This document reviews research on lighting programs for broiler chicken production. It discusses how light affects broiler physiology and behavior, and the impact of different light sources, intensities, durations and colors on broiler performance measures like feed consumption and weight gain. Specifically, it finds that low light intensities generally improve feed consumption and weight gain compared to high intensities. Intermittent lighting schedules also tend to improve feed intake over continuous lighting. Additionally, certain light colors like blue-green can stimulate growth while red-orange stimulates reproduction. Overall, the review aims to help optimize lighting programs to improve broiler welfare and farm profitability.

1. 1
Scholar’s Advances in Animal and Veterinary Research, 1(1): 1-13.
http: //www.mrscholar.com;ISSN:2409-5281
Review Article
An Augmented Review about Lighting programs for Broiler Production
Sultan Mahmood, Ghulam Abbas*, Fawwad Ahmad and Ahsan ul Haq
Department of Poultry Science, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad,
*
Corresponding Author: ghulamabbas_hashmi@yahoo.com;
ARTICLE HISTORY A B S T R A C T
Received: February 19, 2014
Revised: March 29, 2014
Accepted: April 22, 2014
Concern over lighting programme for broiler is increasing from few
last decades, but still there is a lot of variability in this regard for
profitable chicken farming. Currently, there is a wide variation in
lighting programs i.e. duration, intensity, source, wavelength. Many
studies have shown an impact of light sources on performance,
immune response, slaughter profile, leg problems, skeletal
abnormalities and physiology. Commercial birds at farms are often
reared at too much higher light intensities than the actual demand thus
negatively affects the welfare of birds also regress profit of farmers.
Now a day’s LED (light emitting diodes) are considered efficient
lights and are considered functional superiority over others light
sources. The aim of this review article is to update research on
lighting programs for broiler production and to provide suggestions
about economical light usage.
All copyright reserved to Mr.Scholar
Key words:
Broiler
Light sources
Light duration
Light intensity
LED
To Cite This Article: Mahmood S, G Abbas, F Ahmad and A ul Haq. 2014. An augmented Review about Lighting
Programs for Broiler Production. Sch Adv Anim Vet Res, 1(1): 1-13.
Background theme: Light acts as a dominant
exogenous stimulant in the regulation of many
physiological and behavioral processes (Prescott et al.,
2003; Kristensen et al., 2007). It regulates many
hormones that affect the growth, maturation and
reproduction of the broilers (Olanrewaju et al., 2006).
Light affects the thyroid glands, pineal glands and the
hypothalamus in birds (Karakaya et al., 2009). Pineal
gland is a gland, which plays an important role in the
production of melatonin under the influence of light
dark cycles (Zeman et al., 2004). It also coordinates in
many necessary functions like temperature regulatory
system and in various metabolic processes that assist
the feeding and digestion (Classen and Riddell, 1989;
Appleby et al., 2004). The preferences of broiler birds
have been determined for different light intensities
(Olanrewaju et al. 2012), light sources (Joseph et al.,
2012; Angélica et al., 2012), light colors, (Jiang et al.,
2012) and flickering, frequencies (Lisney et al., 2012).
Now a day’s LED (light emitting diodes) are well
reputed efficient light and are gaining functional
validity over traditional light sources (Khan and Abas,
2011; Rozenboim et al., 1998). Rozenboim et al. (2003)
reported beneficial effect of LED light on hatchability
and growth in turkeys. Jiang et al. (2012) reported that
light emitting diode may decrease the waste production
at broiler farm. Artificial light can be produced through
the heating of a filament (incandescent), by generating
plasma within an environment (fluorescent), or through
solid state electronics i.e., LED (Lewis and Morris,
2006). Current research has indicated that light source
have a significant positive effect on body weight,

2. Sch Adv Anim Vet Res, 2014, 1(1): 1-13.
2
immune response, livability and health status. Broiler
behavior is strongly affected by light sources, light
duration, light intensity and light color (Simmons,
1982; Simmons and Haye, 1985; Olanrewaju et al.,
2006; Ghuffar et al., 2009; Senaratna et al., 2010;
Senaratna et al., 2012). Sheila and Scheideler (1990)
found no significant effect of light sources (Compact
and Incandescent) on performance of broilers however
fluorescent light significantly reduce electricity cost
without any deteriorative effect on performance.
Widowski et al. (1992) investigated that broiler birds
prefer compact fluorescent over incandescent light
sources, whilst Vandenberg and Widowski (2000)
reported no preference between compact and
fluorescent light sources of different flicker frequencies
on broiler birds.
Light intensity has shown obvious effects on
broiler behavior by affecting their visible perception
(Kristensen et al., 2002). Both intensity and duration
are factors that are often considered. Behavior is
strongly influenced by the intensity of the light whereas
light duration alters the performance of broiler birds
(Olanrewaju et al., 2006). Generally young chicks (1 to
28 day of age) prefer better light of 20 lux (Berk, 1995).
Light duration largely depends on the age of the
chickens as well as housing in use (Olanrewaju et al.,
2006). Most of the research has shown to improve the
broiler welfare conventional near continuous lighting
(Gordon, 1994). Continuous light alters the diurnal
rhythm and some welfare problems are fitted with it.
Among these problems are the high prevalence of leg
and musculoskeletal disorders in poultry (Sanotra et al.,
2001, 2002) and performance (Wong-Valle et al.,
1993). Lighting Programs to intermittent have often led
to improve chickens performance in comparison with
constant light (Classen, 2004a; Rahimi et al., 2005).
Research has shown that the darkness is as important
factor for the growth and health of chickens as light
(Classen et al., 1991).
Color is the main portion of light and birds detect
light through eyes and through photosensitive cells in
the brain (Olanrewaju et al., 2006). Blue light has a
calming effect on birds, whereas red light increases the
feather pecking and cannibalism. Blue-green light
stimulate the growth of the chickens, whilst red-orange
stimulates reproduction (Rozenboim et al., 2004). Light
of various wavelengths has different stimulating effect
on retina of eye and can results in behavior changes that
affect the growth and development (Lewis and Morris,
2000). Four most important visual skills of the birds are
the spectral sensitivities, Aucity, flicker as well as
accommodation (Prescott and Wattes, 1999). Domestic
birds have a series of adaptations of their color
appliances not shared by human beings. They have
three photoreceptors compared to only two (cones and
rods) receptors in human beings (King-Smith, 1971).
According to and Bermudez (2004) essential objectives
of lighting programs for broilers are the same. Genetics,
feed nutrient density, feed intake and management
practices should be considered when defining lighting
programs for broilers (Fussel et al., 2003).
Effect on feed consumption: Downs et al. (2006)
investigated that reducing light intensity (1-0.25 foot
candle) results to improve the feed consumption as
compared to high light intensity (2 foot candle). Lien et
al. (2008) reported that feed consumption of broiler
birds exposed to 5 lux was higher as compared to those
given 150 lux whilst Ahmad et al. (2011) reported
significant decrease in feed consumption at 5 lux.
Newberry et al. (1988) checked the effect of two levels
(6 and 180 lux) of light intensity and reported that feed
intake were the same for both levels. Kristensen et al.
(2006) examined the effect of two levels (5 and 100
lux) of light intensity and investigated that light
intensity had no effect on broiler feed intake.
Continuous lighting schedule containing
continuous (24Light:0Dark) or nearly continuous
(23Light:1Dark, 16Light:8Dark) lighting programs.
Long intermittent lighting causes better feed intake
(Bermudez, 2004). Brickett et al. (2007) investigated
that under the schedule of light with 20L: 4D chicks
consume more feed as compared to those birds where
light scheme were 12L: 12D whilst Rahimi et al. (2005)
reported no significant difference in feed consumption
in broiler birds when they were reared under continuous
23L: 1D and intermittent lighting schedule1L: 3D. Blair
et al. (1993) reported significant lower feed
consumption in both lighting patterns (constant lighting
and increasing lighting schedule). Solangi et al. (2004)
revealed that feed intake of chicken group A (white)
was significant greater than B (blue light) and C (red
light). El-Husseiny et al. (2000) reported significant
effect of green light on feed consumption in broilers.
