A448-420-15m-175L TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS W. B. BIZZELL, President BULLETIN NO. 262 APRIL, 1920 DIVISION OF ANIMAL INDUSTRY THE SEARING IRON VS. THE KNIFE FOR DOCKING OR DETAIL- INGLAMBS B. YOUNGBLOOD, DIRECTOR. COLLEGE STATION, BRA ZOS COUNTY, TEXAS. STATION STAFFT ADMINISTRATION B. YOUNGBLOOD, M. S., Director A. B. CoNNEn, B. S., Vice Director J. M. JoNEs, A. M., Assistant Director CHAS. A. FELKER, Chief Clerk A. S. WARE, Secretary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , Executive Assistant CHARLES Sos0L1K, Technical Assistant VETERINARY SCIENCE _ *M. FRANCIS, D. V. M., Chief H. SCHMIDT, D. V. S., Veterinarian _ D. H. BENNETT, V. M. D., Veterinarian CHEMISTRY _ _ G. S. FRAPS, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. ASBURY, M. S., Assistant Chemist S. LOMANITZ, B. S., Assistant Chemist F. B. SCHILLING, B. S., Assistant Chemist J. B. SMITH, B. S., Assistant Chemist WALDO WALKER, Assistant Chemist HORTICULTURE H. NEss, M. s., Chief I W. S. HOTCHKISS, Horticulturist ANIMAL INDUSTRY J. JoNEs, A. Investigations IJ. C. BURNS, B. S., Animal Husbandman in Charge of Beef Cattle Investigations (on leave) . M. SHERWOOD, B. S., Poultryman J. B. MGNULTY, B. S., Dairyman O. E. McCoNNELL, B. S., Animal Husband- man in Charge of Si- ine Investigations R. G. BREWER, B. S., Assistant Animal Hus- M., Chief; Sheep and Goat- ENTOMOLOGY _ M. C. TANQUARY, Ph. D., Chief: State Ento- mologist _ H. J. REINHARD, B. S., Entomologist H. B. PARKS B. S., Apiculturist _ C. S. RUDE, B. S., Assistant Entomologist AGRONOMY _ A. B. CONNER, B. S., Chief A. H. LEIDIGH, B. S., Agronornist E. W. GEYER, B. S., Agronomist H. H. LAUDE, M. S., Agronomist PLANT PATHOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY J. J. TAUBENHAUS, Ph. D., Chief FEED CONTROL SERVICE F. D. FULLER, M. S., Chi JAMES SULLIVAN, Executive Secretary FORESTRY _ E. O. SIECKE, B. S., Chief; State Forester PLANT BREEDING E. P. HUMBERT, Ph. D., Chief FARM AND RANCH ECONOMICS H. M. ELIOT, M. A., Chief SOIL SURVEY _ **W. T. CARTER, .13., B. S., Chief T. M. BUSHNELL, B S., Soil Surveyor bandman H. W. HAWKER. Soil Surveyor SUBSTATIONS No. 1. Beeville, Bee County No. 8. Lubbock, Lubbock County I. E. COWART, M. S., Superintendent R. E. KARPER, B. S., Superintendent No. 2. Troup, Smith County W. S. HOTCHKISS, Superintendent No. 3. Angleton, Brazoria County E. B. REYNOLDS, M. S , Superintendent No. 4. Beaumont, Jefferson County A. H. PRINCE, B. S., Superintendent No. 5. Temple, Bell County D. T. KILLOUGH, B. S., Superintendent No. 6. Denton, Denton County C. H. McDowELL, B. S., Superintendent No. 7. Spur, Dickens County R. E. DICKSON, B. S., Superintendent TAs of April 1, 1920. D. L. JoNEs, Scientific Assistant No. 9. Pecos, Reeves County J. W. JACKSON, B. S., Superintendent No. 10. (Feeding and Breeding Substation). College Station, Brazos County Superintendent E. CAMERON, Scientific Assistant No. 11. Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County- G. T. McNEss, Superintendent **No. 12. Chillicothe, Hardeman County A. B. CRON, B. S., Superintendent _ V. E. HAFNER, B. S., Scienti ‘ic Assistant No. 14. Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties E. M. PETERS, B. S., Superintendent IIn cooperation with School of Agriculture, A. & M. College of Texas. ‘ *In cooperation with the School of Veterinary Medicine, A. & M. College of Texas. **In cooperation with the United States Department of Agriculture. i Bulletin No. 262. ' April, 1920. THE SEARING IRON VS. THE KNIFE FOR DOCKING OR DETAILING LAMBS. BY J. M. JONES. tC. M. HUBBARD. INTRODUCTION. Can young lambs be docked or detailed as effectively by means of the hot searing iron or docking pincers as with a sharp knife? This is a subject upon which there is considerable divergence of opinion among many prominent range sheepmen, as well as among a consider- able number of small flock owners. Much has been written upon this subject in algeneral way, while but few tests have been carried to a satisfactory termination in this country. In Australia* several dock- ing tests, in which a comparison has been made between the effective- ness of the hot iron and the knife for detailing lambs, have been reported. In practically all instances, the tails docked with the sharp knife healed sooner than those .docked ‘with the hot