Next Article in Journal
Ruminal Bacterial Community Successions in Response to Monensin Supplementation in Goats
Previous Article in Journal
Prolactin Expression in the Baboon (Papio hamadryas) Eye
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 12
Issue 17
10.3390/ani12172290
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Photoperiod on the Performance, Blood Profile, Welfare Parameters, and Carcass Characteristics in Broiler Chickens

by
Hee-Jin Kim
1,
Jiseon Son
1,
Jin-Joo Jeon
1,
Hyun-Soo Kim
1,
Yeon-Seo Yun
1,
Hwan-Ku Kang
1,
Eui-Chul Hong
1,* and
Ji-Hyuk Kim
2,*
1
Poultry Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, RDA, Pyeongchang 25342, Korea
2
Department of Animal Resources Science, Kongju National University, Yesan 32439, Korea
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2022, 12(17), 2290; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172290
Submission received: 1 August 2022 / Revised: 29 August 2022 / Accepted: 30 August 2022 / Published: 3 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Animal Welfare)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The physiology and behavior of birds, including poultry, are greatly affected by light. The poultry industry uses lighting regimens with long lighting periods to maximize the growth of broiler chickens. Rapid growth not only adversely affects the health of the birds, but also causes great stress. As animal welfare issues have become increasingly important, concerns regarding the current photoperiods in broiler production have increased. In this study, the effects of the photoperiod on the productivity and various welfare indicators on broiler rearing were investigated. Generally, the productivity and stress of broilers were both positively and negatively correlated with the photoperiod. The results showed that a photoperiod of 18L:6D was appropriate, when considering the growth and stress of broilers. The optimum photoperiod for broilers may vary in different feeding phases, with respect to performance and welfare. Therefore, continuous research is needed to establish the ideal light regimens under the consideration of the productivity and welfare of broilers.

Abstract

We studied the effects of photoperiods on the growth performance, blood profile, welfare parameters, and carcass characteristics of broilers. A total of 336 male broiler chicks (Ross 308) were randomly allocated into 4 treatments (84 birds per treatment with 4 replicates), based on the following lighting regimen: 24 h continuous light (24L), 18 h continuous light (18L:6D), 8 h continuous light (8L:16D), and intermittent light (4L:2D). Body weight and feed intake of 7- and 35-day-old broilers were measured. At 5 weeks of age, 12 birds per treatment were selected for blood collection and carcass analysis. Body weight, body weight gain, and feed intake were the lowest in the 8L:16D treatment (p < 0.05). The heterophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, aspartate aminotransferase, interleukin-6, and corticosterone levels in the 24L treatment increased significantly when compared to that in the 18L:6D treatment (p < 0.05). The footpad dermatitis score was significantly lower in the 18L:6D and 8L:16D treatments than in the 24L and 4L:2D treatments (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the carcass and meat characteristics, except for the shear force of breast meat (Pectoralis major), which was the lowest in the 8L:16D treatment (p < 0.05). These results indicate that a photoperiod of 18 h resulted in an improvement in the performance and welfare of birds and a simultaneous decrease in stress level. However, further research is needed to establish a lighting regimen that satisfies both the productivity and welfare requirements of broilers in different feeding phases.

1. Introduction

Light is a critical extrinsic factor that controls physiological and behavioral processes in birds, especially poultry, where birds are often grown in artificial light environments. The characteristics of light, such as intensity, spectrum (or wavelength), and photoperiod affect living organisms [1], and are used as management tools to control behavior and improve the well-being and performance of poultry [2]. Photoperiod, along with light intensity, is an important factor that influences the physical growth and reproductive development of birds. The photoperiodic regimens of broiler chickens can be manipulated to maximize feed intake and efficiency [3].
Typical photoperiods include continuous light (24L), near-continuous light (23L:1D), intermittent light with repeating light and dark cycles, and step-up light with a gradually increasing photoperiod [1]. Since rapid growth and high feed efficiency are important parameters for the productivity and economy of the broiler industry, most broiler facilities use the continuous or intermittent light regimens that help maximize the feed intake and growth of broilers [4,5,6]. Although conventional lighting regimens induce rapid growth and improve the performance of broilers, they can also cause several health effects and raise welfare concerns [7]. Rapid growth increases the incidence of skeletal disorders and metabolic diseases, which may increase the mortality of broilers [1].
Reducing the growth rate by controlling the photoperiod may reduce the incidence of skeletal and metabolic diseases. Classen and Riddell [3] reported that a gradual increase in photoperiod from 6 to 23 h significantly reduced leg abnormalities in broilers, compared with those in a control group that received continuous light for 23 h; both groups exhibited similar performance parameters. Several studies have suggested the use of a more natural light pattern instead of the commonly used 23L:1D regimen to limit skeletal abnormalities in broilers [6,8,9].
A moderate photoperiod (i.e., 16L:8D) is beneficial for the welfare of broilers, including reduced physiological stress, enhanced immune response, and increased sleep duration and physical activity [9,10,11].
Darkness is as important as light for the growth and health of birds [7]. Prolonged dark periods during rearing impede access to feed, which further leads to reduced feed intake and limited growth. However, dark periods provide sufficient resting time for the birds, allowing reduced stress levels that help their health [4,12,13]. Rest and sleep serve vital functions, such as tissue restoration and growth, energy conservation, neurobehavioral performance, etc. [14]. Animal welfare organizations, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) [15] and Animal Welfare Certification Standards (AWCS) [16], recommend a minimum dark period of 6 h as the poultry welfare standard.
Stress parameters that can indicate animal welfare status include blood corticosterone, blood glucose, triglycerides, and the heterophils-to-lymphocytes (H/L) ratio. The incidence of footpad dermatitis (FPD) is also used as a welfare parameter in broilers reared in floor-houses [13]. Animal welfare is a major issue worldwide, and measures to improve the welfare of chickens are implemented in the poultry industry. Although several reports have been published on the influence of lighting regimens on the performance and health conditions of broilers, only few studies involve a comprehensive analysis of parameters such as productivity, various stress indicators, and carcass characteristics. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to compare the effects of different photoperiods on productivity, blood biochemical profiles, stress and welfare indicators, and carcass characteristics of broilers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Birds, Housing and Experimental Design

