Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T10:28:59.259Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effects of Light Intensity and Light Source on Injuries Due to Pecking of Male Domestic Turkeys (Meleagris Gallopavo)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

C Moinard ,
P D Lewis ,
G C Perry  and
C M Sherwin
C Moinard*
Affiliation:
Division of Animal Health and Husbandry, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, Langford, University of Bristol, BS40 5DU, UK
P D Lewis
Affiliation:
Division of Animal Health and Husbandry, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, Langford, University of Bristol, BS40 5DU, UK
G C Perry
Affiliation:
Division of Animal Health and Husbandry, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, Langford, University of Bristol, BS40 5DU, UK
C M Sherwin
Affiliation:
Division of Animal Health and Husbandry, Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, Langford, University of Bristol, BS40 5DU, UK
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been shown that, in small groups of intact male domestic turkeys, supplementary ultraviolet (UV-A) radiation, visual barriers, and added straw (environmental enrichment) minimize the incidence of injurious pecking under incandescent light at 5 lux. This paper describes two experiments, each involving eight groups of 100 non beak-trimmed birds up to 5 weeks of age, that assessed the effectiveness of these procedures at higher light intensities and with fluorescent light. Experiment 1 examined 5 or 10 lux of incandescent or fluorescent light. Experiment 2 studied responses to 5, 10, 36 or 70 lux of fluorescent light. Individual inspections of the birds, for wing, tail and head injuries due to pecking, were conducted daily.

Fluorescent light significantly reduced the incidence of tail injuries (P = 0.03), and tended to reduce those to the wings (P = 0.08), compared with incandescent light. No difference was observed between 5 and 10 lux for either tail or wing injuries. In Experiment 2, the incidence of tail and wing injuries was significantly and positively correlated with light intensity (tail, P = 0.05; wing, P = 0.02). Injuries to the head were minimal in all treatments. These results suggest that turkey poults may be kept with minimal injurious pecking, under fluorescent light at an intensity of 10 lux, with appropriate environmental enrichment.

Keywords

animal welfareinjurious peckinglight intensitylight sourceturkeys
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , May 2001 , pp. 131 - 139
Copyright
© 2001 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

Appleby, M C, Hughes, B O and Elson, H A 1992 Poultry Production Systems: Behaviour, Management and Welfare. CAB International: Wallingford, UKGoogle Scholar
Bennett, A T D and Cuthill, I C 1994 Ultraviolet vision in birds: What is its function? Vision Research 34: 1471–1478Google ScholarPubMed
Classen, H L, Riddell, C, Robinson, F E, Shand, P J and McCurdy, A R 1994 Effect of lighting treatment on the productivity, health, behaviour and sexual maturity of heavy male turkeys. British Poultry Science 35: 215–225Google ScholarPubMed
Gentle, M J 1992 Pain in birds. Animal Welfare 1: 235–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill D J and Leighton A T Jnr 1984 Effect of light environment and population density on growth performance of male turkeys. Poultry Science 63: 1314–1321Google 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
Huber-Eicher, B and Wechsler, B 1997 Feather pecking in domestic chicks: Its relation to dustbathing and foraging. Animal Behaviour 54: 757–768CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, B O and Grigor, P N 1996 Behavioural time-budgets and beak related behaviour in floor-housed turkeys. Animal Welfare 5: 189–198Google Scholar
Lewis, P D and Morris, T R 2000 Poultry and coloured light. World's Poultry Science Journal 56: 189–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, P D, Perry, G C and Sherwin, C M 1998 Effect of photoperiod and light intensity on the performance of intact male turkeys. Animal Science 66: 759–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, A C and Nicol, C J 1994 An evaluation of the effect of operant feeders on welfare of hens maintained on litter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 41: 211–227Google Scholar
Manser, C C 1996 Effects of lighting on the welfare of domestic poultry: A review. Animal welfare 5: 341–360Google Scholar
Moinard, C and Sherwin, C M 1999 Turkeys prefer fluorescent light with supplementary ultraviolet radiation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 64: 261–267Google Scholar
Nuboer, J F W, Coemans, M A J M and Vos, J J 1992 Artificial lighting in poultry houses: Do hens perceive the modulation of fluorescent lamps as flicker? British Poultry Science 33: 123–133CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prescott, N B and Wathes, C M 1999 Spectral sensitivity of the domestic fowl (Gallus g domesticus). British Poultry Science 40: 332–339CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sherwin, C M 1998 Light intensity preferences of domestic turkeys. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 58: 121–130Google Scholar
Sherwin, C M 1999 Domestic turkeys are not averse to compact fluorescent lighting. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 64: 47–55Google Scholar
Sherwin, C M and Devereux, C L 1999 Preliminary investigations of ultraviolet-induced markings on domestic turkey chicks and a possible role in injurious pecking. British Poultry Science 40: 429–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherwin, C M, Lewis, P D and Perry, G C 1999 The effects of environmental enrichment, fluorescent and intermittent lighting on injurious pecking amongst male turkey poults. British Poultry Science 40: 592–598CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Wechsler, B and Schmid, I 1998 Aggressive pecking by males in breeding groups of Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica). British Poultry Science 39: 333–339CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widowski, T M, Keeling, L J and Duncan, I J H 1992 The preferences of hens for compact fluorescent over incandescent lighting. Journal of Animal Science 72: 203–211Google Scholar