iron. All of the most progressive and successful flock owners follow an unfailing practice of “marking” their lambs. “Marking” comprises the docking and ear-marking of the entire lamb flock, including the castration of the male lambs, at ages ranging from ten days to six weeks. Preferably the “marking” should be done when the lambs are about two weeks old, since these operations seem to be less severe at that age. On the ranges where the sheep interests are extensive, it is quite impossible to “mark” the entire lamb flock at as young an age as might be desired. These operations are usually performed once or twice during the dropping season, which generally covers a period ex- tending through five or six weeks. OBJECTS OF EXPERIMENT. In 1916 a docking project was outlined, and active investigation was started at Substation No. 7, in Dickens County. The objects of this test were for the purpose of determining: 1. Whether the hot searing iron or the docking pincers can be used more effectively in docking or detailing lambs than the sharp knife. 2. Whether the castration of male lambs at the time of docking would show any tendency to stunt or retard their normal development. PLAN . On account of the small number of lambs available at Substation No. "7, it was necessary to continue this project through several consecutive seasons. The lambs used in this test were sired by Lincoln, Romney, tResigned. *Farmers _‘ lletin No. 67, 1913, “The Searing Iron vs. the Knife for Detailing Lambs,“ Depanment of Agriculture, New South Wales. 4 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Rambouillet, Shropshire, and Southdown rams; and Were out of high grade Rambouillet ewes. Previously to “marking,” the lambs were divided equally, in so far as was practicable, with special regard to breeding, age, sex, and Weight. On account of the small number of lambs available, it was not, in all instances, possible to divide the several lots equally with special reference to sex. All lambs which were Weak and unthrifty were excluded from the test. The lambs were docked at ages ranging from one to three weeks. With the exception of the 1919 test, the docking was done when the lambs averaged about eight to ten days of age. METHODS OF BOOKING. 1. Searingr-During the 1916 and 1917 tests the docking chisel, similar to that known among ranchmen as the Ellenwood iron, was used. This iron was heated to a cherry red and the docking operation conducted in accordance with the most progressive ideas upon this sub- ject. The docking pincers replaced the docking chisel during the tests conducted in 1918 and 1919. 2. Sharp I{n.i_fe.—The sharp knife was used on a representative group of lambs during each of the four seasons in which this test was conducted. A sharp, clean blade was used in all thedocking opera.- tions. No cords or strings were used to stop excessive bleeding through- out this test. ~ 3, Cut zuith Knife, Artery Seared.—In order to obtain more com- plete results, it was decided to dock a. representative number of lambs during the 1916 and 1917 tests, with a knife, this operation being followed immediately with the searing of the artery by means of a small pointed instrument heated to a. cherry red. TREATMENT OF WVOUNDS. Only in a few isolated cases, after the docks or wounds had become infested with screw worms, was it necessary to treat any of the wounds. RECORDS. All lambs in this test were. divided into separate groups before dock- ing. Each lamb was carefully weighed immediately preceding the “marking.” The lambs were reweighed on the second. and seventh days after docking, and thereafter at regular weekly intervals, until all the docks had completely healed. A full set of notes covering the condition of the sores or wounds were kept, each lamb receiving the attention of the attendant who made a careful record of the actual condition of the docks at the regular xveighing periods. The test herein reported was continued through four seasons. Eighty- four lambs were docked with the hot iron; eighty-four were docked with the knife, and thirty-two were docked with the knife-—the artery after- wards being seared. The number of lambs comprising this test totaled two hundred. _ At the beginning of the test it was planned to continue weight records on the lambs through a period of from five to six months. Due to the fact, howeve-r, that a severe drouth contii‘ :(l' through‘ SEARING IRoN vs. KNIFE FOR DOCKING OR DETAILING LAMBS. 