Karakaya et al. (2009) investigated that broiler reared
under green blue and green green-blue mix light
showed significant higher feed consumption as
compared to control (day light lamps). Jiang et al.
(2012) reported significant higher feed consumption in
broilers under red light group and lowest feed
consumption under yellow light color whilst Wathes et
al. (1982) reported non-significant effect of different
colors of light shad on feed consumption even in male
or female. Similarly Son and Ravindran (2009) found
no significant effect of colors (white, blue or red) on
feed consumption.

3. Sch Adv Anim Vet Res, 2014, 1(1): 1-13.
3
Effect on weight gain: Broiler live weight was
significantly higher in low (dim) intensity light with
respect to the intensity of the bright light treatment
(Mckee et al., 2009). Ahmad et al. (2011) reported that
light intensity ranges from 5lux to 40 lux has non-
significant effect on weight gain in broilers, whilst
Charles et al. (1992) found significant increase in body
weight of broiler when provided 5 lux as compared to
higher levels, whereas Olanrewaju et al. (2006)
determined a decline in weight gain at higher levels of
light intensity, which probably was due to increase in
activity of broilers. Downs et al. (2006) examined the
effects of light intensity on broilers. They found that
broiler chickens at 2.7 lux gained significant more
weight as compared to those of reared at 21.5 lux of
light. Body weight was significantly improved when
0.25 FC was provided to broilers versus 2 FC.
Similarly significant increase in the body weight was
observed when 0.5 FC was provided to broilers as
compared to 15 FC (Charles et al., 1992). Rozenboim et
al. (1999a) investigated that broiler birds reared at 16D:
8L and 16L: 8D lighting schedule were significantly
heavier than those reared less than 23L: 1D by 49 day
similarly, Brickett et al. (2007) explored significant
effect of light schedule on weight gain. Birds provided
with 12L: 12D gained lighter body weight than those
exposed to 20L: 4D from day 6 until the end of the
experiment. Ingram et al. 2000) determined significant
reduce in weight gain in male broiler under non-
intermittent (12L: 12D) limited lighting solutions.
Ohtani and Leeson (2000) conducted an experiment on
lighting schedule for broiler birds and reported that at
age of 6 and 8 weeks chicken gained more weight under
intermittent lighting schedule as compared to
continuous lighting schedule. Similar results are
explored by Rahimi et al. (2005) that broiler reared
under intermittent lighting scheme 1L: 3D was
significantly heavier in body weight as compared to
continuous lighting schedule 23L: 1D. It was
investigated that photoperiod less than 14L: 10D
significantly decreases body weight (Ingram et al.,
2000; Schwean-Lardner et al., 2006).
Pigments of the cones of birds are extremely
sensitive to the wavelengths of 415, 455, 508 and 571
nm, while that of the human beings are extremely
sensitive to the wavelengths of 419, 531 and 558 nm
(Dartnall et al., 1983). Many researchers have shown
effect of light spectra on performance of broilers.
Broilers reared under blue or green fluorescent lamps
gained more weight than those submitted to red or
white light (Wabeck and Skoglund, 1974; Prayitno et
al., 1997a; Rozenboim et al., 1998; Halevy et al., 1998;
Rozenboim et al., 1999a, 2004). Wathes et al. (1982)
and Celen and Testik (1994) reported that male and
female broiler growth will not be affected due to the
different colors of light whilst Halevy et al. (1998)
reported higher muscle weight of broilers reared under
green and blue light compared to the red and white light
group similarly Rozenboim et al. (2004) found that
green and blue lighting group of broilers gained more
weight as compared to control (white, incandescent
light). Karakaya et al. (2009) reported significant
higher body weight of broiler reared under green blue
and green blue mix light as compared to control (day
light lamps).
Under the effect of many lighting treatments on
broiler yellow lighting group gained higher body
weight (Jiang et al., 2012). El-Husseiny et al. (2000)
found an improved body weight of broiler under the
influence of green light. At early stage, broiler showed
significant improved body weight under green
monochromatic light and at later stage gave good
response under blue monochromatic light (Cao et al.,
2008). Green and blue lights accelerated muscles
growth (Rozenboim et al., 2004). Halevy et al. (1998)
probed that more muscle tissue were produced in green
or blue light. Karakaya et al. (2009) reported higher
muscles weight of broiler reared under green blue and
green green-blue mix light as compared to control (day
light lamps). The research carried out to date is not
sufficient to allow the recommendation of blue light in
the entire production cycle of broiler chickens.
However, some studies showed that young chickens
have a strong preference for bright light (Davis et al.,
1997).
Hulan et al. (1987) compared two light sources
(incandescent and fluorescent) on performance of
broiler. They reported non-significant effect of among
these light sources on body weight in broiler birds.
Leighton et al. (1989) used incandescent (IN), daylight
fluorescent (DF) and warm fluorescent-(WF) lighting
sources with 10.8-86.1 lux. They found non-significant
effect of light sources on growth in turkeys. Joseph et
al. (2012) reported significant higher body weight in
broilers reared under light emitting diodes light as
compared to compact fluorescent light bulbs.
Rozenboim et al. (1999a) checked the effects of
different light sources on the growth of broiler birds.
They concluded that broiler birds reared on mini-
fluorescent light bulbs were heavier than those under
fluorescent tubes or incandescent bulbs at 49 day.

4. Sch Adv Anim Vet Res, 2014, 1(1): 1-13.
4
Effect on Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR): Various
lighting schemes (continuous or intermittent) and
different light intensities have shown better weight
gain, better feed conversion ratio and carcass quality
without any metabolic changes (Rutz et al., 2000).
Broilers grew under nearly continuous lighting
programs showed better feed conversion ratio and the
highest body weight (Maria et al., 2011). Longer day
lengths (20L: 4D) significantly improve feed efficiency
in broilers as compared to those exposed to 12L: 12D
(Brickett et al., 2007). Ingram et al. (2000) reported
significant better FCR in treatment group 12L: 12D
versus control group 23L: 1D, in broiler birds. Similarly
FCR ratio was higher in broiler birds when reared with
12L: 12D lighting pattern as compared to 23L: 1D and
16L: 8D lighting patterns (Wen-bin et al., 2010).
Downs et al. (2006) reported non-significant effect of
photoperiod on feed conversion ratio. Scott (2002)
concluded that after 35 days FCR was significantly
decreased in broiler reared under 16L: 8D lighting
patterns as compared to all others photoperiods (23L:
1D, 20L: 4D) and intermittent lighting schedule. Ohtani
and Lesson (2000) determined improved performance
of broilers under intermittent light of repeated cycles (1
hour of light and 2 hours darkness) in comparison with
continuous illumination.
Wabeck and Skoglund (1974) reported no effect of
light sources and color on broiler performance. Ahmad
et al. (2011) reported significant better FCR in broilers
reared at 5 lux as compared to other light intensities like
10, 30 and 40 lux. Newberry et al. (1988) conducted an
experiment with two levels (6 and 180 lux) of light
intensity and explored that FCR was same for both
levels. Kristensen et al. (2006) conducted an
experiment with using two levels (5 and 100 lux) of
light intensity and reported that light intensity had no
effect on FCR.
Jiang et al. (2012) reported significant poor FCR in
broilers reared under blue light group. Similarly, Son et
al. (2009) reported significantly higher FCR in broiler
birds that were exposed to blue light as compared to
white and red light. When broiler birds reared under
green light emitting diodes, FCR was not significantly
high as compared to blue and red light emitting diodes
light (Cao et al., 2008).