Ross 308 male broilers (336, 1-day-old, body weight 48.0 ± 0.17 g) were used in this study. The experiment was performed in a floor-pen broiler house at the Poultry Research Institute (Pyeongchang, Korea) for 35 days. For the first 7 days, the chicks were reared under the same light intensity (30 lx) and photoperiod (22L:2D). From the second week, the chicks were randomly allocated to four treatments (4 replicates per treatment, 21 birds per replicate). The four treatments were 24 h continuous light (24L), 18 h continuous light (18L:6D), 8 h continuous light (8L:16D), and intermittent light (4L:2D). The 18L:6D and 8L:16D treatments were set based on AWCS of Korea [16], which recommends a minimum dark period of 6 h and a maximum light period of 8 h.
The birds were provided with a corn-soybean meal-based commercial broiler starter diet (CP 22.5%, ME 3020 kcal/kg) for week 1, a grower diet (CP 18.5%, ME 3050 kcal/kg) for weeks 2–3, and a finisher diet (CP 18.0%, ME 3100 kcal/kg) for weeks 4–5. Throughout the experiment, the birds had ad libitum access to feed, and water via a bell-type water dispenser. An LED light bulb was used as the light source, and the light intensity was maintained at 35 lx.

2.2. Growth Performance

For growth performance analysis according to photoperiod, body weight was measured on the initial (7-days-old) and final days (35-days-old) to determine the body weight gain and feed conversion ratio. The feed intake for each treatment was calculated by measuring the remaining feed at the end of the experiment. The feed conversion ratio was defined as the ratio of feed intake to weight gain during the test period.

2.3. Blood Sampling and Measurements

At 35 days, blood samples were collected from the wing veins of 12 birds (3 birds per replication, birds of similar body weight) selected from each treatment. Blood samples were analyzed for leukocytes, erythrocytes, and thrombocytes using a hemocytometer (HematVet 950; Drew Scientific, FL, USA). The biochemical composition of the serum was analyzed using a hematology analyzer (AU480 Chemistry Analyzer, Beckman Coulter Inc., CA, USA).

2.4. Cytokines and Corticosterone

Corticosterone and cytokine stress hormone levels were analyzed in the serum samples. Cytokine analysis was performed using tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and interleukin-6 (IL-6) with the Chicken IL-6 ELISA Kit (MBS268769, MyBioSource, San Diego, CA, USA) and Chicken TNF-α ELISA Kit (MBS2509660, MyBioSource, San Diego, CA, USA), respectively. Corticosterone analysis was performed using a commercially available Chicken Corticosterone Kit (ECH0077, Wuhan Fine Biotech Co. Ltd., Wuhan, China), according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

2.5. Litter Moisture Content and Footpad Dermatitis

To determine the moisture content of litter, 40 g of litter was collected on the day before slaughter; dry weight measurements were collected after drying the litter samples for 24 h at 105 °C. Moisture content was expressed as a percentage (%) of the difference between the fresh weight and dry weight of litter samples.
The footpad dermatitis (FPD) score of the broilers was evaluated according to the criteria of Welfare Quality [17]. The FPD score ranged from 0 to 4 points (Table 1); 40 birds per treatment were evaluated during the final week. The FPD score was calculated as the average value of the degrees.

2.6. Carcass Yield and Carcass Cut Yields

At 35 days of age, 12 birds per treatment (3 birds per replicate) were selected for the measurement of processing performance. The selected birds were euthanized via CO2 asphyxiation and the carotid artery was subsequently cut and exsanguinated. The feathers, head, feet, and intestines were removed to measure the carcass yield. Carcass cut yields were measured by dividing the breasts, legs, wings, neck, and back. Carcass yield and carcass cut yields were expressed as a percentage of carcass weight and partial meat weight to the living body weight.

