Beak Trimming

Within the poultry industry bird aggression and cannibalism result in decreased animal welfare, as well as cost producers a significant amount of profit loss. In an attempt to reduce these behaviors a management practice referred to as beak trimming, or “debeaking”, was developed. In this method up to one half of the upper, or both, mandible(s) are removed mechanically- usually by use of a hot blade (United) or through electric or infrared removal, leaving the beak blunt. Although pain does result from the removal of innervated tissues causing some behavior changes for a period of time (Gentle), the pain suffered from continual attack combined with the continued losses to the producer, by far make beak trimming an advantageous solution for large scale commercial production. Until alternate solutions can feasibly reduce the amount of bird  damage and loss in large flocks with long term maintenance, then beak trimming is a viable and necessary production method. Furthermore if the trimming is performed at a very young age and in a manner that results in no more than one-third of the beak removed-with both mandibles trimmed, than the birds have an easier time feeding and their behavior does not remain as significantly altered for an extended period of time (Gentle).

 Small flock owners, and animal rights and welfare groups provide the most prominent voice against beak trimming, finding the practice distasteful due to the pain and behavioral changes that occur in the post-operative birds (Gentle). These groups often argue emotionally for the end of beak trimming, a method often critiqued hand-in hand with caging and the overcrowding of birds, associated with dense populations used in modern commercial practices. Rather than “mutilating” (United) birds, these groups support ensuring that the birds have ample room, dimmed lights, a balanced high fiber diet and the prompt removal of any birds that are alternately colored, injured, or slow-feathering from the flock (Clauer). These recommendations, while viable methods for diffusing flock aggression, are not practical for large scale flocks which cannot be continuously monitored, or for conditions in which damage to birds may naturally occur such as during mating in breeding flocks.

It cannot be denied that beak trimming results in pain associated with amputation. Numerous studies have shown increased neural damage (Gentle), and observed pain through behavioral changes (Cunningham); However, the intensity of behavioral changes varied with the proportion of the beak removed. It should also be noted that depending on the behavior, observational changes subsided after a five week period. Behaviors such as feeding and drinking showed an initial decrease in studies, but returned to post-operative levels approximately three weeks following the removal of the tip of the beaks (Duncan). This reduction in pecking, and thus weight, is usually attributed to the occurrence of pain in the amputated area, however Gentle et al suggested that this decrease is part of an adjustment period for the bird which must now learn to use its altered morphology and compensate with a shortened beak. It was also shown that the birds which only had one-third of their beaks trimmed were much less affected and showed a quicker return to normal behavior.

Some behaviors, such as increased standing and sleeping and decreased preening also occurred. These behaviors, however remained altered at the end of a five week period of observation (Duncan). Although these behaviors are considered a variant from non-trimmed birds and are thought of as a decrease in the welfare of individual birds, decreased activity may be considered an increase in welfare of the entire flock. If individual birds are content spending more time asleep rather than actively seeking out interactions among their flock mates, then the rate of cannibalism and  aggression amongst birds will decrease. As Cunningham noted, it is important in commercial production operations for the producer to balance the reductions and gains in welfare for the entire flock to maximize the welfare of the entire group.

In the same sense, it is important in commercial production practices to evaluate the practicality of alternative management techniques. While providing ample space with access to the outdoors and a close daily inspection of all birds may be feasible in a small flock, at a commercial level it simply isn’t practical. Some techniques detailed in Clauer’s guide to the prevention of cannibalism, such as maintaining low-intensity lighting and providing adequate diets can be met by producers. However, if these changes cannot ensure a reduction of flock mortalities than beak trimming will continue to be the most accepted practice by commercial producers (Cunningham). By combining various techniques, such as reducing the lights and the amount of beak trimmed, a more acceptable level of individual welfare may be provided while remaining practical for producers.

Flock welfare is a real concern for producers and activist alike. At this time the most practical method of controlling cannibalism and aggression among a flock is the removal of a portion of the beak. In removing only one-third of the beak individual welfare can be improved and when combined with alternative methods of behavior modification- such as dimming the lighting available to the birds, aggressive behavior may be limited without significantly modifying other aspects of behavior or welfare. Although it has been proven that beak trimming does cause pain it is the only method that can ensure a decrease in mortality in commercial flocks at this time. New research is continuously being developed to find alternative methods for aggression control. One such example is a method of gait analysis via computer markers that may be able to determine aggressive tendencies among a flock and identify individuals more likely to cause cannibalism related problems (Laursen). Although this technology remains far from being available, it may one day provide more options for commercial producers or be able to further research to understand flock behavior.

