Effects of light sources and intensity on broilers grown to heavy weights.
Part 1: Growth performance, carcass characteristics, and welfare indices1
H. A. Olanrewaju,,2 W. W. Miller, W. R. Maslin, S. D. Collier, J. L. Purswell, and S. L. Branton
USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Poultry Research Unit, PO Box 5367, Mississippi State University,
Starkville 397625367; Advanced Animal Eye Care, 1067 Old West Point Road, Starkville, MS 39759; and
College of Veterinary Medicine, Wise Center, Mississippi State University, Starkville 39762
ABSTRACT This study investigated the effects of light
sources and light intensity on growth performance, car-
cass characteristics, and welfare indices of heavy broil-
ers (>3.0 kg) in 4 trials with 2 replications per trial.
A total of 960 one-day-old Ross Ross 708 chicks
(30 males/30 females/room) were randomly distributed
into 16 environmentally controlled rooms at 50% RH.
A 4 2 factorial treatment structure evaluated 4 light
sources (incandescent [ICD, standard], compact fluores-
cent [CFL], neutral light emitting diode [Neutral-LED],
and cool poultry specific filtered LED [Cool-PSF-LED])
and 2 levels (5 lx, 20 lx) of light intensities. Each of the
4 light sources was paired with one of the 2 light inten-
sities. Birds were fed the same diet with a 4-phase feed-
ing program (starter, grower, finisher, and withdrawal).
Feed and water were provided ad libitum. Birds and
feed were weighed on one, 14, 21, 28, 42, and 56 d of
age for growth performance. All mortality was recorded
daily and feed conversion was adjusted for mortality.
Key words: light sources, light intensity, growth performance, broilers, welfare
INTRODUCTION
Light quality, levels, and duration are all extremely
important to broilers. Light is one of the major mi-
croclimate factors for poultry production that influ-
ences growth development and physiological function-
ing, among others. Artificial lighting is extensively
used in raising commercial poultry. One of the ma-
jor functions of lighting programs, especially inten-
sity, is to influence growth rate of broilers, which al-
lows birds to achieve physiological maturity prior to
Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Poultry Science
Association Inc. 2016. This work is written by (a) US Government
employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US.
Received July 30, 2015.
Accepted October 20, 2015.
1
This article was prepared by a U.S. Government employee as part
of official duties and cannot be copyrighted. Mention of trade names
or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of
providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or
endorsement by the USDA.
2
Corresponding author: Hammed.Olanrewaju@ars.usda.gov
1
Immune response was determined on d 28 to d 35,
whereas other welfare indices were performed on d 42
and 49, respectively. At d 56 of each trial, 20 (10 males
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Poultry Science Association Member on February 20, 2016
and 10 females) birds from each room were processed to
determine weights and yields. The BW, BW gain, live
weight, and carcass weights of birds reared under Cool-
PSF-LED were different (P 0.05) in comparison to
birds reared under ICD. However, FI, FCR, and mor-
tality were not affected by treatments. There was no
effect of treatments on fat or breast and tender weights
and yields. In addition, there was no effect of treat-
ments on ocular development, immune response, and
other welfare indices, suggesting that the light sources
evaluated did not compromise welfare of heavy broilers.
It was concluded that the 3 light sources evaluated in
this study may be suitable for replacement of ICD light
source in poultry facilities to reduce energy cost and
optimize production efficiency.
2016 Poultry Science 00:19
http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev360
maximal rate of muscle mass accretion. Most coun-
tries around the world, including the United States,
have passed measures to phase out inefficient incan-
descent (ICD) light bulbs in favor of more energy-
efficient lighting alternatives (Waide, 2010). In the
United States, minimum lamp efficiency standards were
amended to require a minimum luminous efficacy of 45
lumen/watt (EISA, 2007). Incandescent light in poul-
try housing is well below the 45 lumen/watt thresh-
old at 12 to 14 lumen/watt (Campbell et al., 2010).
Many new lighting technologies that exceed energy ef-
ficiency requirements are currently being developed by
different companies as potential replacements for ICD
light sources, including cold cathode fluorescent lamps
(CCFL), compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), and light
emitting diodes (LED), among others. The major ben-
efits of these bulbs are high efficiency, long operat-
ing life, moisture resistance, and availability in dif-
fering peak wavelengths (Craford, 1985). The costs
of these LED light bulbs have been decreasing since
their first development and therefore have become
2 OLANREWAJU ET AL.
affordable for the poultry industry. However, choos-
ing the correct LED lighting source can be difficult
since some do not dim well to accommodate different
production stages or circadian lighting intensity lev-
els in poultry facilities as projected by manufactur-
ers, while some of the available results are inconsistent.
Evaluation of these new light sources is needed, espe-
cially the commercially available bulbs based on energy
use, duration, and cost on broiler growth and produc-
tion performance, welfare, and physiological responses.
International animal welfare concerns have included
the effects of temperature and lighting programs on
broilers (Food Marketing Institute and National Coun-
cil of Chain Restaurants, 2003; National Chicken Coun-
cil, 2005). It is well known that lighting programs can
affect many aspects of avian physiology, welfare, behav-
ior, and other factors, including blood chemistry, ocular
development, and behavioral rhythms (Nelson and De-
mas, 1997; Reiter, 2003; Olanrewaju et al., 2006). It has
been reported that blue light has a calming effect, red
light reduces feather pecking and cannibalism, orange-
red light stimulates reproduction, and blue-green light
stimulates growth in chickens (Rozenboim et al.,
1999a,b, 2004). Green and blue LED enhances cellular
and humoral immune responses in broilers (Xie et al.,
2008). It has been shown that blue and green monochro-
matic lights promoted growth and development in broil-
ers in comparison to red and white lights (Rozenboim
et al., 1999a,b; Cao et al., 2008, 2012). In addition, it
has been reported that birds performed better when
reared under red light and yellow light without affect-
ing FCR (Kim et al., 2012, 2013; Assaf et al., 2015).
