44 



REPLIES RECEIVED. 



( >f the replies received the Directors of twelve State Agricultural Stations 

 wrote that they had superintended dehorning experiments and were satisfied that 

 it was a desirable practice, while several others favored it although they had no 

 personal experience. The Directors of eleven State Colleges replied that they 

 had no experience, while the Directors of three other State Colleges wrote that 

 they had not seen any experiments, but were opposed to the practice. From 

 prominent veterinarians, stock-breeders and farmers about twenty letters were 

 received in favor of the practice, while three breeders wrote against it. It 

 might be added that in only two cases is opposition expressed after having seen 

 the operation. The more important letters, summarized as far as possible, might 

 be given as follows : 



State Agricultural Stations. 



In Favor of D&homing. 



I. P. Roberts, Director, Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Sta- 

 tion : — <: I have practiced dehorning for about five years and on about 1,000 head. 

 The age is immaterial. The operation is somewhat similar to pulling a tooth. 

 Sometimes we use carbolated vaseline afterwards. A little skin should be re- 

 moved with the horn. Dehorning increases the value of the animals by several 

 dollars per head. Disbudding by means of stick caustic potash is a good thing, 

 but it should be done before the calf is two weeks old. Briefly, the advantages 

 of dehorning are increased production, diminished danger, reduced losses and 

 above all the prevention of the pain all animals inflict upon those which are 

 weaker. Most certainly it is a humane operation or I would not have it per- 

 formed." # 



H. H. Wing, Professor of Dairy Husbandry in the Cornell Station: — " We 

 have made several trials with stick caustic potash and the indications are that it 

 is going to be the most successful, the most humane and the easiest method of 

 growing hornless cattle. The operation of dehorning does not cause the animal 

 to shrink in milk, nor does it affect the amount of fat or total solids in the milk. 

 Any operation to the animal that does not disturb these functions, cannot very 

 perceptibly disturb the animal as a whole for we know that the flow, of the milk 

 and the percentage of fat in the milk are very easily affected by any material 

 interference with the animal economy." 



James Law, F. \l. C. V. S., Cornell Station : " As practised with the saw 

 through the root of the horn, and through the skin rather than the horny 

 structure, the operation is certainly no more painful than castration, and is quite 

 as justifiable. As practised with the sliding knife at one blow it is far less painful; 

 as practised on the budding horns of the young calf it is a'so much loss painful. 

 Cows become more quiet and docile without horns, and if naturally disposed to 

 fatten they sometimes run to fat at the expense of milking qualities. This 

 argument is really in favor of dehorning as showing a lessening of the waste by 

 exercise and excitement, and the alleged evil can be obviated by feeding a highly 

 nitrogenous food in a sloppy form. In some comparative experiments with a 

 variety of the strongest caustics I have had unsatisfactory results, except with 



