Exactly!
Do baby debeaked chick's lick?
- Thread starter pjbarb
- Start date
- Status
Quote:
The information provided showed a diagram of how debeaking is done, not trimming. From the reading I have done (and if I am wrong, someone please correct me), trimming only takes off about 1/4 of the beak in an area where there is no blood supply and it will eventually grow back. Taking off 1/2 to 2/3 of the beak does mean that it will not grow back. As far as comparing debeaking to a fox or hawk taking a bird, it is not close enough to the same thing to even attempt to compare. Predators are a natural occurrence where debeaking is most definitely not (aside from those rare instances where a chicken damages or loses some of it's beak in an accident). I also don't think you can compare it to a chick falling in a water dish because you didn't put marbles in. You didn't set out to deliberately cause harm to your chicks, debeaking does. Debeaking can and does cause lasting harm to a chicken and doesn't always prevent cannibalism as it is meant to.
I in no way am trying to place any kind of blame on the original poster. Just responding to IloveTravis's misinformation about how much of the beak can be removed without harm and countering the comparisons.
Edited for spelling.
The information provided showed a diagram of how debeaking is done, not trimming. From the reading I have done (and if I am wrong, someone please correct me), trimming only takes off about 1/4 of the beak in an area where there is no blood supply and it will eventually grow back. Taking off 1/2 to 2/3 of the beak does mean that it will not grow back. As far as comparing debeaking to a fox or hawk taking a bird, it is not close enough to the same thing to even attempt to compare. Predators are a natural occurrence where debeaking is most definitely not (aside from those rare instances where a chicken damages or loses some of it's beak in an accident). I also don't think you can compare it to a chick falling in a water dish because you didn't put marbles in. You didn't set out to deliberately cause harm to your chicks, debeaking does. Debeaking can and does cause lasting harm to a chicken and doesn't always prevent cannibalism as it is meant to.
I in no way am trying to place any kind of blame on the original poster. Just responding to IloveTravis's misinformation about how much of the beak can be removed without harm and countering the comparisons.
Edited for spelling.
Last edited:
Hey, just pm me if you want and I can work on getting a picture uploaded (Or teach you how to do it yourself, if you want
). I'll be more than happy to help you with that.
- Jul 27, 2008
- 224
- 0
- 119
Quote:
I also don't think you can compare it to a chick falling in a water dish because you didn't put marbles in. You didn't set out to deliberately cause harm to your chicks, debeaking does. Debeaking can and does cause lasting harm to a chicken and doesn't always prevent cannibalism as it is meant to.
I in no way am trying to place any kind of blame on the original poster. Just responding to IloveTravis's misinformation about how much of the beak can be removed without harm and countering the comparisons.
Edited for spelling.
Debeaking doesn't set out to diliberately harm a chick either. Debeaking was not something invented as a method of torture to chickens.
That was not my information, also, that was anny's. I quoted it as you can see in my post.
I was simply stating in my comparison to the hawk/fox that even though debeaking is painful, many animals go through similar and worse instinces in nature. The chickens won't blame us- and we, in fact, are a natural occurence as well.
I am only trying to set things right
I'm trying to make everyone feel validated. Debeaking is wrong, but there was no purpouseful hurt in this instance, just concern for the safety of the chickens.
I also don't think you can compare it to a chick falling in a water dish because you didn't put marbles in. You didn't set out to deliberately cause harm to your chicks, debeaking does. Debeaking can and does cause lasting harm to a chicken and doesn't always prevent cannibalism as it is meant to.
I in no way am trying to place any kind of blame on the original poster. Just responding to IloveTravis's misinformation about how much of the beak can be removed without harm and countering the comparisons.
Edited for spelling.
Debeaking doesn't set out to diliberately harm a chick either. Debeaking was not something invented as a method of torture to chickens.
That was not my information, also, that was anny's. I quoted it as you can see in my post.
I was simply stating in my comparison to the hawk/fox that even though debeaking is painful, many animals go through similar and worse instinces in nature. The chickens won't blame us- and we, in fact, are a natural occurence as well.
I am only trying to set things right
Quote:
I also don't think you can compare it to a chick falling in a water dish because you didn't put marbles in. You didn't set out to deliberately cause harm to your chicks, debeaking does. Debeaking can and does cause lasting harm to a chicken and doesn't always prevent cannibalism as it is meant to.
I in no way am trying to place any kind of blame on the original poster. Just responding to IloveTravis's misinformation about how much of the beak can be removed without harm and countering the comparisons.
Edited for spelling.
Debeaking doesn't set out to diliberately harm a chick either. Debeaking was not something invented as a method of torture to chickens.
That was not my information, also, that was anny's. I quoted it as you can see in my post.
I was simply stating in my comparison to the hawk/fox that even though debeaking is painful, many animals go through similar and worse instinces in nature. The chickens won't blame us- and we, in fact, are a natural occurence as well.
I am only trying to set things right
I'm trying to make everyone feel validated. Debeaking is wrong, but there was no purpouseful hurt in this instance, just concern for the safety of the chickens.
I think you misunderstood Anny's post, so I was pointing out that debeaking is certainly a more traumatic thing than trimming. A quote lifted from http://www.upc-online.org/merchandise/debeak_factsheet.html :
Between the horn and bone [of the beak] is a thin layer of highly sensitive soft tissue, resembling the quick of the human nail. The hot knife blade used in debeaking cuts through this complex horn, bone and sensitive tissue causing severe pain.
To me, that is deliberately harming a chicken for the gain of the human, not something that is morally correct, imo, when the problems debeaking is supposed to solve can generally be corrected in other ways.
Like I said in my last sentence, I wasn't posting to say anything about the decisions of the OP (especially considering it has come to light that their chickens have not been debeaked). I just couldn't see debeaking being compared to being killed by a fox or accidently drowning in a watering dish.
I also don't think you can compare it to a chick falling in a water dish because you didn't put marbles in. You didn't set out to deliberately cause harm to your chicks, debeaking does. Debeaking can and does cause lasting harm to a chicken and doesn't always prevent cannibalism as it is meant to.
I in no way am trying to place any kind of blame on the original poster. Just responding to IloveTravis's misinformation about how much of the beak can be removed without harm and countering the comparisons.
Edited for spelling.
Debeaking doesn't set out to diliberately harm a chick either. Debeaking was not something invented as a method of torture to chickens.
That was not my information, also, that was anny's. I quoted it as you can see in my post.
I was simply stating in my comparison to the hawk/fox that even though debeaking is painful, many animals go through similar and worse instinces in nature. The chickens won't blame us- and we, in fact, are a natural occurence as well.
I am only trying to set things right
I think you misunderstood Anny's post, so I was pointing out that debeaking is certainly a more traumatic thing than trimming. A quote lifted from http://www.upc-online.org/merchandise/debeak_factsheet.html :
Between the horn and bone [of the beak] is a thin layer of highly sensitive soft tissue, resembling the quick of the human nail. The hot knife blade used in debeaking cuts through this complex horn, bone and sensitive tissue causing severe pain.
To me, that is deliberately harming a chicken for the gain of the human, not something that is morally correct, imo, when the problems debeaking is supposed to solve can generally be corrected in other ways.
Like I said in my last sentence, I wasn't posting to say anything about the decisions of the OP (especially considering it has come to light that their chickens have not been debeaked). I just couldn't see debeaking being compared to being killed by a fox or accidently drowning in a watering dish.
This isn't even making sense! The only person here who seems to think de-beaking is alright at this point is ILoveTravis. The OP has already long since stated their chicks WERE NOT de-beaked and they simply misunderstood the term. Their chicks had a slight trim. The OP was aparently disturbed by the image of a de-beaked chicken and said they would not do something of that nature to one of theirs. Seems to me like IlLoveTravis just wants to continue a debate that has been long since solved just for the sake of stirring things up.
Quote:
Holy sh*t! I just seen that. I thought debeakin was just takin off the tip of there beak, not the whole thing! Now I see why it would hurt. Dang.
Holy sh*t! I just seen that. I thought debeakin was just takin off the tip of there beak, not the whole thing! Now I see why it would hurt. Dang.
Last edited:
I think this thread should be closed...
The point has gotten out and the question of chickens licking has been answered.
People have different opinions, yes... you don't need to state your opinion in a way that could affend people.
The point has gotten out and the question of chickens licking has been answered.
People have different opinions, yes... you don't need to state your opinion in a way that could affend people.
Last edited:
- Jul 27, 2008
- 224
- 0
- 119
I'm sorry guys, I definitely wasn't trying to continue the debate. My intention was that the original poster was just trying to do a good thing and do a nice thing for their chickens. She realized after some research that trimming the beaks was probably not a good idea, and after seeing those pictures I can really understand that it is not acceptable. I only felt bad that she came for support and we all jumped on her instead of offering help. I can tell she was truly only worried for the health of her girls. This is such a great place. I know that I've made mistakes with my chicks and the first place I look for advice when that happens is here, I'd hate to think that if I needed help because I had made a mistake that people get angry with me.
Sorry again! It's just my nature. I like to try to sort things out, but I normaly make things worse.
Sorry again! It's just my nature. I like to try to sort things out, but I normaly make things worse.
Here are some pics. I think I might've resized them a bit too small. I'm not sure which one is the trimmed-beak one, but it looks like it's the darker one in the second pic.
Let me know if I need to make the pic bigger.
The one on the left
Let me know if I need to make the pic bigger.
The one on the left
- Status
Similar threads
New posts New threads Active threads
-
Latest threads
-
Chronic issues in hen, non-emergency- Started by Zud
- Replies: 0
-
-
Housing kiki riki and quail together??- Started by margarita valentine
- Replies: 0
-
-
Water belly in multiple chickens!/ what am I doing wrong?!- Started by Egg_cited
- Replies: 1
-
-
Threads with more replies in the last 15 days
-
-
Introducing TUDYBOOK - The Tudy Coloring Book Generator- Started by Nifty-Chicken
- Replies: 70
-
-
Official BYC Poll: How Many Chickens Do You Have?- Started by BYC Project Manager
- Replies: 50
-
-
