Talk:Beak trimming

Can we get a citation for the Appleby study? Since the article mentions his name and the date, publication info for the study would be useful. Vicki Rosenzweig

I'll look around. Thanks for changing boycott to eschew...I really couldn't think of a better word at the time. cprompt

Here's what I found. I'm no good with these things, so I'm hoping someone else will put it into the article.

C. Dr Michael C. Appleby:

"The main injury caused by humans, knowingly rather than accidently, is beak trimming. It is now known to cause pain, in the short term and probably also in the long term, in a way similar to other amputations" (20).

Michael C. Appleby, Do Hens Suffer in Battery Cages? A Review of the Scientific Evidence Commissioned by the Athene Trust. Institute of Ecology and Resource Management, 1991. University of Edinburgh.

My source of this was: http://www.upc-online.org/debeaking/ota.html

cprompt

Debeaking and Cannibalism

Is debeaking really to prevent cannibalism? I know that chickens raised in close quarters in a stressful environment peck at their neighbours. However, I was under the impression that the chickens don't eat each other; they just injure each other. Psychonaut 17:55, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Chickens will naturally peck each other in free-range conditions as part of naturally establishing a pecking order. Chickens in confined conditions will peck to show dominance, and because they feel cramped and confined, will continue to peck their neighbours in order to drive them off. If the pecked chicken can't move away, then it will continue to be attacked and injured. Injured chickens can get sick and die, and persistant bullies may kill their neighbours.

Saying that beak-trimming/debeaking is to prevent cannibalism is probably a spin which is used to make the practice sound more justifiable. Saying that the practice is used to prevent 'cannabalism' sounds like it's much more vital than just preventing injuries. Having said that, some chickens may well consume blood or flesh torn from an injured neighbour.

Mind you, we're seeing spin from both sides of the fence here. 'Debeaking' sounds much more drastic than 'beak trimming', however when done properly the latter term is more accurate. Only the sharp tip of the beak is removed, and usually within the first few days after hatching.

From an ethical and cruelty standpoint, it's possible to take either side. If chickens are going to be kept in confined quarters, then it's arguably better to trim the beaks of birds rather than have them experience widespread injuries and infection. Done properly the birds don't suffer any lasting discomfort, and the beak does slowly grow back over time. I would argue that the crueler sides of beak trimming is that it significantly reduces a bird's ability to preen itself to remove mites, and that very often beak-trimming is not performed correctly, and too much of the beak is removed. This does cause permanent injury and disfigurement.

Of course, the best ethical solution is not to keep chickens in such confined quarters, and if you must keep confined chickens, then to utilise breeds (such as leghorns) that don't have a tendency to bully their neighbours.

Currently I don't feel the article presents a NPOV. It's on my list of articles that I hope to expand an improve upon. Unfortunately finding good neutral references can be extremely challenging.

--PJF ^(talk) 16:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Made the entry more factual

Hi, I found the current entry on debeaking extremely biased. Especially since the sources mentioned are more or less hippy 'save the animals!' specific.

The only references to this Michael Appleby study I could find were on the peta & animal liberation front websites and similar places. They all cited the study, but not a single source was linked.

I managed to track down the study here: http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/reports/do_hens_suffer_in_battery_cages_1991.pdf

I was mostly interested in the pain of debeaking so I tracked down a study that was done in 2000 about animal welfare:

http://www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/CME/00-72.pdf

And it shows quite a few different results than cited in the wikipedia entry and the places it was copied from. In this study the advantages of debeaking are discussed and found positive in comparison to the alternative, which is cannibalism among stressed animals.

The sources for the pain of trimming in particular, is from a study from 1996 that the '91 Appleby report could not have known about.

The study is a lot more detailed and even has experiments on what happens to birds that are debeaked at different ages, what the angle of the debeaking does, the temperature the blade should be at, a history of beak-trimming, Cauterising time, best practices and lots of alternatives to it.

It mentions cannibalism repeatedly, so I'm assuming this is what they mean. I would think chickens only pecked each other to death, but apparently they eat each other too.

I'm going to fix the entry, I just hope it's sufficiently low traffic that peta fanatics aren't going to change it back right away :P

I have reverted the recent additions by user:80.166.147.120. They seemed to be valuable information, but were not written from a NPOV. I regret that I do not have time or expertise to rewrite them. Perhaps user:80.166.147.120 can? MikeHobday 06:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, thanks. And the previous version where the only source is PETA websites, that was perfectly objective? I'm not some meat-loving madman, you know. I found the previous entry completely out of touch with reality as the only science behind it was a 15 year old study that was not thoroughly done. I included all my sources for this where the science is a lot more sound, the Glantz study used over 10 different studies from 94-98 to come to the conclusions about the pain of debeaking.