There are a number of studies focusing on the ef-
fect of differing light sources and schedules on broiler
growth performance, welfare, meat quality, and muscle
tissue accretion with conflicting reports. More studies
are still needed on how these differing light sources im-
pact growth and production performance responses and
welfare indices of broilers grown to heavy weights (>3.0
kg) to ensure optimum production efficiencies, reduce
electricity consumption, and ensure the health and wel-
fare of broilers. The results from a previous study indi-
cated that LED light bulbs may be a better potential
replacement light source for ICD on broiler growth per-
formance and yields (Olanrewaju et al., 2015). However,
the study did not include CFLbulbs, which closely repli-
cate the light produced by ICD but save 75% of energy
compared to similar lumen output ICD and light inten-
sity. The objective of the present study was to evaluate
the effects of light sources (CFL, neutral light emit-
ting diode [Neutral-LED], cool poultry specific fil-
tered LED [Cool-PSF-LED] bulbs) and light intensity
(5 lx, 20 lx) in the presence of ICD bulbs on growth per-
formance, carcass characteristics, ocular development,
immune response, tonic immobility (TI), and gait score
(GS) of broilers grown to heavy weights (>3.0 kg). It is
hypothesized that the use of differing LED light sources
and varying light intensities will not adversely affect
growth performance, carcass characteristics, and gen-
eral welfare indices of modern heavy broilers grown to
heavy weight.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Bird Husbandry
All procedures relating to the use of live birds in this
study were approved by the USDA-ARS Animal Care
and Use Committee at the Mississippi State location. In
each of 4 trials with 2 replicates per trial, 960 (480 males
and 480 females) one-day-old Ross Ross 708 chicks
were purchased from a commercial hatchery. Upon ar-
rival, the chicks were sexed and group-weighed. Chicks
were randomly distributed into 16 environmentally con-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Poultry Science Association Member on February 20, 2016
trolled rooms (30 male and 30 female chicks/room).
Each environmentally controlled room had a floor area
of 6 m2 (42 kg/m2 ) with a room volume of 15.3 m3 (2.5
m height). Each room contained approximately 7.62
cm depth of fresh pine shavings, tube feeders, and a
7-nipple watering system. Chicks were vaccinated for
Mareks, Newcastle, and infectious bronchitis diseases
at the hatchery. At 12 d of age, birds received a Gum-
boro vaccination via water administration. The chicks
remained in their respective rooms from one-day-old
throughout the experimental period (one to 56 d of
age). All birds were fed the same diet throughout the
study. Birds were provided a 4-phase feeding program
(starter: 1 to 14 d; grower: 15 to 28 d; finisher: 29 to
42 d, and withdrawal: 43 to 56 d of age). Diets were
formulated to meet or exceed NRC (1994) nutrient rec-
ommendations for each feeding phase. Starter feed was
provided as crumbles, and subsequent feeds were pro-
vided as whole pellets. Feed and water were offered ad
libitum. Temperature and RH on d one were maintained
at 32 1.1 C and 50 5%, respectively, and RH was
held constant across all treatments. Temperature was
decreased as the birds progressed in age until 15.6 C
was reached at 49 d of age.
Experimental Treatments
A 4 2 factorial treatment structure was used to
evaluate 4 light sources (ICD, 2010k, Standard; CFL,
2700k; Neutral-LED, 3500k; Cool-PSF-LED, 5000k)
from one to 56 d of age and 2 levels (5 lx, 20 lx) of
light intensities commenced from 22 to 56 d of age at
50% RH. Each of the 4 light source treatments was
paired with one of the 2 light intensity treatments so
that each room represented a particular light source:
light-intensity level combination for a total of 16 rooms.
Photoperiod consisted of continuous (24L:0D) lighting
at 20 lx from placement to 7 d with 20L:4D at 10 lx
from 8 to 21 d, and light intensity treatments from 22
through 56 d. Neutral-LED light bulbs were purchased
from NexGen Illumination Inc. (Fayetteville, AR), CFL
light bulbs were purchased from Osram Sylvania (Dan-
vers, MA), and Cool-PSF-LED light bulbs, made specif-
ically for poultry, were purchased from Once-Innovation
 LIGHT-SOURCES AND GROWTH PERFORMANCE
Figure 1. Comparison of spectrum of the 4 different lighting sources used in this study: Cool Poultry specific filtered LED (Cool-PSF-LED,
5,000 k), purchased from Once-Innovation Agrishif; Neutral-LED (Neutral-LED, 3,500 k), purchased from NexGen Illumination Inc.; Compact
fluorescent (CFL, 2,700 k) and Incandescent bulb (ICD, 2,010 k). Horizontal axis is light spectrum in nM and vertical axis is relative power.
Agrishif (Plymouth, MN). The light sources were ad-
justed to equal intensity according to the spectral
sensitivity of broilers (Prescott and Wathes, 1999). The
light spectra of the light sources and ICD bulbs utilized
in this study are presented in Figure 1. We selected 5
and 20 lx in this study since American poultry indus-
tries use 5 lx while European poultry industries use 20
lx. Light intensity settings were verified from the cen-
ter and from the 4 corners of each room at bird level
(30 cm) to maintain a uniform intensity using a photo-
metric sensor from the National Institute of Standards
and Technology-Traceable calibration (403125, Extech
Instruments, Waltham, MA) for each intensity adjust-
ment. The light bulbs were cleaned weekly in order to
minimize dust build-up, which would otherwise reduce
the intensity.
Measurements
Birds and feed were weighed on one, 14, 21 (d be-
fore initiation of light intensity treatments), 28, 42, and
56 d of age for the computation of BW and feed intake
(FI). Cumulative biweekly FI was calculated by sub-
tracting the remaining feed weights in the feeders from
the initial feed-added weights in the feeders. The inci-
dence of mortality was recorded daily. Necropsies and
cause of death (when determined) were performed on all
birds that died during the trials. Cumulative BW and
FI were recorded from each room at biweekly intervals.
