Horn Talk Blog

• A University of British Colombia study published in the Journal of Dairy Science in 2005 showed that caustic paste dehorning with a sedative elicited less of a pain response in Holstein calves than hot-iron dehorning with both a sedative and a local anesthetic.¹ According to researchers, “These results indicate that caustic paste dehorning with xylazine sedation might be a more humane, simpler, and less invasive procedure than hot-iron dehorning with sedation and local anesthesia.”

• Experiments conducted at the University of Guelph Ontario Veterinary College and published in the AABP Proceedings in 2008 showed that hot-iron dehorning was less painful in younger calves (< 4 weeks) than older calves (6-10 weeks).²

1. Vickers, K.J. et al. Calf Response to Caustic Paste and Hot-Iron Dehorning Using Sedation With and Without Local Anesthetic. April 2005. J. Dairy Sci. 88:1454-1459.
2. Todd Duffield, DVM, DVSc. Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph. Current Data on Dehorning Calves, AABP Proceedings, Vol. 41, September 2008.

When it comes to dehorning, if you’re a typical dairy producer in the United States, chances are

• you use a hot-iron¹
• you dehorn between eight and 12 weeks of age¹
• you don’t use anesthesia or analgesia¹

• with a saw, Barnes or keystone (guillotine) dehorner²
• around 13 weeks of age²
• with no anesthesia or analgesia

What about dairy and beef producers outside the United States? Well, if you’re a producer in Europe, you are far more likely to practice early-age disbudding and use anesthesia and/or analgesia than your American counterparts.³ In the EU, 80 percent of dairy cows and only 26% of beef cattle are dehorned, and very few are polled.³

These are just averages, of course, and there is great variation in dehorning practices even within the same production segment. For example, cow-calf producers in the western U. S. are far less likely to use saws, Barnes or keystone dehorners (14%) than cow-calf producers in the eastern U.S. (59%).² But these numbers do provide a broad look at the practice of dehorning in general, and highlight areas where improvements can be made, especially in the areas of pain relief and early-age disbudding.

When it comes to dehorning, what improvements do you think are needed?

Footnotes

1. Fulwider, W.K., et al. Survey of Dairy Management Practices on 113 North Central and Northeastern United States Dairies. J. Dairy Sci. 2008. 91:1686-1692.
2. USDA APHIS, Veterinary Services, National Animal Health Monitoring System, October 2008. Reference of Beef Cow-Calf Management Practices in the United States, 2007-2008.
3. Cattle Dehorning and Alternatives in the EU. The CattleSite.com. November 2010. www.thecattlesite.com/articles/2540/cattle-dehorning-and-alternatives-in-the-eu

In its recent report, The Welfare of Calves in the Beef Industry, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) repeatedly refers to dehorning and disbudding as “mutilations”, asserts that these procedures should be discontinued, and proposes genetic selection for polled (naturally hornless) cattle. The HSUS denounces the use of any “mechanical” dehorning method as well as “bloodless” caustic paste, which it states, incorrectly, requires “multiple applications.”

The HSUS report also expresses concern that dehorning is “commonly performed without pain relief” and that “the majority of [beef production] facilities dehorned calves only after the horns began growing.” These concerns are shared by many within the industry. Organizations such as the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) advocate early-age disbudding as well as the use of local anesthetic during dehorning.

Regarding the use of polled cattle, the vast majority of dairy cattle in the United States, and a significant percentage of beef cattle, is not polled. For owners of these herds, dehorning remains an essential management practice for both human and animal safety.

Regarding HSUS’ claims about caustic paste, we are unaware of any paste products labeled for “multiple applications.” The label for Dr. Naylor Dehorning Paste, for example, states, “Apply Dehorning Paste once only [our emphasis] over horn button and roughened ring around horn button.” A protective ring of petroleum jelly or Udder Balm will confine paste to the paste application area, while isolating the calf for several hours will prevent paste from getting on the dam or other animals.

Contrary to the HSUS, we see dehorning as a necessary management practice for the safety of calves and their human handlers. We also believe the industry can and should be doing a better job of moving closer to the recommendations advocated by the AVMA and others. From an animal welfare perspective, as well as from economic and public relations perspectives, dairy and beef producers should give strong consideration to the practice of early-age disbudding with caustic paste, which has been shown to be less painful than other methods.

What do you think of the Humane Society’s report?

1. Vickers, K.J. et al. Calf Response to Caustic Paste and Hot-Iron Dehorning Using Sedation With and Without Local Anesthetic. April 2005. J. Dairy Sci. 88:1454-1459.
2. Todd Duffield, DVM, DVSc. Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph. Current Data on Dehorning Calves, AABP Proceedings, Vol. 41, September 2008.