2.7. Physicochemical Properties of Breast Meat

Breast meat (Pectoralis major) samples collected from 12 birds per treatment were used to analyze the physicochemical parameters. The samples were weighed and stored at 4 °C until 24 h postmortem. The chemical composition (moisture, crude protein, crude fat, and crude ash) of the breast meat was determined using the AOAC method [18]. The pH was measured using a pH meter (pH-K21, NWK-Binar GmbH, Celiusstr, Germany) and color intensity (CIE L*, a*, b*) was measured using a colorimeter (CR301 Chromameter, Minolta Co., Japan), calibrated with a white standard plate (Y = 92.40, x = 0.3136, and y = 0.3196).
The shear force (SF), cooking loss and water holding capacity (WHC) of breast meat were analyzed according to method of Chae et al. [19]. For the determination of SF, each sample (average weight, 61 g) was heated individually in a polyethylene bag immersed in a water bath at 70 °C for 10 min. The samples were then cooled at room temperature, and cores (diameter, 1.27 cm) were collected in the longitudinal direction of the muscle fibers. SF values were estimated using a Warner–Bratzler shear blade attached to a texture analyzer (TA-XT2, Stable Micro Systems Ltd., Surrey, UK). To measure the cooking loss, each sample was placed in a polyethylene bag that was then heated at 85 °C in a water bath for 45 min. After cooling at room temperature for 20 min, cooking loss was calculated as the percentage of weight loss after heating. WHC was calculated as a percentage of the difference between them by subtracting the free water generated by centrifugation and the total water in the meat. For free water, 0.5 g of a sample from which fat and fascia (tendon) were removed was placed in a tube, heated at 80 °C for 20 min in a water bath, and centrifuged at 448× g for 10 min. WHC percentage was calculated as the value obtained by dividing the fat coefficient (the value obtained after subtracting the fat content from the sample, %, n = 12) by the weight before and after centrifugation.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

All data were analyzed using the general linear model (GLM) procedure of SAS software (version 9.4, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Duncan’s multiple range test was used to determine significant differences among treatments. Differences were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Growth Performance

Table 2 shows the body weight, feed intake and feed conversion ratio of broilers according to the lighting regimen. Final body weight and body weight gain were the lowest in the 8L:16D treatment at 1862 and 1705 g, respectively (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was observed between the 8L:16D and 18L:6D treatments. Schwean-Lardner et al. [20] reported that feed intake decreases at photoperiods less than 18L:6D. In this study, feed intakes in the 18L:6D and 8L:16D treatments were 3315 and 3117 g, respectively, indicating a decreasing trend when the photoperiod was less than 18L:6D. However, the feed conversion ratio did not differ significantly among the treatments.

3.2. Blood Cell Composition

Table 3 shows the results of leukocytes, erythrocytes, and platelets levels of broilers according to the lighting regimen. The heterophil to lymphocyte ratio (H/L ratio) was 0.62, 0.51, 0.55, and 0.59 in each treatment; and was significantly lower in the 18L:6D treatment than that in the 24L treatment (p < 0.05). However, no significant differences were observed among the 24L, 8L:16D and 4L:2D treatments. Additionally, no significant differences were observed among the 18L:6D, 8L:16D and 4L:2D treatments.
Blood cells (leukocytes, erythrocytes, and platelets) are known as important indicators of broiler health status, including stress [21]. In particular, white blood cells protect against external stimuli and foreign substances in all vertebrates [22]. The H/L ratio is typically used as an indicator of stress in chickens [23].
It is known that continuous light, such as 24L or 23L:1D [4], or intermittent light [24] regimens disrupt resting behavior and increases stress in chickens. In a study by Olanrewaju et al. [25], the H/L ratio of birds under 8L:16D treatment was similar to that under 23L:1D and 2L:2D treatments; similar results were obtained in this study. The increased H/L ratio of birds under shorter light regimens (8L:16D) could be attributed to the stress experienced because of the limited accessibility to feed during the dark period. Lien et al. [1] reported that there was no significant difference in the H/L ratio between the 23L:1D and 18L:6D treatments. However, this could be because of the light intensity used by Lien et al. [1], which was 0.1 and 10 lx, whereas it was 35 lx in the present study.

3.3. Serum Biochemical Composition

Table 4 shows the results of the serum biochemical composition according to the lighting regimen involved. The total cholesterol (TC) in the 8L:16D treatment was 110.2 mg/dL, which was the lowest among the treatments (p < 0.05). The aspartate aminotransferase (AST) level in both 18L:6D and 8L:16D treatments was 277.2 U/L, which was significantly lower than that in other treatments (p < 0.001).
In the event of stress in poultry, the biological metabolism is altered, resulting in a decrease or increase in serum glucose, cholesterol, and albumin levels [26]. Therefore, the blood biochemical composition is often used as an indicator for evaluating metabolic diseases in poultry [27]. Aspartate aminotransferase (AST) is a major indicator of liver (inflammation, infection, etc.) and muscle (trauma, seizure, etc.) damage; increased AST results in cell damage [28]. In this study, higher AST levels in the 24L treatment than those in the 18L:6D and 8L:16D treatments were thought to be because of cell damage caused by physiological stress, as indicated in previous studies [4,24]. In contrast, blood glucose, triglycerides, and lactate dehydrogenase levels, which are related to feed intake, did not show a significant difference among the treatments; these results are in agreement with the work of Fidan et al. [13] and Olanrewaju et al. [29].