5 1916, 1917, and 1918, the lambs showed a tendency to lose Weight rather than to gain during the months of August and September of these respective years. It became necessary, therefore, to discontinue weight records at a much earlier date than had been previously an- ticipated. In Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively, are shown Weights and gains made by the lambs during the periods that observations were being made. Table 1.—Gains Made by Lambs Docked in 1916. Method of Docking ' Knife— Hot Iron _ Knife Artery Seared l Number lambs in test . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 9 15 9 16 5 Weighing Dates Ewes Wethers Ewes Wethers Ewes Wethers (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) April 17, average weight. . .. . . . . . .. 11.375. 12.227 10.46 10.66 12.00 10.80 April 19, average weight........... 11.844 12.610 10.96 11.11 11.95 11.05 April 24, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . 14.300 14.920 13.12 13.07 15.43 14.50 May 1, average weight........... 16.800 17.880 15.19 14.30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. May 8, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . 18.470 19.650 16.86 17.12 19.23 18.21 May 15, average weight. . .. . . . . . .. 21.870 23.520 20.00 20.89 22.84 21.94 July 8, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . 37.130 40.110 34.50 36.83 37.13 36.60 I Aug. 5, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . 42.250 45.830 38.92 44.44 43.13 40.40 Average gain per lamb . . . . . . . . 30.880 33.600 28.46 33.78 31.14 29.50 Average daily gain (110 day test).. . 0.281 0.305 0.258 0.307 0.283 0.269 Table 2.—Gains Made by Lambs Docked in 1917. ' Method of Docking Knife- Hot Iron Knife Artery Seared Number of lambs in test..-. . .. . . . .. 4 8 6 6 6 5 Weighing Dates Ewes Wethers Ewes Wethers Ewes Wethers _ v (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) April 18, average weight........... 13.09 13.50 11.72 13.24 11.33 13.15 April 20, average weight . . . . . . . . . .. 13.91 13.96 12.35 13.42 11.88 13.57 April 25, average weight . . . . . . . . . . 16.44 16.12 14.20 15.98 13.66 15.58 May 2, average weight........... 17.66 19.13 16.68 18.10 16.24 18.02 May 9, average weight . . . . . . . . . . 22.38 22.67 19.46 21.19 18.62 21.52 July 9, average weight . . . . . . . . . . 43.83 46.68 45.33 48.33 39.70 41.70 Average gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . 30. 74 33.18 33. 61 35.09 28.37 28. 55 . Average daily gain (82 day test). . . . 0.375 0.404 0.410 0.428 0.346 0.348 l Table 3.—Gains Made by Lambs Docked in 1918——Test A. Me hod o’ Dmking. Hot Iron KniFe 1 . Number of lambs in test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 6 12 Weighing Dates Ewes Wethers Ewes Wethers _ _ (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) (lbs.) April 9, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.30 13.45 13.21 11.29 April 11, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.80 13.75 13.50 11.68 April 16, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.82 16.48 15.36 14.27 April 23, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.63 19.15 18.08 17.66 April 30, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.15 21.16 18.41 19.12 May 7, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.21 23.86 20.85 21.47 July 1, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.18 42.35 37.51 39.57 Average gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . .. 25.38 28.90 l 24.30 28.28 Average daily gain (83 day test) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.312 0.348 0.293 0.341 6 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Table 4.—Gains Made by Lambs Docked in 1.918-—Test B. Method of Docking. 5 Hot Iron Knife Number of lambs in test. . L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 u s s 7 Weighing Dates Ewes Wethers Ewes Wethera _ (lbl.) (lbs.) (lbag (lba.) April 23, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.67 13.70 11 . 5 12. 