Intermittent light program impacts on reproductive performance, health and welfare of breeding hens

Mohamed F A Farghly; Rashed A Alhotan; Khalid M Mahrose; Youssef A Attia; Mostafa Abdelfattah; Mohammed Abougabal; Mossad Taboosha; Mohammed Ghonime; Mahmoud Shaaban; Caterina Losacco; Vincenzo Tufarelli

doi:10.5194/aab-66-315-2023

Intermittent light program impacts on reproductive performance, health and welfare of breeding hens

Arch Anim Breed. 2023 Nov 14;66(4):315-324. doi: 10.5194/aab-66-315-2023. eCollection 2023.

Affiliations

¹ Poultry Production Department, Agriculture College, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt.
² Department of Animal Production, College of Food and Agricultural Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
³ Animal and Poultry Production Department, Faculty of Technology and Development, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
⁴ Animal and Poultry Production Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Damanhour University, Damanhour 22516, Egypt.
⁵ Animal Production Department, Agriculture College, Al-Azher University, Cairo, Egypt.
⁶ Animal and Poultry Production Department, Agriculture and Natural Resources College, Aswan University, Aswan, Egypt.
⁷ Poultry Production Department, Faculty of Agriculture, New Valley University, New Valley, Egypt.
⁸ Department of Precision and Regenerative Medicine and Jonian Area, Section of Veterinary Science and Animal Production, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Valenzano, Bari, Italy.

Abstract

The lighting regime significantly impacts poultry production, reproductive performance, health and welfare. This study aimed to test the effect of the intermittent light (IL) regime on reproductive organs and hormones, semen quality, and behavioral performance. Thus, 270 Rhode Island Red hens aged 20 weeks were distributed among three groups of six replicates and 15 birds each, housed in floor pens. The first group was used as a control (C) and was exposed to constant light for 16 h d $^{- 1}$ , while birds in other groups were exposed to IL for 20 min h $^{- 1}$ (T20) and 40 min h $^{- 1}$ (T40) during the 16 h light period. The outcomes were that follicle number was higher for T20 compared to T40 but not the controls, while T40 is different from T20 but not the controls. The same is true for testosterone. The sperm concentration is lower for T40 compared to the controls, with no difference between T20 and the controls. Body temperature was not different among groups. Conversely, differences were not noticed for leg alterations; plumage conditions; and relative ovary, oviduct, and/or testes weight and hatchability. Thus, the IL T20 program should be further investigated as a lighting regimen for managing Rhode Island Red laying hens for stimulating follicle number and testosterone without negatively impacting the physiological response and health traits. From a practical point of view, the IL schedule of 20 min h $^{- 1}$ during 20-36 weeks of age can be economically viable due to saving 66 % of the light cost.