References

Clauer, P. J. 2009 Cannibalism: Prevention and Treatment. Virginia Cooperative Extension http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/2902/2902-1095/2902-1095.html

Cunningham, D. L. 1992 Beak Trimming Effects on Performance, Behavior and Welfare of Chickens: A Review J APPL POULT RES 1992 1: 129-134

Duncan, I. J. H. , Slee, Gillian S. , Seawright, Elaine and Breward, J.1989 'Behavioural consequences of partial beak amputation (beak trimming) in poultry', British Poultry Science, 30: 3, 479 — 488

Gentle, M.J. Hughes, B.O., Hubrecht, R.C., 1982. The effect of beak trimming on food-intake, feeding-behaviour and body-weight in adult hens. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 8, 147–159.

Laursen, L. 2010 Computer System Counters Hen Horrors. IEEE Spectrum News. http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/diagnostics/computer-system-counters-hen-horrors

United Poultry Concerns, Inc. Deabeaking. http://www.upc-online.org/merchandise/debeak_factsheet.html

Animals in Research

The use of animals for research is not a new practice, nor has it only recently become controversial. Before the 1860’s anesthetics were not commonly available and all information gained from animals was a result of vivisection- that is the dissection of living individuals. At the time, using live animals was justified in the scientific community by prominent philosophers who claimed that animals could not feel pain, but rather reacted in only a mechanical manner to the response, like a coo-coo clock. The public often reacted against the definite pain inflicted upon the experimental subjects, with outcries lasting until the experiments proved successful- such as the case with Pasteur’s rabies vaccinations. As time passed, concern for the treatment of research animals increased. In 1963 the “Guide for Laboratory Animal Facilities and Care” was published as voluntary to be followed by institutions; however, many institutions chose not to adhere to the guidelines. Around this time activists had been claiming that cats and dogs were being stolen off the street, kept in inhumane conditions and then sold to research facilities. An article in LIFE magazine confirmed all of the claims, and stimulated congressional action to enact involuntary regulation of animal use in research.

            In 1966 the Federal “Laboratory Animal Welfare Act” was published. This act regulated the use of cats, dogs, rabbits, hamsters, guinea pigs, and non-human primates- leaving essentially 92% of all animals used in laboratories unregulated. The act called for yearly, unannounced, inspections as well as thorough paper work and registration of  research institutions. Four years after the initial act was passed, it was amended to include all warmblooded wild mammalian species; this still did not include livestock species or laboratory mice. In 1990 changes were made to include horses and farm animals that were to be used for biomechanical or other nonagricultural research. Biomedical research is considered any research that uses an animal to model human conditions, or any research performed by any medical profession. This creates a grey area, as any research performed by a veterinarian is considered biomedical research even if it only  aims to improve animal production, or to further understanding of the biology, physiology or genetics of an animal; whereas the same research if performed by an agricultural doctorate would be considered Food and Fiber research, and subject to less regulation.

            In 1985 a public health service policy, entitled the “Health Research Extension Act” directed the National Institute of Health to set guidelines for the proper care of animals in biomedical and behavioral research, and included all vertebrate species. Following the creation of the public health policy a voluntary program, called the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee ,was formed which acted as a local extension of the federal government in charge of improving the protocol for animal research projects for an institution. These committees consists of veterinarians, scientists, non-scientists, and a member of the community which evaluate the protocol, inspect the animal facilities, review any concerns and complaints, and ensure occupational safety. The protocols submitted are contracts between the researcher and IUCAC, and detail the care and research that will be preformed; it must also ensure that all pain, discomfort and stress will be avoided or minimized in the subjects.

            Over the years the care and management of research animals has increased. Up until approximately ten years ago, animals involved in research received more analgesics than most pets. However, the use of animals in research will always be controversial despite the increased welfare of the animals involved. Animal rights activist groups such as the Humane Society of the United States continuously attempted to increase public opposition to animal research by publishing inflammatory information and also encouraging animal activists to but in Freedom of Information Act requests that tie-up the intuitions paper-work and force research to slow. Despite continuous opposition all researchers can do is adhere to and ensure the highest standards of animal welfare.