14 April 25, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.20 14.16 13.27 12.75 A ril 30, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.08 14.46 13.56 13.34 ay 7, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.48 16.54 14.95 15.25 May 14, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.86 18.44 17.58 17.37 May 21, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.65 20.84 20.72 19.71 July 1. average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.73 35.72 34.20 32.06 Average gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.06 22.02 22.55 19.92 Average daily gain (69 day test) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.305 0.319 0.327 0.288 Table 5.-—Gains -Made by Lambs Docked in 1919. Method of Docking Hot Iron Knife Number of lambs in test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 8 9 8 Weighing Dates Ewes Wethers Ewes Wethen _ . (lbsa (lblz " (lbsg ' (lbs; May 1, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 18. 8 19. 0 17. 0 19. 5 May 3, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.84 19.90 18.51 20.01 May 8, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .62 21.61 23.00 22.71 May 15, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.08 25.18 26.02 26.82 May 22, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.46 28.83 30.02 31 . 16 May 29, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34.57 33.01 34.82 36.81 June 5, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39.63 37.43 38.07 42.26 July 1, average weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.90 50.66 55. 10 59. 10 Average gain per lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.82 31.26 37.60 39.85 Average daily gain (61 day tet) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.59 0.51 0.62 0.65 A summary of the four years’ tests is shown in Table 6. Close examination of the docks after detailing the lambs revealed the fact that there were three outstanding conditions prevalent the second day after docking. These conditions might properly be designated as follows: - 1. Docks inflamed, swollen, and discharging. 2. Docks inflamed and discharging, but healing. 3. Healthy dry sores. 7 SEARING Inon vs. KNIFE FOR DOCKING on DETAILING LAMBS. o o o o o c 0 o 0.02 o o o M..H......mm Q62 o o 0 Q62 o o o Yaw 9: .0 c fww fiw» Q: c Q 9»... o.N c 0 0.8 06w p»; N; . . IAN 0.5 0.3 Q: c #3 0.8. N6 o m5 0.? Pa» 92 o AWE. Nhm m.» o “.2. 9: N5 o 9% 0.3 Nfim FL . . . . o 9:. 0.3 “.2 o 9Q. wem Nd o 9mm w. 2 m .5 N . . mnzwon i5 waibwno M530: i5 mfimhfio 0562 0.5 0.522» v0i0i 00.50 >20 mnmmuanu -05 72¢ ©0301 00.50 Ev wfimhwso i? was voiom 00.80 iv 0000520 +05 wan 5200i ‘In wan avzobwn >A£w0m 6% was nozoin hnfimfim 13w vcw c3330 Auhaw E V won-SIS 605223 fiOEQ-wim 605.22; 005,23» 6052i; mamxuow not: nofiafifiaxm uohwom Eofi/‘IIBEM at? uvioofi omcvw at? w0x0oO n03 00E 55/ woxvofi n0ma0n0000m E 830G .3 nmah. we uomtwcoU .300? 22 “Ea £23 .22 .22 “o b~EE=ml...u_8Q .3 =2€=¢ul.@ 20E. 4 i. 5.: £3;.l:s2.€. 4.. 441.244? .. .¢ . v / szmdvduwuhqhm‘ nfiawhmww wmw/wrrzuumma Z_ WXUOQ 020w: #01 1.5303500 I _ n 0.50m m0 w1I>m4ou£<:z_ ._ g‘ vkvo —~ .\ 3:3: OM10” Ydfi PI FJI>a>0 ouzfmz. n “ “ R § 4 54¢»: ‘ oumom Pdb TIPJ>n .3212. J ou4d°.\II.Fl->n. Q @231 Z. SEARING IRON vs. KNIFE FOR DOOKING- on DETAILING LAMBS. 9 The condition of the tails or docks at the several intervals after the docking operation is shown in percentages in Table 6. FIRST EXALIINATION OF DOCK TWVO DAYS AFTER DOCKING. Tails Seared.——The docks of 34.5 per cent. of. the lambs comprising this group Were inflamed, swollen, and discharging; 33.5 per cent. of the docks were discharging, but were not swollen; 32 per cent. of the docks showed all indications of being dry, healthy sores. Tails Removed with Kiiife.——The docks of 8.2 per cent. of the lambs comprising this group were inflamed, swollen, and discharging; 2-6.8 per cent. of the docks were discharging, but showed indications of healing, while around 65 per cent. of the docks were dry, healthy sores. Tails Removed wit/i Knife—Artery Seared.—-The docks of 11.7 per cent. of the lambs comprising this group were inflamed, swollen, and discharging; 46.8 per cent. of the docks were discharging, but healing, while 41.5 per cent. of the docks were dry, healthy sores. SECOND EXAMINATION OF DOGKS SEVEN DAYS AFTER DOGKING. Tails Sea-red.—The docks of 32.2 per cent. of the lambs comprising this group were inflamed, swollen, and discharging; 38.8 per cent. of the docks were inflamed and discharging but healing, and 29 per cent. of the docks were dry, healthy sores. Tails Removed with Kni_fe.