Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-22T14:44:56.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Preferences of growing ducklings and turkey poults for illuminance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

CL Barber ,
NB Prescott ,
CM Wathes ,
C Le Sueur  and
GC Perry
CL Barber*
Affiliation:
Silsoe Research Institute, Silsoe, Bedfordshire MK45 4HS, UK Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Langford House, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
NB Prescott
Affiliation:
Silsoe Research Institute, Silsoe, Bedfordshire MK45 4HS, UK
CM Wathes
Affiliation:
Silsoe Research Institute, Silsoe, Bedfordshire MK45 4HS, UK
C Le Sueur
Affiliation:
Farm Animal Department, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Southwater, West Sussex RH13 7WN, UK
GC Perry
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, Langford House, Bristol BS40 5DU, UK
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The illuminance and spectral power distribution in 19 duckling and 16 turkey poult houses in the UK were sampled. Illuminance was highly variable within duckling houses and to a lesser extent in housing for turkey poults. In a free choice experiment, the preferences of commercial ducklings and turkey poults for four incandescent illuminances (<I, 6, 20 and 200 Ix; Osram, 60 W, Pearl) were tested at 2 and 6 weeks of age. Four replicate flocks of 12 birds were given continuous access to four compartments illuminated with each illuminance for six days. The illuminances were changed daily between the compartments. After two days of conditioning, the birds’ location and behaviour was recorded at 10 min intervals over 22 h. Nine and 12 defined behavioural categories were recorded for the ducklings and poults respectively. Ducklings spent significantly more time occupying the three brightest light environments both at 2 and 6 weeks of age, and the least time in the dimmest. Illuminance had a significant effect on the partition of behaviours amongst the light environments. At 2 weeks of age, locomotion and environmentally directed pecking occurred most often in 6, 20 and 200 lx, whereas at 6 weeks, preening and feeding also occurred more often in these light environments. At 6 weeks of age, resting, standing and drinking occurred significantly more often in 6 lx than in the dimmest environment. Turkeys spent most time in the brightest environment at 2 weeks of age, but in 20 and 200 Ix at 6 weeks. This change in overall preference was reflected in the partition of different behaviours between the light environments. At 2 weeks of age, all behaviours were observed to occur most often in 200 lx. At 6 weeks, resting and perching were observed least often in <I lx, whereas all other activities were observed more in the two brightest light environments. These results show that ducklings and turkey poults have significant but differing preferences for illuminance, and imply that some spatial or temporal variation in the ambient illuminance of housing would be consistent with their preferences.

