light regimen resulted in
a significant decrease of the body weight. Broiler liveability increased in the groups with
higher periods of darkness mainly due to lower incidence of the sudden death syndrome
(Parvuet al., 2004).
Recent studies of Scheele et al., Gordon (1997) as cited by Parvuet al. (2004)
have shown that mortality and the incidence of feet diseases increased in the birds with
longer light regimens. It is an established fact that light influences the activity of the
anterior hypothesis and of the hormonal factors of growth.
There had been various lighting patterns tried like subjecting birds to alternate
light and darkness of varying length. Clegg and Sanford (1951) as cited by Patulot (1984)
observed heavier weight of broilers exposed to short periods alternate light and darkness.
Birds do not normally feed during the dark period but will do so if the photo
period is very short for instance 6 hours or less (Morris, 1967) cited by Appleby et al.,
(2004) intermittent lighting patterns are gaining more increasing acceptance for
commercial rearing, particularly for broiler production, and birds respond by modifying
their feeding activity appropriately (Lewis et al., (1957) as cited by Appleby et al.,
(2004).
Bright lights also have various effects to the behaviors that are adverse for either
the owner or the birds. It increases the activity, and probably for this reason tends to
decrease growth (Cherry and Barwid, 1962) cited by Appleby et al., (2004) because
activity uses energy. It also increases aggression and feather pecking.
Dozier (2002) as cited by Basalong (2006) observed that increasing lighting
program decreased leg abnormalities and total mortality was also significantly reduced,
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
less respiratory lesion and better immunity to respiratory diseases than in poultry that
were exposed to constant light. The health of the bird was improved due to melatonin
hormone produced during the dark periods. Dozier noticed that low light intensity helped
control bird activity, thus, improving feed conversion. He further stated that broiler
growers should consider not only controlling the number of hours but as well as light
intensity. He added that lighting system and programs that is best for a particular
company or producer depends on the type of housing, the type of birds grown, climate
and electricity.
According to the studies of Basalong (2006) and Macliing (2001) the final weight
of the birds were not affected by the light and dark periods.
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The materials and equipment used in this study were the following: 120 21-day-
old cobb broiler chicks, feeds, antibiotics, vitamins and minerals, brooding rearing cages,
feeders, drinkers, electric wiring and sockets, 100-watt bulbs, weighing scale, cleaning
materials, black curtains, disinfectants, newspapers, automatic timer switchers, marking
pen and notebook.
Seven days before the arrival of the chicks, all equipment were cleaned and
disinfected. The brooding-rearing cages were divided to accommodate the three
treatments with four replicates. For treatments 1 and 2, sides of the cages were covered
with plywood except on the top which were covered with black curtains to ensure that no
light penetrate inside. For control treatment cages were all screen. Incandescent bulb was
installed in each cage to provide heat to the birds. For treatments 1 and 2, extra sockets
for bulb covered black were installed to provide heat during the dark period. It was
switched on when the lights were switched off. The floor was covered with newspaper to
serve as receptacles during the first two weeks of the experiment. Four hours before the
arrival of chicks, lights were switched on to attain uniform warmth inside the cages.
On the 21st day of age, the chicks were randomly distributed into three treatments
which were replicated four times with 10 birds per replicate, following the Completely
Randomized Design (CRD). The chicks were weighed individually to obtain their initial
weight. The treatments were as follows:
T0 - 23-hour light and 1- hour darkness (cycle for 24 hours)
T1 - 45-minute light and 15-minute darkness (cycle for 24 hours)
T2 - 15-minute light and 2-hour darkness (cycle for 24 hours)
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
For treatment 0, lights were switched off from 8 PM to 9 PM. For treatment 1,
lights were intermittently switched on for 45 minutes and then switched off for 15
minutes. For treatment 2, lights were intermittently switched on for 15 minutes and then
turned-off for 2 hours. This was a cycle throughout the day throughout the study. All the
switching on and off of lights were done by automatic timer switcher.
Ad libitum feeding was employed from the start until the end of the study. Feeders
were provided inside the cages during the rest of brooding period. The newspaper mats
were removed after 14 days of brooding.