Hulan et al. (1987) compared two light sources
(incandescent and fluorescent) on performance of
broiler. They reported non-significant effect of these
light sources on FCR in broiler birds. Leighton et al.
(1989) checked the effects of light sources including
incandescent, daylight fluorescent and warm
fluorescent) and light intensity (10.8-86.1 lux) on male
turkeys. They found non-significant effect on FCR.
Denbow et al. (1990) checked the effects of various
light sources using light intensities (10.8 and 86.1 lux)
on FCR. They observed no effect on FCR. Joseph et al.
(2012) reported significant positive effect of light
emitting diodes light group on FCR in broilers as
compared to compact fluorescent light bulbs.
Effect on carcass characteristics: Deaton et al. (1988)
checked two levels of light intensity (2 and 52 lux) and
found that the proportion of abdominal fat pad was
unaffected by light intensity whilst Charles et al. (1992)
investigated that carcasses of broilers exposed to 150
lux had a lower percentage of fat and higher percentage
of protein than those exposed to 5 lux. Yahav et al.
(2000) reported that light intensity significantly affected
heart weight but not weight of breast muscle,
abdominal fat and testis. Lien et al. (2007) reported an
increase in carcass weight of birds submitted to 1 lux vs
10 lux. There was found significant increase in dressing
weight in broiler submitted to low light intensity
(Hester et al., 1986; Hssanzada et al., 2000), whilst
Downs et al. (2006) investigated an increase in wing
yield along with a decrease in fillet yield with exposure
to 2.5 lux vs. 2o lux. Karakaya et al. (2009) envisaged
that low intense green light can increase pH of meat
soften it and can increases the water-holding capacity of
meat. Xie et al. (2008) reported a significant increased
spleen weights in broilers submitted to blue light versus
red light.
Olanrewaju et al. (2011) explored that broilers
subjected to either 2.5 or 10 lux performed better and
had a significant higher tender meat weight than those
reared under 0.2 or 25 lux. Rodenberg and Middlekoop
(2003) reported no effect of lighting systems on body
organ weight. High light intensity significantly reduces
drumstick weights and tibia weights (Hester et al.,
1986). Incidence of tibial dyschondroplasia was also
unaffected by light intensity ranges from 2.2 to 20 lux
(Hester et al., 1987). Down et al. (2006) envisaged that
decreasing light intensity (10 lux from d 0-7; 5 lux from
d 7-14 followed by 2.5 lux until d 56) resulted in larger
legs and wings. Similarly, Lien et al. (2008) reported
increased wing yield and minor body organ weight in
broiler exposed to low light intensity (1 lux) versus 150
lux. In contrast to above breast meat yield was
unaffected by light intensity (Lien et al., 2007, 2008). It
is assumed that lower intensities may improve and
stimulate muscular growth results into better dressing
percentage (Charles et al. 1992). Abdul guffar et al.
(2009) concluded that light has no significant effect on
spleen weight. Similarly, Abdulghuffar et al. (2009)
find no significant effect of light intensity on bursa
fabrics weight. He reported significant higher weights

5. Sch Adv Anim Vet Res, 2014, 1(1): 1-13.
5
of heart at 20 lux as compared to 10 lux while liver
weight remained unaffected.
Cave (1981) envisaged that intermittent light may
improve carcass quality by reducing carcass fatness in
broilers. Solangi et al. (2004) found significant higher
carcass ratio (60%) of broilers provided blue light
compared to red light (59%) and white light (58%).
Sagheer et al. (2004) determined that broiler reared
under increasing light may have significant lower breast
meat. Robinson (2004) explored that bird subjected to
longer light duration have heavier carcass fat than those
exposed to smaller light duration. Carcass weight was
lower for broilers given the lighting scheme 12L: 12D
as compared with those exposed to 20L: 4D (Brickett et
al., 2007). Wen-bin et al. (2010) reported significant
lowered carcass percentage when chicken reared in
12L: 12D as compared with 23L: 1D and 16L: 8D
lighting schedule.
Effect on mortality: Buys et al. (1998) reported that
intermittent lighting program reduced the incidence of
ascitis due to significant lower heat production and
oxygen consumption during the period of darkness.
Buyse at al. (1994) envisaged that possible lower
oxygen consumption of broilers reared under
intermittent light can reduce the incidence of ascitis.
Classen (1996) reported better metabolic status of
broilers exposed to long periods of dark. Brickett et al.
(2007) envisaged that short light day (12L: 12D)
reduced overall mortality as compared to longer light
days (20L: 4D). Ingram et al. (2000) observed non
significant differences in death rate among treatment
group 12L: 12D and control group 23L: 1D. Death rate
was same either reared the broilers in continuous 23L:
1D or intermittent lighting 1L: 3D schemes (Rahimi et
al., 2005). Highest mortality was observed in broilers
reared at 40 lux as compared to 5, 10, 20 and 30 lux
(Ahmad et al., 2011). Kristensen et al. (2006)
performed a trial with two levels (5, and 100 lux) of
light intensity and concluded that light intensity had no
effect on mortality.
Lighting schedules proved to be resulted in to
reduced growth related mortality include sudden death
syndrome and improved productivity (Classen et al.,
1991; Riddell and Classen, 1992). Classen et al. (1991)
reported that increasing the lighting schedule for
broilers causes to lower the mortality than the control
lighting schedule (23L: 1D), whilst Scott (2002)
concluded that mortality was high in broilers reared on
23L: 1D till the end of trial. Continuous light has
proven to be stressful and results in higher rate of
mortality (Freeman et al., 1981). Similarly under 23L:
1D lighting program mortality were high as compared
to 16L: 8D and 8L: 16D lighting schedule (Rozenboim
et al., 1999a). Solangi et al. (2004) reported significant
increased (6) mortality in group reared in blue light
than group C (red light) (4) and group A (white light)
(2) Whilst Celen and Testik (1994) found significant
lowered death rate in broilers kept in blue light. Abreu
et al. (2011) determined sudden death at1.48 times and
1.34 times in continuous lighting and intermittent
lighting respectively. Hulan et al. (1987) found no
significant effect of light sources (incandescent and
fluorescent) on mortality in broilers.
Effect on behavior: Behavior studies using radar
equipment have revealed that chickens reared in
intermittent lighting are more active during the light
periods (Simmons, 1982; Simmons and Haye, 1985).
Comfort behaviors are those which are performed after
completion of basic needs (Duncan and Mench, 1993),
and so decreased expression of comfort behaviors is an
important sign of reduced welfare associated with
certain environment. Comfort behaviors include
preening, dust-bathing, foraging, wing-flapping,
stretching and feather-ruffling (Wood-Gush, 1971).
Concluded that feeding behavior of broiler varies
according to light availability. According to Castello et
al. (1991) birds can easily see at 0.1 lux with no
activity. At 1 lux, can perform some activity and at 5
lux, birds perform developed activities. For this reason,
Classen (1996) recommends light intensities at the
height of the broilers eye of 20 lux for 7 days and 5 lux
later on.
Few studies have been conducted to determine the
effects of light intensity on detailed behavioral
expression and in particular comfort behaviors. The
increase in red light intensity increased the broilers
standing, walking, drinking; wing stretching time whilst
increase in blue light intensity increased the tensile and
aggression (Prayitno et al., 1997). Low intensity has
been associated with the reduction in walking and
standing as well as decreased incidence of fighting
pecking and cannibalism (Buyse et al., 1996).
Blatchford et al. (2009) conducted an experiment on the
light intensity to check the behavior of broiler birds.
They used three intensities 5, 50 and 200 lux and
reported significant less active behavior of broiler
reared at 5 lux as compared to 50 and 200 lux. Likewise
Newberry et al. (1988) found less activity (feeding,
drinking, walking and standing) in broilers grew at 6
lux in contrast to those reared at 180 lux. Similarly at
light intensity of 200 lux, walking and feeding activities
were significantly higher than 6 lux (Davis et al., 1999).