Keywords

animal welfarebehaviourducklingsenvironmental preferencelightingturkey poults
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , May 2004 , pp. 211 - 224
Copyright
© 2004 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alsam, H and Wathes, C M 1991 Cojoint preferences of chicks for heat and light intensity. British Poultry Science 32: 899–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M C, Hughes, B O and Elson, H A 1992 Poultry Production Systems: Behaviour, Management and Welfare. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Appleby, M C, McRae, H E and Pietz, B E 1984 The effect of light on the choice of nests by domestic hens. Applied Animal Ethology 11: 249–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom, H J M, Baumans, V, van Vorestenbosch, C J A H V, van Zutphen, L F M and Beyen, A C 1993 Preference tests with rodents to assess housing conditions. Animal Welfare 2: 81–87Google Scholar
Boshouwers, F M G and Nicaise, E 1987 Physical activity and the energy expenditure of laying hens as affected by light intensity. British Poultry Science 33: 711–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, N J, Prescott, N B, Savory, C J and Wathes, C M 1999 Preferences of growing fowls for different light intensities in relation to age, strain and behaviour. Animal Welfare 8: 193–203Google Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1976 Towards an objective method of assessing animal welfare in domestic fowl. Applied Animal Ethology 2: 245–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1980 Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare. Chapman and Hall: London, UKCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1983 Battery hens name their price: consumer demand theory and the measurement of ethological ‘needs’. Animal Behaviour 31: 1195–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawkins, M S 1990 From an animal's point of view: motivation, fitness and animal welfare. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13: 1–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, I J H 1978 The interpretation of preference tests in animal behaviour. Applied Animal Ethology 4: 197–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Endler, J H 1993 The colour of light in forests and its implications. Ecological Monographs 63: 1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAWC 1995 Report on the Welfare of Turkeys. Farm Animal Welfare Council: Surbiton, UKGoogle Scholar
Gentle, M J 1986 Beak trimming in poultry. World's Poultry Science Journal 42: 268–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimes, J L and Siopes, T D 1999 A survey and overview of lighting practices in the US turkey breeder industry. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 8: 493–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, N S, Partridge, J C and Cuthill, I C 1999 Visual pigments, cone oil droplets, ocular media and predicted spectral sensitivity in the domestic turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). Vision Research 39: 3321 -3328CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hester, P Y, Sutton, A L and Elkin, R G 1987 Effect of light intensity, litter source and litter management on the incidence of leg abnormalities and performance of turkey toms. Poultry Science 66: 666–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O 1976 Preference decisions of the domestic hen for wire or litter floors. Applied Animal Ethology 2: 155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O and Black, A J 1974 The effect of environmental factors on activity, selected behaviour patterns and fear of fowls in cages and pens. British Poultry Science 15: 375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B O and Gentle, M J 1995 Beak trimming in poultry: its implications for welfare. World's Poultry Science Journal S1: 51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jane, S D and Bowmaker, J K 1988 Tetrachromatic color-vision in the duck (Anas platyrhynchos) — microspectrophotometry of visual pigments and oil droplets. Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology 162: 225–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, E, Prescott, B, Wathes, C M and Cook, P 2001 Ultraviolet light and mating behaviour in domestic broiler breeders. British Poultry Science 42: 23–32CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, J B, Burgess, L R, Webster, A J F and Wathes, C M 1996 Behavioural responses of pigs to atmospheric ammonia in a chronic choice test. Animal Science 63: 437–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King-Smith, P E 1971 Special senses. In: Bell, D J and Freeman, B M (eds) Physiology and Biochemistry of the Domestic Fowl, Volume 2 pp 1040–1081. Academic Press: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Lawes Agricultural Trust 1989 Genstat S Reference Manual. Oxford University Press: New York, USAGoogle Scholar
MAFF 1987a Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Ducks. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: London, UKGoogle Scholar
MAFF 1987b Codes of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Turkeys. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Manser, C E 1996 Effects of lighting on the welfare of domestic poultry: a review. Animal Welfare 5: 341–360Google Scholar
Martin, P and Bateson, P 1990 Measuring Behaviour: An Introductory Guide, 2nd Edition. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D B and May, H C 1973 The topographical distribution of rods and cones in the adult chicken retina. Experimental Eye Research 17: 347–355CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moinard, C and Sherwin, C 1999 Turkeys prefer fluorescent light with supplementary ultraviolet radiation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 64: 261–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteith, J L 1973 Principles of Environmental Physics. Edward Arnold: London UKGoogle Scholar
Morris, T R 1967 Light requirements of the fowl. In: Carter, T C (ed) Environmental Control in Poultry Production pp 15–39. Oliver and Boyd: Edinburgh, UKGoogle Scholar
Nuboer, J F W, Coemans, M A J M and Vos, J 1992 Artificial lighting in poultry houses: are photometric units appropriate for describing illumination intensities. British Poultry Science 33: 135–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parrish, J, Benjamin, R and Smith, R 1981 Near-ultraviolet light reception in the Mallard. Auk 9: 627–629Google Scholar
Perry, G and Lewis, P 1993 Light perception and behaviour. In: Savory, C J and Hughes, B O (eds) Fourth European Symposium on Poultry Welfare pp 27–38. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare: Wheathampstead, Hertfordshire, UKGoogle Scholar
Prescott, N B and Wathes, C M 1999a Reflective properties of domestic fowl (Gallus g. domesticus), the fabric of their housing and the characteristics of the light environment in environmentally controlled poultry houses. British Poultry Science 40: 185–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prescott, N B and Wathes, C M 1999b Spectral sensitivity of the domestic fowl (Gallus g. domesticus). British Poultry Science 40: 332–339CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prescott, N B, Wathes, C M and Jarvis, J R 2003 Light, vision and the welfare of poultry. Animal Welfare 12: 269–288Google Scholar
Proudfoot, F G and Sefton, A E 1978 Feed texture and light treatment effects on the performance of broiler chickens. Poultry Science 57: 408–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter, K 1997 Das verhalten von enten (Anas platyrhynchos): literaturstudie. Archiv Für Geflügelkunde 61: 149–161 [Title translation: The behaviour of domestic ducks (Anas platyrhynchos): a study of literature]Google Scholar
RSPCA 1999a Freedom Food: The RSPCA Welfare Standards for Ducks. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Horsham, UKGoogle Scholar
RSPCA 1999b Freedom Food: The RSPCA Welfare Standards for Turkeys. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Horsham, UKGoogle Scholar
Savory, C J and Duncan, B O 1982/83 Voluntary regulation of lighting by domestic fowls in Skinner boxes. Applied Animal Ethology 9: 73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C M 1998 Light intensity preferences of domestic male turkeys. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 55: 121–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siopes, T D, Timmons, M B, Baughman, G R and Parkhurst, C R 1984 The effects of light intensity on turkey poult performance, eye morphology and adrenal weight. Poultry Science 63: 904–909CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, C E and Forbes, J M 1999 Morphology of the eyes of turkeys reared under commercial lighting regimes at different light intensities. In: Proceedings of the World's Poultry Science Association Spring Meeting, 24-25th March 1999, Scarborough, UK pp 48–49Google Scholar
Wells, M C, Lehner, P N, Bolen, E G and Rylander, M K 1975 Comparison of scotopic sensitivity in diurnal (Anas platyrhynchos) and crepuscular (Dedrocygna autumalis) ducks. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 55: 940–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widowski, T M, Keeling, L J and Duncan, I J H 1992 The preferences of laying hens for compact fluorescent over incandescent lighting. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 72: 203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar