176 STORRS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 
DEHORNING CATTLE. ALL 
BY eC Oe 

In the report of the Kansas State Board of Agriculture for 
1902, Secretary Coburn makes the following statement: “‘It 
is estimated, by those who have paid most attention to such 
statistics, that not less than two hundred persons in the United 
States each year are killed or seriously injured by cattle horns, 
and that by the same means a hundred thousand cattle, horses, 
and colts and innumerable sheep and swine are annually de- 
stroyed; that two-thirds or three-fourths of all the tremendous 
losses by abortion, especially among cows, if carefully investi- 
-gated could, directly or indirectly, be traced to the presence of 
horns.’’ 
That horns are a detriment in the feed lot is almost univer- 
sally admitted. This fact perhaps explains the popularity of 
the polled breeds of beef animals—the Angus, Galloway, Polled 
Durham, and Red Poll. In the 1897 report of the Kansas 
State Board of Agriculture, Sec. Coburn has collated the ex- 
periences of some ninety-seven successful feeders of beef ani- 
mals. One of the points upon which judgment was sought 
was with regard to the detriment of horns in the feed lot. The 
replies may be summarized as follows: 
Hleven had no opinion or did not report. 
One was unfavorable to dehorning. 
One reported that he did not practice eaters 
Highty-four reported as favoring dehorning for the feed lot, 
although twelve of this number preferred horns in the pasture. 
Fifty-three of the eighty-four placed a premium on the de- 
horned animal. ‘Twenty-nine considered the dehorned animal 
to be on the average 12 per cent. better; eleven as worth 15 
cents more per cwt.; and thirteen considered the dehorned ani- 
mal worth, on the average, $1.75 more per head. 
No statistics of opinion in regard to the detriment of horns 
in the dairy herd are at hand. ‘There is an almost universal 
opinion among dairymen, however, that the greater quiet and 
(ak a 

