Effect of Brooder Attractant Lights on Performance of Bobwhite Quail1

Effect of Brooder Attractant Lights on Performance of Bobwhite Quail1


304KB Sizes 0 Downloads 10 Views

01992Applied Poultry Science, Inc

EFFECT OF BROODER ATTRACTANT LIGHTS ON PERFORMANCE OF BOBWHITE QUAIL' M. D. OUAR+, H.R. WILSON and C . M. VELAZQUEZ Poulty Science Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 110930, Bldg. 559, Universityof Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0930 Phone: (904) 392-1931 FAX: (904) 392-3047

Primary Audience: Gamebird Producers, Researchers

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM Early mortality (0 to 14 days) is one of the major problems associated with growing quail. Mortality reduction and improvements in early growth due to the proper early brooding environment is of interest to researchers attempting to improve liveability and performance. Components of the early brooding environment have been examined, including types of brooders. However, the importance of brooder attractant lights has not been studied fully with bobwhite quail. This study provides controlled experiments that compare practi-

1 2

cal differences in brooder attractant light color and intensity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS l k o 3-week experiments were conducted using day-old chicks hatched from a releasetype strain of bobwhite quail. In both experiments birds were reared in a shutter-sided house with brooding pens that measured 2.44 x 3.05 m and had concrete floors covered with 5.0 to 7.5 cm of fresh pine shavings. Chicks

Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Journal Series No. R-02078 To whom correspondence should be addressed



were placed in a metal brooder ring which measured 2 m in diameter and .5 m in height until 7 days of age, at which time rings were removed. A corn and soybean meal quail starter diet calculated to contain 27.3% crude protein and 3,066 kcal ME/kilogram [l] was provided ad libitum for the duration of each experiment and was placed initially on two plastic filler flats. From Days 4 to 10, feeding was changed gradually to three tube-type feedersfpen. Water was also supplied ad libitum,and contained a soluble vitamidelectrolyte mixture [2] until Day 14. Three quail chick founts were provided for water initially and were replaced during Days 6 to 8 with three 3.86 L founts and one automatic bell-type waterer/pen. Changes in feeders and waterers were made in all pens at the same time. Performance (growth, feed conversion, mortality) during the first seven days was thought to be the best indicator of early response of the chicks to their environment. Therefore, body weights and feed consumptions were determined weekly and summarized into 7-day and (cumulative) 21-day means for analysis. Feed consumption was adjusted for mortality (which was recorded daily) and feed conversions were calculated. Feed conversion and percent mortality were also summarized into 7-day and 21-day means for analysis [3]. Experiments 1and 2 were duplicates with the exception of number of chicks placed per pen. In Experiment 1,200 chicks were placed per pen and in Experiment 2,160 chicks were placed per pen. Each brooding pen was equipped with one Merco Model 501C radiant brooder [4] equipped with one of three differ-

ent bulbs (see below). Each brooder was positioned 46 cm above the floor and equipped with a socket for an attractant light which operated continuously. There were four replicates each of three bulb treatments which varied with color and intensity of attractant light. The treatments were: 1) 7.5 watt incandescent red bulb (7.5 W/R); 2) 7.5 watt incandescent white bulb (7.5 W N ) ; and 3) 15.0watt incandescent white bulb (15.0 W N ) . Chicks were not beak trimmed so that treatment effects of cannibalism and related mortality or morbidity would be determined readily. Overhead pen and aisle lights were turned off during the brooding period so that only brooder attractant lights supplied artificial light in the pens during the first seven days. The house was equipped with translucent and solid shutters which provided uniform, natural light during daylight hours.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The 7-and 21-day treatment responses on feed consumption, feed conversion, body weight and mortality from Experiment 1 are shown in Table 1. There were no significant differences observed due to treatment for feed consumption at 7 or 21 days, nor for 7-day feed conversion. However, cumulative 21-day values showed, overall, that chicks brooded with each of the white brooder attractant lights had significantly better feed conversion than those brooded with the red lights. Analysis of body weight data revealed no significant treatment differences in 7-day body weights. The 21-day body weights indicated that white bulb color resulted in heavier body weights.

