Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Publications
Document Type
Article
Publication Version
Published Version
Publication Date
2000
Journal or Book Title
Transactions of the ASAE
Volume
43
Issue
6
First Page
1767
Last Page
770
Abstract
In-transit supply of nutrients and water supplement is essential to maintaining good chick quality and well-being during long, international shipments. Although chicks require light to promote ingestion of nutrients, supply of continuous in-transit lighting is impractical. This study compared four intermittent lighting regimens of 1L:5D, 5L:10D,10L:10D, and 5L:15D applied to a three-day simulated transport period with regard to chick performance and energetics during the treatment period and a four-day subsequent growth period. The four lighting regimens produced similar seven-day chick performance, although chicks under 10L:10D had a somewhat higher body mass loss and metabolic rate than birds in other regimens during the three-day treatment period (P < 0.05). The results suggest the existence of flexibility in providing in-transit lighting for shipping chicks. Significant differences in the heat and moisture production rate of the chicks were observed between light and dark periods, with the response values being 21 to 27% lower in the dark period than in the light period. The results further suggest that chicks in transit would benefit the most from sufficient lighting to ingest necessary nutrients but then remaining in darkness to conserve body energy.
Access
Open
Copyright Owner
American Society of Agricultural Engineers
Copyright Date
2000
Language
en
File Format
application/pdf
Recommended Citation
Han, Tao and Xin, Hongwei, "Effects of Intermittent Lighting on Breeder Chicks Provided with "In-Transit" Nutrients" (2000). Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering Publications. 165.
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/abe_eng_pubs/165
Comments
Journal Paper No J-18686 of the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Iowa State University, Project No. 3311. Financial support for the study was provided by the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association and is acknowledged with gratitude. Mention of vendor or product names is for presentation clarity and does not imply endorsement by the authors or Iowa State University nor exclusion of other suitable products.
This article is from Transactions of the ASAE 43, no. 6 (2000): 1767–1770.