11C 



James W. Rokertson, sworn, said : I am Dairy Commissioner for the Dominion, and Agri- 

 culturist of the Central Experimental Farm. Previous to taking my present position I was Pro- 

 fessor of Dairy Husbandry at the Ontario Agricultural College. I have been engaged in agricul- 

 tural work for over six years past. Latterly I have been giving a good deal of attention to the 

 feeding of stock. I am aware of the objects of the Commission, and I have been looking into the 

 question of dehorning cattle owing to the many enquiries I received from farmers all over the 

 country. With regard to the rights of man over the animal creation, I would say that man de- 

 prives domestic animals of their liberty of movement and liberty of breeding and feeding lor 

 his own advantages. All this is justifiable, because it is for the benefit of the keeper. Then 

 there is the humanitarian limit— anything that results in pain without a compensating advan- 

 tage is to be condemned. Any ill-treatment of an animal will prevent it from serving or 

 benefitting its owner. You will rind it all through, that where man inflicts an injury upon an 

 animal, without a compensating advantage to the animal, it will be against his own interests. 

 In brief, the benefit to the animal and the gain to man are identical. 1 would not consider the 

 infliction of pain justifiable, unless it was an improvement to the animal. The dehorning of 

 cattle is justifiable on many grounds. Indiscriminate dehorning would not be a desirable thing 

 in every case. There are some conditions where it would not be a desirable act to dehorn. 

 It is a question largely to be settled by self-interest and environment of the animals. I think 

 in the case of dairy cattle that if the practice of dehorning results in quieter behaviour you 

 would get a larger flow and better quality of milk, and better health in the animal. Perfect 

 quiet and the absence of irritation are very desirable. When a lot of cattle are turned out 

 together there are always a few timid ones, and these will often be scared and hooked by 

 the others. This is more liable to occur when they are passing up lanes, through the gates 

 and at the watering trough. I think the comfort of the animals is promoted by deprn ing 

 them of the means of attack. In the past ages these animals were given horns that they might 

 protect themselves, and as our method of life removes the need of defence the horns are 

 therefore not now needed by the animals. I have seen the operation of dehorning performed 

 on steers and a bull, but not on cows. There is no doubt it is painful while the sawing or 

 cutting lasts, but I think this is mainly from the fright produced in the animal and not so much 

 from the cutting of the tissue. '1 he operation takes from nine to thirty seconds for both horns. 

 After taking the horns off we offered the cattle some meal and all ate readily. Nine continued 

 to feed regularly, but two did not chew their cud for a little time afterwards. In the case of two 

 there was a slight discharge for about ten days, then the wounds healed over and there was no 

 further trouble. In six weeks' or two months the cavity becomes boned over. As to suffering 

 after the operation, I only noticed a condition of dullness — a change of appearance in the eyes 

 and head and ears for a day or two — nothing, however to make the hair or skin show any 

 serious derangement of functions. If there were no greater disturbance in the health of the 

 cows than in the case of our steers, I do not consider that there would be any falling off in the 

 milk after the first day. I think the suffering to the animal is very slight after the horn is 

 severed from the head. 



Mr. Drury — You have given this matter considerable attention ; would you say that you 

 would commit yourself to the practice as one desirable in the interests of dairying ? A. I would, 

 wherever the herds of cattle in being turned out were so confined in area that they were tempted 

 to chase each other. In my opinion the pain inflicted in the operation is not nearly equal to 

 the discomforts inflicted on the animal from being hooked by others. In taking off the horns 

 a great deal of suffering otherwise spread over a period of years is reduced to a sensation of pain 

 for a moment or two. I believe there is greater pain from hooking than from dehorning. Then 

 an animal often suffers keenly from fear of being hooked. I have known them to bellow 

 and show great distress although there was no actual injury inflicted on the body. 



Q. If the practice were allowed would you say there should be safeguards as to how and 

 when the operation should be performed ? A. I think it would be reasonable to say that it must 

 be performed in such a way that there will be no unnecessary pain or suffering inflicted leaving it 

 with the performer to show that he took every precaution. The law should be framed so as to 

 protect the animal from unnecessary pain. 



Q. Have you used clippers in dehorning ? A. Yes ; I tried them on three-year-old steers. 

 I don't think they are as well adapted for taking off the horns as a sharp, fine-toothed saw. There 

 is more or less crushing of the part, and the healing process is not apt to be so quick as after 

 the action of the saw. 



Q. Have you ever tried caustic on the budding horns of calves 1 A. No ; but I have en- 

 quired from those who have and they say that there is an irritation in the head for weeks after. 

 1 am inclined to think that the sum total of suffering would be greater than simply dehorning 

 later Oil. Then they are more likely to develop bunting proclivities when dehorned as calves. 



Mr. GlBSON — At what age and at what season of the year would you say the operation is 

 best performed? A. For steers, one to two years old. As to the season, the extremities of 



