DEHORNING PAYS THE FARMER

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 62, 31 March 1937, Page 15

DEHORNING PAYS THE FARMER

: Practice Should Be Universal STOPS CARCASE DAMAGE Dehorning of cattle is a sub,"ject upon which there is still a great deal of controversy in New Zealand. but mere and more there is growing a feeling that in the interest' of the export meat trade it should be more generally practised. It is a subject of vital importance to -the beef cattle industry and means enhanced returna. horns on cattle resulting in " bruised meat, defective carcases and grading down of whole carcases. (> It is gen^-ally considered that - tlie future of the beef export industry lepends laTgely on the development of the chilled beef trade. Aild the ehilLed beef trade demands first' grade, unblemished carcases, both because such beef earries better over the long voyage and beeause of *the high quality^ artiele with which it must compete, Horned cattle with the damage they cause to carcases should not, tharefore, be tolerated. Bruising means lower returns to the producer. It also means less '' quality" beef for export. Argentina Practice. In Argentina dehorning is practised jenerally. No horned cattle are aecepted by meat work for chiller grades, a class of cottle which provides over 90 per cent. of the beef exported. In United States of America dehorning is almost universal as far as high-grade boei steers are concerned. In Canada propaganda on the question has been carried out by the Dominion, Department of Agriculture. Canadian cattle buyers, through their association, propose to pay a premium of 1 dol. per head on all hornless cattle purehased for slaughter of 4001b. live woight and over. In South Africa some of the large-scale producers dehoxn their cattle. The advantages of dehorning may be summarised as follow — (1) Dehorned cattle grow up quieter, are less harassed and more contented in feeding, and so put on more condidition for a given amount of.feed. Not being harassed by the horners all have equal opportunities of sharing pasture and shade. (2) Considerable economic saving is eff ected through gain in carcase weigbt from causes mentioned above; through saving of loss on hides damaged- by horn scorqs or punctures; through saving of loss on beef condemned or graded down wholly or partly on account of bruising from horning; through saving on xailway freight by reason • the fact that more dehorned than horned cattle can be loaded in some large types of truck; througft saving of time and labour in the handling of the quieter hornless cattle. Dehorning means money in the pockets of cattle producers. The general adoption of the practice will add a percentage to the profits of producers and in times when profits are small this is a consideration which cannot be neglected. Furthermore, since the meat export trade has become a matter of inteniational competition we must fall into line with competitors in every detaH which serves to enhance the quality of meat, to raise the percentage of first quality, and to reduce costs. Economic Loss.

It is difficult to obtain accurate statistics on the question of the economic loss caused by horned' cattle. Tests made in 1934 by the Queensland Meat Industry Board resulted as foilows: — In a carcass competition a condition of entry was that cattle should be polled, dehorned or tipped. The entries consisted of 380 cattle. The bruised quarters did not exceed 11 or 0.72 per cent. Three trueks of cattle — two of polled, and one with horns — were handled in an exactly similar manner. Of the polled cattle (38), the number of quarters Tejected was one. Of the horned "cattle (18), fifteen quarters were rejected. Objections raised in differeht quarters to the practice of dehorning are: — That it is unneeessary; that, undeiv taken on a large seale, it would not repay the cost of labour and (a minor objection) that it causes loss from fly infection. That it would not repay the cost of labour is difficult to prove from actual costing, but it is extremely unlikely that . actual figures here quoted would be offset by labour costs. There would seem to be little difficulty in the way of making the dehorning of calves a feature of the yearly branding and marking operations, and it is urged that this should be seriously undertaken on a national seale in the interests of the industry. It is recognised that! the dehorning of grown cattle is ^ different proposition, but with the general adoption of the practice of dehorning the calves, this difficulty would in time disappear. The dangor of fly infeetion may be overcome by the use of a fly repellant. Dehorning Methods. Dehorning is best carried out on very young calves by gouging out the small hom that has developed or burning with caustic. Calves so treated grow up quiet and of a contented disposition, and so may be expectecl to put on condition better. The method in general practice in Argentina is to take the calves at marking time, that is, between the ages of six and twelve weeks, and gouge out the embryro horns with a hammer and ehisel, dafe-

bing the wounds with a aolution of castor oil and any suitable antiseptic. Oecasionally the root of the horn may not be eutiroly removed, uuU un odd beast may be seen in a herd with perhaps one horn, Such horns are in* variably tipped before marketing, "While Ti there is some difference of opinion as to the advisability of dehorning adult cattle, many authorities state that it ean be done successfully. , and without ill effecfcs on the aiiimat. ,