18 January 2005

Infra Red Beak Treatment

Thank you for your letter of 9 November 2004 formally requesting FAWC’s advice on the infra-red beak treatment system being trialed in broiler breeder and commercial layer hatcheries. The infra-red technique was developed in the USA by NovaTech Engineering as a way to improve beak trimming practice in the broiler breeder industry.

As you recognise, the FAWC Poultry Issues Group saw the technique carried out on day old chicks at a broiler breeder hatchery in March 2004. The Group also observed field trials on birds up to 6 weeks of age. We have been awaiting the results of this work before offering comments.

Previous practice had been for rearers to trim birds’ beaks manually on the farm at 7 days old using a hot plate to remove and cauterise the tip of the beak. This environment, coupled with non-uniformity in labour skills, frequently led to variation in quality of trimming and hence variation in beak regrowth, indicating that both bird welfare and production could be compromised. In many cases, manual beak trimming has been taken back into the hatchery at day old where the procedure can be undertaken in a more controlled manner. However, the process can be unpopular with hatchery staff and existing methods can still fail to deliver the necessary consistency. An alternative method that would minimise stress, avoid open wounds and be accurate over large numbers of birds was required and automation was investigated leading to the system being trialed.

The non-invasive infra-red technique involves focussing a high intensity infra-red beam at the tip of the beak, which penetrates the corneum killing cells in the basal tissue. The beak tip is sloughed in 10-21 days.

The operation involves placing chicks into face masks that restrain them behind the head with rubber restraining tabs. Face masks had been designed around the chick’s head to enable accurate and consistent treatment. The masks are mounted in sequence on a carousel which moves the chicks to the infra-red beam. Chicks are not supported in any other way as this could allow them to move their heads out of alignment and thereby affect accuracy. While some FAWC members expressed concerns about the effects of handling, mechanical restraint and the speed of the automated movements on the chicks, it was reported to the Group that damage had not been seen in birds used in trials to date. The quality of the infra red beam and other parameters are monitored in situ and remotely by NovaTech. Engineering improvements were continuous and it was said that systems could be developed for not only broiler breeders but also turkey and laying hen chicks.

Following treatment, chicks’ beaks appear to be untrimmed, other than for a slight discolouration at the tip. Normal pecking behaviour was said to be continuous from day one and growth was unaffected. Hatchery staff noted less immediate trauma in the chicks (expressed as an absence of aversive behaviour) compared with hot trimming and there was lower mortality. Post mortem work presented to FAWC indicated a lack of neuromas associated with the treatment and productive performance seemed unaffected.

Broiler breeding companies in the US now treated, with the infra-red beam, 24 million broiler breeders at day old in the hatchery, convinced of the improvement over previous methods. Male and female broiler breeders were treated in the US and for southern European markets but there is some potential for restricting this to males in the UK because of the different feeding regimes in use (floor feeding as opposed to track feeding).

Poultry Issues Group members’ subjective observations of the trial equipment in use on day old chicks were that, while chicks did react to the movement of the carousel and the infra-red beam during the procedure with wing flapping and some vocalisation, they did settle very quickly into normal behaviours and pecking.

Comparison with the hot blade trimming method showed initial behavioural differences with hot trimmed chicks appearing to display greater levels of head shaking, beak rubbing/wiping, investigation of other chicks’ beaks and whole body trembling after the operation; signs not often seen with infra-red treated birds.

The conclusions of FAWC’s visit to see trials on day old chicks were generally positive towards the infra-red treatment when compared with the manual hot trimming method, although concerns remained about handling, restraint and automated movements. It was expected that any effects of this would be seen further into the birds’ development and would be picked up in field trials. It was expressed to us that trials underway were very much “work in progress” and further refinements were expected.

FAWC visited field trials in May 2004 that sought to measure and record observed differences in production and animal welfare parameters between beak treated and untreated birds. Initial results discussed at the visit seemed to show little adverse behaviour related to any trimming method in the first hour after treatment. Subsequently some pain related behaviours were noted with manually trimmed birds and in latter stages of the trials some differences in beak behaviours were observed between methods, but it was not yet clear whether this was significant.

Beaks were seen to regenerate almost to normal lengths, if somewhat blunted, with infra-red treatment but birds were said not to peck each other, possibly because few nerve endings regenerated.

The field trials would suggest that the infra-red method achieved its targets of precise and consistent removal of the tip of the beak without evidence that the birds suffered stress or pain as a result of the procedure.

Beak trimming is technically a ‘mutilation’; this is something which FAWC has consistently declared that, in principle, animals should not be subjected to. However, we also recognise the often intractable problem of injurious feather pecking that occurs in some modern poultry production systems, both extensive and intensive, and in these circumstances FAWC’s aim is to minimise the harms that are likely to occur. It would appear that the trial results of the infra-red beak treatment process accord with FAWC’s initial, positive reactions to what it was shown, and so we are minded to look on it favourably compared to the alternatives. Through its non-invasive nature (which should reduce infection), its accuracy and its consistency the infra-red beak treatment has the potential to improve welfare not only for broiler breeders but also for turkey and laying hen chicks. FAWC was convinced that the initial reactions of the chicks to the infra-red system were far better than to the hot blade trim and the results of the trials seem to bear out the lack of long term effects.

FAWC would be pleased to be involved in any further discussion of the infra-red method of beak treatment. In the mean time, although FAWC is greatly encouraged by this technology, we would still urge Defra to work closely with the Beak Trimming Action Group to ensure that stakeholders continue to focus on other areas of activity including breeding traits, refining codes of practice and ensuring any beak trimming or treatments are done by suitably qualified people.