3.4. Cytokines and Corticosterone

The cytokine (IL-6, TNF-α) and corticosterone levels in the serum of broilers under different lighting regimens are shown in Table 5. IL-6 and corticosterone levels were significantly higher in the 24L and 4L:2D treatments (p < 0.001); we did not observe a significant difference in the TNF-α levels among the treatments.
With a prolonged photoperiod, the opportunity for rest and sleep in the birds decreases, which results in an increase in physiological stress, and the subsequent induction of inflammation [30]. Cytokines are released as a consequence of acute inflammation [31,32]. The release of serum corticosterone is activated by anxiety and stress; therefore, it may also be used as an indicator for stress in poultry [33]. Qin et al. [34] reported that the serum cytokine concentrations, including IL-6 and TNF-α, in ducks with FPD were significantly higher than those in healthy ducks. In the present study, it was presumed that IL-6 and corticosterone levels of broilers in the 24L and 4L:2D treatments increased because of the occurrence of FPD and physiological stress.
Various studies have analyzed changes in corticosterone concentrations, with respect to the photoperiod regimen in broilers. Buckland et al. [35] reported that plasma corticoid levels were significantly lower after 13 h of lighting than those after 24 h of lighting. Abbas et al. [36] reported that the serum corticosterone content was higher in birds under non-intermittent restricted light (12L:12D) than that under intermittent light (2L:2D).
The results of the present study that indicate increased cytokine and corticosterone levels under environmental stress conditions are, thus, consistent with those indicated by Buckland et al. [35] and Abbas et al. [36]. This is in accordance with the results of the H/L ratio in the current study. Pandey [37] reported that broilers require at least 4 h of resting time. However, stress levels may increase because of lower feed intake when the dark period is prolonged.

3.5. Litter Moisture Content and Foot Pad Dermatitis

Table 6 shows the litter moisture content and FPD scores according to the lighting regimen. The litter moisture content did not differ significantly among the treatments. However, the FPD score was significantly lower in the 18L:6D and 8L:16D treatments than that in the 24L and 4L:2D treatments (p < 0.001).
FPD causes inflammation and necrosis of the plantar surface of the footpad in broilers. FPD causes pain and negatively affects poultry welfare [38]. Severe lesions may result in reductions in weight gain, owing to the pain-induced decreases in feed intake [39]. Thus, the FPD score is often used as an indicator of broiler welfare in European countries [40] and Korea [15].
The occurrence of FPD is positively correlated with the litter moisture content [41,42] and body weight of birds [43]. Meluzzi et al. [41] stated that photoperiod may influence litter moisture content. In addition, light intensity or photoperiod can affect the activity of birds, and consequently, the occurrence of FPD. Ferrante et al. [44] showed that a moderate photoperiod (16L:8D) resulted in the decreased occurrence of footpad lesions in broilers. Schwean-Lardner et al. [45] also reported that footpad lesion scores were higher under longer photoperiods. Karaarslan and Nazlıgül [46] reported that the incidence of FPD decreased in birds under 18 h of light, compared with that under 23 h of light. In contrast, Petek et al. [47] reported that litter moisture content and the incidence of FPD did not differ significantly difference between 24L and intermittent light (2L:2D). The results of these studies are consistent with the findings of the present study.
Additionally, the litter moisture content was higher in the 24L and 4L:2D treatments than that in the 18L:6D and 8L:16D treatments, although no significant difference was observed. This result is consistent with the body weight of the broilers in each treatment. As mentioned earlier, the photoperiod influences bird activity, which is a major factor that affects the occurrence of FPD. Continuous light or frequent alternations between light and darkness stimulates the physical activity of birds. Therefore, it was assumed that physical activity according to the photoperiod, body weight gain, and presumably litter moisture content affected the overall occurrence of FPD in our study. However, the relationships among these factors need to be investigated further in future studies.

3.6. Carcass Characteristics and Physicochemical Properties of Breast Meat

Table 7 shows the carcass yield and carcass cut yields of broilers according to the lighting regimen. The photoperiod did not significantly affect carcass yield or carcass cut yields of broilers. Previous studies have shown that the photoperiod has little effect on carcass yield [1,6,13] or carcass cut yields, with consistent wings, legs and breast meat proportions [6,13]. The results of the present study were consistent with those of previous studies.
Table 8 shows the proximate composition and physicochemical properties of the breast meat according to the lighting regimen. No significant differences were detected in the moisture (76.1% to 76.5%), crude protein (21.9% to 22.2%), and crude fat (1.25% to 1.43%) contents of breast meat among the treatments. These proximate compositions were similar to the results of Kim et al. [48], who compared the breast meat characteristics between conventional and animal welfare farms. Tuell et al. [49] reported that moisture, crude protein, and crude fat contents were not affected by the photoperiod.
We did not observe any significant differences in meat quality characteristics, such as pH, meat color (L*, a*, b*), cooking loss, and WHC, among the treatments. However, the SF was significantly higher in the 24L treatment than in the 8L:16D treatment (p < 0.05). Meat color is used as an important indicator for consumers during purchase [50]. WHC and cooking loss indicate the ability to retain moisture during the processing and storage of meat and affect juiciness [51]. SF is associated with connective tissue that contributes to the meat preference, flavor, and tenderness of cooked meat [52]. Various studies have shown that the photoperiod does not affect the pH, meat color, cooking loss, or WHC of breast meat in broilers [13,47,49].
Kim et al. [48] reported that the SF of breast meat is significantly higher for broilers reared on welfare farms than for those reared in conventional farms. Other studies have also found that the SF of meat increased in birds reared in free-range systems [53,54]. They attributed this to the increased activity or movement of the broilers. In addition, in this study, it was assumed that the SF was affected by the higher activity of birds in the 24L treatment than in the 8L:16D treatment.