The purpose of a preconditioning program is to maximize calf value, mainly by boosting immunity, enhancing performance through subsequent production stages and improving carcass quality. Most major calf preconditioning programs now recommend dehorning along with vaccination, castration and other management practices. It’s easy to see why. Market surveys from across the United States show dehorning adds significant value at sale time:

• A 2005 Arkansas livestock market survey found polled/dehorned feeder calves sold for an average of $3.70 per hundredweight more than horned cattle.¹

• Reports from Eastern Oklahoma show polled/dehorned cattle sold for $3.23/cwt more than horned cattle (Cattle Business in Mississippi, 2009).²

• Reports from southeastern states estimate that polled/dehorned calves sell for $1.50 to $2.00/cwt more than horned calves (CBM, 2009).²

Higher carcass quality is one of the main reasons dehorned cattle command price premiums like these. Audits have shown horned cattle can have twice as many bruises than hornless cattle, and that bruises are mostly to the rib, loin, round and other costly cuts.³ According to the 2005 National Beef Quality Audit, the percent of cattle without horns passing through packing plants is the highest it’s ever been, at 78 percent.⁴ Not coincidentally, the percent of animals without bruises is also the highest it’s ever been, at 65 percent.⁴

There are at least two ways you can make the most of the dehorning premium in your operation:

• Practice early-age disbudding, which minimizes stress on the animal and reduces production losses associated with invasive, mechanical dehorning at a later age.

• Participate in preconditioning programs that incorporate dehorning in their calf management protocols, such as Merial’s SUREHEALTH program.

How do you incorporate dehorning in your calf preconditioning program?

Footnotes

1. Jeremy Powell. Preconditioning Programs for Beef Calves. University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture. http://www.uaex.edu/Other_Areas/publications/PDF/FSA-3074.pdf
2. Justin Rhinehart. Dehorning: Economically Important But Often Overlooked. Cattle Business in Mississippi, 2009. http://msucares.com/livestock/beef/stocker_sep2009.pdf
3. Fred M. Hopkins, et al. Dehorning Calves. Agricultural Extension Service, University of Tennessee, PB 1684. http://www.tnbeefcattleinitiative.org/pdf/production/PB1684.pdf
4. National Beef Quality Audit 2005. http://meat.tamu.edu/nonconform/belknbqa.pdf

Infection is a possible complication with any dehorning method, but is most often associated with invasive procedures that expose the sinus cavity and/or cause blood loss. The use of knives, tubes, Barnes (gouge) dehorners, keystone (guillotine) dehorners, obstetrical wire and saws all increase the risk of infection during dehorning.

Exposed sinuses attract disease-carrying flies, and numerous bacteria can be involved.¹ The presence of flies or maggots in sinus cavities will be obvious, but other, more subtle signs of sinusitis can include lack of appetite, fever, nasal discharge and abnormal head carriage.¹ Such infections can show up immediately after dehorning or even months later, after the wounds have healed.

Several diseases can be spread by dehorning instruments contaminated with blood from infected animals. Researchers at the University of California found that gouge dehorning significantly increased the risk of bovine leukemia virus (BLV) infection in dairy heifers.² Conversely, not dehorning with a gouge dehorner reduced the risk of BLV transmission by up to 80 percent.² Other diseases associated with contaminated dehorning equipment include anaplasmosis, bovine cutaneous papillomas³ and tetanus.³

Early-age disbudding with caustic paste or hot-iron, which do not expose the sinus cavities or cause blood loss, reduces the risk of BLV infection associated with dehorning.

If invasive dehorning methods are used, there are several management steps you should take to reduce the risk of infection in your operation:

• Clean dehorning instruments with disinfectant between use on animals.

• Make sure dehorning instruments are kept sharp. Try to cleanly cut bone tissue rather than crushing it, as crushed tissue may be more vulnerable to infection.

• Dehorn outside of fly season or use fly deterrent.

• Treat wounds with blood coagulant powder.

• Monitor mechanically dehorned animals for signs of infection, such as lack of appetite, fever, abnormal head carriage and foul breath. If you see these signs, contact your veterinarian for a definitive diagnosis and treatment.

How do you control dehorning-associated infection in your operation?

Footnotes

1. The Merck Veterinary Manual, 9th Edition, 2011.
2. Marei-Liesse G. Lassauzet, et al. Effect of Brucellosis Vaccination and Dehorning on Transmission of Bovine Leukemia Virus in Heifers in a California Dairy. Can J Vet Res 1990; 54: 184-189.
3. Welfare Implications of the Dehorning and Disbudding of Cattle. American Veterinary Medical Association’s Animal Welfare Division. January 28, 2010.

• A comparison of the effectiveness of caustic paste vs. hot-iron disbudding


• The impact of dehorning methods on calf weight gain and other performance indicators


• The impact of dehorning methods on calf value at auction


• A comparison of infection rates and other complications among various dehorning methods


• A comparison of dehorning practices from 10 years ago to the present


• A survey of consumer attitudes toward various dehorning methods.