Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33872863›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2021

Preference testing for UV light spectrum and intensity in laying hens.

Md Sohel Rana, Andrew M Cohen-Barnhouse, Caroline Lee, Dana L M Campbell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Md Sohel RanaSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia; Agriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Armidale, New South Wales 2350, Australia; Department of Livestock Services, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, Dhaka 1215, Bangladesh.
Andrew M Cohen-BarnhouseAgriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Armidale, New South Wales 2350, Australia.
Caroline LeeAgriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Armidale, New South Wales 2350, Australia.
Dana L M CampbellAgriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Armidale, New South Wales 2350, Australia. Electronic address: dana.campbell@csiro.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sunlight intensity and UV radiation may affect free-range hens' use of the outside range, particularly when sunlight is intense with a high UV index. However, it is uncertain what aspect of sunlight (brightness or UV) may be most aversive to hens to discourage them from leaving standard indoor lighting conditions to venture outdoors. A controlled indoor-based choice study was conducted to determine whether hens showed preferences for different light wavelengths and intensities that may affect outdoor range usage. Cage-reared ISA Brown laying hens (n = 84) at 44 wk of age in 3 groups (28 hens/group) were tested for preferences of indoor standard light emitting diode (LED) white light (control) vs. one of three different treatment lights: 1) visible spectrum plus infrared wavelengths (VIS); 2) visible spectrum plus UVA wavelengths (UVA); and (iii) visible spectrum plus UVA and UVB wavelengths (UVA/B) presented successively at low, medium, or high levels of intensity. Hens within each group were individually tested for 2 h in an apparatus with 2 compartments (control vs. treatment) connected by a tunnel on both sides. Videos of hens' time spent in each compartment and behaviors were decoded and analyzed using GLMM. Hens spent more time under the low intensity of the UVA/B light treatment (62%), the low intensity of VIS light (61%), medium intensities of both UVA/B light (60%), and UVA light (59%), and the high intensity of the VIS light (58%) when compared with control light (all P ≤ 0.05). Hens spent less time feeding under all intensities of UVA light (all P ≤ 0.03) and showed more foraging, ground pecking, and preening at lower levels of UVA/B light (P < 0.05). The study suggests that UVA/B light (sunlight) may have positive effects for hen range use, but during peak sun intensities, hens may need additional measures (e.g., shelter) to protect themselves. Confirmation of these findings in a free-range setting is needed.

Indexed as

ChickensUltraviolet RaysAnimal HusbandryAnimalsFemaleHousing, AnimalLightLightingSunlightbehaviorfree-rangelaying henlight preferencesunlightUV light

Identifiers

PMID33872863
PMCPMC8080526

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.