51 



David McKay, secretary Brookside Farm Company, Indiana: " ^performed 

 the operation once — twenty years ago — on fifty head. I am not in favor of it. 

 There are signs of pain during the operation and for about three weeks after- 

 wards. After dehorning I used rosin and hemp to fill up the cavity and seared 

 with a hot iron to stop the flow of blood. Dehorning makes cattle better for 

 shipping purposes. I think the best way to dehorn is to use a good registered 

 polled bull of any of the polled breeds. It spoils the look of any horned animals 

 to take off the horns in full bloods." 



E. W. Rowland, V.S., Monroe, Wis. : " It is not an operation of necessity, 

 but one of fancy and it will only be a short time until the ones advocating it 

 now will be ready to condemn it. First, because fat cattle that have been 

 dehorned will not sell for as much as those that have not. Second, the horn 

 is the ordinary thing by which the age of cattle is told, and when they are 

 taken off this is removed and the cows will be a drug on the owner's hands 

 when he tries to sell them. Third, they are much more trouble about the 

 fences as they can get their head through a smaller place and will then push 

 their bodies through and rub off their hair. If they had had horns on they 

 could not have got their eads in the hole at first. Fourth, cattle fall off in 

 milk and lose flesh ; in some cases even die from the operation. Fifth, it is a 

 very painful thing, causing the cattle to struggle violently to get away and if 

 they are allowed to remain standing they will throw themselves down and show 

 in every way possible that they are suffering the most excruciating pain. Sixth, 

 it does not offer the smallest amount of benefit to the owners or the poor brute 

 that has to stand the suffering. A farmer not far from here had his cows' horns 

 sawed off and then tried to sell them, and had to take less than what he was 

 originally offered, besides losing one cow from the operation. The leading 

 veterinary surgeons of this country and Europe say that it is unnecessary and 

 cruel. I have never seen an animal that had been dehorned, but the informa- 

 tion that I give is from good reliable men." 



John Clay, of Clay, Robinson & Co., cattle buyers, Chicago stock yards : 

 " Personally, I am opposed to dehorning. I cannot give you the relative numbers 

 of dehorned cattle that come to Chicago, although it is fair to say that the prac- 

 tice during the past two years has been a favorite one. So far as price is con- 

 cerned it makes no difference. Our buyers take hold of horned cattle just as 

 freely as those that are polled. Some of my neighbors out on the range are 

 taking the horns from their calves when they brand them. This is working very 

 well and seems to be a painless operation. Still, my experience on the range leads 

 me to think that cattle are best left with the horns on them, I admit, of course, 

 that in the case of bulls and range cows, and such like, that are fed in yards, de- 

 horning is somewhat advantageous, but in all other cases I consider it unneces- 

 sary and at the same time exceedingly painful and brutal under the present sys- 

 tem." 



Henry E. Alvord, director Maryland Experiment Station : " I do not favor 

 dehorning. I have not practiced it, and my objections are, therefore, theoretical. 

 In twenty-five to thirty-five years' experience, I never had a serious case of gor- 

 ing. Have tried knobbing successfully as a precaution. If by ' disbudding ' is 

 meant the removal of the horn ' button ' or germ from the young calf, I kuow 

 from experience and observation that it is a very simple operation, and accom- 

 plishes in the best possible way, the object of dis or dehorning. As ordinarily 

 done, I do not regard dehorning as humane. If no horns is the object, breed 

 polled cattle or ' dis-bud ' by all means." 



