Evaluation of the Impact of Light Source on Reproductive Parameters in Laying Hens Housed in Individual Cages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Higher light wavelengths have been shown to stimulate extra-retinal photoreceptors more efficiently than lower wavelengths to promote reproduction in poultry. We developed a light emitting diode (LED) bulb that emits 60% of its light in the red spectrum (LED-R), and evaluated the effects of different light sources on growth and reproduction in commercial layer hens. Three rooms equipped with either 100W incandescent, 15W compact fluorescent (CFL), or 10W LED-R bulbs were populated with 96 Lohmann LSL-Lite layers housed in individual cages from 14 to 69 weeks of age (woa). Pullets were initially maintained on a 10-h photoperiod, then photostimulated at 18 woa. Surprisingly, regardless of the light source, plasma levels of estradiol peaked at 16 woa, 2 weeks before photostimulation, and egg-laying was initiated at 19 woa. As a direct correlation between age at first egg and body weight was identified, metabolic cues most likely served as a primary trigger to initiate sexual maturation prior to photostimulation. Overall egg production and cumulative egg numbers were similar among treatments. Interestingly, a second increase in estradiol was observed at 52 woa under all treatments, suggesting an additional ovarian stimulation, possibly associated with an additional follicular recruitment at that age. Overall, changes in estradiol concentrations were more pronounced in hens maintained under LED-R light than in hens exposed to incandescent and CFL, especially for the second increase, suggesting that a higher amount of red light leads to stronger ovarian activity. Maintaining hens under LED-R bulbs also resulted in lower feed consumption, which combined with the lower energy consumption of LED-bulbs (LED-R: 306 kW; incandescent: 2,514 kW; CFL: 422 kW) could reduce the production cost.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".