Antibiotics, vitamins and minerals were added to the drinking water following the
prescribed dosage throughout the study. Chick booster was given to the chicks up to two
weeks of age and then gradually shifted to starter ration on the 15th day and to finisher
ration on the 31st day until the end of the study. Shifting of feeds were done by mixing
25% of the new type of feed on the first day, 50% on the second day and 75% on the
third day so that on the fourth day, the birds were fed with new type of feed.
Data Gathered:
1. Initial weight of the broilers (kg). This was obtained by weighing the birds
individually at the start of the study which was on the 21st day of the broilers.
2. Final weight of the broilers (kg). This was obtained by weighing broilers at
the end of the study which was on the 45th day of age.
3. Feed offered (kg). This was the amount of feed given to the broilers in a day.
4. Feed left-over (kg). This was the amount feed left after a day of feeding.
5. Dressed weight (kg). This was the weight of the broilers after being dressed.
6. Number of sick birds. This was obtained by recording the number of birds
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
that got sick throughout the study.
7. Number of dead birds. This was obtained by recording the number of birds
that died throughout the study.
8. Feed cost. This was the purchase cost of feeds at the time of the study.
Data Computed:
1. Average gain in weight of broilers (kg). This was the taking difference between
the initial weight and the final weight.
2. Average feed intake of broilers (kg). This was obtained by taking the difference
between the feed offered and the feed refused divided by the number of days on trial.
3. Feed conversion ratio (FCR). This was obtained by dividing the total feed
intake by the total gain in weight.
4. Feed cost per kilogram gain in weight of broilers (Php). The cost to produce a
kilogram body weight was obtained by multiplying the feed conversion ratio by the cost
of 1 kg feed.
5. Percentage mortality of the broilers (%). This was the number of dead birds
divided by the total population per treatment, and then multiplied by 100.
6. Percentage morbidity of the broilers (%). This was the number of sick birds
divided by the total population per treatment, and then multiplied by 100.
7. Return on investment (ROI). This was computed by taking the net
incomedivided by the total cost, then multiplied by 100.
Data were analyzed using the analysis of variance appropriate for CRD. Means
were compared using DMRT. The carcass data were analyzed using the covariance
analysis, with dressed weight as the covariate.
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Mean Initial and Final Weight (kg)
The initial weight of the birds at 21 days of age is shown in Table 1. Statistical
analysis showed no significant differences in the initial weight of the birds between
treatments. This indicates that the birds were relatively uniform in weight at the start of
the study. The initial weight of birds ranges from 0.43kg to 0.45kg with an average of
0.44kg.
Mean final weight of broilers at the 45 days of age was also shown in Table 1.
Analysis of variance revealed no significant differences among treatment means. The
final weight of birds with 23-hour light and 1-darkness had 1.48 kg, birds with 45-minute
light and 15-minute darkness had 1.40 kg, and birds with 15-minute light and 2-hour
darkness had a 1.36 kg.
The observation on the final weight is same with the study of Basalong (2006)
and Macliing (2001) who reported that final weight of birds were not affected by the
variation in the length of intermittent light and dark period.
Table 1. Mean initial and final weights of broilers
TREATMENTS
INITIAL WEIGHT FINAL WEIGHT
AT 21 DAY
AT 45 DAY
(kg)
(kg)
23-hour light and 1-hour darkness
0.43a
1.48a
45-minute light and 15-minute darkness
0.44a
1.40a
15-minute light and 2-hour darkness
0.45a
1.36a
Means with a common letter(s) are not significantly different at 0.05 level of DMRT.
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Mean Total and Average Gain in Weight
The total and average gain in weight of the birds from the 21 days of age to the 45
days of age is shown in Table 2. Statistical analysis revealed significant differences in
the total and average daily gain (ADG) in weight of the birds. The ADG of birds
subjected to 23-hour light and 1-hour darkness of 0.0420 kg, those subjected to 45-
minute light and 15-minute darkness of 0.0385 is significantly higher than those
subjected to 15-minute light and 2-hour darkness of 0.0363kg.