Genetic Modification

Transgenic and cloned animals are often in the news, with the general public concerned about the safety of the food supply and the creation of so-called “franken”-animals. However, the general public has very little understanding of the techniques, processes, results and uses of genetically modified organisms. These process are much too expensive and too difficult to create animals that will go straight into food production, but rather used as breeding stock. Most of the animals created are used for research purposes or for changing the production of the animal into something more beneficial to humans.

Transgenic animals are animals that have had a new, or modified, gene added to their genomes via DNA microinjection. By adding or modifying a gene, these animals can serve an important role in livestock production and in the production of medically important human proteins. A transgenic animal may express more disease resistance or growth than it’s contemporaries, may produce healthier muscle products for human consumption, or may serve as bioreactors in the creation of biomedical products. One example of a transgenic bioreactor, is the creation of transgenic swine that produce important blood clotting factors in their milk. In this case, the  large and complex proteins receive the necessary post-translational modification necessary for their activation in the mammary gland, and can be purified from the milk for human use with no adverse effects to the sow or piglets. Transgenic pigs have also been made which lack the α 1,3-galactosyl cell surface sugar, by using gene-knockout. Since Humans lack the α 1,3-galactosose sugar by knocking out that gene in pigs, which are very similar to humans anatomically and physiology, it may be possible to eventually use pigs as a universal organ donor.

            Once a transgenic animal is created, cloning is a  possible way to maintain the modified genome. Cloning can involve a variety of methods, but the most common is somatic cell nuclear transfer- that is replacing a normal oocyte nucleus with the somatic cell nucleus. A clone is an identical genetic copy of an animal; A clone has the same genome as the somatic cell donor, but the same genes may not necessarily be expressed. Cloning is not only used in maintaining the genetically modified genomes, but may be used to preserve endangered animals, pets, and elite breeding animals. Since cloning creates an identical genomic copy, it reduces genetic diversity, and therefore the viability of endangered species after introducing clones into the population will not increase or may actually be hindered. However, in select cases cloning may be a way to introduce genes that were previously removed from the gene pool. For example, in 2006 the 10-time world champion barrel racing gelding, Scamper, was cloned to produce the stud-colt Clayton. In this manner the gelding’s genes could be used in the population where they previously couldn’t. Geldings or intact males that have been injured and can no longer perform can be cloned and the clone can pass the previously limited genetics along. Cloning is not a guarantee though, that the resultant individual or it’s offspring will produce as well as the original animal due to variations in gene expression and environment.

             The creation of transgenic and cloned animals is an evolving technology with a large amount of potential in the future. By producing clotting factors, universal organ donors, and other biomedical necessities through transgenic and cloned animals allows for a cheaper, and more available resource of products which must otherwise be extracted in a difficult manner. It is imperative, however that the population understands what occurs in both the production of transgenic and cloned animals, if there is any hope of creating products from these animals that can be widely used and accepted by humans.

The Poultry Industry

The Poultry Industry is highly concerned with maintaining flock welfare. In 2006 welfare auditors began training to satisfy the National Council of Chain Restaurants and the Food Marking Institute’s welfare standards. These are realistic standards that can be divided into the three sections of the poultry industry: live bird production,  transport, and slaughter; and are concerned with the bird’s “major issues of freedom,” that is preventing hunger, thirst, discomfort from poor ventilation, pain, injury, disease, fear and distress while allowing birds to express normal behavior. These standards have been developed based upon the European Union’s standards, along with a panel of United States scientists and behaviorists. The American Association of Avian Pathologists’ welfare committee are currently adapting the standards to be more appropriate for American poultry production techniques, focusing on breeders, hatchers, grow-out, and processing plants specifically.

There are a number of “hot button” issues that are often criticized. Some of these issues such as litter quality and beak trimming apply to all sections poultry production, while others are limited to certain aspects of production such as Breeders, Broilers or Layers. Litter quality if often a concern in poultry houses because it directly affects the air quality. Litter should be dry and friable, able to be reduced to smaller sized with little effort; these traits are correlated with house management. Beak trimming is more controversial than many of the other topics, since beak trimming does cause pain to the birds. However, if trimming is done when the bird is less than one week old, this pain is believed to be outweighed by the benefits gained. The purpose of beak trimming is to prevent cannibalism amongst the birds, as well as feather pecking, egg eating,  and problems which occur when the male pulls on the female during breeding. Although the trim may cause initial pain, it is less than what may occur throughout the birds life time if they are attacked by the other birds in their house. There are various methods used to trim beaks, and the operators must be extensively trained to do so. These methods include mechanical removal, hot-blade removal, electrical removal, and infrared removal. Some studies have shown that the infrared method causes the least pain since it only causes damage to the tissue which then sloughs off at a later date, rather than removing the tip of the beak all at once.