——The docks of 3.2 per cent. of the lambs comprising this group were inflamed, swollen, and discharging; 17.5 per cent. of the docks were inflamed and discharging, but healing, while 79.3 per cent. of the docks were dry, healthy sores. Tails Removed ivith. Knife-Jlrtery Seared.—The docks of 3.3 per" cent. of the lambs comprising this group were inflamed, swollen, and discharging; 25.2 per cent. of the docks were inflamed and discharging, but healing, while 71.5 per cent. of the docks were dry, healthy sores. THIRD EXAMINATION OF DOCKS FOURTEEN DAYS AFTER DOOKING. Tails Seairred.—The docks of 1O per cent. of the lambs comprising this group were inflamed, swollen, and discharging; 39.3 per cent. of the docks were inflamed and (lischarging, but healing; 45.2 per cent. were dry, healthy" sores, while 5.5 per cent. of the docks had healed. Tails Removed illtlh Knife.—~The docks of 3.2 per cent. of the lambs comprising this group were inflamed and discharging, but healing; 48.4 per cent. of the docks were healthy, dry sores, while 48.4 per cent. of the docks had entirely healed. Tails Removed ivitlz Kaifo—Artevg/ iS'eaved.—The docks of 11.8 per cent. of the lambs comprising this group were inflamed and discharging, but healing; 50.4 per cent. of the docks were dry, healthy sores, while 37.8 per cent. of the docks had entirely healed. FOURTH EXAMINATION OF DOCKS TWENTY—ONE DAYS AFTER DOCKING. Tails Seared.—The docks of 1.2 per cent. of the lambs comprising this group were inflamed, swollen, and discharging; 13.6 per cent. of the docks were inflamed and discharging, but healing; 57.4 per cent. of the 10 - TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. docks showed dry, healthy sores, while 27.8 per cent. of the docks had entirely healed. Tails Removed with Knife.—The docks of 2 per cent. of the lambs comprising this group showed dry, healthy sores, while 98 per cent. of the docks had healed. . Tails-Removed with Knife--Artery Seared-The docks of 11.9 per cent. of the lambs comprising this group showed dry, healthy sores, while 88.1 per cent. of the docks had healed. . FIFTH EXAMINATION OF DOCKS TWENTY-EIGHT DAYS AFTER DOCKING. Tails Seared-The docksof 11.6 per cent. of the lambs comprising this group showed dry, healthy sores, while 88.4 per cent. of the docks had healed. i Tails Removed with Knife.-—The docks of all lambs comprising this group had entirely healed previously to the end of the twenty-eight-day period. — Tails Removed with Knife—Artery Seared-The docks of all lambs comprising this group had entirely healed previously to the end of the twenty-eight-day period. SIXTH EXAMINATION OF DOCKS THIRTY-FIVE DAYS AFTER DOCKING. Tails Seared-The docks of all lambs comprising this group had entirely healed, thirty-five days after docking. THE HEALING OF THE DOCK. This investigation revealed that the sores resulting from docking lambs with the hot iron were, in most instances, much uglier than when docked with the clean, sharp knife. A large percentage of the docks. of the lambs that were docked with the hot iron became severely inflamed and swollen within a few days after the docking operation, and continued to discharge for a number of days thereafter. The greater percentage of the lambs docked with the knife presented healthy sores, and it seemed that healing began almost immediately after the operation. It is very probable that in some instances the bone was not seared at the joint, in which event the tendency would be to create an uglier wound. It is a more difficult task to sever the tail at the joint when the hot iron is used than when this operation is performed with the knife. DEATHS RESULTING FROM DOCKING. In the test herein reported two cases resulted fatally. In 1917 one of the strongest and most thrifty lambs docked with the hot iron be- came paralyzed in the rear quarters. The first symptom manifested was the severe swelling of the dock. Ten days after the operation the swelling had extended well forward from the dock to the middle portion of the back, and the lamb was in an utterly helpless condition. When given assistance, it took nourishment readily and received a sutficient amount of milk daily to provide for the proper body maintenance. For anumber of days the back was massaged and the dock was washed with" the‘ various disinfectants. Various treatments were ad- ministered for about a week’s time without avail, the lamb being finally SEARING IRON vs. KNIFE FOR DOCKING on DETAILING LAMBS. 