TABLE 1. Means for 7 d a y and 21-day feed consumption, feed conversion, body wieght and mortality

TREATMENTS FEED CONSUMWON (g/bird/day) 7-day 21-day

FEED CONVERSION (g feed:g gain) 7-day 21-day

BODY WEIGHT (9) 7-day 21-day


(%I 7-day


Research Report 307


No treatment effects were seen for mortality at 7 or 21 days. However, mortality was unusually high for both 7- and 21-day values. A large percentage of chick deaths were due to cannibalism, with mortality two to three times higher than expected when chicks are beak trimmed. Mortality associated with white lights was not significantly higher than mortality associated with the standard 7.5 W/R bulb. Overall, results agreed with earlier work [2] that suggested quail chicks utilized light as an important factor in learned behaviors associated with locating the brooder heat source. Results for Experiment 2 are also shown in Table 1. No effect was found due to any treatment for 7-day feed consumption. However, 21-day feed consumption data showed significantly lower feed consumption by chicks brooded using both intensities of white brooder attractant lights. It was observed that chicks brooded with 7.5 WIR had more feed wastage than chicks brooded with the white lights. Feed conversion values indicated significantly less feed per gain with chicks exposed to both white attractant light treatments. These differences were seen in both 7- and 21-day data. Cumulative 21-day feed conversions agreed with results from Experiment 1. Body weights in Experiment 2 were significantly heavier in both treatments with white brooder attractant lights than with the red light

at both 7-and 21-days. Additionally, the relationship of the three means agreed with the results of Experiment 1 for body weight. No treatment effects were found for mortality in this experiment. Week 1mortality was slightly higher than expected. However, Experiment 2 mortality was much lower than that of Experiment 1,and was considered within previously reported normal ranges [2,5]. Performance was better with white attractant light bulbs. Data suggested that white light may have aided chicks in finding feed during the first week. The majority of treatment-related significant differences were seen at experiment termination, suggestingthat additional benefits of white attractant lights occur after the first seven days in the brooding period. White lights may have benefitted chicks most in finding the brooder heat source after brooder rings were removed. Overall results indicated that brooder attractant lights play an important role when non lamp-type brooders are utilized. Management procedures utilizing lights like those recommended for cool-room brooding of broiler chicks and turkey poults [6, 71 should be considered for cool-room brooding of quail. These experiments were limited to comparisons of red and white attractant lights; further study of different colors and specific light intensities within the colors is warranted.

CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS 1. Less feed consumption and better feed conversion were obtained for chicks brooded with 7.5 WIW and 15.0 WIW compared to chicks brooded with 7.5 W/R.

2. Consistently heavier body weights resulted for chicks brooded with white attractant bulbs than for those brooded with red bulbs. 3. No significant effect of treatment was observed on mortality. 4. In general, white attractant lights resulted in improved quail chick performance.

]REFERENCESAND NOTES 1. Wilson, H. R, 1989. Research note: Chick rnortality in bobwhite quail as affected by supplemental ascorbic acid. Poultry Sci. 68:1418-1420. 2. Ouart, M. D., H. R Wilson and V. P. Dugan, 1987. Effect ofbrooding paper on the performance of bobwhite quail. Poultry SCI.66:43941.

3. The PROC ANOVA procedure of SAS (8) was used to rovide analysis of variance of treatment responses. %he DUNCANSprocedure of SAS (8) was used to show significant differences between treatment means where appropriate. Differences between treatment means were considered significant when P e .OS.

4. Merco Products, Inc., 1298 Bethel Dr., Eugene, OR. 5. Wilson, H. R, M. G. Miller and C. R. Douglas, 1975. Debeaking method for bobwhite quail. Poultry Sci. 54:1616-1619. 6. Alsam, H. and C. M. Wathes, 1991. Conjoint preferences of chicks for heat and light intensity. Br. Poultry Sci. 32399-916.


7. Land 0’ Lakes Fclco, 1980. Turkey grower’s handbook. Fort Dodge, 1A.

8. SAS Inslitule, Inc., 1985. SAS/STAT guide for personal computers, version 6 ed. Cary, NC.