This document summarizes information on beak trimming methods for egg-laying hens. It discusses the pros and cons of hot blade trimming versus infrared beak treatment (IRBT). Hot blade trimming requires in-house labor and handling of birds, which can be stressful, while IRBT is automated and reduces stress. However, IRBT machines are complex. The document also reviews factors like production, pecking injuries, and costs that should be considered when choosing a beak trimming method.

1. Beak Trimming:
Hot Blade vs. IRBT
Taylor Reed
Summer 2016

2. Pecking
• Two supported theories of cause
• Redirected ground pecking from foraging
• Redirected dust bathing pecking
• Combination of different STRESSES lead to pecking
• Learned behavior
• Seen more at the end of the lighting day (8-14 hours after lights come on) in
medium heavy brown strains

3. Poor Feather Cover Consequences
*feathering on back and vent are best indicators of overall feather score
• Higher feed intake
• ~16% more in winter weather
• lower egg production during colder (<20C) temperatures
• Food per dozen eggs was 27.5% better in well feathered birds
• Some studies show reduced body weight at 40 weeks and end of lay
• 46% higher energy requirement and 27% higher feed consumption at 64.4C

4. Hot Blade
Pros
• In house management
• Can adjust for individuals
Cons
• High human variability
• Higher costs of labor
• Added stress of catching and handling
• Reduced body weight during first few
weeks after
• Greater regrowth of beak

5. Infrared Beak Treatment
Pros
• No in house labor or time
• Automated, precise adjustments
• Reduced stress of handling
• Gradual change in beak
• No open wounds or infection
• Fewer abnormalities in adult beaks
• Less pain and nerve damage?
Cons
• Possible stressor to vaccinate and
trim at same time
• No adjusting on individual basis
• Machinery is very complex

6. Factors to Consider
• Costs
• Current and future
• Uniformity
• Production
• Pecking

7. Current
Costs
 5 cents per bird for IRBT
at hatchery
Current Beak Trimming
Activity Amount Cost per Total Cost
3 pullers 13 hours $20/hr $ 780.00
5 trimmers 13 hours $20/hr $ 1,300.00
Pre-trim maintenance 5 hours $20/hr $ 100.00
Blade Costs 24 blades $3.50/blade $ 84.00
Post-trim maintenance 0.5 hours $20/hr $ 10.00
Total Cost $ 2,274.00
Cost per pullet $ 0.06317
Additional “Costs”
• Lost man power for other jobs
• Tim cannot check out other barns
6.317 cents

8. Subjective scores for beak quality at 72
weeks of age
Score 1: beak closed (upper and lower beak
of same length); rounded point; no growth
beyond the edges; little bone material
removed.
Score 2: length of lower and upper beak
differs by 2-3 mm; parts of the growth
beyond the edges broken off and/or up to
1/3 of beak bone removed;
Score 3: the lower beak is significantly
longer than the upper beak (> 4mm) due to
regrowth; crossed beak or bony base
structure cut by more than 1/3.

9. Lohmann- Infrared Beak Treatment- A temporary
solution?

10. Lohmann Study
• Concluded a 15 cent per hen housed benefit of IRBT over hot blade

11. Poor Beak Trim Consequences
• A 1982 study shows significantly lower food intake for shorter beaks
compared to longer beaks
• Forks and shovels reduce ability to pick up food
• Decrease feed efficiency
• Consume less large particles with smaller beaks
• Limit production potential

12. Beak Trim Consequences

13. Scoring Guide
1) Body Weight
2) Beak Length (mm) : 0= over 2/3 of beak remains Layers 0= 9+ mm Pullets 0 = 4+ mm
1= between 1/3 and 2/3 of beak remains Layers 1= 4-9mm Pullets 1= 2-4mm
2= less than 1/3 of beak remains Layers 2= < 4mm Pullets 2= < 2mm
3) Shovel: 0=absent 1= present
4) Fork: 0=absent 1=present
5) Bubble: 0=absent 1=present
6) Feathering Pecking: signs of pecking on head, back, thighs
0= no bare skin, only single feathers missing
1= moderate damage, bare spots less than 5mm
2= severe damage, in multiple locations, bare skin >5mm
7) Vent Pecking 8) Overhang
0= no bare skin, only single feathers missing
1= moderate damage to vent
2= severe damage to vent

14. 0 1 2

15. Current Flocks
*SP1 and SP2 used age 4 & 0 weigh data
Flock Age Total Score Uniformity C.V. Peck-Body Vent Peck BW O/U Length Shovel Fork Bubble % untrim
SL5 61 & 4 0.53 72.2 9.7 1.97 0.17 (233.00) 0.45 0.23 0.03 0.05 1.67%
SL8 41 & 0 0.84 78.3 8.7 1.57 0.00 (217.00) 0.44 0.34 0.18 0.10 1.67%
SL4 33 & 3 0.92 75.5 9.0 0.18 0.00 (146.00) 0.70 0.41 0.09 0.07 1.67%
SL3 72 & 2 0.93 71.6 9.9 1.73 0.05 (201.00) 0.64 0.27 0.16 0.18 0.00%
SL2 81 & 0 0.94 73.8 8.5 1.93 0.13 (248.00) 0.83 0.24 0.10 0.19 0.00%
SL7 55 & 0 0.98 73.8 9.1 1.49 0.00 (198.00) 0.49 0.41 0.20 0.12 2.22%
SL1 19 & 3 1.04 76.6 8.6 0.00 0.00 39.00 0.66 0.23 0.36 0.12 0.56%
SL9 69 & 6 1.07 79.4 8.4 1.76 0.00 (203.00) 0.81 0.25 0.13 0.29 0.00%
SL6 23 & 3 1.08 76.1 7.8 0.01 0.00 (113.00) 0.73 0.48 0.14 0.10 3.33%
SL10 20 & 3 1.22 86.6 7.0 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.80 0.47 0.27 0.08 0.55%
AVG 0.96 0.65 0.33 0.17 0.13
SP2 1 & 6 0.58 52.4 14.7 0.00 0.00 (65.00) 0.38 0.30 0.08 0.01 0.00%
SP1 2 & 3 0.77 39.2 18.9 0.00 0.00 (73.00) 0.48 0.20 0.21 0.08 1.11%
SP4 5 & 3 0.86 43.5 15.8 0.00 0.00 (74.00) 0.39 0.19 0.44 0.03 0.00%

16. Trimming Pullets
SP1- with old gauges SP2- with new gauges
Trimmer # LengthShovel Fork BubbleOverhang Total
Dorian 1-30 0.57 0.54 0.32 0.11 0.00 1.54
Don Jr. 31-60 1.17 0.13 0.27 0.20 0.00 1.77
Tim 61-90 0.30 0.20 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.77
Tara 91-120 0.00 0.03 0.23 0.07 0.30 0.33
Ron P. 121-150 0.73 0.07 0.10 0.27 0.10 1.17
Taylor 151-180 0.13 0.27 0.13 0.00 0.07 0.53
Average 0.69 0.23 0.22 0.16 0.03 1.31
Trimmer # Length Shovel Fork Bubble Overhang Total
Dorian 1-45 0.40 0.49 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.98
Don Jr. 61-90 0.30 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53
Tim 91-120 0.20 0.27 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.50
Ron P. 121-150 0.20 0.30 0.23 0.00 0.03 0.73
Adam H. 151-180 0.80 0.20 0.03 0.10 0.00 1.13
Average 0.28 0.32 0.09 0.00 0.01 0.69

17. Hot Blade Procedure
Blade temperature
Cauterization time
Age at trim
Length of trim
Operator Influence
Machinery Influence

18. Blade Temperature
• Goal of 1200F ±50F
• Dull red color to the blade
• Thermocouple to measure every hour

19. Cauterization Time
• 2+ seconds
• Machine automated
• Hold on until blade has come all the way back up

20. Age at Trim
• 6-10 days of age
• Younger is better
• Reduces stress response
• Quickest recovery
• Signs of less chronic pain

21. Length of Trim
• American Humane standards- no more than 1/3 beak can be removed
• Beak should be about 4mm post-trim
• Leave 2 nickels, remove one nickel

22. Operator Influence
• Rate of 15 birds per minute
• Sit while trimming
• 5 minute break every hour
• Standardized training program
• Train more people to reduce operator fatigue

23. Machinery Influence
• Standard operating procedures
• Sharp blades
• Change every 3000 chicks
• Remove beak residue with wire brush every 30 minutes
• Gauge holes not enlarged
• Blade flush with back of gauge

24. Beak Angle
• Hold beak at 15 angle above horizontal to create block cut

25. Suggested Improvement Costs
• Replace gauges
• $6-9/gauge
• Replace blades every 1500-3000 birds
• $3.50/blade
• Thermocouple to measure blade temperature
• $145

26. Possible Stressors and Changes
Heat Stress Earlier or seasonal transfer to diurnal
temperature
Changes in feed too quickly More gradual changes in feed
Lack of foraging opportunities Put whole grains, straw, or grass shavings
into the litter
Change from pullet floor to layer house
caged in
Let birds out earlier after transition to layer
house
Exposure to natural light after rearing in
light-proof house
Block light from entering vents

27. Alternatives/Additives
• Beak blunting
• Abrasive in bottom of feed trough (only shortens beak 1mm compared to untrimmed)
• Non Slip Tape 3M-
• Enrichment devices
• Foraging material- straw, grass in litter
• White string (polypropylene twine) is most effective
• $35

28. Community