In the same way Kristensen et al. (2006) determined
significant increased standing activity in broilers at 100

6. Sch Adv Anim Vet Res, 2014, 1(1): 1-13.
6
lux and reverse was true for 5 lux. Kristensen et al.
(2007) examined less feather pecking in low intense
light. Alvino et al. (2009) determined that broilers
reared at 5 lux rested more as compared to other light
intensities (50 and 200 lux) but walking and standing
behavior was same among all groups. Davis et al.
(1999) examined that broilers grew at 200 lux resulted
increased litter directed behavior than 6 lux.
Alvino et al. (2009) observed reduced expression
of preening and foraging behavior in broilers exposed
to 5 lux whilst opposite were at 50 and 200 lux.
Newberry et al. (1985) explored that birds were more
active in brighter (6 to 12 lux) as compared to darker
(0.5 lux) areas whereas Newberry et al. (1986) reported
decreased activity of broilers with increasing light
intensity ranged from 0.1-100 lux. Son and Ravindran
(2009) found significant increased pecking behavior in
birds receiving red light as compared to all others lights
(white and blue). Senaratna et al. (2010) found that
choice of light colors is significantly affected by the age
of broilers and session of the day. Solangi et al. (2004)
reported significant aggressive behavior of broilers
under white light color as compared to red and blue
light color.
El-Husseiny et al. (2000) found significant effect
of green light on broiler’s behavior. Denbow et al.
(1990) concluded that light intensity had no observable
effect on social behavior. Deep et al., (2010) envisaged
that birds provided 1 lux light rested more and reduced
behaviors of foraging, preening, dust-bathing,
stretching and wing-flapping as compare to 10 lux, 20
lux and 40 lux. Recently Senaratna et al. (2012) also
reported significant effect of light color on behavior of
broilers. They investigated that red and white colors are
preferred by birds than the blue and green. JangHo and
velmurugu (2009) reported that light color can
influence broiler performance and behavior. Birds
reared in blue light were more (P<0.05) efficient than
those receiving red and white lights. Standing and
walking behaviors was higher in birds reared under red
light in 4 to 18 day-old age and all of experimental
periods, respectively.
Effect on fat deposition: Lien et al. (2008) found an
increase in abdominal fat weight in broilers subjected to
higher light intensity. Robinson (2004) envisaged that
bird exposed to longer light time may have heavier
carcass fat. Charles et al.(1992) reported an increase in
fat pad weights and whole body fat weight and
percentage in broilers submitted to dim light whilst
Downs et al. (2006) reported no effect of light intensity
on fat pad weights or yield. Abbas (2010) reported
significant effect of light intensity on abdominal fat
weight whereas carcass fat weight was not affected.
Effects on skeletal disorders and leg abnormalities:
Quick and rapid growth has resulted in several health
and welfare problems including leg abnormalities in
broilers (Morris, 1993). Mortality, circulating diseases
and leg problems can be lowered with the help of
intermittent lighting schedule (Ononiwu et al., 1979;
Classen and Riddell, 1989). Intermittent light frequently
decreases the incidence of leg problems and reduces
sudden death syndrome (Classen and Riddel, 1989;
Simmons, 1986; Buckland, 1975).The increasing
lighting schedule resulted in less skeletal disease than
the 23L (Classen et al., 1991). Breast muscle
percentage of chickens reared under 12L: 12D was
significantly lower than those reared under 23L: 1D and
16L: 8D schedules (Wen-bin et al., 2010).
Un-efficient lighting system may cause some
metabolic diseases like ascites related with pulmonary
hypertension syndrome, sudden death syndrome and
skeletal disorder like tibial dyschondroplasia (Classen
and Riddell, 1989; Classen et al., 1991; Renden et al.,
1991; Petek et al., 2005). Angular deformity and leg
deformities decline but tibial dyschondroplasia higher
in birds which were exposed in fluorescent light source
as compared to incandescent light source (Hulan et al.,
1987). Lewis et al. (1998) mentioned that fluorescent
source of light gave significant positive effect in
reducing the leg problems in the chicken. Gait score is
an indicator of leg health of chicken (Sanotra et al.,
2002; Garner et al., 2005). Garner et al. (2005)
examined increased gait score; increased leg problems
and poor welfare at lighting schedule 12L: 12D till the
end of trial. Rozenboim et al. (1999a) examined less
skin damages and higher leg problem in broilers under
the 16D: 8L lighting schedule as compared to 23L: 1D
and 16L: 8D.
Hester et al. (1986) observed significant reduction
in leg problems in broiler at higher light intensity.
Newberry et al. (1986) reported no effect of light
intensity ranges from 0.5 to 100 lux on skeletal
disorders of broilers. Similarly, Kristensen et al. (2006)
reported non-significant effect of two levels of light
intensity (5 and 100 lux) on leg health. In the same way
Olanrewaju et al. (2007) observed non significant effect
of light intensity ranges from 0.2 to 20 lux on skeletal
health in broilers. Blatchford et al. (2009) reported non-
significant effect of light intensities (5, 50 and 200 lux)
on gait score of broilers.
Eye and vision problems: Some researches explored
that very low light intensity (less than 5 lux) may lead
to myopia, retinal degeneration, damage to the lens,

7. Sch Adv Anim Vet Res, 2014, 1(1): 1-13.
7
buphthalmos, glaucoma and blindness in broiler birds
(Ashton et al., 1973; Chiu et al., 1975; Cummings et
al., 1986; Buyse et al., 1996;; Li et al., 1995). Lamness
and circulatory problems in broilers may be reduced
with intermittent lighting schedule (Buckland, 1975;
Ononiwu et al., 1979; Simmons, 1982; Wilson et al.,
1984; Renden et al., 1999; Kritensen et al., 2004).
Effect on hormonal and blood profile: Chickens
reared at intermittent photoperiod prone to less stress as
measured by the plasma corticosterone (Buckland et al.,
1974; Puvadolpirod and Thaxton, 2000a). During
stressed in broiler birds plasma corticosterone is known
to be elevated (Puvadolpirod and Thaxton, 2000a-d;
Olanrewaju et al., 2006). Thyroid hormones i.e.,
triiodothronine (T3) and thyroxine (T4) are important
hormones for growth (McNabb and King, 1993), which
play an important role of growth inhibition as well as
compensatory growth acceleration in chickens (Yahav,
1999). Kuhn et al. (1996) reported improved growth
rates, higher plasma growth hormone levels and
testosterone concentrations in male broiler chickens
raised under continuous lighting (23L:1D) and
intermittent lighting (1L:3D, IL) repeatedly as
compared to those birds reared under a continuous
lighting (24L:0D) schedule. Charles et al. (1992)
revealed that male chickens subjected to an increasing
light photoperiod had large testes and higher plasma
androgens concentrations against birds under a
continuous light schedule. Potential health benefits
associated with increasing light photoperiod claims to
be are: lower rate of growth, increased activity, an
increase in the production of androgenic hormones,
changes in metabolism, or combinations of these
(Classen and Riddell, 1989). Abdulgaffar et al. (2009)
investigated non significant effect of light intensity on
blood glucose level in broilers whilst Stoianove and
Georgiev (1981) found significant effects of light
intensity on serum glucose level.
Olanrewju et al. (2012) concluded that lowest light
intensity of 0.2 lux significantly (p<0.05) increased pH,
Na+, K+, Cl- and decreased pCO2, Hb and Hematocrite
value however pO2, sO2, Ca and T3, T4 were non
significantly affected whilst El-Husseiny et al. (2000)
reported a significant effect of green color (low intense
light) on the adrenal gland, T3 and T4 concentrations.