4. Conclusions

The overall results suggest that the photoperiod of 18L:6D recommended by the welfare standard is appropriate, considering the performance parameters and stress of broilers. When the performance of broilers improved with the prolonged photoperiod, it resulted in increased stress, whereas when the stress levels decreased with the reduced photoperiod, the performance also decreased. The optimum photoperiod for broilers may vary with age with respect to performance and welfare. Since an ideal photoperiod that satisfies both productivity and welfare has not yet been established, further research is needed to evaluate the various light regimens for their implementation in the broiler industry.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.-J.K. and E.-C.H.; Methodology, H.-J.K.; Validation, E.-C.H. and J.-H.K.; Formal Analysis, J.-J.J.; Investigation, J.S. and H.-S.K.; Resources, Y.-S.Y.; Data Curation, H.-K.K.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, H.-J.K.; Writing—Review and Editing, E.-C.H. and J.-H.K.; Supervision, H.-K.K.; Project Administration, H.-J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was carried out with the support of the “2021 RDA Fellowship Program of National Institute of Animal Science” and “Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science & Technology Development (Project No. 01483101)”, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The experimental procedure of this study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of the National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Korea (Approval No.: 2020-424).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lien, R.J.; Hess, J.B.; McKee, S.R.; Bilgili, S.F.; Townsend, J.C. Effect of light intensity and photoperiod on live performance, heterophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, and processing yields of broilers. Poult. Sci. 2007, 86, 1287–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Sultana, S.; Hassan, M.R.; Choe, H.S.; Ryu, K.S. The effect of monochromatic and mixed LED light colour on the behaviour and fear responses of broiler chicken. Avian Biol. Res. 2013, 6, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Classen, H.L.; Riddell, C. Photoperiodic effects on performance and leg abnormalities in broiler chickens. Poult. Sci. 1989, 68, 873–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Campo, J.L.; Davila, S.G. Effect of photoperiod on heterophil to lymphocyte ratio and tonic immobility duration of chickens. Poult. Sci. 2002, 81, 1637–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Brown, A.J. Photoperiod Effects on Broiler Performance and Behavior; B.S. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University: Athens, GA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  6. Downs, K.M.; Lien, R.J.; Hess, J.B.; Bilgili, S.F.; Dozier, W.A., III. The effects of photoperiod length, light intensity, and feed energy on growth responses and meat yield of broilers. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2006, 15, 406–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Classen, H.L.; Riddell, C.; Robinson, F.E. Effects of increasing photoperiod length on performance and health of broiler chickens. Br. Poult. Sci. 1991, 32, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council). Report on the Welfare of Broiler Chickens; The Farm Animal Welfare Council, Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food: Surbiton, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  9. Gordon, S.H. Effects of daylength and increasing daylength programs on broiler welfare and performance. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 1994, 50, 269–282. [Google Scholar]
  10. Davis, J.; Thomas, P.B.; Siopes, T.D. More evidence for light-dark growing. Broiler Industry, environments. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1997, 44, 229–243. [Google Scholar]
  11. Rozenboim, I.; Robinzon, B.; Rosenstrauch, A. Effect of light source and regimen on growing broilers. Br. Poult. Sci. 1999, 40, 452–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Blokhuis, H.J. Rest in poultry. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1984, 12, 289–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Fidan, E.D.; Nazlıgül, A.; Türkyılmaz, M.K.; Aypak, S.Ü.; Kilimci, F.S.; Karaarslan, S.; Kaya, M. Effect of photoperiod length and light intensity on some welfare criteria, carcass, and meat quality characteristics in broilers. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2017, 46, 202–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Forslind, S.; Blokhuis, H.J.; Riber, A.B. Disturbance of resting behaviour of broilers under different environmental conditions. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2021, 242, 105425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. RSPCA. Lighting. In RSPCA Welfare Standards for Meat Chickens; RSPCA: West Sussex, UK, 2017; pp. 10-13. [Google Scholar]
  16. AWCS. Animal Welfare Certification Standards of Broilers; Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA): Sejong, Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  17. Butterworth, A.; Arnould, C.; van Niekerk, T.G.C.M.; Veissier, I.; Keeling, L.J.; van Overbeke, G.; Bedaux, V. Welfare Quality R Assessment Protocol for Poultry, 1st ed.; Welfare Quality R Consortium: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 60–81. [Google Scholar]
