The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1890-03-15
CECIL FARMERS CLUB.

An Interesting Meeting at MIR.
Thomas c. Bonds on Wednes-
day.
The regular monthly meeting of the
| Cecil Farmers Club was held at the
| Naples" farm, the beautiful homestead
of Thos. G. Bond, Esq :, on Wednesday last.
Caprclous March was in her Gellowest
mood and beautiful day balmy as May,
| invited full attendance of the Club.
| Its President Joseph Coudon, Esq, being
detained at home ON account of sickness
i'll his family, punctually at half-past ten
O'Clock Enoch Noyes, Esq, Vice-Presi-
dent ordered the call of the roll of mem
bers, when the following responded to
their names: Henry S. Coudon, Enoch
| Noyes, Samuel Rowland Carson, Enoch
| Mccullough, Thos. G. Bond, George w..
Sutton, John r. Bond, John P. Wilson,
Aaron J. Kitchener, VIM. W. Moore, and
Henry r. Torbert. The visitors present
by invitation were, the Rev. J. P. Otis,
Frank s. Everist, Esq, and the Rev.
John Squire.
The minutes of the last meeting having
been read and approved, statements OF
experiments being in order, Mr.. McCul-
Tough said that he had very valuable
Registered Jersey Bull, which had shown
IA bad disposition, and he determined last
September to de-horn him. He fastened
him in stocks and cut the horns with
fine dissecting saw as close to the head
as possible They bled very slightly,
and he afterwards treated the stumps
with cob webs and tar. AS result,
while neither the health nor physical con-
,, diton of the animal had been at all I'M
paired, his disposition has been materially
improved, he now being as docie as the
oxen on his place.
MIR. Moore said that he had never cut
the horns of any of his own cattle, and
therefore, had no experience to report,
but in case where neighbor had de-
horned bull, it made no permanent
change in the habit of the animal so far
as he noticed. For time, the animal
seemed improved in disposition, at least,
while the soreness lasted, but afterwards
he became as bad as ever.
Mr.. Henry S. Coudon said his practice
had been to cut half the horns off of
cross steers. that he had found it i'm
proved the habit of the animal, simply
-, 4 - Of ba Of
lacking other cattle, lifting gates, etc,
the animal knowing intuitively that it
had been deprived of the means of doing
damage.
Mr.. John R. Bond thought that the
practice of de horning or cutting horns
of cattle did not necessarily improve the
disposition of the animal, but simply de-
prived him of the means OF attack and
dong mischief.
MIR. Carson did not favor the practice
of cutting the horns of cattle regarding
affecting their value.
MIR. Kitchener preferred horned cattle
because he believed that a muley COW
could do more damage to growing crop,
or use her head disastrously in many
nook or Granny of hedge or fence, where
horned animal could not.
Mr.. Carson said that the worst OK he
had ever owned was muley, and his
experience was the same as to cows.
Mr.. Noyes said this argument could be
illustrated by the assertion that soldier
could do more damage without a bayonet
to his musket than with one. He did not
think so. The horns of an animal were
intended by Nature as a means of attack
and defence. But experience shows that
they are more apt to use them as means
Of attack, and which fact, constituted
the danger of them. He had used brass
knobs successfully in protecting cattle
from the sharply pointed horns OF stock.
MIR. Wilson had thought good deal
on the subject and while he was reluct
ant to intiict pain on any dumb animal,
yet he thought that the practice OF de-
horning was good one because he be
lieved that cattle could be handled more
easily as well as profitably by having
them de horned. He was decided ad-
vocate of the practice.
Mr.. Thos. e. Bond suggested that the
horns could be easily removed by sever
ing them with blade of papknife
when the animal WAS young and the horn
in the velvet.
Mr.. Moore said that he would always
prefer a de horned bullock, but could
rarely find them. They were easier
handled, would fatten quicker, they can
be shipped easier, and he believed were
more profitable in every way, because
they were more docile in disposition.
Mr.. Coudon thought that the muleys
referred TO by gentlemen were low grade
cattle, aud reiterated his view that the
animal was more valuable ie-horned than
when left as nature furnished them.
Mr.. Mccullough thought that the
manner OF treatment OF cattle had very
little effect upon their natural DISPOSE
ton. He did not mean to imply that rough
handling was other than an injury to any
kind of stock, but the capricious dispo-
sition of bulls was not to be trusted.
Mr. Everist said his preference was for
de horned cattle as least so far as bulls
were concerned, because he thought it
necessary to protect other stock against
the posi- Die damage frequently done by
them.
Mr.. Wilson maintained his view as to
the desrab ilty of de horned cattle. The
loss of horns in his experience with Cat
viciousness.
Mr.. Coudon in reply to the experience
of some member said he was glad to learn
that e-horned cattle were the most
troublesome, or that an animal was more
dangerous to life and property without
horns than with them.
Mr. John r. Bond said that the cutting
of horns talked of and reported in the
experience of the members was not in his
opinion the process technically known as
de-horning. This process was he believed
the severing of the ligaments that held
the young horn in its socket, the horn
fitting in the socket like tooth in its
place in the jaw. He was not of opinion
that either de-horning or the cutting of
horns had any effect in improving the
particular animal upon which the process
had been practiced. Large cattle breed,
ers who we're practicing the process of