Cumulative biweekly BW gain (BWG) was calculated
by subtracting initial (d 1) BW from the current BW
of the birds. Feed conversion ratio (FCR) was calcu-
lated by dividing FI with BWG, and it was corrected
for mortality.
3
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Poultry Science Association Member on February 20, 2016
Humoral Immune Response
On d 28, 6 birds (3 males and 3 females) from each
room were randomly selected and intravenously in-
jected via a wing vein with a 3% solution of sheep red
blood cells. Birds were bled 7 d later via a wing vein
to collect serum that was used for evaluating primary
antibody response. Antibody titers were determined as
described by Thornton et al. (2006) with little modifi-
cation. Briefly, serum complement was inactivated via
incubation in a water bath for 30 min at 56 C. Twenty-
five microliters of a 0.85% saline solution was added to
the wells of a 96-well microtiter plate. Serum samples
(25 L) were then added to the first well and serially
diluted from 2- to 1,024-fold. A 2.5% sheep red blood
cell suspension at 25 L was added to each well. The
plate was sealed and incubated for 2 h at 37 C. The
results of the microhemagglutination assay were deter-
mined by recording the last dilution at which complete
agglutination was apparent in the well. Antibody titers
were reported as a log2 of the recorded dilutions.
Ocular Assessments
Eye Examination On d 42, eye scoring and intraoc-
ular pressure were evaluated on 10 birds (5 males and
5 females) from each room by a veterinary ophthalmol-
ogist. The ophthalmologist did not know the treatment
origin of any bird examined. Biomicroscopy was per-
formed using a Kowa SL-14 portable slit-lamp (Kowa
Company Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). During the examina-
tion, signs of clinical keratoconjunctivitis and anterior
uveitis were recorded, if present. Corneal lesions as-
sessed by biomicroscopy were assigned injury scores
4 OLANREWAJU ET AL.
similar to Thofts classification (Thoft, 1979). The nu-
merical scale for grading corneal lesions was 0 = nor-
mal cornea; 0.5 = not normal but less than 1; 1 = dif-
fuse corneal edema generally over greater than three-
quarters of the corneal surface; 2 = 1 + a focal super-
ficial corneal ulcer measuring less than one-quarter of
the corneal surface; 3 = 2 + a corneal ulcer of half or
more of the corneal surface and extending into the ante-
rior chamber; 4 = 3 + deeper extension into the stromal
layers; and 5 = corneal perforation. This scale is also de-
pendent on the definition of a flare, which is the break-
down of the blood-eye barrier or protein leakage across
this barrier into the anterior chamber, thereby creating
cloudiness. Therefore, the anterior chamber was further
assessed as either 0 = normal anterior chamber; 0.5 =
not normal but less than 1; 1 = flare is visible; 2 =
flare is easily visible; 3 = flare is easily visible with
neovascularization on the iris surface; and 4 = flare is
easily visible with hyphema clearly evident and diffuse
iris neovascularization.
Ocular Development and Histopathologic
Examination
On d 43, 6 birds (3 males and 3 females) from each
room were weighed individually and ocular assessments
were performed as described previously (Olanrewaju
et al., 2014). Briefly, birds were euthanatized by cer-
vical dislocation according to the USDA Animal Care
and Ethics Committee for blood sampling and organ
collection procedures. The right eyeball was dissected
out, trimmed of extraneous tissue, and weighed to the
nearest 0.01 g. Assuming bilateral symmetry, only the
right eye was excised and its weight doubled to give an
estimate of total eye weight, and calculation of the total
eye weight to BW ratio was determined. The dissected
right eyeball was placed inside 10% buffered formalin
for gross anatomical anomalies and histopathological
evaluation by a veterinary pathologist using the Kris-
tensen (1948) method. Briefly, after fixing for at least 72
h in formalin, the eyes were placed in Kristensens de-
calcifying solution (1:1 mixture of 8 N formic acid and 1
N sodium formate) for 3 d. Two sections were prepared
from each eye as follows. The eye was held in a nor-
mal postural position and cut vertically approximately
4 mm lateral to the center of the cornea. A second cut
was made through the center of the cornea, while the
third cut was made approximately 4 mm medial to the
center of the cornea. All cuts were made completely
through the eye. The 2 trimmed sections were placed
in a single cassette such that the center of the cornea
was facedown for each section. Following this, the cas-
settes were washed in gently running tap water for 24 h
to remove residual acid and then placed in 10% buffered
neutral formalin until processed. All tissues were pro-
cessed routinely, embedded in paraffin, sectioned at 6
m, and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. The ex-
amining pathologist was unaware of bird treatment ori-
gin. The iris and ciliary body were scored for the pres-
ence (+) or absence () of heterophils, diffuse lympho-
cytic infiltrates, and nodular lymphocytic infiltrates. In
addition, the presence (+) or absence () of increased
cellularity along the rostral surface of the iris was also
noted, and the corneal epithelium was scored for the
presence (+) or absence () of ulceration.
General Well-Being: Gait Scoring (GS) Test
and Tonic Immobility (TI)
On d 49, 10 birds (5 males and 5 females) from
each room were randomly selected for assessment of
their general welfare using 3 different protocols as de-
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Poultry Science Association Member on February 20, 2016
scribed previously (Olanrewaju et al., 2007). Welfare
locomotive ability was assessed using a modification of
the Kestin Gait Scoring System as described in the
American Humane Welfare Standard (Kristin et al.,
1994). Fear and frustration were assessed by determin-
ing tonic immobility index time (American Humane
Welfare Standard). In addition, unnecessary discomfort
to the birds was also avoided by using proper housing
and handling techniques (National Research Council,
1996).
Gait Scoring (GS) Test On the morning of d 49, 10
(5 males and 5 females) randomly selected birds from
each room, 2 birds (one male and one female) at a time,
were allowed to walk freely (1.52 m) within an inte-
rior enclosed floor area of 1.83 m 3.66 m that con-
tained new pine shavings. Gait score performance was
evaluated according to the Kestin Gait Scoring System
(Kristin et al., 1994) and modified by Dawkins et al.
(2004) on a scale ranging from 0 to 2. Score 0 rep-
resented no detectable impairment of walking, score 1
indicated birds with no detectable walking impairment
and able to walk at least 5 feet without sitting down,
while score 2 indicated severe impairment of walking
ability with birds being unable to walk 5 feet without
sitting down again. Each bird was observed for 2 to 3
min. If the bird hesitated or remained immobile, it was
touched with a long stick to encourage it to walk.
Tonic Immobility (TI) Also on the afternoon of d 49,
10 birds (5 males and 5 females) from each room were
randomly selected for TI assessment. Tonic immobil-
ity was induced by inverting the bird on its back and
restraining it for 10 s in a U-shaped wooden cradle cov-
ered with a layer of cloth. One hand was used to cover
the birds head and the other hand was placed on the
sternum, as described by Jones and Waddington (1992).
Toward the end of the 10-s period, the hands were grad-
ually lifted. Eye contact was completely avoided be-
tween the bird and the experimenter after the experi-
menter removed his hands from the cradle. A stopwatch
was used to record latencies until the bird righted it-
self (getting to its feet again). The time was measured
from withdrawal of the hand until the bird straight-
ened up. If the bird righted itself in less than 10 s, then
TI was not considered to have been induced. If TI was
 LIGHT-SOURCES AND GROWTH PERFORMANCE
not induced after 3 attempts, the duration of TI was
considered to be 0 s and the restraining procedure had
to be repeated. If the bird did not show a righting re-
sponse over the 10-s test period, then a maximum score
of 600 s were scored for TI duration time. The number
of inductions required to attain TI was also recorded
for each bird. After the test, birds were returned to the
original rooms.
Production Evaluation
On d 56 of each trial, 20 birds (10 males and 10
females) from each room were randomly selected for
processing, and weighed after being subjected to a 12-
h overnight feed withdrawal period. This live weight
(post-feed withdrawal) was used to calculate whole
carcass yield. Thereafter, the birds were placed in
coops and transported to the Mississippi State Uni-
versity poultry processing plant. Birds were electri-
cally stunned, bled, scalded, mechanically picked, and
mechanically eviscerated. Whole hot carcass (without
neck, giblets, abdominal fat pad) and abdominal fat
pad including leaf fat surrounding the cloaca and giz-
zard were weighed. Carcasses were then split into front
and back halves and placed on ice for 4 h. After chill-
ing, the front halves were deboned to obtain weights of
skinless, boneless breast fillet (pectorals major muscle)
and breast tender (pectorals minor muscle). Abdominal
fat pad and total breast meat yield (sum of pectorals
major and minor muscles) were determined from the
sum of the fillet weight and tender weight.
Statistical Analysis
The experimental design was a randomized complete
block design, and 4 trials were conducted. Treatment
structure was a 4 2 factorial arrangement with the
main factors being 4 light sources (ICD, CFL, Neutral-
LED, Cool-PSF-LED) and 2 levels (5 lx, 20 lx) of light
intensities with 2 replicates per trial. Individual sample
data within each of the replicate units were averaged be-
fore analysis and data from the 4 trials were pooled and
analyzed together. Analyses were conducted using the
PROC MIXED procedure of SAS software (SAS Insti-
tute, 2010). Trial was a random effect, whereas the light
sources and light intensity are the fixed effect. Room
was considered the experimental unit and treatments
were replicated over time. Rooms used were switched
between trials to remove room effects so that treat-
ments were not confounded. All mortality data were
subjected to arc-sine transformation. In addition to the
treatment effect, the statistical model also incorporated
the sex and d effects. Log-transformation of the raw
scores was used because of the large range among the
data. Geometric means are presented for the corneal
and anterior chamber scores. The histopathologic eye
tissue evaluations (presented as a percentage of occur-
rences) required arc-sine transformation before analy-
5
sis. For each of the eye tissues, the presence or absence
of lymphocytic or heterophilic infiltrates in iris and cil-
iary body was given as a positive or negative score. If
the number of samples with a positive score was 3 out
of 4 for a particular treatment, the percentage of occur-
rence was 75%. Main effects of light sources and light in-
tensity, and the interaction of the 2 factors, were tested
by least significant differences, and the level of signifi-
cance was fixed at P 0.05, unless otherwise stated.
RESULTS
The main effects of light sources and light intensity
on growth performance in comparison with ICD bulbs
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Poultry Science Association Member on February 20, 2016
of broilers grown to heavy weights are presented in
Table 1. In comparison with ICD bulbs, there was only
an effect of Cool-PSF-LED on BW on d 42 (P = 0.049)
and d 56 (P = 0.047) during the study period. Sim-
ilarly, there was only an effect of Cool-PSF-LED on
BWG on d 42 (P = 0.046) and d 56 (P = 0.048) in
comparison with ICD bulbs. However, there was no dif-
ference among the 3 new light source bulbs examined in
this study. In addition, there was no difference among
ICD, CFL, and Neutral-LED light bulbs on BW and
BWG in the present study. There was no effect of light
intensity and no difference between 20 lx and 5 lx on
growth performance. Also, there was no light intensity
light sources effect on BW and BWG, respectively.