  18. AOAC. Official Method of Analysis, 20th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  19. Chae, H.S.; Hwangbo, J.; Ahn, C.N.; Yoo, Y.M.; Cho, S.H.; Lee, J.M.; Choi, Y.I. Effect of dietary brown rice on the carcass and meat quality of broiler chicken. Korean J. Poult. Sci. 2004, 37, 165–169. [Google Scholar]
  20. Schwean-Lardner, K.; Vermette, C.; Leis, M.; Classen, H.L. Basing turkey lighting programs on broiler research: A good idea? A comparison of 18 daylength effects on broiler and turkey welfare. Animals 2016, 6, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Tabeekh, M.A.A. An investigation on the effect of light color and stocking density on some blood parameters of broilers and layers. Donnish J. Agric. Res. 2016, 3, 8–12. [Google Scholar]
  22. Chechik, B.E.; Sengupta, S.; Fernandes, B. Novel heterophile chicken antigen: Immunohistochemical localization using antisera to Mycobacterium smegmatis and possible association with lymphocyte maturation. Histochem. J. 1986, 18, 36–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gross, W.B.; Siegel, H.S. Evaluation of heterophil/lymphocyte ratio as a measure of stress in chickens. Avian Dis. 1983, 27, 972–979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Onbaşılar, E.E.; Erol, H.; Cantekin, Z.; Kaya, Ü. Influence of intermittent lighting on broiler performance, incidence of tibial dyschondroplasia, tonic immobility, some blood parameters and antibody production. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 2007, 20, 550–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Olanrewaju, H.A.; Miller, W.W.; Maslin, W.R.; Collier, S.D.; Purswell, J.L.; Branton, S.L. Influence of photoperiod, light intensity and their interaction on health indices of modern broilers grown to heavy weights. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2015, 14, 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ibrahim, R.R.; Khalil, F.; Mostafa, A.S.; Emeash, H.H. Efficacy of probiotic in improving welfare and mitigating overcrowding stress in broilers. Adv. Vet. Res. 2018, 8, 73–78. [Google Scholar]
  27. Rotava, R.; Zanella, I.; Karkow, A.K.; Dullius, A.P.; da Silva, L.P.; Denardin, C.C. Blood biochemistry of poultry fed with grape by-products. Rev. Agrar. 2008, 1, 91–104. [Google Scholar]
  28. Nobakht, A.; Fard, B.H. The effects of using rice bran, enzyme and probiotic on performance, egg quality traits and blood metabolites in laying hens. Iran. J. Appl. Anim. Sci. 2016, 46, e417–e427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Olanrewaju, H.A.; Purswell, J.L.; Collier, S.D.; Branton, S.L. Interactive effects of photoperiod and light intensity on blood physiological and biochemical reactions of broilers grown to heavy weights. Poult. Sci. 2013, 92, 1029–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Ghanima, M.M.A.; Abd El-Hack, M.E.; Abougabal, M.S.; Taha, A.E.; Tufarelli, V.; Laudadio, V.; Naiel, M.A. Growth, carcass traits, immunity and oxidative status of broilers exposed to continuous or intermittent lighting programs. Anim. Biosci. 2021, 34, 1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Willenberg, H.S.; Path, G.; Vogeli, T.A.; Scherbaum, W.A.; Bornstein, S.R. Role of interleukin-α in stress response in normal and tumorous adrenal cells and during chronic inflammation. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2002, 63, 304–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chandrashekara, S.; Jayashree, K.; Veeranna, H.B.; Vadiraj, H.S.; Ramesh, M.N.; Shobha, A.; Sravanan, Y.; Vikram, Y.K. Effects of anxiety on TNF- α levels during psychological stress. J. Psychosom. Res. 2007, 63, 65–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mcfarlane, J.M.; Curtis, S.E. Multiple concurrent stressors in chicks: 3. Effects on plasma corticosterone and the heterophil: Lymphocyte ratio. Poult. Sci. 1989, 68, 522–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Qin, S.M.; Bai, W.Q.; Zhang, K.Y.; Ding, X.M.; Bai, S.P.; Wang, J.P.; Peng, H.W.; Yang, Y.F.; Chen, C.; Zeng, Q.F. Different microbiomes are found in healthy breeder ducks and those with foot pad dermatitis. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 6340–6348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Buckland, R.B.; Bernon, D.E.; Goldrosen, A. Effect of four lighting regimes on broiler performance, leg abnormalities and plasma corticoid levels. Poult. Sci. 1976, 55, 1072–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Abbas, A.O.; El-Dein, A.A.; Desoky, A.A.; Galal, M.A. The effects of photoperiod programs on broiler chicken performance and immune response. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2008, 7, 665–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pandey, U. Effect of lighting in broiler production. Acta. Sci. Agric. 2019, 3, 114–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Haslam, S.M.; Knowles, T.G.; Brown, S.N.; Wilkins, L.J.; Kestin, S.C.; Warriss, P.D.; Nicol, C.J. Factors affecting the prevalence of foot pad dermatitis, hock burn and breast burn in broiler chicken. Br. Poult. Sci. 2007, 48, 264–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Martland, M.F. Ulcerative dermatitis in broiler chickens: The effects of wet litter. Avian Pathol. 