Update: Okay, I resubmitted the entry now. I removed the offending word 'propaganda' and adjusted a few other things. The last section of the article ought to read as more neutral now. I just wanted to include the PETA version since it seems much more popular on the internet :)

I was not saying that the previous version was objective. I was saying that your changes could have been written in a slightly more neutral tone. I am glad you have made some changes, and I have tried to make some more, hopefully heading in the right direction. Perhaps we could collaborate on getting this right? MikeHobday 10:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Collaboration is a good thing :)

I rewrote a lot this time. I honestly don't like the way you are trying to polarize the entire article by dividing people into supporters and opponents as if everything can be seen from two different points of view and the reader should decide themselves. That's not how science works, it is not a democratic process where you can vote on what you think reality should be like. Some things are just facts, and I think it's those we should try to convey in this article.

The welfare thing is debatable to a certain point, scientists tend to think that animals should be healthy and not in pain, activists tend to think animals should be happy and free as well. But things such as the pain and duration of the pain, those are measurable values and not up for discussion. The discussions of the pain caused are between scientists and activists, not between scientists. There is no dispute about the chronic pain. Chronic pain was suggested by the 91 study and later studies have shown that the pain is not chronic since it goes away. (Chronic == does not go away)

Another example: There are different views on the pain caused by debeaking. Some say that the pain is comparable to having a human fingernail removed by the quick of the nail; it is brief and does not leave lasting problems. Others say that the pain of debeaking is acute, but passes after a few minutes, thus enabling the bird to behave normally.

Having the nail removed by the quick and having acute pain is the same thing.

By polarizing the article you also unfortunately end up claiming things that are factually incorrect. As an example, Supporters of debeaking argue that the measure is therefore a positive welfare measure. Opponments of debeaking suggest that steps should be taken to address the causes of feather pecking and cannibalism.

That is just blatantly not true. Supporters of debeaking ALSO say this is a last resort, and they provide many alternatives as I have pointed out. These people are scientists, they look at all the options and examine them. Also, the farmers themselves have an interest in keeping their birds healthy and productive and a lot of the non-debeaking measures are cheaper and easier to do than to debeak every single bird.

There is way too much of 'some people think and say' in this article for it to be scientifically sound. I know there is a great debate between scientists and animal activists, but I think that science should take precedence in the factual section of the article and then we can put the discussion in a separate section, perhaps?

I honestly was not sure how to fix all the many changes you made, so I reverted to the old version and tried to add some of the things you bring up and put some things in the right places as you have done (like listing alternatives all in one place). I hope we can progress from here.

(I do apologize if the tone is a bit harsh, I merely wanted to point out that science should be the foundation of this topic and I get so many people around me trying to divide everything into friends and enemies, black and white, so I might have a bit of a short fuse for that sort of thing. I realize it may not have been your intent to make the article look that way.)

OK, I will try to add some back in, though I take your point on how the sceinmce should be portrayed. Without being an expert on the science, I cannot argue about that - just about how it is described! I think the article should cover the debate as it exists, but accept that my first stab nneds to be improved on! A number of points: I think the article should be clear that 'chronic pain' is a definitional issue. Following your methodology, I am not sure that the final section cannot be substantially edited down. MikeHobday 13:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we agree on the science. I'd also like to note that unless we can find a more recent credible scientific study to contradict or give a more detailed explanation of any of the science in the report I found, I think we should accept that this is what science says is our current best definition of reality.

You don't need to be an expert on anything, all you have to do is read the studies, that's what I did. I didn't know a thing about debeaking until I researched it a few days ago. It took me some time to dig past the newage activist smoke & mirrors, but I found a few studies and the Glatz was by far the most thorough one on the subject. I checked out a few of its sources as well and they look credible too.

I'm not quite sure what you mean about the 'chronic pain' comment. Chronic pain is not a definitional issue, chronic pain is already nicely defined.

I'm open to suggestions about the final section, I meant to keep it there in the hopes that someone who stumbles across wikipedia will become informed that most of the other, somewhat contradictory articles on debeaking found on many other online encyclopedias and dictionaries are in fact ripped right from the PETA webpage, and that what little science it does hold is 15 years old and has been discredited by new discoveries.

In a perfect world, the final section wouldn't even have to be there, but exactly because that quoted section is not scientifically sound and is much more prevalent on the internet, I thought it would be good to keep it.