Moreover, there was no treatment effect on cumulative
FI and cumulative FCR data during the study period
(d one to d 56) as presented in Table 1. The influence
of light sources and light intensity on preprocessing live
weight, carcass characteristics, fat, and yields of broil-
ers at 56 d of age are presented in Table 2. The Cool-
PSF-LED bulbs had higher (P = 0.011) live weight in
comparison with ICD bulbs but there was no difference
among the new light source (CFL, Neutral-LED, Cool-
PSF-LED) bulbs examined. Also, there was no differ-
ence among ICD, CFL, and Neutral-LED bulbs on live
weight in the present study. Furthermore, Cool-PSF-
LED bulbs had higher (P = 0.045) carcass weight in
comparison with ICD bulbs. There was no difference
among new light source bulbs examined and no dif-
ference among ICD, CFL, and Neutral-LED bulbs on
carcass weight in the present study. There was no ef-
fect of light intensity and light intensity light sources
on live weight and carcass weight, respectively. Also,
there was no effect of light sources on carcass yield. In
addition, there was no effect of light sources, light in-
tensity, and their interaction on fat weight, fillet weight,
tender weight, and yields in the present study as pre-
sented in Table 2. The main effects of light sources and
light intensity on selected welfare indices are presented
in Table 3. As shown in the table, all examined welfare
indices (eyes to BW ratio, humoral immune response,
ocular assessments, ocular histopathologic examina-
tion, TI, GS) were not different statistically by treat-
ments on any of the sampling d. The data obtained for
6 OLANREWAJU ET AL.
Table 1. Main effects of light sources and light-intensity on growth performance of broilers grown to heavy
weights.1

BW (kg) BWG (kg)

Item 14 d 21 d 28 d 42 d 56 d 14 d 21 d 28 d 42 d 56 d
Light sources2
ICD 0.378 0.839 1.408 2.749b 4.124b 0.337 0.788 1.366 2.715b 4.080b
CFL 0.379 0.838 1.402 2.752a,b 4.156a,b 0.338 0.797 1.368 2.721a,b 4.114a,b
Neutral-LED 0.375 0.837 1.408 2.765a,b 4.130a,b 0.339 0.796 1.368 2.723a,b 4.089a,b
Cool-PSF-LED 0.381 0.845 1.416 2.769a 4.214a 0.341 0.805 1.376 2.726a 4.117a
Light intensity
5.0 lx 0.379 0.837 1.399 2.768 4.168 0.338 0.796 1.358 2.726 4.126
20.0 lx 0.378 0.837 1.399 2.754 4.104 0.337 0.797 1.357 2.712 4.063
Pooled SEM3 0.005 0.012 0.027 0.008 0.029 0.008 0.011 0.026 0.003 0.010
Light sources P-value 0.967 0.812 0.880 0.049 0.047 0.954 0.787 0.863 0.046 0.048
Light intensity P-value 0.865 0.995 0.959 0.671 0.104 0.887 0.971 0.976 0.680 0.106
FI (kg) FCR (kg of feed/kg of gain)

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Poultry Science Association Member on February 20, 2016
Item 14 d 21 d 28 d 42 d 56 d 14 d 21 d 28 d 42 d 56 d
Light sources2
ICD 0.425 1.046 1.959 4.4390 7.964 1.261 1.325 1.434 1.635 1.952
CFL 0.432 1.057 1.967 4.4815 7.977 1.283 1.325 1.446 1.647 1.939
Neutral-LED 0.427 1.053 1.949 4.4712 7.933 1.279 1.321 1.449 1.642 1.940
Cool-PSF-LED 0.436 1.059 1.966 4.4788 7.991 1.284 1.315 1.451 1.643 1.941
Light intensity
5.0 lx 0.432 1.053 1.962 4.468 7.953 1.280 1.320 1.446 1.634 1.939
20.0 lx 0.428 1.055 1.959 4.461 7.836 1.273 1.323 1.444 1.645 1.947
Pooled SEM3 0.008 0.022 0.022 0.056 0.085 0.011 0.013 0.008 0.005 0.007
Light sources P-value 0.615 0.979 0.929 0.976 0.950 0.434 0.931 0.490 0.509 0.622
Light intensity P-value 0.549 0.922 0.888 0.904 0.177 0.542 0.851 0.869 0.278 0.307

Means within a column and effect that lack common superscripts differ significantly (P 0.05)
a,b
1
BWG = BW gain, FI = Feed intake, FCR = Feed conversion ratio.
2
ICD = Incandescent light (standard), CFL = Compact Fluorescent light; Neutral-LED = Light Emitting Diode;
Cool-PSF-LED = Poultry Specific Filtered LED
3
Pooled SEM for main effects (n = 8)

Table 2. Main effects of light sources and light-intensity on live weight, carcass characteristics weights,
and yields of broilers grown to heavy weights at 56 d of age.1

Carcass FAT Breast Tender

Item Live weight Weight Yield Weight Yield Weight Yield Weight Yield
(kg) (kg) (%) (kg) (%) (kg) (%) (kg) (%)
Light sources2
ICD 4.080b 3.100b 75.98 0.061 1.97 0.882 28.45 0.178 5.74
CFL 4.119a,b 3.119a,b 75.72 0.062 1.99 0.890 28.53 0.179 5.74
Neutral-LED 4.114a,b 3.117a,b 75.77 0.064 2.05 0.889 28.52 0.181 5.81
Cool-PSF-LED 4.226a 3.159a 74.75 0.062 1.96 0.884 27.98 0.182 5.76
Light intensity
5.0 lx 4.162 3.112 74.94 0.061 1.99 0.894 28.76 0.180 5.78
20.0 lx 4.123 3.125 75.83 0.064 2.08 0.878 28.13 0.180 5.79
Pooled SEM3 0.014 0.015 0.042 0.001 0.049 0.011 0.195 0.0025 0.051
Light sources P-value 0.011 0.045 0.063 0.198 0.607 0.871 0.452 0.343 0.072
Light intensity P-value 0.213 0.565 0.121 0.065 0.079 0.074 0.058 0.636 0.849
a,b
Means within a column and effect that lack common superscripts differ significantly (P 0.05)
1
Carcass without giblets, necks, and abdominal fat are expressed as a percentage of preprocessing live weight, while
abdominal fats and pectoralis major and minor breast muscles are expressed as a percentage of carcass weight.
2
ICD = Incandescent light (standard); CFL = Compact Fluorescent light; Neutral-LED = Light Emitting Diode;
Cool-PSF-LED = Poultry Specific Filtered LED
3
Pooled SEM for main effects (n = 8)

mortality due to light sources and light intensity are DISCUSSION

presented in Table 4. We observed no effect of light
sources, light intensity, and light sources light in- A previously conducted study in our laboratory
tensity interaction on mortality throughout the study indicated that no difference among the 3 LED
period (d one to d 56). (2,700 k [Warm-LED]; 5,000 k [Cool-LED-1]; 5,000 k
 LIGHT-SOURCES AND GROWTH PERFORMANCE 7
Table 3. Main effects of light sources and light intensity on selected welfare indices of broilers grown to heavy weights.