The Breeder industry faces critiques for the use of plastic trans-septal pins, aka Noz-bones, which keep the male pullets from eating from the female feeders, and feed restriction programs. Feed restriction programs are important for female reproductive health, because overweight birds will not have normal ovary development; Under the two methods: skip-a-day, and restricted daily feeding, the birds are always provided with the amount of feed they need but not enough so that they can become overweight.

The Broiler industry is most concerned with skeletal damage, which can be related to gait scores, and with the stunning methods used at the slaughter plant. Skeletal damage can occur for many reasons towards the end of the grow-out stage when the birds are so heavy, but most often occur because of handling. It is very difficult to determine if the damage occurred ante-mortem or post-mortem from carcasses. In live birds skeletal damage and hock legions can be determined by the birds ability to walk “naturally.” Gait scores are assigned on a 6 point scale in the UK, and a 3 point system in the US.

The Layer industry is often criticized for the battery cages which the birds are kept in. There are disadvantages to the cages, such as a higher influence of disease, and some studies say there is a slightly higher incidence of fragile bones and blood spots in the eggs; however there are many advantages as well such as less labor, cleaner eggs, better feed efficiency and egg production, lower salmonella contamination and eliminated parasites, and a lower risk of disease introduction from outside of the house.

A Short Response

The first thing I noticed about the “Animal Cruelty” video was that the production company was called “One True Media” which may have swayed those who watched the video into believing that what they are seeing is true, simply because the word “true” is in the title. However, if you go to the company’s website you find that it is a site created “to provide consumers with easy-to-use tools to mix and share their own video creations” (1) and has no method of verifying the information in the videos produced. Many of the images presented were neither offensive nor showing any form of inhumane treatment, and were all without any explanation. None of the images were cited, so the context or even time period they were taken from could not be evaluated. The aim of the video was simply to evoke emotion against animal use, in any manner.

The second video was more thought provoking. Many of the clips seemed staged- especially the “hurt ‘em” portion which referenced PeTA, since the diction seemed forced and the entire thing was seemingly filmed without anyone in the barn noticing or either not caring, which seems very unusual. Even if the clips were not staged the context of the situation was not shown, like the downer pig being euthanized with a captive bolt or the reason for the smashing of the piglets and poultry, giving an incomplete view of the event so that a critical evaluation cannot actually be made. Furthermore, if these situations occurring when filmed, and not staged, why are the people supposedly in support of the ethical treatment of animals not doing anything to stop the treatment they are filming, or even more importantly why are they encouraging it? The lack of action seems quite contradictory to their purpose, and belief system.

It is also easy to realize that many of the “practices” depicted such as killing piglets and birds, and beating stock are not commonplace among the industry as the farmers would never receive enough profit to sustain their farms. Dead and injured animals do not enter the food supply, and any bruised or wounded meat is discounted at the slaughter house. If these practices were happening every day, then there would be no need try to convert people to vegans, since no farmers would be able economically maintain their farms.

Some of the quotes and references used by the video also raised questions. Many quotes are clearly slanted or biased towards the vegan/ vegetarian goals, such as Milksucks.com and Michael Pollan the “food activist” whom contributed to Food, Inc.(2) Whereas other quotes were altered, completely changing their meaning, such as the statement from the video:

“Ben Franklin’s definition of the “reasonable creature” was one who could come up with reasons for whatever he or she really wants to do! Will you just make up reasons you can’t help? If not you then who?...”

The actual quote, however, is:

“So convenient a thing it is to be a reasonable creature, since it enables one to find or make a reason for everything one has a mind to do.” -from Franklin’s Autobiography published in 1868 (3)

In the actual context, the quote has an entirely different connotation. Franklin is not defining a reasonable creature as one who will come up with reasons for whatever he wants to do, but rather the quote seems to be more of a commentary about the use of “reason” as a convenient way for people to justify their actions to themselves. That is exactly what the video’s author accomplished, they justified the production of their video and the misrepresentation of the industry through their own created reasoning.

1 http://www.onetruemedia.com/otm_site/aboutus
2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Pollan
3 http://www.jrank.org/quotations/pages/569/Benjamin-Franklin.html