47 



If handled quietly the bleeding does not as a rule amount to much. The wound 

 will discharge from five to sometimes as long as thirty days; rarely more than 

 ten days pass, however, before the wound dries over and heals up, if the animal 

 is in thrifty condition when the operation is performed, the weather not too hot 

 nor too cold, and flies or other insects do not breed in the sores. Have never 

 lost animals by the operation except in one case where two or three very thin 

 weak animals were exposed to a severe cold storm a day or two after the opera- 

 tion. Occasionally an animal will have a pretty sore head, but it seems to work 

 off after a time without any ill effects." 



John A. Myers, Director, West Virginia Station, and Luther Foster, Director 

 of the South Dakota Station, write in favor of the practice, for reasons covered 

 in the above replies. 



General Letters Favoring the Practice. 



Joseph Hughes, M. R. C. V. S., Professor of Anatomy, Chicago Veterinary 

 College : " Broadly speaking, I favor dehorning ; there is not much bleeding if 

 properly performed; a liUle suppuration generally follows. It takes from three 

 to five weeks before the part is fully healed. The horns should be taken off as 

 close to the head as possible so as to get below the horn matrix, which is exceed- 

 ingly sensitive and vascular, and to prevent any unsightly knobs growing after- 

 wards. I think disbudding would be less painful and would meet all require- 

 ments. Dehorning prevents the goring of animal by animal ; does away with 

 the bullies, consequently gives a chance to the weaklings which exist in every 

 herd, and on this account assures a greater uniformity as a result of the quietude 

 which it secures. In Great Britain, where the eye is used instead of the scale in 

 measuring live weight, a dehorned bunch of cattle command a higher figure on 

 account of their evenness and generally-improved appearance." 



M. Stalker, State Veterinary Surgeon, Iowa: "I have had little practical 

 experience in dehorning cattle, though I have had pretty extensive opportunities 

 for noting its effects. I have made it a point to make careful inquiry into the 

 results following the operation, as well as to get at the after-effects as to fattening 

 qualities, etc. I find the instances of unfavorable results are comparatively few. 

 The practice of dehorning is quite common in our State, and I think I have never 

 talked with a farmer who had his cattle dehorned, but he spoke in high praise 

 of its results. The benefits are particularly noticeable where large numbers are 

 kept together, in the less amount of fighting and irritable conduct. We have 

 some bulls on the College Farm that we have dehorned in order to make them 

 less dangerous with their horns. The operation completely cures them of all 

 inclination to be cross either to men or to other cattle." 



Arthur Johnston, farmer and stock-breeder, Greenwood, Ontario : " Until 

 very lately I have been violently opposed to dehorning, but the more I think 

 about it, the more I have been convinced that it is, in very many ways, desirable. 

 I had a young bull, about fifteen months old, with very badly up-turned horns, 

 and just at the time your Commission was sitting in Toronto it occurred to me 

 to try the experiment of dehorning on him. I got my veterinary and he sawed 

 them off quickly with a rather dull meat-saw. The suffering, while the sawing 

 lasted, was very great indeed — distressing to witness, but it only lasted about 

 ten minutes. To my surprise there was very little loss of blood, almost none, of 

 any account. When the actual sawing was finished the great pain seemed to 

 subside at once, and the bull went into his sta I and began to eat at once, as if 

 nothing had happened. I watched him closely during the following six days, 