Light sources1 Light intensity (lx) LS:LI2

Variables ICD CFL Neutral-LED Cool-PSF-LED P-value A B P-value SEM
Eyes to BW evaluation, d 42
BW (kg) 2.775 2.812 2.806 2.841 0.707 2.853 2.764 0.236 0.078
Total eye Wt (g) 5.329 5.288 5.209 5.368 0.529 5.341 5.256 0.370 0.130
Eye WT:BW 1.920 1.881 1.856 1.890 0.409 1.872 1.902 0.227 0.089
Immune response3 , 28 to 35 d-old
Log2 hemaglutination titers 4.234 4.287 4.265 4.143 0.252 4.284 4.254 0.213 0.278
Ocular assessments4 , d 42
Corneal lesion score (CLS) 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.548 0.03 0.03 0.423 0.015
Anterior chamber score (ACS) 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.425 0.02 0.02 0.358 0.012
Ocular histopathologic examination5 d 42
Iris

Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Poultry Science Association Member on February 20, 2016
Rostral ssurface 64.25 55.55 49.67 43.67 0.353 66.75 58.33 0.256 5.884
Diffuse lymphocytic infiltrates 49.67 49.44 47.32 46.16 0.459 48.24 48.45 0.642 5.658
Heterphilic infiltrates 33.34 28.43 23.26 24.23 0.356 31.14 31.31 0.433 5.452
Ciliary body
Diffuse lymphocytic infiltrates 24.15 24.16 24.41 24.14 0.411 24.27 24.26 0.256 2.786
Heterphilic infiltrates 23.71 23.63 23.43 23.25 0.423 20.80 22.72 0.526 2.613
General well-being6 d 49
Tonic immobility (TI) s 180.40 181.70 182.40 177.50 0.425 176.40 182.70 0.748 5.416
Gait score (GS), % 15.61 15.40 15.71 15.41 0.284 15.31 15.64 0.864 1.851
a,b
Means within a row and treatment that lack common superscripts differ significantly (P 0.05).
1
ICD = Incandescent light (standard); CFL = Compact Fluorescent light; Neutral-LED = Neutral Light Emitting Diode; Cool-PSF-LED
= Poultry Specific Filtered LED.
2
Pooled SEM for main effects (n = 8); LS:LI = Light Sources Light Intensity.
3,4,5,6
Evaluation and assessments are explained in detail under materials and methods.

Table 4. Main effects of light sources and light intensity growth performance, carcass characteristics, ocular de-
on mortality of broilers grown to heavy weights.1 velopment, immune response, mortality, and other wel-
Mortality (%)
fare indices of broilers grown to heavy weights. The
results indicated that the BW, BWG, live weight, and
Item 14 d 21 d 28 d 42 d 56 d
carcass weight were different only between birds reared
1
Light sources under Cool-PSF-LED and those reared under ICD, and
ICD 0.304 0.730 1.176 1.563 3.854
CFL 0.354 1.354 1.618 2.605 3.542 all other variables (FI and FCR, fat, breast and tender
Neutral-LED 0.313 0.625 0.869 1.980 3.646 weights, welfare indices and mortality) were not dif-
Cool-PSF-LED 0.313 0.729 0.964 1.771 2.917 ferent among ICD, CFL, and 2 LEDs with no effect
Light intensity of light intensity on all the variables examined. This
5.0 lx 0.573 0.677 1.019 1.667 3.490
20.0 lx 0.469 1.042 1.295 2.292 3.490
present study agrees with our recent reports and other
Pooled SEM2 0.236 0.347 0.412 0.459 0.705 studies that documented that ICD light sources may
Light sources P-value 0.265 0.436 0.584 1.418 0.806 be replaced with modern energy-efficient light sources
Light intensity P-value 0.660 0.298 0.506 0.179 0.998
without adverse effects on broiler growth and produc-
1
ICD = Incandescent light (Standard); CFL = Compact Flu- tion performances (Zimmermann, 1988; Leighton et al.,
orescent light; Neutral-LED = Light Emitting Diode; Cool-PSF- 1989; Olanrewaju et al., 2015). Furthermore, LED bulbs
LED = Poultry Specific Filtered LED.
2 have been studied for use in modern poultry husbandry
Pooled SEM for main effects (n = 8).
without any negative impact on broiler growth and pro-
duction performances (Halevy et al., 1998; Rozenboim
[Cool-LED-2]) bulbs examined on broiler growth per- et al., 1999a,b; Cao et al., 2008; Riber, 2015). In ad-
formance and carcass characteristics variables (Olanre- dition, results of the present study agree with those
waju et al., 2015). The results further indicated that the of Goldflus (1994) where light source (LED vs. CFL)
overall growth and production parameters (BW, BWG, alone did not significantly influence bird growth and
live weight, carcass weight) examined in the ICD bulb production performances. Moreover, FI and FCR were
group were statistically similar to those of Warm-LED not influenced by treatments throughout the experi-
and Cool-LED-2, but were statistically lower than those mental period in the present study. This is in agreement
of Cool-LED-1. This present study evaluated the effects with the study of Mendes et al. (2013) in which light
of CFL, Neutral-LED, and Cool-PSF-LED bulbs with source (LED vs. CFL) did not affect FCR, indicating
ICD, standard, from d one to d 56 and 2 levels (5 lx, that the LED bulbs resulted in better performance with
20 lx) of light intensities from 22 to 56 d of age on the same feed conversion as birds raised under ICD.
8 OLANREWAJU ET AL.
Modern commercial poultry facilities are using dim
light to optimize feed conversion and reduce energy uti-
lization. There was no effect of light intensity with no
difference between 20 lx and 5 lx on all examined vari-
ables in this study, which are in agreement with our
previous studies and those of others (Blatchford et al.,
2009; Deep et al., 2010; Olanrewaju et al., 2011a,b).