The result study of this is the same with the statement of Fronda (1972), that with
such continuous lighting, the chicks are enabled to eat continuously and thereby, they
grow at a faster rate. Studies have shown however that although lighted birds consumed
more feeds, it does not necessarily mean they would weigh more than those on shorter
light periods
Table 2.Total and average gain in weight of birds from 21 days to 45 days of age
TREATMENTS
TOTAL GAIN AVERAGE DAILY
IN WEIGHT
GAIN IN WEIGHT
(kg)
(kg)
23-hour light and 1-hour darkness
3.875 a
0.0420
a
45-minute light and 15-minute darkness
3.2 ab
0.0385
ab
15-minute light and 2-hour darkness
3.171b
0.0363
b
Means with a not common letter(s) are not significantly different at 0.05 level of DMRT.
Mean Average Daily Feed Intake (kg)
Table 3 shows the average feed intake of the broilers from day 21 to day 45.
Analysis of variance revealed a highly significant difference in the feed intake of broilers
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Table 3. Total and average daily feed intake of broilers from day 21 to day 45
TREATMENT
TOTAL FEED AVERAGE DAILY
INTAKE FEED INTAKE
(kg) (kg)
23-hour light and 1-hour darkness
3.88a 0.155
a
45-minute light and 15-minute darkness
3.2b 0.128
b
15-minute light and 2-hour darkness
3.71b
0.127
b
Means with a common letter(s) are not significantly different at 0.01 level of DMRT.
among treatments. Birds subjected to 45-minute light and 15-minute darkness had a total
feed intake (TFI) of 3.2kg with an average daily feed intake (ADFI) of 0.128 kg and birds
subjected to15-minute light and 2-hour darkness had an TFI of 3.71kgwith an ADFI of
0.127 kg was significantly lower than the TFI (3.88kg) and ADFI (0.155kg) of birds
subjected to 23-hour light and 1-hour darkness.
This finding agrees with the observation of Parvu et al., where birds exposed to 23
hours light and 1 hour darkness had total feed intake (TFI) of 3.34 kg, those exposed to 8
cycles of 2 hours light and 1 hour darkness with an TFI of 2.94 kg; birds exposed to 6
cycles of 2 hours light and 2 hours darkness with an TFI of 2.90 kg and birds subjected to
12 hours light and 12 hours darkness had 2.20 kg feed intake with a duration of 49 days
that the shorter the period of light the lesser the feed intake.
This shows that light enables the birds to eat continuously. This was showed in
the high feed intake of birds with 23-hour light and 1-hour darkness.(Animal Industry
Branch, Manitoba Agriculture and Food, 2007).
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR.
Table 4 shows the feed conversion ratio (FCR) from day 21 to day 45. Analysis of
variance revealed that the feed conversion ratios of birds were not significantly different
between treatments. This indicates that FCR of birds exposed to 23-hour-light and one
hour darkness of a 1.49, those exposed to 45-minute light and 15-minute darkness of
1.34 and those exposed to 15-minute light and 2-hour darkness of 1.39 feed conversion
ratios are comparable.
This however disagrees with the study of Ingram and Hatten where birds exposed
to 23 hours light and 1 hour darkness had an FCR of 1.96 and birds exposed to 12 hours
light and 12 hours darkness with an of 1.93. Birds exposed to 12 hours light and 12 hours
darkness was significantly lower than birds exposed to 23 hour light and 1 hour darkness
in the FCR. This contrast can be due to the variation in the length of light and dark
periods used in the study. Shorter dark period were used in this study.
Table 4. Mean feed conversion ratio of broilers from day 21 to day 45
TREATMENTS
FEED
CONVERSION
RATIO
23-hour light and 1-hour darkness
1.49a
45-minute light and 15- minute darkness
1.34a
15-minute light and 2-hour darkness
1.39a
Means with a common letter(s) are not significantly different at 0.05 level of DMRT.
Feed Cost per Kilogram Gain in Weight (Php)
Table 5 shows the feed cost per kilogram gain in weight of birds. Analysis of
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Table 5. Feed cost per kilogram gain in weight (Php)
TREATMENTS
FEED COST/KG GAIN IN WEIGHT
23-hour light and 1-hour darkness
34.86
45-minute light and 15-minute darkness
31.30
15-minute
light
and
2-hour
darkness
32.64
Means with a common letter(s) are not significantly different at 0.05 level of DMRT.
variance revealed no significant differences among treatments. This indicates that there
were not differences in the feed cost among the treatments. Birds subjected to 23-hour
light and1-hour darkness had 34.86; birds exposed to 45-minute light and 15-minute
darkness had 31.30 and birds exposed to 15-minute light and 2-hour darkness had 32.64
feed cost per kilograms. There were no significant differences because the feed
conversions were not significant among treatments.