Effect on immunity: A normal day length of 16 hours
is associated with the potential benefits of social
assistance (Gordon, 1994; Davis et al., 1997;
Rozenboim et al., 1999b), lowered physiological stress,
increased immune response, improved sleep, improved
overall activity, and increased bone metabolism and leg
health (Classen et al., 2004b). Factors that affect
antibody production in broilers include: light schedule
(Kirbyand Froman, 1991; Moore and Siopes, 2000;
Onbasilar et al., 2007), taurine supplementation (Lee et
al., 2004) and cage floor and density (Onbasilar and
Aksoy, 2005). Li et al. (2010) envisaged that a short
light duration may enhance the immune system.
Onbasilar et al. (2007) investigated that intermittent
lighting has positive effects on antibody titers of anti-
Newcastle disease virus. Kiger et al. (2000) examined
photoperiod schedules: constant lighting, (23 h light,1 h
darkness); intermediate lighting (12 h light,12 h
darkness); and intermittent lighting (1 h light, 3 h
darkness). Lymphocytes from the chickens exposed to
different photoperiod regimens were incubated with
mitogen and various concentrations of melanin. Splenic
B and T lymphocytes from six week-old chickens
grown in intermittent lighting showed higher activities
due to higher level of melatonin and splenic CD4+
,
CD8+
and CD3+
cells. Pineal gland through its hormone
melatonin enhances immune function. Invitro melatonin
treatment may enhance cellular and humoral immune
responses turkey pullets (Moor and Siopes, 2005).
Invitro melatonin treatment may enhance cellular
and humoral immune responses turkey pullets (Moor
and Siopes, 2005).The greatest heterophil: lymphocytes
ratio is an indices of stress in chickens (Siegel, 1995).
Chickens reared in continuous light achieved greatest
heterophil:lymphocyte ratio than birds exposed to
12L:12D photoperiod (Zulkifli et al., 1998). Light
intensity may enhance immunity in broilers (Onbailar et
al., 2007). Scot and Siopes (1994) reported that light
intensity has significant effect on immunity. Kirby and
froman (1991) also reported same results that chickens
in the constant light group with intensity of 40 lux to 45
lux showed significantly less anti-SRBC antibody titers.
Green and blue monochromatic lights promote
myofiber growth and immune response in broilers (Liu
et al., 2010; Xie et al., 2008). Similarly Sadrzadeh et al.
(2011) found that green and white lights had strong
positive effects on immunity in broilers. In the same
way Jin et al. (2011) envisaged that GL enhances chick
pinealocytes and retinal cells secrete melatonin.
Conclusion: Accelerated growth rate in chicken has
resulted several metabolic problems which may lead to
financial losses. These growths related associated
problems can be resolved by different managemental
techniques. Light is an important exogenous factor of
chicken environment. There is a lot of variability
regarding the efficient light source and the optimum
level of light intensity for profitable chicken farming.
Investigating the efficient light source and optimum

8. Sch Adv Anim Vet Res, 2014, 1(1): 1-13.
8
level of light intensity is also important for its potential
effects on chicken welfare. In view of above discussion,
we strongly recommended the following lighting
schedule for profitable broiler farming.
Lighting program recommendation for broiler
Age
(days)
Light Intensity
(lux)
Light Source Photoperiod
0-7 20 LED 23L
8-49 5 LED 23L
*This lighting program is recommended by Ahmad et al.,
2011
L= Light, LED= light emitting diode
REFERENCES
Abbas, G. 2010. Effect of varying light intensities on
the production performance of broiler chickens. M.
Sc. (Hons) Thesis, Department of Poultry Science,
Univrsity of Agriculture, Faisalabad. Pakistan.
Ahmad, F, A. Haq, M. Ashraf, G. Abbas and M. Z.
Siddiqui. 2011. Effect of different light intensities
on the production performance of broiler chickens.
Pak. Vet. J. 203-206.
Alvino, G. M., G. S. Archer and J. A. Mench. 2009.
Behavioural time budgets of broiler chickens
reared in varying light intensities. J. Appl. Anim.
Behav. Sci. 118:54-61.
Angélica, S. M., J. P. Sandro, R. Rasiel and M. Juliéli.
2012. Performance and Preference of Broiler
Chickens under Different Light Sources. pp no.
ILES12-1847.
Appleby, M. C., J. A. Mench and B. O. Hughes. 2004.
Poultry, Beha;8vior and Welfare. CAB
International, Wallingford.
Ashton, W.L.G., M. Pattison and K.C. Barnett, 1973.
Light-induced eye abnormalities in turkeys and the
turkey blindness syndrome. Res. Vet. Sci. 14: 42-
46.
Berk, J. 1995. Light choice by broilers. Page S25-26 in
proceeding of the 29th Int. Congress of the Int.
Society for Appl. Ethiology. Universities
Federation for Animal Welfare, Potters Bar, UK.
Blair, R., R. C. Newberry and E. E. Gardiner. 1993.
Effects of lighting pattern and dietary tryptophan
supplementation on growth and mortality in
broilers. J. Poult. Sci. 492-502.
Blatchford, R. A., K. C. Klasing, H. L. Shivaprasad, P.
S. Wakenell, G. S. Archer and J. A. Mench. 2009.
The effect of light intensity on the behavior, eye
and leg health and immune function of broiler
chickens. J. Poult. Sci. 20-28.
Brickett, K. E., J. P. Dahiya, H. L. Classen and S.
Gomist. 2007. Influence of dietary nutrient density,
feed form and lighting on growth and meat yield of
broiler chickens. J. Poult. Sci. 86: 2172-2181.
Buckland, R.B., 1975. The effect of intermittent
lighting programs on the production of market
chickens and turkeys. J. Poult. Sci. 31: 262-270.
Buckland, R.B., K. Blagrave and P.C. Lague. 1974.
Competitive protein-binding assay for corticoids in
the peripheral plasma of the immature chicken. J.
Poult. Sci. 53: 241-245.
Buyse, J., E. Decuypere, S.Michel. 1994. Intermittent
lighting and broiler production. Effect on energy
and on nitrogen metabolism. Archiv fur
Geflugelkunde, 58: 78-83, 1994.
Buyse, J. P.C.M. Simons, F.M.G. Boshouwers and E.
Decuypere. 1996. Effect of intermittent lighting,
light intensity and source on the performance and
welfare of broilers. World's J. Poult. Sci. J. 52:
121-130.
Buys, N., J., Buyse, M. Hassanzadeh-Ladmakhi, 1998.
Intermittent lighting reduces the incidence of
ascites in broilers: an interaction with protein
content of feed on performance and the endocrine
system. Poultry Science, 77: 54-61.
Cao, J. W. Liu, Z. Wang, D. Xie, L. Jia and Y. Chen.
2008. Green and blue monochromatic lights
promote growth and development of broilers via
stimulating testosterone secretion and myofiber
growth. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 211-218.
Castello, J. A., F. Franco and E. Garcia. 1991. Manejo
de los pollos. In Producción de carne de pollo.
Barcelona: Tecnograf, p.112-116.
Celen, M. F. and A. Testik. 1994. Effects of different
coloured lights and equipment on the performance
of Turkeys. Proc. 9th
European Poultry Conf.
Glasgow, UK. 1: 135-136.
Charles, R.G., F.E. Robinson, R.T. Hardin, M.W. Yu, J.
Feddes and H.L. Classen. 1992. Growth, body
composition, and plasma androgen concentration
of male broiler-chickens subjected to different
regimens of photoperiod and light-intensity. J.
Poult. Sci. 71: 1595-1605.
Chiu, P.S., J.K. Lauber and A. Kinnear. 1975.
Dimensional and physiological lesions in the chick
eye as influenced by the light environment. Proc.
Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., 148: 1223-1228.