The previous findings from our laboratory indicated no
effects of varying light intensity ranging from 0.2 to 25
lx on growth and production performances and welfare
of broilers grown to heavy weights (Olanrewaju et al.,
2011a,b). Blatchford et al. (2009) found no difference in
final BW, GS, and most immune parameters in broilers
reared under 5, 50, and 200 lx. In addition no effect
of light intensity (one to 40 lx) on broiler growth and
production performances, as well as welfare, has been
documented by Deep et al. (2010).
It is known that lighting programs can affect many
aspects of avian physiology, welfare, and behavior that
include blood chemistry, blood gases, ocular develop-
ment, and behavioral rhythms (Nelson and Demas,
1997; Reiter, 2003; Olanrewaju et al., 2006). Although
there are conflicting reports on the effects of lighting
programs on the ocular development of birds and other
welfare indices, the present results indicate that all ex-
amined welfare indices (eyes to BW ratio, humoral im-
mune response, ocular assessments, ocular histophatho-
logic examination, TI, GS) were not statistically differ-
ent among light sources, light intensity, and their inter-
action on any of the sampling d, suggesting that these
treatments did not compromise the welfare of broilers
grown to heavy weights. The eye to BW ratio gives
a proportional size of the eye to BW. It has been re-
ported that the use of organ/body weight ratios may
be valuable in evaluating the relationship between cer-
tain experimental situations and the biological response
of a test organism (Wilber and Gilchrist, 1965; Bailey
et al., 2004). In addition, there was no effect of treat-
ments on histopathology examination, suggesting that
these new light sources have no negative effect on the
ocular development of modern broilers grown to heavy
weights, which agrees with our recent findings (Olan-
rewaju et al., 2014). Mortality rate was not statisti-
cally different among treatments. These results agree
with those of other studies in which light source (LED
vs. CFL) alone did not significantly influence mortality
rate (Goldflus, 1994).
In conclusion, the results indicate no significant dif-
ference among the 3 light sources on broiler growth per-
formance, carcass characteristics, and welfare indices.
In addition, there was no effect of light intensity, sug-
gesting that these evaluated light sources along with
light intensity used in this study are not detrimen-
tal to the welfare of broilers grown to heavy weights.
It was concluded that the 3 light sources evaluated
in this study may be suitable for replacement of ICD
light source in poultry facilities along with using a low-
lighting environment to reduce energy cost. This study
shows the positive impact on profits to commercial
poultry facilities to reduce energy costs and optimize
production efficiency without compromise to the wel-
fare of broilers grown to heavy weights.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Larry N. Halford and R. McCarty,
both of the USDA-ARS Poultry Research Unit, for their
contributions to this study.
REFERENCES
Assaf, W., I. Mohra, and Y. Hashem. 2015. Effect of light color on
some of performance indices of hybrid cup 500-broilers. Int. J.
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Poultry Science Association Member on February 20, 2016
Poult. Sci. 14:100102.
Bailey, S. A., R. H. Zidell, and R. W. Perry. 2004. Relationships
between organ weight and body/brain weight in the rat: What is
the best analytical endpoint? Toxicol. Pathol. 32:448466.
Blatchford, A., K. C. Klasing, H. L. Shivaprasad, P. S. Wakenell, G.
S. Archerand, and J. A. Mench. 2009. The effect of light inten-
sity on the behavior, eye and leg health, and immune function of
broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 88:2028.
Campbell, J., G. Simpson, J. Donald, K. Macklin, and F. Tabor.
2010. Broiler house lighting developments. The poultry engi-
neering, economic and management Newsletter. February 2010.
http://www.aces.edu/dept/poultryventilation/Newsletters.php.
Cao, J., W. Liu, Z. Wang, D. Xie, L. Jia, and Y. Chen. 2008. Green
and blue monochromatic lights promote growth and development
of broilers via stimulating testosterone secretion and myofiber
growth. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 17:211218.
Cao, J., Z. Wang, Y. Dong, Z. Zhang, J. Li, F. Li, and Y. Chen.
2012. Effect of combinations of monochromatic lights on growth
and productive performance of broilers. Poult. Sci. 91:30133018.
Craford, M. G. 1985. Light emitting diode display. Pages 289331 in:
Flat-Panel Display and CRTs. L. E. Tannas, ed. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., New York, NY.
Dawkins, M. S., C. A. Donnelly, and T. A. Jones. 2004. Chicken
welfare is influenced more by housing conditions than by stocking
density. Nature, 427:342344.
Deep, A., K. Schwean-Lardner, T. G. Crowe, B. I. Fancher, and H.
L. Classen. 2010. Effect of light intensity on broiler production,
processing characteristics, and welfare. Poult. Sci. 89:23262333.
EISA. 2007. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Pub. L.
110140, 121 Stat. 1492. Washington, DC. Government Printing
Office.
Food Marketing Institute and National Council of Chain Restau-
rants. 2003. FMI-NCCR animal welfare program. Food Marketing
Inst., Washington, DC.
Goldflus, F. 1994. Viabilidade da criacao de frangos de corte sob alta
densidade populacional. MS Thesis. College of Agrarian Sciences
and Veterinary, Paulista State Univ., Jaboticabal, Sao Paulo,
Brazil.
NRC. 1996. Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals.
Natl. Acad. Press, Washington, DC.
Halevy, O., I. Biran, and I. Rozenboim. 1998. Various light source
treatments affect body and skeletal muscle growth by affect-
ing skeletal muscle satellite cell proliferation in broilers. Comp.
Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 120:317323.
Jones, R. B., and D. Waddington. 1992. Modification of fear in do-
mestic chicks, Gallus gallus domesticus, via regular handling and
early environmental enrichment. Anim. Behav., 43:10211033.