Mortality and Morbidity of Birds
Mortality and morbidity of birds were not observed in the study. Providing
vitamins and minerals not only in the brooding period but until the 35th days of age could
help why mortality and morbidity are not observed in the study. And the weather and
environment could be a factor too.
Dressing Percentage
The dressing percentage is shown in Table 6. Analysis of variance shows no
significant differences between the dressing percentages of broilers. This indicates that
the dressing percentage of broilers was not significantly affected by intermittent light.
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Table 6. Dressing percentage of 1.5 kg birds
TREATMENT
SLAUGHTER DRESSED DRESSING %
WEIGHT (KG) WEIGHT (KG)
23-hour light and 1-hour darkness
1.5
1.05
69.99
45-minute light and 15-minute darkness
1.5
1
66.67
15-minute light and 2-hour darkness
1.5
1
66.67
Means with a common letter(s) are not significantly different at 0.05 level of DMRT.
The average the dressing percentage of broilers is 67.78%. The dressed weight of
birds excluded thehead, feet and entrails. This differ from the 69 dressing percentage of
Ibarra, may due on how the head was cut.
Return on Investment
The return on investment (ROI) of birds subjected to 23-hour light and 1-hour
darkness of -21.08% and those subjected to 45-minute light and 15-minute darkness of -
16.07 % was significantly lower than the ROI of birds subjected to 15-minute light and 2-
hour darkness of -4.93%. This is due to higher feed intake and electric consumption of
bird’s subjected to longer light periods, thus higher feed and electric costs.
Table 7. Return on investment(%)
TREATMENT
ROI
(%)
23-hour light and 1-hour darkness
-31.47
45-minute light and 15-minute darkness
-28.20
15-minute light and 2 hour-darkness
-20.65
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
This study was conducted to determine the effect of intermittent lighting program
on the performance of broilers giving three treatments. Birds were subjected to 3 lighting
regimens as follows: 23 hour light and 1 hour darkness as control, cycle of 45 minutes
light and 15 minutes darkness, and cycle of 15 minutes light and 2 hours darkness.
Results showed that intermittent light did not affect the final weight of birds at 45
days of age, feed conversion ratio, feed cost per kilogram gain in weight and dressing
percentage. The average initial weight of birds at 21 days was 0.44 kg and the final
weight of birds at 45 days was 1.411 kg. The average daily gain was 0.04kg with an
average feed conversion ratio of 1.407. Feed cost to produce a kg gain in weight was
32.93 pesos and the average dressing percentage was 67.78%. Highly significant
differences were observed in the feed intake and gain in weight of birds exposed to
longer light period.
Daily gain in weight of birds exposed to 23-hour-light and one hour darkness
(0.0420) were significantly higher different on gain in weight with those on shorter light
periods on the final weight of birds were mot comparable among treatments. This shows
that as the birds are growing, birds with longer light were gaining more weight compared
with those of shorter light, but in the final weight they were not significantly different.
This result was affected by little differences on the initial weight of birds.
Conclusion
Result of this study showed that exposing broiler birds to intermittent light did not
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
affect the growth performance of broilers. However the performance of birds subjected to
23-hour light and 1-hour darkness (cycle for 24 hours) and birds subjected to 15-minute
light and 2-hour darkness (cycle for 24 hours) are almost the same.
Recommendation
Basing from the result of the study, 45-minute light and 15-minute darkness is
recommended.
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
LITERATURE CITED
ANIMAL INDUSTRY BRANCH, MANITOBA, AGRICULTURE AND
FOOD.2007.Lighting Program for Small Roaster Flocks. ( www.gov.mb.ca)
APPLEBY, M.C, MENCH, J.A, and HUGHES,B.O. 2004. Poultry Behaviour and
Welfare.UK. CABI Publishing. Pp. 56
BASALONG, C.M 2006.Effect of lighting program on the performance of broiler,
Thesis.Benguet State University, College of Agriculture, La Trinidad, Benguet.