1985, 14, 353–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. De Jong, I.C.; Van Harn, J.; Gunnink, H.; Hindle, V.A.; Lourens, A. Footpad dermatitis in Dutch broiler flocks: Prevalence and factors of influence. Poult. Sci. 2012, 91, 1569–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Meluzzi, A.; Fabbri, C.; Folegatti, E.; Sirri, F. Effect of less intensive rearing conditions on litter characteristics, growth performance, carcase injuries and meat quality of broilers. Br. Poult. Sci. 2008, 49, 509–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kaukonen, E.; Norring, M.; Valros, A. Effect of litter quality on foot pad dermatitis, hock burns and breast blisters in broiler breeders during the production period. Avian. Pathol. 2016, 45, 667–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Broom, D.M.; Reefmann, N. Chicken welfare as indicated by lesions on carcases in supermarkets. Br. Poult. Sci. 2005, 46, 407–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ferrante, V.; Lolli, S.; Marelli, S.; Vezzoli, G.; Sirri, F.; Cavalchini, L.G. Effect of light programmes, bird densities and litter types on broilers welfare. In Proceedings of the 12th European Poultry Conference, Verona, Italy, 10–14 September 2006. [Google Scholar]
  45. Schwean-Lander, K.; Fancher, B.F.; Gomis, S.; Van Kessel, A.; Dalal, S.; Classen, H.L. Effect of day length on cause of mortality, leg health, and ocular health in broilers. Poult. Sci. 2013, 92, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Karaarslan, S.; Nazlıgül, A. Effects of lighting, stocking density, and access to perches on leg health variables as welfare indicators in broiler chickens. Livest. Sci. 2018, 218, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Petek, M.; Çibik, R.; Yildiz, H.; Sonat, F.A.; Gezen, S.S.; Orman, A.; Aydin, C. The influence of different lighting programs, stocking densities and litter amounts on the welfare and productivity traits of a commercial broiler line. Vet. Zootech. 2010, 51, 36–43. [Google Scholar]
  48. Kim, H.J.; Kim, H.J.; Jeon, J.; Nam, K.C.; Shim, K.S.; Jung, J.H.; Kim, K.S.; Choi, Y.; Kim, S.H.; Jang, A. Comparison of the quality characteristics of chicken breast meat from conventional and animal welfare farms under refrigerated storage. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 1788–1796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Tuell, J.R.; Park, J.Y.; Wang, W.; Cooper, B.; Sobreira, T.; Cheng, H.W.; Kim, Y.H.B. Effects of photoperiod regime on meat quality, oxidative stability, and metabolites of postmortem broiler fillet (M. Pectoralis major) muscles. Foods 2020, 9, 215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Hillebrand, S.J.W.; Lambooy, E.; Veerkamp, C.H. The effects of alternative electrical and mechanical stunning methods on hemorrhaging and meat quality of broiler breast and thigh muscles. Poult. Sci. 1996, 75, 664–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Guo, X.; Ma, C.; Fang, Q.; Zhou, B.; Wan, Y.; Jiang, R. Effects of ovariectomy on body measurements, carcass composition, and meat quality of Huainan chickens. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2016, 57, 815–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Beilken, S.L.; Bouton, P.E.; Harris, P.V. Some effects on the mechanical properties of meat produced by cooking at temperatures between 50 and 60 C. J. Food Sci. 1986, 51, 791–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Husak, R.L.; Sebranek, J.G.; Bregendahl, K. A survey of commercially available broilers marketed as organic, free-range, and conventional broilers for cooked meat yields, meat composition, and relative value. Poult. Sci. 2008, 87, 2367–2376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Castellini, C.; Mugnai, C.A.N.D.; Dal Bosco, A. Effect of organic production system on broiler carcass and meat quality. Meat Sci. 2002, 60, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Footpad dermatitis score indicative of welfare.
Table 1. Footpad dermatitis score indicative of welfare.
ScoreContents
0No foot pad dermatitis
1Condition in which black necrosis and swelling is inconspicuous
2Condition in which black necrosis and swelling are conspicuous, and inflammation is less than 25%
3Condition in which the sole of the foot is enlarged due to swelling, and black necrosis affects less than 50% of the sole
4The same as that of score 3, but black necrosis exceeds 50%
Table
Table 2. Effect of photoperiod on growth performance of broilers.
Table 2. Effect of photoperiod on growth performance of broilers.
ParameterPhotoperiod (Light:Dark)SEM 1p-Values
24L18L:6D8L:16D4L:2D
Initial weight (g/bird)158.9155.4157.7157.21.990.667
Final weight (g/bird)2083 a1968 ab1862 b2067 a45.90.018
Weight gain (g/bird)1924 a1812 ab1705 b1910 a45.90.019
Feed intake (g/bird)3354 ab3315 ab3117 b3389 a62.90.042
FCR (feed/gain)1.781.941.921.850.0430.095
1 SEM, standard error of means (n = 84). a,b Means in same rows with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05). FCR, feed conversion rate.
Table
Table 3. Effect of photoperiod on leukocyte, erythrocyte, and platelet profiles of broilers.
Table 3. Effect of photoperiod on leukocyte, erythrocyte, and platelet profiles of broilers.
ParametersPhotoperiod (Light:Dark)SEM 1p-Values
24L18L:6D8L:16D4L:2D