Kim, M. J., S. M. Hossan, N. Akter, J. C. Na, T. Bang, H. K. Kang,
D. W. Kim, H. S. Chae, H. C. Choi, and O. S. Suh. 2012. Effect of
monochromatic light on sexual maturity, production performance
and egg quality of laying hens. Avian Biol. Res. 5:16.
Kim, M. J., R. Parvin, M. M. H. Mushtaq, J. Hwangbo, J. H. Kim, J.
C. Na, D. W. Kim, H. K. Kang, C. D. Kim, K. O. Cho, C. B. Yang,
and H. C. Choi. 2013. Growth performance and hematological
traits of broiler chickens reared under assorted monochromatic
light sources. Poult. Sci. 92:14611466.
 LIGHT-SOURCES AND GROWTH PERFORMANCE
Kristensen, H. K. 1948. An improved method of decalcification. Stain
Technol. 23:151154.
Kristin, S. C., S. J. M. Aamas, and N. G. Gregory. 1994. Leg weak-
ness in broiler chickens, a review of studies using gait scoring. pp.
203206 in Proc. 9th European Poult. Conf., Vol. 1, Glasgow,
UK.
Leighton, A. T., R. M. Hulet, and D. M. Denbow. 1989. Effect of light
sources and light intensity on growth performance and behaviour
of male turkeys. Br. Poult. Sci. 30:563574.
Mendes, A. S., S. J. Paixao, R. Restelatto, G. M. Morello, D. J.
de Moura, and J. C. Possenti. 2013. Performance and preference
of broiler chickens exposed to different lighting sources. J. Appl.
Poult. Res. 22:6270.
National Chicken Council. 2005. National Chicken Council Animal
Welfare Guidelines and Audit Guidelines. Natl. Chicken Council,
Washington, DC.
Nelson, R. J., and G. E. Demas. 1997. Role of melatonin in mediating
seasonal energetic and immunologic adaptations. Brain Res. Bull.
44:423430.
NRC. 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. 9th ed. Natl. Acad.
Sci., Washington, DC.
Olanrewaju, H. A., J. P. Thaxton, W. A. Dozier, III, J. Purswell, W.
B. Roush, and S. L. Branton. 2006. A review of lighting programs
for broiler production. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 4:301308.
Olanrewaju, H. A., W. W. Miller, W. R. Maslin, J. P. Thaxton,
J. L. Purswell, and S. L. Branton. 2007. Interactive effects of
ammonia and light intensity on ocular, fear, and leg health in
broiler chickens. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 10:762769.
Olanrewaju, H. A., W. W. Miller, W. R. Maslin, J. L. Purswell, S. D.
Collier, and S. L. Branton. 2011a. Effect of varying light intensity
on welfare indices of broiler chickens grown to heavy weights. Int.
J. Poult. Sci. 10:590596.
Olanrewaju, H. A., J. L. Purswell, S. D. Collier, and S. L. Branton.
2011b. Effect of varying light intensity on growth performance
and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens grown to heavy
weights. In. J. Poult. Sci. 10:921926.
Olanrewaju, H. A., W. W. Miller, W. R. Maslin, S. D. Col-
lier, J. L. Purswell, and S. L. Branton. 2014. Effects of strain
and light intensity on growth performance and carcass char-
acteristics of broilers grown to heavy weights. Poult. Sci. 93:
18901899.
9
Olanrewaju, H. A., J. L. Purswell, S. D. Collier, and S. L. Bran-
ton. 2015. Effects of color temperatures (kelvin) of LED bulbs
on growth performance, carcass characteristics, and ocular de-
velopment indices of broilers grown to heavy weights. Poult. Sci.
94:338344.
Prescott, N. B., and C. M. Wathes. 1999. Spectral sensitivity of the
domestic fowl (Gallus g. domesticus). Br. Poult. Sci. 40:332339.
Reiter, R. J. 2003. Melatonin: Clinical relevance. Best Pract. Res.
Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 17:273285.
Riber, A. B. 2015. Effects of color of light on preferences, perfor-
mance, and welfare in broilers. Poult. Sci. 94:17671775.
Rozenboim, I., I. Biran, Z. Uni, B. Robinzon, and O. Halevy. 1999a.
The effect of monochromatic light on broiler growth and devel-
opment. Poult. Sci. 78:135138.
Rozenboim, I., B. Robinzon, and A. Rosenstrauch. 1999b. Effect
of light source and regimen on growing broilers. Br. Poult. Sci.
40:452457.
Rozenboim, I., I. Biran, Y. Chaiseha, and S. Yahav. 2004. The effect
Downloaded from http://ps.oxfordjournals.org/ at Poultry Science Association Member on February 20, 2016
of a green and blue monochromatic light combination on broiler
growth and development. Poult. Sci. 83:842845.
SAS Institute Inc. 2010. SAS Proprietary Software Release 9.2. SAS
Inst. Inc., Cary, NC.
Thoft, R. A. 1979. Chemical and thermal injury. Int. Ophthalmol.
Clin. 19:243256.
Thornton, S. A., A. Corzo, G. T. Pharr, W. A. Dozier, III, D. M.
Miles, and M. T. Kidd. 2006. Valine requirements for immune
and growth responses in broilers from 3 to 6 weeks of age. Br.
Poult. Sci. 47:190199.
Waide, P. 2010. Phase out of incandescent lamps: Implications for
international supply and demand for regulatory compliant lamps.
April. Paris, France: International EnergyAgency. Retrieved:
http://www.iea.org/publications/free new Desc.asp?PUBS
ID=2256.
Wilber, C. G., and R. D. Gilchrist. 1965. Organ weight: body weight
ratios in the Mongolian Gerbil, Meriones Unguiculatus. Chesa-
peake Sci. 6:109114.
Xie, D., Z. X. Wang, Y. L. Dong, J. Cao, J. F. Wang, J. L. Chen,
and Y. X. Chen. 2008. Effect of monochromatic light on immune
response of broilers. Poult. Sci. 87:15351539.
Zimmermann, N. G. 1988. Broiler performance when reared under
various light sources. Poult. Sci. 67:4351.