DAGHIR, N.J.2008. Poultry Production in the Hot Climate.2nd Edition.Uk. CABI
Publishing. Pp. 251
FRONDA, F.M 1972. Poultry Science and Production.2nd Edition.Manila. G.M.S
Publishing Corporation, Inc. Pp.100-101
INGRAM, D.R and HATTEN, L.F. 2000.Effect of light restriction on broiler
performance and specific body structure measurement. Poultry Science
Association, Inc.
MACLIING, E.G.2001. The effect of light and dark periods on the performance of
broiler.Thesis.Benguet State University, College of Agriculture, La Trinidad,
Benguet.
PARVU ET AL., 2004. Influence of the light program on the growth performance of
broiler. (www.ibna.ro/archival/Az%207_05_Parvu.pdf)
PATULOT, V.M.1984. Effect of the three lighting regiment on the growth and mortality
of commercial broiler chicks, Thesis. Benguet State University, College of
Agriculture, La Trinidad, Benguet.
THE ALABAMA POULTRY ENGINEERING AND ECONOMICS NEWSLETTER.
2006. Controlling light in broiler production.
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Initial weight of birds (kg)
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
IV
T0
0.4270
0.433
0.415
0.443 1.718
0.43
T1
0.4410
0.471
0.44
0.419 1.771 0.443
T2
0.4450
0.414
0.459
0.463 1.781 0.445
TOTAL
5.27
MEAN
0.44
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE SUMS
MEAN COMPUTED
TABULAROF
OFOF OF
F
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Treatment
2
0.0006
0.000287
0.7901 4.257 8.022
Error
9
0.0033
0.00036272
Total
11
0.0039
CV = 4.34 %
Not significant
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Appendix Table 2.Final weight of birds (kg)
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
IV
T0
1.52
1.51
1.38
1.49
5.9
1.475
T1
1.36
1.35
1.43
1.47
5.61
1.403
T2
1.4
1.27
1.35
1.4
5.42
1.355
TOTAL 16.93
MEAN
1.411
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE SUMS
MEAN COMPUTED
TABULAROF
OFOFOF
F
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
0.05 0.01
Treatment
2
0.0292
0.014608
3.9042
4.257 8.022
Error
9
0.0337
0.003742
Total
11
0.0629
CV = 4.34 %
Not significant
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Appendix Table 3.Average daily gain in weight (kg)
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
IV
T0
0.0440
0.0430
0.0390
0.0420 0.1680
0.0420
T1
0.037
0.0350
0.0400
0.0420 0.1540
0.0385
T2
0.0380
0.0340
0.0360
0.0370 0.1450
0.0363
TOTAL
0.47
MEAN
0.04
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE SUMS
MEAN COMPUTED
TABULAROF
OFOFOF
F
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
0.05
0.01
Treatment
2
0.0001
0.000034
5.8406 4.2565 8.0215
Error
9
0.001
0.0000057
Total
11
0.002
CV = 6.16 %
Highly significant
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Appendix Table 4. Total gain in weight (kg)
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
IV
T0
1.093
1.077
0.965
1.047 4.18
1.05
T1
0.919
0.879
0.990
1.051 3.84
0.96
T2
0.955
0.856
0.891
0.937 3.64
0.91
TOTAL
11.66
MEAN
0.97
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE SUMS
MEAN COMPUTED
TABULAROF
OFOFOF
F
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
0.05
0.01
Treatment
2
0.0377
0.018854
5.1134 4.2565 8.0215
Error
9
0.0332
0.00368717
Total
11
0.0709
CV = 6.25 %
Significant
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Appendix Table 5. Feed conversion ratio
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
IV
T1
1.424
1.499
1.608
1.478 5.959
1.49
T2
1.385
1.461
1.287
1.218 5.351 1.338
T3
1.352
1.457
1.411 1.359 5.579
1.395
TOTAL
16.89
MEAN
1.407
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE SUMS
MEAN COMPUTED
TABULAROF
OFOFOF
F
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
0.05
0.01
Treatment
2
0.047171
0.023585
3.4410 4.2565 8.0215
Error
9
0.061688