References

H. J. Blokhuis and J. W. Van Der Haar, "Effects of floor type during rearing and of beak trimming on ground pecking and feather pecking in laying hens," Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 22, Issues 3-4, April 1989, Pages 359-369.

J. V. Craig and H. -Y. Lee, "Beak trimming and genetic stock effects on behavior and mortality from cannibalism in White Leghorn-type pullets," Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 25, Issues 1-2, January 1990, Pages 107-123.

M. J. Gentle, B. O. Hughes and R. C. Hubrecht, "The effect of beak trimming on food intake, feeding behaviour and body weight in adult hens," Applied Animal Ethology, Volume 8, Issues 1-2, January 1982, Pages 147-159.

M. J. Gentle, B. H. Thorp and B. O. Hughes, "Anatomical consequences of partial beak amputation (beak trimming) in turkeys," Research in Veterinary Science, Volume 58, Issue 2, March 1995, Pages 158-162.

P.C. Glatz, "Beak Trimming Methods - Review," Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, Volume 13, Issue 11, November 2000, Pages 1619-1637.

P.C. Glatz (Ed.), Poultry Welfare Issues: Beak Trimming, Nottingham University Press, 2005.

P.Y. Hester and M. Shea-Moore, "Beak trimming egg-laying strains of chickens," World's Poultry Science Journal, Volume 59, Number 4, December 2003, pp. 458-474.

C.F. Honaker and P.L. Ruszler, "The effect of claw and beak reduction on growth parameters and fearfulness of two leghorn strains," Poultry Science, Volume 83, Issue 6, June 2004, Pages 873-881.

M.J. Jendral and F.E. Robinson, "Beak trimming in chickens: Historical, economical, physiological and welfare implications, and alternatives for preventing feather pecking and cannibalistic activity," Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews, Volume 15, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 9-23.

R.B. Jones, et al., "Feather pecking in poultry: The application of science in a search for practical solutions," Animal Welfare, Volume 13, Issue SUPPL., February 2004, Pages S215-S219.

Persyn, K.E., et al., "Feeding behaviors of laying hens with or without beak trimming," Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Volume 47, Issue 2, March 2004, Pages 591-596.

N.B. Prescott and R.H.C. Bonser, "Beak trimming reduces feeding efficiency of hens," Journal of Applied Poultry Research, Volume 13, Issue 3, September 2004, Pages 468-471.

C.J. Savory, "Laying hen welfare standards: A classic case of 'power to the people,'" Animal Welfare, Volume 13, Issue SUPPL., February 2004, Pages S153-S158.

D. W. van Liere, "Responsiveness to a novel preening stimulus long after partial beak amputation (beak trimming) in laying hens," Behavioural Processes, Volume 34, Issue 2, July 1995, Pages 169-174.

L. Workman and L. J. Rogers, "Pecking preferences in young chicks: Effects of nutritive reward and beak-trimming," Applied Animal Behaviour Science, Volume 26, Issues 1-2, March 1990, Pages 115-126.

Recent Additions

"The fitting of 'bits' to deter pecking."

This makes no sense. Needs more detail.

"Others are less contentious, but carry significant cost implications:"

I disagree. Changing the light intensity, dividing the flock or adding bits of grass and lettuce to the pen is not exactly a budget-shaking decision. Changing the environment around chickens is a one-time investment.

Have tried to modify to take account of this. MikeHobday 09:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Animal Activist" section

Unless someone can post here and tell me why I shouldn't, I'm going to remove the entire section and reformat it as an "Arguments against Debeaking" section. As it is right now, it was extremely obvious to me (a first time reader of the page) that it wasn't written by someone attempting to be neutral. Everything from the title of the section to the way that the section is laid out is a NPOV violation. Kyle key 03:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and do it - probably worded better! MikeHobday 20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute

The article, in its current form, strikes me as rather POV - it essentially reiterates all the reasoning of the proponents of debeaking ("welfare measure", "to control stress", "after a few minutes, the bird behaves normally" etc.) and then sums up the opponent's arguments in an "Animal Activist Version of Debeaking". The title of that section alone is POV; "activist" is a loaded word, and the term "version" implies that this is an intentionally warped version of the facts presented to further an agenda.

What's more, that section doesn't even really discuss the "animal activist version" - instead, it reiterates some claims and then proceeds to explain why they allegedly do not correspond to reality.

I cannot and do not want to comment on the practice of debeaking as such, but the article in its current form *badly* needs to be rewritten. We are an encyclopedia, after all, not propaganda material - neither for animal rights groups nor for the poultry industry. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 15:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My, this is a piece of junk, sheer propoganda including lots of outright false and uncited claims.