The Abilene reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1883-1888, 1888-03-08
DEHORNING CATTLE.
advantages and Rapid spread of the Nc
Popular Practfce.

| Popular Practice.
have had occasion to travel some in
McHenry County and other parts of
Northern Illinois and Southern Wiscon-
sin. and am much struck with the
arge number of herds of cattle that
nave had their horns cut off. In a ride
Of thirteen miles did not see n single
herd that were not artificial polls. This
seems remarkable, especially when we
remember that this innovation is so
recent in its origiI. This of itself is an
argument in favor of removing the
horns of our cattle.
The matter comes up for discussion
ut nearly every one Of the Wisconsin
farmers Institutes and there is hardly
man who has practiced dehorning
who is not emphatic in its recommeu-
dation. The arguments urged are:
Fist. it prevents those frequent and
terrible accidents which result from the
use of horns by some vicious animal.
Secondly, it is affirmed that dehorned
cattle can be turned lose in she d OIL
stall. and though quite crowded they
will do well and make far better gain
than when tied up rs they must be un-
less dehOrned. Thirdly, it is asserted
that dehorning is not serious OPERA
ton. 1t is even said that the cattle
seem to object to the confinement of
their heads even more than to the act.
ual saving off of the horns. More than
this, it is said that the animal goes to
eating at once after the operation. and
does not fall off at all either in condi.
ton or milk in consequence. 1t is
urged that dehorning is far less pain
fnl than other operations universally
practiced; indeed. some enthusiasts as
sert as their opinion that the animal is
really the gamer by the operation; that
the worry and actual suffering caused
by hooking are more than that caused
by cutting off the horns.
The general expression is that it is
far better to dehorn after the first year
in the spring of the second year of
the life of the animal 1t hurts the
older animal much less, and there is
then no danger of the horns starting
out again. 1t is stated that to make
the work satisfactory with calves a
piece of the skull must be gouged out.
This seems to hurt the calf cruelty.
This is as we should expect. In the
calf the growth and activity of the part
are very great. and of course the larger
number of nerves required adds greatly
to ths sensitiveness. We can readily
believe that when the horn is a COM
pleted organ, both nerves and conse.
quent sensitiveness would be at mini
mum. The practical conclusion is, not
to dehOrn an animal till the horns are
in the way of the best comfort and
thrift of the herd, as the later the opera
tioh the less the pain, up to the time
when the horn is a practically COM
pleted growth.
To dehorn the animal, it is placed in |
stanchions or its head is otherwise made !
fast. Then the horns are sawed of |
close to the hair. Here there is softer !
place, and less pain is caused. Then |
very little blood will escape. and the
animal will show almost no disturb
ance. There are very few objectors al
the institute; the arguments used by
those who object are looks and cruelty.
The first is certainly y valid objection
IN case one has fine herd of Short
horns or Herefords. The second one
seems not valid in the light of the ties
-imOny of such men as Prof. Henry anc
many others who have tried the prac.
ice. PROF. 4. j. Cook, tn RurGL Neu
Yorker.