![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Under 'Costs and benefits' > 'Acute pain', there is an incomplete sentence as follows: "In Japanese quail, beak-trimming by cauterization caused lower body weights and feed intake in the period just after beak trimming." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.70.107.151 ( talk) 19:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The third paragraph presents the an opinion of proponents of debeaking while the opinion is in opposition to the process!?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.178.138 ( talk) 01:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Misuses "proponent." By context, it should obviously be "opponent."
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
We should put an image up here. I found some good images on flikr but unfortunately not licensed accurately. If anyone can find an image that would be great. Eddie mars ( talk) 18:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
72.182.15.249 ( talk) 20:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
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
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 :)
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.)
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.
"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.
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)
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)
The activist section needs reworking. The rest isn't biased. It is a welfare measure. Whether it's effective to that end is a matter of controversy, but the nature of the goal isn't disputed. It's not performed for the hell of it, or because farmers derive pleasure from torturing animals. 69.142.140.177 21:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
The line that debeaking is a "last resort" isn't true in the U.S., where debeaking is an accepted practice. If the context is the U.S., the statement presents either a level of reluctance or a level of hypocrisy that isn't actually present. Don't know about other countries. RobertPlamondon 02:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the NPOV warning, etc. on this page because it's gotten a lot better. Lots of references, etc. RobertPlamondon 17:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Reading this portion of the article actually pushed me to look up how to set up a NPOV dispute. To me, the article out right accuses anyone who believes that debeaking is inhumane of thinking of farmers as dim-witted. This is just silly. The article itself lists a wide variety of options other than debeaking that can prevent cannibalism . . .therefore, i think it is biased to say that anyone who doesn't assume the POV that debeaking is the best solution considers farmers to be idiots or inherently unethical goes too far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.130.99 ( talk) 08:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made an attempt to make the arguments against section more neutral, by removing some loaded language (like paternalism) and the charge that farmers who debeak are dim-witted, which seems to be a very loaded way to characterize the ASPCA's position. escowles 21:45, 30 April 2008 (UTD) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.47.169 ( talk)
I don't have time to fix the article or even finish reading it, but the first line of the "history" heading is strongly biased, calling the process "barbaric and heartless". It should probably be edited slightly to at least call the process something more neutral, allowing the later facts about the pain it can cause to speak for themselves. 76.3.188.189 ( talk) 03:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
The word 'debeaking' is both inaccurate and in my view, borderline propoganda. The beak is not removed during this practice, only a portion is removed, therefore it can not be called 'debeaking'. The term 'beak-trimming' is considerably more accurate. I can't but help feel it is used by people who wish to make an emotional statement about this practice which does not help in the debate if the inaccuracy is being perpetuated by Wikipedia. Please note, I am not defending beak-trimming, rather that we need to be accurate in the terms we use. DrChrissy ( talk) 18:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I will check out those sections...thanks for the information. I work in the science of animal welfare, particularly poultry, and here in the UK, scientists and the layer industry would never (never say never!) use the term debeaking. It may persist in the US, but the scientists I know over there would not use the term. I actually feel much of this article needs a bit of an overhaul/update. DrChrissy ( talk) 18:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Aren't the 'Footnotes' in this article really 'References'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy ( talk • contribs) 13:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Right, yeah, the number of column-inches devoted to "pain" is excessive and undue weight. The section needs some trimming as well as some care taken to present the admittedly-valid issue with avoidance of a POV suggestion or tone.
Also, the section about pain seems to be disguised with the misleading name "Costs and benefits". "Costs" are generally expected to be costs to the farmers, while the text seems to take it in part as an excuse to natter on about "costs" to the feelings of un-invested observers (i.e. "animal lovers", PETA's, etc.) or to the birds themselves.
108.7.229.92 ( talk) 23:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not hard-over on the misnaming of the section, I just thought it looked like the motive (of the misnaming) was to try to disguise an over-large quantity of "pain text" so it looked more includable. Whether there was such an attempt to cover-up isn't really that important. Even if the material was validly label-able as "cost-benefit analysis", it's still hugely
WP:undue.
Fortunately, it's easy to solve the problem of whether cost-benefit analysis would include un-invested "stakeholders". Just rename the section to something else mutually acceptable, which I'm fine with. The real problem is the number of column-inches and over-detail for "pain text" which really only calls for a short paragraph explaining that some view some forms of the practice as inhumane, and then maybe give an example or two. The present overplay of the matter thus conveys a non-neutral POV.
108.7.229.92 (
talk)
03:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@ 108.7.229.92: IP, you are making a series of recent edits that are becoming disruptive. You are close to WP:3RR. Your latest edit where you deleted a "Nutty overstatement" was infact a quote from the cited document written by the AVMA. Please explain why you have deleted this.DrChrissy (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I just looked up "POV-pushing" and it's supposedly a pejorative and should be used carefully. I mean to use it here only as a descriptive (not a pejorative). It seems to me that
DrChrissy is making lots of effort to retain some charged text supporting his/her POV. I've attempted to remove it using reasons other than "POV-pushing" such as,
WP:undue, uncited, etc. (see edit summaries), but fundamentally it comes off as "POV-pushing" and very unencyclopedic.
In the process, he/she has demonstrated an unabashed POV here on the talk page ("animals are obviously stakeholders", etc.) and in the edit summaries. While such passion for a subject is normal and good, passion often comes with POV (and vice versa). We all have our POVs and we all strive to keep POV tone out of the text we make. But,
DrChrissy has been unwilling or unable to put his/her POV aside in the crafting of NPOV text here. I suggest he/she refrain (self-ban) the editing of this page for that reason.
DrChrissy has had similar troubles in the past resulting in a (current) subject-matter ban
elsewhere.
108.7.229.92 (
talk)
23:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Again, please forgive the "POV-pushing" terminology, it's supposedly pejorative, but I mean it as a simple descriptive, I know no other term for it. Inflammatory? I don't think so, is that itself inflammatory :-) ? Combative? Not at all. Standing up solidly for the importance of neutrality? Absolutely. 108.7.229.92 ( talk) 00:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
If you will, I undid the re-threading as unnecessary. OP usually occupies left-most in my experience, it avoids over-rapid progression to the right.
Like I said above (previous section), head games are non-productive. It's not other people's responsibility to educate you on what makes for POV and what makes for NPOV. Purpose of a talk page is to discuss edits to a page, not to taunt and draw-out people into pointlessness. Keep the talk page "on-topic", please.
DrAlso (
talk)
01:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I mentioned it in the section above. I should have mentioned it again here. DrAlso ( talk) 03:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | It has been proposed in this section that
Debeaking be
renamed and moved to
Beak trimming. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{
subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{
requested move/dated}} directly. |
Debeaking → Beak trimming – WP:COMMONNAME in WP:RS since the 1980s ( WP:AGEMATTERS), see Google Ngrams and especially Google Scholar 2000–2024 ( WP:AGEMATTERS): "debeaking" 1.630 results versus "beak trimming" / "beak-trimming" 3.740 results (with or without hyphen yields the same results). Some people (in talk page discussions above) have also argued that "debeaking" is a WP:POV term that should be avoided if there is a suitable alternative, and "beak trimming" appears to fit. "Debeaking" can definitely stay an WP:ALTNAME, but we should resolve this NPOV dispute at some point. NLeeuw ( talk) 12:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)