Classen, H. L. and C. Riddell. 1989. Photoperiodic
effects on performance and leg abnormalities in
broiler chickens. J. Poult. Sci. 68:873-879.
Classen, H.L., C. Riddell and F.E. Robinson. 1991.
Effects of increasing photoperiod length on
performance and health of broiler chickens. Br. J.
Poult. Sci. 32: 21-29.

9. Sch Adv Anim Vet Res, 2014, 1(1): 1-13.
9
Classen, H. L. 1996. Principios sobre el manejo de luz
em pollos de engorde. Avicultura Professional, 14:
21-27.
Classen, H.L., 2004a. Day length affects performance,
health and condemnations in broiler chickens.
Proc. of the Australian J. Poult. Sci. Society,
University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.
Cummings, T.S., J.D. French and O.J. Fletcher. 1986.
Ophthalmopathy in a broiler breeder flock reared in
dark-out housing. Avian Dis. 30: 609-612.
Dartnall, H.J.A., J.K. Bowmaker and J.D. Mollon.
1983. Human visual pigments:
microspectrophotometric results from the eyes of
seven persons. Proc. of the Royal Society of
London. Br. J. 220: 115-130.
Davis, J. P.B. Thomas and T.D. Siopes. 1997. More
evidence for light-dark growing. Broiler ;Industry,
February: 31-32.
Davis, N. J. N. B. Prescott, C. J. Savory and C.M.
Wathes. 1999. Preferences of growing fowls for
different light intensities in relation to age strain
and behaviour. J. Anim. Welf. 8:193-203.
Deaton, J. W., B.D. Lott, S. L. Branton and J.D.
Simmons. 1988. Effect of differing light intensities
on abdominal fat deposition in broilers. J. Poult.
Sci. 67:1239-1242.
Denbow, D.M., A.T. Leighton and R.M. Hulet. 1990.
Effect of light sources and light intensity on growth
performance and behavior of female turkeys. Br. J.
Poult. Sci. 31:439-45.
Downs, K. M., R. J. Lien, J. B. Hess and S.F. Bilgili,
W. A. Dozier. 2006. The effects of photoperiod
length, light intensity, and feed energy on growth
responses and meat yield of broilers. J. Appl. Poult.
Res. 15: 406-416.
Duncan, I.J.H., and J. A. Mench. 1993. Behaviour as an
indicator of welfare in various systems. Pages 69–
80 in: Fourth European Symposium on Poultry
Welfare. C.J. Savory and B.O. Hughes, ed.
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare,
Potters Bar, UK.
El-Husseiny, O., S. M. Hashish, S. A. Arafa and A. H.
H. Madian. 2000. Response of poultry performance
to environmental light colour. J. Egpt. Poult. Sci.
385-402.
Fussel, L.W., M.A.M. Diplomae and A. Rossi. 2003.
Lighting programs and Cobb 500 broiler
performance. Technical Focus, 1:1-4.
Freeman, B.M., A.C.C. Manning and I.H. Flack. 1981.
Photoperiod and its effect on the response of the
immature fowl to stressors. Comp. Biochem.
Physiol. 68A: 411-416.
Garner, J.P., C. Falcone, P. Wakenell, M. Martin and
J.A. Mench. 2005. Reliability and validity of a
modified gait scoring system and its use in
assessing tibial dyschondroplasia in broilers. Br. J.
Poult. Sci. 43: 355-363.
Ghuffar, A., K. Rahman, M. Siddque, F. Ahmad and
M.A. Khan. 2009. Impact of various lighting
source incandescent, fluorescent, metal halide and
high pressure sodium on the production
performance of chicken broilers. J. Agri. Sci. 46.
Gordon, S.H., 1994. Effects of day-length and
increasing day length programs on broiler welfare
and performance. World’s J. Poult. Sci. 50: 269-
282.
Halevy, O., I. Biran and I. Rozenboim. 1998. Various
light source treatments affect body and skeletal
muscle growth by affecting skeletal muscle
satellite cell proliferation in broilers. J. Comp.
Biochem. Physio. 120: 317-323.
Hester, P.Y., A.L. Sutton and R.G. Elkin. 1987. Effect
of light intensity, litter source and litter
management on the incidence of leg abnormalities
and performance of turkey toms. J. Poult. Sci.
66:666-675.
Hulan, H.W. and F.G. Proudfoot. 1987. Effects of light
source, ambient temperature, and dietary energy
source on the general performance and incidence of
leg abnormalities of roaster chickens. J. Poult. Sci.
66: 645-651.
Ingram, D. R. and L. F. Hatten. 2000. Effects of light
restriction on broiler performance and specific
body structure measurements. J. Appl. Poult. Res.
9:501-504.
JangHo S and R Velmurugu, 2009. The effects of light
colors on the behavior and performance of broiler
chickens. Korean J of Poult Sci, 36: 329-335.
Jiang, J. J. Pan, Y. Wang, Z. Ye and Y. Ying. 2012.
Effect of light color on growth and waste emission
of broilers. pp: ILES12-0394.
Jin, E., L. Jia, J Li, G Yang, Z Wang, J Cao and Y
Chen, 2011. Effect of Monochromatic Light on
Melatonin Secretion and Arylalkylamine N-
Acetyltransferase mRNA Expression in the Retina
and Pineal Gland of Broilers the Anatomical
Record: Advances in Integrative Anatomy and
Evolutionary Biology, 294: 1233-1241.
Joseph, St., S.M. AngÃlica, J.P. Sandro, R. Rasiel, M.
A Juli and M.M. Gabriela. 2012. Performance and
Preference of Broiler Chickens under Different
Light Sources. ASABE. 12-1847.
Karakaya, M., S. S. Parlat, M. T. Yilmaz, I. Yildirim
and B. Ozalp. 2009. Growth performance and

10. Sch Adv Anim Vet Res, 2014, 1(1): 1-13.
10
quality properties of meat from broiler chickens
reared under different monochromatic light
sources. Brit. J. Poult. Sci. 76-82.
Kiger, C. A., A. E. Gehad, R. M. Hulet, W. B.
Roush,H. S. Lillehoj and M.M. Mashaly.2000.
Effect of photoperiod and Melatonine on
Lymphotocyte activity in male broiler chicken.
Poult. Sci.79:18-25.
King-Smith, P.E., 1971. Special Senses. Pages 143-156
in Physiology and Biochemistry of the Domestic
Fowl, Vol 2. Bell, D.J. and Freeman B.M. (Eds.).
Academic Press, Londo.
Kirby JD and DP Froman, 1991. Evaluation of humoral
and delayed hypersensitivity responses in cockerels
reared under constant light or a twelve hour light:
twelve hour dark photoperiod. Poult Sci, 70:2375-
2378.
Kristensen, H.H., G.C. Perry, N.B. Prescott, J.
Ladewig, A.K. Ersbøll and C.M. Wathes. 2006.
Leg health and performance of broiler chickens
reared in different light environments. Br. J. Poult.
Sci. 47:257-263.
Kristensen, H.H., N.B. Prescott, G.C. Perry, J.
Ladewig, A.K. Ersbøll, K.C. Overvad and C.M.
Wathes. 2007. The behaviour of broiler chickens in
different light sources and illuminances. J. Appl.
Anim. Behav. Sci. 103: 75-89.
Kristensen, H.H., N.B. Prescott, J. Ladewig, G.C. Perry
and C.M. Wathes. 2002. Light quality and the
visual acuity in broiler chickens. Proc. of the 36th
International Congress of the I;SAE, Egmondaan
Zee, The Netherlands, 6-10th
August.
Kritensen, H.H., J.M. Aerts, T. Leroy, D. Berckmans
and C.M. Wathes. 2004. Using light to control
broiler chickens. Br. J. Poult. Sci. 45: S30-31.