11 killed. N0 blood tests were made, hence the actual cause of this con- dition was not ascertained. ' ‘ In 1919 a strong, thrifty lamb xveighing 20.9 pounds died within a few hours after having been docked with the sharp knife. The at- tendant observed the lamb closely for several hours after docking and reported that death must have resulted from the shock received at the time of docking, since he was certain that very little blood was lost in this particular case. DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAMBS. In Table 7 are shown the average gains made by the two hundred head of female and wether lambs which were under observation during this experiment. The average period through which weight records were kept extended over eighty-one days. This table shows the com- parative gains made by the lambs docked by the different methods. Table T-Average Gains Made by Female and Wether Lambs. Method of Docking Knife Hot Iron Knife Artery Seared* Number ol lambs docked . . . . . . . . . . ‘ 45 39 45 39 22 10 S Ewes Wethers 29.30 29.36 31.46 30.40 29.02 0.361 0.376 0.362‘ 0.38s‘ 0.316‘ 0.302 ex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average gain per lamb, 81 days. . . . Ewes Wethers Ewes "Wethers ‘ 30.50 Average daily gain, lbs . . . . . . . . *C1lculati0n based on 35 1a.] period for lambs docked with knifer-artery seared. The average gain during the eighty-one-day period made by all lambs docked with the hot iron was 29.85 pounds, whilethe gain made by the lambs docked with the sharp knife averaged 30.32 pounds. It is thus shown that throughout this test the lambs docked with the sharp knife made a slightly larger gain than those docked with the hot iron. THE EFFECTS OF OASTRATION ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE WETHER LAMBS. The operations of castrating and docking were performed in a clean pen, as nearly free from dust and dirt as was possible to select. The lambs were in all instances allowed to settle down before performing these operations, in order to obviate an overheated and excited condi- tion which would have more than likely resulted with severe bleeding and possibly some fatalities. By referring to Table 7, it will be observed that the wether lambs docked with the hot iron and with the knife made greater gains than did the ewe lambs. By taking a separate average of the gains made by the wether lambs and the ewe lambs docked with the hot iron and the knife, it was found that the average daily gain made by the wethers during the eighty-one-day period was 30.98 pounds, while that made by the ewe lambs during the same period averaged 29.32 pounds; thus a difference of 1.66 pounds gain in favor of the wether lambs is shown. In tests‘ conducted in Australia it was revealed that. tFarmers Bulletin No. 67, 1913, Department of Agriculture, New South Wales, page 24. 12 TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. ’ than those docked with the hot iron. the wether lambs which were castrated at the time of docking showed: an increased gain of four to five pounds during a given period over the. ewe lambs which were docked at the same time. ‘ SUMMARY OF THE BOOKING TEST. 1. The results obtained in docking two hundred lambs indicatedg‘ that there is no advantage to be gained in docking young lambs with’. the hot iron or docking pincers. This operation can be performed more quickly with the knife, and apparently with no great danger of’, fatalities due to excessive bleeding. A ~- j 2. The lambs docked with the sharp knife healed one week sooner 3. In practically every instance the knife left a healthier, cleanerl _ wound or sore than did the hot iron. - 1f 4. Less suffering was incurred when lambs were docked with the sharp knife. _ j 5. The lambs docked with the knife made a slightly largergain. a throughout the test than did those docked with the hot iron. 6. No advantage was gained by searing the artery after docking‘; i with the knife. '7. The castration of male lambs at the time of docking revealed:- that this operation does not hinder development, since the wether lambs? showed a greater gain than did the ewe lambs. '