Research note: amendments to the model for predicting age at sexual maturity for growing pullets of layer strains following changes in photoperiod

A model was published by Lewis et al. (2002) to predict the mean age at first egg (AFE) for pullets of laying strains reared under non-limiting environmental conditions and exposed to a single change in photoperiod during the rearing stage. Subsequently, Lewis et al. (2003) reported the effects of two opposing changes in photoperiod, which showed that the first change appears to alter the pullet's physiological age so that it responds to the second change as though it had been given at an earlier age (if photoperiod was decreased), or later age (if photoperiod was increased) than the true chronological age. During the construction of a computer model based on these two publications, it became apparent that some of the components of the models needed adjustment. The amendments relate to (1) the standard deviation (S.D.) used for calculating the proportion of a young flock that has attained photosensitivity, (2) the equation for calculating the slope of the line relating AFE to age at transfer from one photoperiod to another, (3) the equation used for estimating the distribution of AFE as a function of the mean value, (4) the point of no return when pullets which have started spontaneous maturation in response to the current photoperiod can no longer respond to a late change in photoperiod and (5) the equations used for calculating the distribution of AFE when the trait is bimodal.

Effect of two opposing changes in photoperiod upon age at first egg in layer-hybrid pullets

An experiment was designed to test the response of growing pullets to two changes in photoperiod (an increase from 8 to 14 h followed 5 weeks later by the reverse change, or a decrease from 14 to 8 h followed by an increase). The first change was made either at 35 days or at 56 days of age, to test the influence of age on the responses observed. Control groups were kept oil constant 8-h and constant 14-h photoperiods and the responses to appropriate single changes were also tested. Mean age at first egg varied from 111 days for birds given a single increment at 56 days to 166 days for pullets given an increase in photoperiod at 35 days followed by a reduction at 70 days. Responses to the single changes confirmed earlier reports that sensitivity to change in photoperiod varies with age ill a manner that is quantitatively predictable. Responses to the double changes could be explained by Postulating that the initial change altered the 'physiological age' of the bird to all extent that was also quantitatively predictable. An early increase in photoperiod advances sexual development and makes the bird more sensitive to a subsequent decrease than would be expected by reference to its chronological age. An early decrease in photoperiod delays sexual development, which can have the effect of making the bird more or less sensitive to a subsequent increase since, ill layer-strain pullets, sensitivity to an increment in photoperiod normally increases Lip to about 9 weeks of age but decreases thereafter. Mean age at first egg predicted using these concepts was very highly correlated with observed age at first egg. The results provide a rational basis for constructing a model to predict age at first egg for any combination of increases and decreases in photoperiod applied to growing pullets.

Changes in light intensity can influence age at sexual maturity in domestic pullets

1. Shaver White and ISA Brown pullets were reared to 140 d in groups of 8 in cages on a 10-h photoperiod of incandescent light and maintained at an illuminance of 3 or 25 lux, or transferred from 3 to 25 lux or from 25 to 3 lux at 63 or 112 d of age. 2. There was no significant difference in sexual maturity, measured as eggs per 100 bird.d at 139 and 140 d, for ISA Brown maintained on 3 or 25 lux, but Shaver White pullets exposed to constant 3 lux matured significantly later than those maintained on 25 lux. 3. In Shaver Whites, sexual maturity was significantly delayed by an increase from 3 to 25 lux at 63 and 112 d, and advanced by a decrease from 25 to 3 lux at 112 d. Sexual maturity of ISA Browns was not significantly affected by a change in illuminance at 63 or 112 d, though responses were in the same direction as for Shaver Whites. 4. In both breeds, total feed consumed to 112 d was higher for birds on 3 lux than 25 lux, but lower between 112 d and 140 d when birds on 25 lux underwent rapid sexual development. In both breeds, body weight at 63 d was higher for birds exposed to 3 lux than 25 lux, but body weight gain thereafter was similar for the two light intensities. 5. In both breeds, plasma luteinising hormone (LH) concentration at 63 and 112 d was lower in birds maintained on 3 lux than 25 lux. At 63 and 112 d, transfers from 25 to 3 lux depressed, whereas transfers from 3 to 25 lux at 63 d, but not at 112 d, increased plasma LH. 6. Advances or delays in sexual maturity induced by changes in illuminance were not correlated with differences in feed intake, body weight gain, or with changes in plasma LH. 7. One possible explanation for the inverse relationship between the direction of change in illuminance at 63 and 112 d in pullets exposed to a 10-h photoperiod and the age at which they became sexually mature is that changes in light intensity and/or spectral composition affect the entrainment of the circadian rhythm of photoinducibility, to effect a phase shift in the photoinducible phase and/or the responsiveness of phototransduction pathways.

Changes in light intensity during the rearing period can influence egg production in domestic fowl

1. A total of 240 Shaver White and 240 ISA Brown pullets that had been reared in multi-bird cages on a 10-h photoperiod, and maintained at a light intensity of 3 or 25 lux, or changed from 3 to 25 lux or from 25 to 3 lux at 9 or 16 weeks of age, were moved into individual-bird cages at 20 weeks and transferred to 15-h photoperiods at 25 lux. 2. In both breeds, birds transferred from 3 to 25 lux at 16 or 20 weeks laid significantly more eggs than birds maintained on the brighter intensity from one day or increased to it at 9 weeks. 3. Mean egg weight, shell deformation, albumen height, feed intake and body weight gain in lay were not significantly affected by the light intensity treatments during the rearing period. There was, however, a small, but significant, negative correlation of egg numbers with mean egg weight, although this only partially explained the difference in egg numbers. The differences in egg production were unrelated to rate of sexual maturation.