DEHORNING CATTLE

Waikato Independent, Volume XXVI, Issue 2607, 8 April 1926, Page 6

DEHORNING CATTLE

DOES IT fcoAESEN HEEDS? A DOUBTFUL QUESTION". >'•:' Whilst thcreMire conflicting opinion's as to whether or not the dehorning of cattle, -tends to make for a coarser head in an animal’s progeny, the undisputed fact that horn marks seriously damage a large number of ox hides annually 'is considered in many quarters to be ample justification for making it compulsory to dehorn all cattle, with the exception of pedigree stock-. .From the trend of discussion at various meetings of dairy farmers it may be safely stated that cattle breeders are practically unanimous in the opinion that all farm cattle-should bo dehorned. There is, however, quite a number who go further and maintain that all cattle, including 'pedigree animals, should be treated in this manner. Why Exclude Pedigree Stock? Recently at* a meeting of the Dairy Farmers’ Union at Palmerston North it was stated by at least one speaker that the dehorning of cattle,, or the training of the horns in'any way, had the effect of producing a coarser head in the particular animal’s progeny. This ’fanner, who represented Levin on the union, 'was convinced that his experience as a cattle breeder had always borne out his contention, and therefore he was entirely opposed to the inclusion of: pedigree stock in any measure for the compulsory dehorning of cattle. With this opinion several other representatives differed, they being of the belief that dehorning had absolutely no effect upon coarseness or otherwise of an animal’s head. In their all cattle, including pedigree animals, should he dehorned, for this made for easier handling, in the matter of trucking and penning generally. Little, however, was said almut. the damage done to hides b'" horns, this point apparently being lost sight of for the moment. It is, nevertheless, probably the most important reason in favour of dehorning, and one that might even be taken into consideration by those who are entirely opposed to treating pedigree stock on the lines of other animals. In discussing the matter with Dr .1. Reakes, Director-General of Agriculture, a representative of The Dominion was informed that the Department views the exception taken to the dehorning of pedigree stock as one father of appearance than of any effect upon an animal’s progeny. It it were not that show animals looked bettor, and, as he puts it, “more complete” with horns, there would probably be a decided majority o,f farmers in favour of dehorning all cattle without exception. Damage to Hides. . Dr Reakes agreed that much damage

was done to hides by horn Scratchings, and mentioned that at the 'Exhibition In Dunedin there are two hides showing blemishes caused by horn marks. This is undoubtedly a serious matter for the farmers. In ,a recent issue of The Dominion reference was made in an article,- “Branding (.’attic,” to the damage done to hides by lire brands being placed on the rump instead of on some less valuable part of the hide. With this damage occasioned by careless branding is associated the blemishes caused by horn marks, and together those two evils are responsible for the loss to the farmers of New Zealand of from £1:10,000 to £200,000 annually. The Now Zealand Tanners’ Association ’realise, it is imperative that action should be taken to ensure a plentiful supply of unblemished Judes to meet all requirements. It is neither profitable to the Dominion nor desirable from, the tanners’ point of view that hides should be imported from Ireland, Switzerland, France and Italy, but this has become essential on account .of the shortage of perfect hid.es in this country. Ik has been stated that the tanning industry of New Zealand is feeling the effect of competition in leather from England and the United States of America, having local hides spoiled with blemishes by lire brands and horn murks. In the article, “Branding Cattle,” it wa.# mentioned that the New Zealand Tanners’ .Association was making a strenuous endeavour to have legislation 'enacted to make it compulsory to apply a firebrand only to the neck or shoulder. The association is also anxious* that dehorning should be made obligatory, and it proposes to make an effort to have the following clauses inserted in the Stock Act: “That, it shall beicompulsory on and after a date to be decided on, that all calves born, if not registered pedigree cattle, shall be dehorned.”