Kuhn, E.R, V.M. Darras, C. Gysemans, E. Decuypere,
L.R. Berghman and J. Buyse. 1996. The use of
intermittent lighting in broiler raising. Effects on
the somatotrophic and thyroid axes and on plasma
testosterone levels. J. Poult. Sci. 75:595-600.
Lee, D., Y. Cheng, Y. Chuang, J. Shive, Y. Lian, H.
Wei, and C.Weng. 2004. Effects of dietary taurine
supplementation on growth performance, serum
constituents and antibody productionof broilers.
Asian-australas. J. Anim. Sci. 17:109-115.
Leighton, A.T., R.M. Hulet and D.M. Denbow. 1989.
Effect of light sources and light intensity on growth
performance and behavior of male turkeys. Bri. J.
Poult. Sci. 30:563-574.
Lewis, P. and T. Morris. 2006. Poultry Lighting: The
Theory and Practice. Cromwell Press. 7-8, 112-
113.
Lewis, P.D. and T.R. Morris. 2000. Poultry and colored
lights. World J. Poult. Sci. 56: 189-207.
Li, T., D. Troilo, A. Glasser and H.C. Howland, 1995.
Constant light produces severe corneal flatterning
and hyperopia in chickens. Vision Res. 35: 1203-
1209.
Lia, W., G. Yan-li, C. Ji-lan, W. Rong, H. Yao and S.
Dong-ge. 2010. Influence of Lighting Schedule and
Nutrient Density in Broiler Chickens:Effect on
Growth Performance, Carcass Traits and Meat
Quality. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 11: 1510-1518.
Liu W, Z Wang and Y Chen, 2010. Effects of
monochromatic light on developmental changes in
satellite cell population of pectoral muscle in
broilers during early posthatch period. Anat Rec,
293: 1315-1324.
Lien, R. J. J. B. Hess, S. R. McKee and S. F. Bilgili.
2008. Effect of light intensity on live performance
and processing characteristics of broilers. J. Poult.
Sci. 87:853-857.
Lien, R. J. J. B. Hess, S. R. McKee, S.F. Bilgili and J.
C. Townsend. 2007. Impact of light intensity and
photoperiod on live performance, heterophil to
lymphocyte ratio, and processing yields of broilers.
J. Poult. Sci. 86:1287-1293.
Lisney, T. J. E. Björn, T. Ragnar, H. Olle and O.
Anders. 2012. Using electroretinograms to assess
flicker fusion frequency in domestic hens Gallus
gallus domesticus. J. 62:125-133.
Maria, V., N. Abreu, P. G. de Abreu, A. Coldebella, F.
Regina F. Jaenisch, J. I. S. Filho and D. P. Paiva.
2011. Curtain color and lighting program in broiler
production: I-general performance. Accessed on
H:Light ColorWb pagescielo.php.htm.
Mckee, N. A., R. J. Lien, J. B. Hess, S. F. Bilgili and S.
R. Mckee. 2009. Effect of light intensity and
handling during rearing on broiler breast meat
characteristics. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 1028-1033.
McNabb, F.M.A. and D.B. King. 1993. Thyroid
hormones effects on growth, development and
metabolism. Pages 393-417 in The Endocrinology
of Growth Development and Metabolism in
Vertebrates. M. P. Schreibman, C. G. Scanes, and
P. K. T. Pang, ed. Academic Press, New York.
Moore, C. B., and T. D. Siopes. 2000. Effects of
lighting conditions and melatonin
supplementation on the cellular and humoral
immune responses in Japanese quail Coturnix
coturnix japonica.Gen. Comp. Endocrinol.
119:95-104.
Moore C B and T D Siopes, 2005. Enhancement of
cellular and humoral immunity following
embryonic exposure to melatonin in turkeys

11. Sch Adv Anim Vet Res, 2014, 1(1): 1-13.
11
(Meleagris gallopavo). Gen Comp Endocrinol,
143:178-183.
Moraes, D.T., M.L. Gonzales and N.C. Baiao. 2007.
Efeito dos programas de luz sobre o
comportamento alimentar em frangos de corte.
Revista Brasileira de Ciência Avícola, 9: pp.12.
Newberry, R.C., J.R. Hunt and E.E. Gardiner. 1986.
Light intensity effects on performance, activity, leg
disorders, and sudden death syndrome of roaster
chickens. J. Poult. Sci. 65:2232-2238.
Newberry, R.C., J.R. Hunt and E.E. Gardiner. 1988.
Influence of light intensity on behavior and
performance of broiler chickens. J. Poult. Sci.
67:1020-1025.
Ohtani, S. and S. Leeson. 2000. The effect of
intermittent lighting on metabolizable energy
intake and heat production of male broilers. J.
Poult. Sci. 79: 167-171.
Olanrewaju, H.A., J.P. Thaxton, W.A. Dozier, J.
Purswell, W.B. Roush and S.L. Branton. 2006. A
review of lighting programs for broiler production.
J. Poult. Sci. 5: 301-308.
Olanrewaju, H.A., S. Wongpichet, J.P. Thaxton, W.A.
Dozier III, and S.L. Branton. 2006. Stress and acid-
base balance in chickens. J. Poult. Sci. 85: 1266-
1274.
Olanrewaju, H.A., W.W. Miller, W.R. Maslin, J.P.
Thaxton, W.A. Dozier, J. Purswell and S.L.
Branton. 2007. Interactive effects of ammonia and
light intensity on ocular, fear and leg health in
broiler chickens. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 6:762-769.
Olanrewaju HA J L Purswell, S D Collier and S L
Branton, 2011. Effect of varying light intensity on
growth performance and carcass characteristics of
broiler chickens grown to heavy weights. Int J of
Poult Sci, 10(12): 921-926.
Olanrewaju, H.A., J.L. Purswell, S.D. Collier and S.L.
Branton. 2012. Effect of Varying Light Intensity on
Blood Physiological Reactions of Broiler Chickens
Grown to Heavy Weights. J. Poult. Sci. 11: 81-87.
Onbasilar, E. E., and T. Aksoy. 2005. Stress parameters
and immune response of layers under different
cage floor and density conditions. Livest. Prod. Sci.
95:255–263.
Onbasilar E E, H Erol, Z. Cantekin; Ü. Kaya, 2007.
Influence of intermittent lighting on broiler
performance, incidence of tibial dyschondroplasia,
tonic immobility, some blood parameters and
antibody production. Asian-Aust. J. of Animal Sci.
20: 550-555.
Ononiwu, J.C., R.G. Thomson, H.C. Carlson and R.J.
Julian. 1979. Studies on the effect of lighting on
“sudden death syndrome” in broiler chickens. Can.
Vet. J. 20: 74-77.
Petek, M.G., S.O. Nmez, H. Yildiz and H. Baspinar.
2005. Effects of different management factors on
broiler performance and incidence of tibial
dyschondroplasia. Br. J. Poult. Sci. 46: 16-21.
Prayitno, D. S., C. J. C. Phillips and H. Omed. 1997.
The effects of color of lighting on the behavior and
production of meat chickens. J. Poult. Sci. 76: 452-
457.
Prayitno, D. S., C. J. C. Phillips, and D. K. Stokes.
1997a. The effects of color and intensity of light on
behavior and leg disorders in broiler chickens.
Poult. Sci. 76:1674-1681.
Prescott, N.B. and C.M. Wattes. 1999. Spectral
sensitivity of the domestic fowl (Gallus g.
domesticus). Br. J. Poult. Sci. 40: 332-339.
Puvadolpirod, S. and J.P. Thaxton. 2000a. Model of
physiological stress in chickens. 1. Response
parameters. J. Poult. Sci. 79: 363-369.
Rahimi, G., M. Rezaei, H. Hafezian and H. Saiyahzadeh.
2005. The effect of intermittent lighting schedule on
broiler performance. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 4: 396-398.
Renden, J.A., S.F. Bilgili, R.J. Lien and S.A. Kincaid.
1991. Live performance and yields of broilers
provided various lighting schedules. J. Poult. Sci.
70: 2055-2062.
Robinson K, 2004. Photoperiod and feed intake effects
on ovarian morphology in broiler and breeder.
Accessed at poultryindustrycouncil pp.108-112.
Rodenburg J, van Harn and J H Van Middelkoop, 2003.
Effect of colored light on production and welfare
traits in broilers. Applied Research, Animal
Sciences Group, Wagningen UR, P. O. Box 2176,
8203 AD Lelystad, The Netherland.
Rozenboim, I., Y. Zilberman, and G. Gvaryahu. 1998.
New monochromatic light source for laying hens.
Poult. Sci.77:1695-1698.
Rozenboim, I., I. Biran, Z. Uni, and O. Halevy. 1999a.
The effectof monochromatic light on broiler growth
and development.Poult. Sci. 78:135–138.
Rozenboim, I., B. Robinzon and A. Rosenstrauch.
1999b. Effect of light source and regimen on
growing broilers. Br. J. Poult. Sci. 40: 452-457.
Rozenboim, I., I. Biran, Y. Chaiseha, S. yahav, A.
Rosenstrauch, D. Sklan and O. Halevy. 2004. The
effect of green and blue monochromatic light
combination on broiler growth and development.
J. Poult. Sci. 83: 842-845.
Rozenboim, I., I. Biran, Z. Uni and O. Halevy.
1999a.The involvement of onochromatic light in
growth, development and endocrine parameters
of broilers. J. Poult. Sci. 78: 135-138.

12. Sch Adv Anim Vet Res, 2014, 1(1): 1-13.
12
Rozenboim, I., Y. Piestun, N. Mobarkey, M. Barak,
A. Hoyzman and O. Halevy. 2004.
Monochromatic light stimuli during
embryogenesis enhance embryo development
and post hatch growth. J. Poult. Sci. 83: 1413-
1419.
Sadrzadeh A, GN Brujeni, M Livi1, M J Nazari1, M
T Sharif1, H Hassanpour and N Haghighi, 2011.
Cellular immune response of infectious bursal
diseaseand Newcastle disease vaccinations in
broilers exposed to monochromatic lights.
African Journal of Biotechnology, 10:46 pp.
9528-9532.
Sanotra, G.S., J. Damkjer Lund and K.S.
Vestergaard. 2002. Influence of light-dark
schedules and stocking density on behavior, risk
of leg problems and occurrence of chronic fear
in broilers. Br. J. Poult. Sci. 43: 344-354.
Sanotra, G.S., J.D. Lund, A.K. Ersboll, J.S. Petersen
and K.S. Vestergaard. 2001. Monitoring leg
problems in broilers: a survey of commercial
broiler production in Denmark. World’s J. Poult.
Sci. 57: 55-69.
Sheila E. and Scheideler.1990. Effect of various light
sources on broiler performance and efficiency of
production under commercial conditions. Poult.
Sci. 69: 6 1030-1033.
Schwean-Lardner, K., H. L. Classen, and B. I.
Fancher. 2006. Daylength effects on production
traits of modern broilers. J. Poult. Sci. 85:169.
Scott, T. A. 2002. Evaluation of lighting programs,
diet density and short-term use of mash as
compared to crumbled starter to reduce
incidence of sudden death syndrome in broiler
chicks to 35 days of age. Can. J. Anim. Sci.
654.
Scott P and T D Siopes, 1994. Light color: Effect on
blood cells, immune function and stress status in
turkey hens. Comp Biochem Physiol, 108: 161-
168.
Senaratna, D., T. S. Samarakone, A. A. P.
Madusanka and W. W. D. A. Gunawardane.
2012. Preference of broiler chicken for different
light colors in relation to age, session of day and
behavior. J. Trop. Agri. Res. 193-203.
Siegel, H.S., 1995. Stress, Strains and resistance. Br.
J. Poult. Sci. 36: 3-22.
Simmons, P.C.M. and U. Haye. 1985. Intermittent
lighting has a positive effect on twisted leg. J.
Poult. Sci. 3: 34-37.
Simmons, P.C.M., 1982. Effect of lighting regimes on
twisted legs, feed conversion and growth of broiler
chickens. J. Poult. Sci. 61: 1546.
Simmons, P.C.M., 1986. The incidence of leg problems
in broilers as influenced by management. Pages
289-299 in Proc. 7th Europ.Poult.Conf. Paris.
Siopes, T.D., M.B Timmons, G.R. Baughman and C.R.
Parkhurst. 1984. The effects of light intensity on
turkey poult performance, eye morphology and
adrenal weight. J. Poult. Sci. 63: 904-909.
Solangi, A. H., M. I. Rind, A. A. Solangi. N.A.
Shahani, A. N. Rind and S. H. Solangi. 2004.
Infleunce of lighting on production and agnostic
behavior of broiler. J. Ainm. Vet. Adv. 285-288.
Son, J. H. and V. Ravindran. 2009. Effect of light
colour on the behavior and performance of broilers.
Poult. Welf. Symp. 18-22.
Vandenberg, C and T.M. Widowski. 2000. Hen’s
preferences for high intensity high pressure sodium
or low intensity incandescent lighting. J. Appl.
Poult. Sci. 9:172-178.
Wabeck, C. J. and W. C. Skoglund. 1974. Influence of
radient energy from fluorescent light sources on
growth, mortality and feed conversion of broilers.
J. Poult. Sci. 2055-2059.
Wathes, C. M., H. H. Spechter and T. S. Bray. 1982.
The effects of light illuminances and wavelength
on the growth of broiler chickens. J. Agri. Sci. 98:
195-201.
Wilson, J.L., W.D. Weaver, Jr. W.L. Beane and J.A.
Cherry. 1984. Effects of light and feeding space on
leg abnormalities in broilers. J. Poult. Sci. 63: 565-
567.
Win-bin, L., G. Yan-Li, C. Ji-lan, W. Ronq, H. Yao and
S. Dong-ge. 2010. Influence of lighting schedule
and nutrient density in broiler chicken: effect on
growth performance, carcass traits and meat
quality. J. Asi. Aus. Anim. Sci. 7842.
Wong-Valle, J., G.R. McDaniel, D.L. Kulers and J.E.
Bartels. 1993. Effect of lighting program and
broiler line on the incidence of tibial
dyschondroplasia at four and seven weeks of age.
J. Poult. Sci. 72: 1855-1860.
Wood-Gush, D.G.M., 1971. Maintenance Behaviour.
Pages 91-109 in The Behaviour of Domestic Fowl.
ed., Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London,
UK.
Yahav, S., 1999. The effect of constant and diurnal
cyclic temperatures on performance and blood
system of young turkeys. J. Therm. Biol. 24: 71-78.
Yahav S, S Hurwitz and I Rozenboim, 2000. The effect
of light intensity on growth and development of
turkey toms. Brit Polt Sci, 41: 101-106.
Yoshizawa, T., 1992. The road to color vision:
structure, evolution and function of chicken and

13. Sch Adv Anim Vet Res, 2014, 1(1): 1-13.
13
gecko visual pigments. Photochem. and photobiol.
56: 859-867.
Zeman, M., P. Pavlik, D. Lamosova, I. Herichova and
E. Gwinner. 2004. Development of ircadian
rhythmcity: Entrainment of Rhythmic Melatonin
Production by Light and Temperature in the Chick
Embryo. J. Avi. Poult. Bio. Rev.15:197-204.
Zulkifli, I., A. Raseded, O.H. Syaadah and M.T.C.
Morma. 1998. Daylength effects on stress and fear
responses in broiler chickens. Asian-Aust. J. Anim.
Sci. 11: 751-754.