0.006854
Total
11
0.108859
CV = 5.88 %
Significant
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Appendix Table 6. Dressing percentage
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
IV
T1
73.33
66.67
66.67
73.3 280
79.99
T2
66.67
66.67
66.67
66.67 266.67
66.67
T3
66.67
66.67`
66.67
66.67 266.67
66.67
TOTAL
813
MEAN
67.78
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE SUMS
MEAN COMPUTED
TABULAROF
OFOFOF
F
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
0.05
0.01
Treatment
2
29.43735
14.718675
3.0000 4.2565 8.0215
Error
9
44.156475 4.906275
Total
11
0.108859
CV = 53.27 %
Not significant
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Appendix Table 7. Feed cost per kilogram gain in weight (Php)
TREATMENT
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
IV
T1
33.32
33.91
37.63
34.59 139.4
34.86
T2
32.41
34.19
30.12
28.5 125.2
31.3
T3
31.64 34.09
33.02
31.8 130.5
32.64
TOTAL
395.2
MEAN
32.93
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE SUMS
MEAN COMPUTED
TABULAROF
OFOFOF
F
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
0.05
0.01
Treatment
2
25.82877
12.9143851 3.44 4.2565 8.0215
Error
9
33.77802
3.75311313
Total
11
59.60689
CV = 5.88 %
Not significant
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Appendix Table 8.Average Daily Feed Intake (kg)
TREATMENT REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
IV
T1
0.1556
0.1561
0.1552
0.1547 0.6216
0.1554
T2
0.1273
0.1284
0.1274
0.128 0.5112 0.1278
T3
0.1292 0.1247
0.1258
0.1273 0.507
0.1267
TOTAL
0.164
MEAN
0.1366
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE SUMS
MEAN COMPUTED
TABULAROF
OFOFOF
F
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES
0.05
0.01
Treatment
2
0.211088
0.10554361 724.38 4.2565 8.0215
Error
9
0.001311
0.0001457
Total
11
0.212398
CV = 0.88 %
Highly significant
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Appendix Table 9. Return on investment
Production
costs
T0
T1
T2
Broiler
chicks
=
1,800
1,800
1,800
Feed
cost
=
4,697.764
4,058.008
4,025.716
Electricity
=
2,112.9492
1,717.7592
472.9107
Vitamins and minerals = 250
250
250
Labor
=
2,250
2,250
2,250
Cages
= 82.2
82.2
82.2
Total production cost
11,192.9132 10,157.9672
8,880.8267
_ _ _
SALES
7,670
7,293
7047
NETPROFIT
-3,522.9132 - 2,864.9672 - 1,833.8267
*Feed cost: total feed consumed x 1kg feed cost
T0 = 155.46 x 23.4 = 3637.764
T1 = 128.12 x 23.4 = 2998.008
T2 = 126.74 x 23.4 = 2965. 716
*feed cost from day 1-20 = 3180/ 3 = 1060 per treatment
*Labor: 150/ day X 45 days = 6,750/3 = 2,250 per treatment
*Depreciation of cages:
Cage= 10,000 ; Life span+ 10 years
10,000/ 5 years = 2,000/year X 1year/365days = 5.48/day
45 days X 5.48 = 246.6/ 3 = 82.2 per treatment
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Electricity
Beneco rate = Php 7.9038 / KWh
*per treatment 400 watt bulbs used
T0 = 23 hr x 25 days = 575 hrs x 400 watt = 230000 watt/hr
230000 watt/ hr x 1 KW/1000watt = 230 KWh
230 KWh x Php 7.9038 /KWh = Php 1817.874
T1 = 18 hr x 25 days = 450hrs x 400 watt = 180000 watt/ hr
180000 watt/hr x 1 KW/ 1000watt = 180 KWh
180 KWh x Php 7.9038 KWh = Php1422.684
T2 = 2hrs and 15 minutes x 25 days = 56.25 hrs x 400 watt = 22500watt/hr
22500watt/hr x 1 KWh/1000 watt = 22.5 KWh
22.5 KWh x Php 7.9038 = Php 177.8355
*from day 1 – 20
24 hrs x 20 days= 280 hrs x 400 watt = 112000 watt / hr
112000 watt/ hr x 1 KWh/ 1000watt = 112KWh
112 KWh x Php 7.9038 = Php 885.2256
*885.2256 / 3 = 295.0752 per treatment
Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program on the Performance
of Broilers /Cindy Ruth B. Bacasion.2012
Document Outline
- Effect of Intermittent Lighting Program onthe Performance of Broilers
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES