01997 Applied Pouluy Science, Inc

CONTACT
LENSES
FOR LAYING
HENS
G. GVARYAHU and N. SNAPIR
Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Apiculture, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
P.O. Box 12, Rehovof 76100, Israel
Phone: 972-8-9481397
F a : 972-8-9465763
E. GROSSMAN
Extension Service, Ministry of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel

Primary Audience: Egg Producers, Animal Welfare Researchers, Extension

Workers

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 19, 2016

and are well versed in the useful aspects of
DESCRIPTION
OF PROBLEMsuch a product. Periodically one of those
Any manipulation that decreases aggres- students attempts to apply the idea of the
sive behavior of chickens should benefit ani- lenses to the chicken industry.
mal welfare and husbandry [l, 2, 3). The Animalens, Inc. [5l developed red contact
common procedure used to reduce aggressive lenses that restrict vision of the chickens by
pecking and cannibalism is to trim the birds exposing them to red light only because red
light was found to have a significant, positive
beaks [2]. Another way is to restrict their vi-
effect on egg production [6]. Animalens, Inc.
sion [l].Over the last 20 yr several companies reported that their lenses increase egg pro-
have developed contact lenses for chickens duction by 1%,decrease mortality by4%, and
in order to decrease their aggressiveness. decrease feed cost by 8%. Above all, chickens
Business school students [4] have been ex- with lenses are docile and easily handled.
posed to this idea for at least as many years These results appear to be advantageous.

1 To whom correspondence should be addressed

450
However, it is surprising that the majority of
producers chose not to adopt the lens con-
cept. Adams [7], however, found that red
plastic contact lenses which were fitted for
hens either 12 or 16 wk of age caused con-
siderable mortality attributable to the birds
inability to find food. In preliminary observa-
tions with hens in their second laying period
(81, we didnt find any differences in mortality
or egg production. The concept of contact
lenses is still alive among business school
students and it is important to clarify scientif-
ically their actual value vis a vis production
and behavior-welfare.
AND METHODS
MATERIALS
b o hundred White Leghorn chickens
(PBU-Yarkon) in their second laying period
(76 to 104 wk of age) were used in this
study. Chickens were placed in an open
shed house within conventional cage facilities
(48.5 x 45.5 cm, with five birds per cage) with
both natural and artificial light. All the
birds were subjected to 14 hr of light/day as
radiated by 60 W incandescent bulbs. Chick-
ens consumed feed (standard commercial
feed, automatic feeder) and water ad libitum.
Four cages constituted one experimentalunit.
Experimental and control units were series of
cages distributed in alternate order. Red con-
tact lenses (ABL-1) were implanted, accord-
ing to Animalens, Inc. instructions, in the
eyes of 100 chickens, whereas the other 100
chickens served as controls.
DATA COLLECTION
All data was collected for seven %-day
periods from the 76th until the 104th wk of the
hens life. Daily records for egg production
and mortality were collected on the basis of
each experimental unit. Egg weights were de-
termined by l day collection of eggs from each
experimental unit during each 28-day period.
Because an automatic feeder was used, feed
intake was not measured.
At 105 wk of age, the fearfulness of six
randomly selected chickens from each group
(control and experimental) was determined. It
was assessed by means of the tonic immobility
(TI) test [9]. In order to induce the state of
immobility, birds were restrained on their
back. The amount of time, in seconds, re-
quired for each bird to right itself from this
state of immobilitywas used as the measure of
CONTACT LENSES FOR LAYING HENS
relative fearfulness. The maximum score was
240 sec. If birds righted themselves in more
than 240 sec, it was assumed (for statistical
analysis) that they did so in 240 sec.
Immediately after the TI test the same
chickens were weighed and killed by cervical
dislocation. Because heart weight is known to
be an indicator of the existence of long term
stress (101, the chest cavity was immediately
opened and the heart was carefully removed.
The pericardial sac was removed from the
heart and heart vesicles were trimmed to the
musculature. The heart was then cut longitu-
dinally, drained of excess blood, blotted dry,
and weighed to the nearest tenth of a gram.
Egg production data was transformed to
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 19, 2016
arcsine d% values. Heart weights were ex-
pressed as a percentage of live body weights.
Statistical analysis was carried out using the
one-way ANOVA for the somatic results [ll]
and Mann-WhitneyU-tests for the TI test [ 121.
RESULTSAND DISCUSSION
Some of the chickens (10 to 20%) with
the lenses in the present study developed eye
irritations within 2 wk after the beginning of
the experiment. Animalens, Inc. (5l did not
disclose the possibility of this side effect, Re-
searchers assumed that the experimental
chickens had become used to the lenses and
would recover, but during the experiment we
found additional eye irritations. In spite of
that, we decided to continue with the test in
order to report a phenomenon which was
never previously published. After 7 months a
large portion (over 60%) of the experimental
hens appeared to have eye irritations in both
eyes. Normal hens in cages tend to react ad-
versely to approaching humans [13]. Chickens
with lenses didnt respond to hand movement
in front of their eyes and behaved like chickens
in the dark or as if blind. At that point we
decided to conclude the experiment so as not
to cause additional discomfort to the chickens.
Egg production, egg weights, egg mass,
and mortality for both experimental and con-
trol groups appear in Table 1.No differences
in those parameters were found between con-
trol birds and those with contact lenses. No
differences were found in body weights
(Table 2). Adams [7] found that control buds
laid more eggs and had less mortality than did
birds with lenses. It is possible that our results
differ from those of Adams because of differ-
 Field Report
GVARYAHU et al. 451

TABLE 1. Simple means of egg production, egg weight, egg mass, and mortality for contact lenses hens and
controls ImeanskSE)
~~

GROUP EGG EGG WIG& EGG MASS^ MORTALITY~

PRODUCTION*
% Hen Housed g kg Hen Housed %
Control hens 59.0 k 1.9 66.9kO.S 7.720.3 10.0k4.8
Hens with lenses 60.5 k2.3 66.3k0.4 7.920.3 9.0k3.2

GROUP BODY WEIGHT HEART WEIGHT HEART WEIGHT TI

kg g % per BW sec

Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 19, 2016

Control hens 1.7720.11 7.4 k0.3 0.42 kO.01 158 (25-240)
Hens with lenses 1.78r+0.11 10.3*k1.1 0.59*k0.06 66* (15-125)

ences in ages. Young hens, unlike our hens
which spend almost 2 yr in their cages before
the experiment, are not used to the feeders and
drinkers. Installing lenses just before moving
the birds to the layer facility could explain the
hens' inability to find the feed and thus to
produce less and exhibit higher mortality.
Chickens with lenses had significantly
heavier hearts than did the controls (Table 2).
Cunningham et al. [lo] suggested that stress
that increases metabolic rates may increase
heart size and found that hens of low rank as
well as hens housed at high stocking rates had
heavier heart weights expressed as a per-
centage of body size. Additional clarification
is required to discover the cause of the in-
creased heart weight among the chickens with
the lenses: stress, infections, discomfort, etc.
The TI test revealed that birds with contact
lenses are less fearful than the controls. These
results are in accordance with the claim of
Animalens, Inc. that chickens with contact
lenses are docile and easily handled. Our as-
sumption is that birds with contact lenses are
less fearful because of impaired vision.

CONCLUSIONS
AND APPLICATIONS
1. Contact lenses have no beneficial effect on egg production and mortality.
2. Contact lenses appear to be associated with increase in eye irritations and thus their
application is discouraged.

REFERENCES
AND NOTES
1. Arbi, A, R.B. Cumming, and M. Wodzicka- ment object that reduces aggressiveness and mortality in
Tomaszewska, 1983. Effects of vision-restricting "poly- caged laying hens. Physiol. Behav. 55:313-316.
peepers" on the behavior of laying hens during
adaptation, feeding, on general activity, a onistic behav- 4. Wise, R and D.C. Clarke, 1983. CASE Optical
ior, and pecking damage. Br. Poultry Sci. 84371-381. Distortion, Inc. Harvard Business School Case 9-575-072,
Harvard Business School, Harvard, (TI'.
2. Appleby, M.C., B.O. Hughes, and H.A. Elson, 1992.
Social Behavior: Cannibalism. Pages 153-157 in: Poultly
Production Svstems Behavior. Management and Welfare.
CAB Intern&onal. Wallingford, Uc.
I 5. Animalens, Inc., One Hollis Street, Wellesley, MA
02181,
6. Pyrmk, R, N. Snapir, G. Goodman, and M. Perek,
1987. T h e effect of light wavelength on the production
3. Gvaryahq G., E Ararat, E, E Asat, M. Lev, J.I. and uality of eggs of domestic hen. Theriogennol.
Weller, B. Robiozon, and N. Snapir, 1994. An enrich- 28:948-960.
 JAPR
452
7. Ada- R L , 1992. Effect of red plastic lenses on
egg production, feed per dozen eggs, and mortality of
laying hens. J. Appl. Poultry Res. 1:212-220.
8. Grossman, E and G. Gvaryahu, 1989. Environ-
mental enrichment and contact lenses in laying hens.
Page 68 in: Proc. 27th Ann. Conv. World Poultry Sci.
Assn., Israel Branch, Zichron Ya'akov, Israel.
9. Jones,RB. and J.M. Faure, 1981.Tonic immobility
(righting time) in la 'ng hens housed in cages and pens.
Appl. Anim. Ethol. r369-372.
10. Cunningham, D.L., A. van Tienhoven, and G.
Gvaryahu,1988. Population size, cage area, and domi-
nance rank effects on productivityand well-being of laying
hens. Poultry. Sci. 67399406.
CONTACT LENSES FOR LAYING HENS
11.Brounlee, Kk,1965. StatisticalTheory and Meth-
odolo in Science and Engineering. 2nd Edition. John
Wileysew York. NY.
12. Siegcl, S., 1956. Nonparametric Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
13. Jones, RB., 1J.H. Duncan,and B.O. Hughes,
1981. The assessment of fear in domestic hens exposed
to a looming human stimulus. Behav. Proc. 6121-133.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of
Jerry Hollander of Sun Valley, CA.
Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on September 19, 2016