LeukocytesWBC, K/μL21.619.620.021.20.8730.309
HE, K/μL7.145.536.106.610.4470.083
LY, K/μL11.410.810.911.10.3710.640
H/L ratio0.62 a0.51 b0.55 ab0.59 ab0.0260.022
MO, K/μL2.282.022.132.100.0820.163
EO, K/μL0.960.760.850.870.0790.366
BA, K/μL0.330.240.280.310.0360.363
ErythrocyteRBC, K/μL2.192.152.182.090.0510.535
Hb, g/dL8.067.717.877.840.1810.595
HCT, %21.921.421.521.70.5710.918
MCHC, g/dL36.736.335.636.10.4070.358
Platelets16.512.813.713.82.1770.659
1 SEM, standard error of means (n = 12). a,b Means in same rows with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05). WBC, white blood cells; HE, heterophils; LY, lymphocytes; H/L, heterophils to lymphocytes; monocytes, MO; EO, eosinophils; BA, basophils; RBC, red blood cells; Hb, hemoglobulin; HCT, hematocrit; MCV, mean corpuscular volume; MCH, mean corpuscular hemoglobulin; MCHC, mean corpuscular hemoglobulin concentration.
Table
Table 4. Effect of photoperiod on serum biochemical composition of broilers.
Table 4. Effect of photoperiod on serum biochemical composition of broilers.
ParametersPhotoperiod (Light:Dark)SEM 1p-Values
24L18L:6D8L:16D4L:2D
TC (mg/dL)120.4 ab118.7 ab110.2 b125.2 a3.2890.020
TG (mg/dL)41.942.740.545.11.8830.372
GLU (mg/dL)176.0156.9165.1174.67.2250.220
TP (g/dL)2.832.872.993.010.0640.128
AST (U/L)327.1 a277.2 b277.2 b298.0 ab8.210<0.001
ALT (U/L)2.802.642.532.950.1290.130
CREAT (mg/dL)0.210.210.210.220.0050.293
ALB (g/dL)1.201.191.241.230.0250.348
IP (mg/dL)9.569.129.069.010.2320.329
LD (U/L)2975291028562869110.90.872
1 SEM, standard error of means (n = 12). a,b Means in same rows with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05). TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglyceride; GLU, glucose; TP, total protein; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; CREAT, creatinine; ALB, albumin; IP, inorganic phosphorus; LD, lactate dehydrogenase.
Table
Table 5. Effect of photoperiod on cytokines and corticosterone concentration of broilers.
Table 5. Effect of photoperiod on cytokines and corticosterone concentration of broilers.
ParametersPhotoperiod (Light:Dark)SEM 1p-Values
24L18L:6D8L:16D4L:2D
Cytokines (pg/mL)
IL-655.1 a42.1 b41.4 b54.9 a2.905<0.001
TNF-α71.670.368.271.32.0540.643
Corticosterone (ng/mL)16.5 a11.8 b12.6 b15.9 a0.784<0.001
1 SEM, standard error of means (n = 12). a,b Means in same rows with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05). IL-6, interleukin-6; TNF-α, tumor necrosis factor-α.
Table
Table 6. Effect of photoperiod on litter moisture content and occurrence of footpad dermatitis (FPD) of broilers.
Table 6. Effect of photoperiod on litter moisture content and occurrence of footpad dermatitis (FPD) of broilers.
ParametersPhotoperiod (Light:Dark)SEM 1p-Values
24L18L:6D8L:16D4L:2D
Litter moisture content (%)41.934.437.142.53.3460.304
FPD (Score)1.70 a0.83 b0.63 b1.88 a0.125<0.001
1 SEM, standard error of means (litter moisture, n = 4; FPD, n = 40). a,b Means in same rows with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 7. Effect of photoperiod on carcass yields of broilers.
Table 7. Effect of photoperiod on carcass yields of broilers.
Parameter
(% of Live Weight)		Photoperiod (Light:Dark)SEM 1p-Values
24L18L:6D8L:16D4L:2D
Carcass73.873.473.974.30.660.786
Breast22.823.323.324.11.650.274
Legs22.021.622.222.60.390.349
Wings7.047.357.436.800.1820.072
Neck3.784.044.154.450.1920.121
Back17.917.317.216.80.480.450
1 SEM, standard error of means (n = 12).
Table
Table 8. Effect of photoperiod on physicochemical characteristics of breast meat of broilers.
Table 8. Effect of photoperiod on physicochemical characteristics of breast meat of broilers.
ParameterPhotoperiod (Light:Dark)SEM 1p-Values
24L18L:6D8L:16D4L:2D
Proximate composition (%)Moisture76.576.376.476.10.1950.512
Crude protein22.222.222.021.90.1990.735
Crude fat1.431.341.251.280.1150.686
pH5.785.775.715.750.0230.193
ColorL*56.957.957.657.30.8650.866
a*1.701.351.541.790.1670.298
b*6.987.057.507.480.4080.716
Cooking loss (%)20.419.520.020.40.8650.879
WHC (%)55.955.555.955.20.5290.739
Shear force (N)21.6 a17.6 ab15.4 b19.9 ab1.502<0.05
1 SEM, standard error of means. a,b Means in same rows with different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05). WHC, water holding capacity.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, H.-J.; Son, J.; Jeon, J.-J.; Kim, H.-S.; Yun, Y.-S.; Kang, H.-K.; Hong, E.-C.; Kim, J.-H. Effects of Photoperiod on the Performance, Blood Profile, Welfare Parameters, and Carcass Characteristics in Broiler Chickens. Animals 2022, 12, 2290. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172290

AMA Style

Kim H-J, Son J, Jeon J-J, Kim H-S, Yun Y-S, Kang H-K, Hong E-C, Kim J-H. Effects of Photoperiod on the Performance, Blood Profile, Welfare Parameters, and Carcass Characteristics in Broiler Chickens. Animals. 2022; 12(17):2290. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172290

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Hee-Jin, Jiseon Son, Jin-Joo Jeon, Hyun-Soo Kim, Yeon-Seo Yun, Hwan-Ku Kang, Eui-Chul Hong, and Ji-Hyuk Kim. 2022. "Effects of Photoperiod on the Performance, Blood Profile, Welfare Parameters, and Carcass Characteristics in Broiler Chickens" Animals 12, no. 17: 2290. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12172290

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop