The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1888-03-03
osHoRNlNo CATTLE.
Advantages ana Rapid spread Of the n

Advantages ana Rapid spread of the Now
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
large number of herds Of cattle that
have had their horns cut of. In ride
Of thirteen miles did not see single
herd that were not artificial polls. This
seems remarkable, especially when we
eomember that this innovation is so
recent In its origin. This OF itself is an
argument In favor OF removing tho
horns Of our cattle.
The matter comes up for discussion
Mt nearly every one OF the Wisconsin
farmers institutes and there is hardly
man who has practiced dchorning
who is not emphatic in its rccommen-
dation. The arguments urged are:
Fist 1t prevents those frequent and
terrible accidents which result from tho
use of horns by some vicious animal.
Secondly, It Is affirmed that dehorncd
cattle can be turned lose in she Il or
stall. and though quite crowded they
will do we'll and make far better gain
than when tied up rs they must be un-
less dehorned. Thirdly, it is asserted
that dehorning is not a serious opera
ton. 1t is even said that tho cattle
seem to object to the confinement Of
their heads even more than 10 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
scrt as their opinion that the animal is
really the gamer by the operations; 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
lin the spring of the second year of
the life of tho 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 u
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 the sensitiveness. We can readily
believe that when the horn is a COM
plcted organ, both nerves and conse-
quent sensitivcness would be ut IL 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
tion the less the pain, up to the time
when the horn is practically COM
plcted growth.
To dehorn the animal, it is placed in
stanchions or its head is otherwise made
fast. Then the horns are sawed off
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 at
the institute; the arguments used by
those who object are looks and cruelty.
The first is certainly valid objection
in case one has II ii he herd of Short
horns or Herefords. The second ono
seems not valid in the light of the tes-
timony of such lncn us Prof. Henry and
many others who have tried the prlc.
tice. PROF. 4. j. Cook, IN Rural New
Yorker.