Research Summary - 1
Bud - in or bud - out? A randomized field trial comparing two cautery disbudding techniques on wound healing in dairy calves
| Date/Time: |
8/27/2026
17:15
|
| Author: |
Matthias J Wieland |
| Clinic: |
Cornell University |
| City, State, ZIP: |
Ithaca, NY 14853 |
M. Wieland, DVM, PhD
1
;
A. Singh, DVM, PhD
1
;
A. Grosul, BS
1
;
S. Mann, DVM, PhD
1
;
1Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853
Introduction:
Horn removal (disbudding or dehorning) is a common practice in commercial dairy farms in the United States and Canada, with approximately 94% and 95% of dairy producers disbudding or dehorning their cattle, respectively. The main techniques used for disbudding are the application of a caustic paste and hot-iron cautery disbudding. When using cautery disbudding, practitioners can leave the burnt horn bud on the scalp (BUD-IN) or manually remove it (BUD-OUT); both techniques have been documented in the literature. However, information on which technique yields the best outcomes for calves is scarce and often relies on anecdotal evidence or opinion rather than rigorous research. The objective of this study, therefore, was to compare the healing timeline and infection rate between these 2 cautery disbudding methods. We hypothesized that the 2 cautery disbudding methods would differ in pain sensitivity and wound healing characteristics.
Materials and methods:
In this randomized field study, female calves (n=222) were randomly assigned to 1 of the 2 treatment groups (BUD-IN or BUD-OUT). Prior to disbudding, all calves received a single oral dose of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug and a cornual block on each horn bud. All calves were disbudded with the same disbudding device (Portasol Dehorner III, Portasol USA). For calves in the BUD-IN group, the cauterized horn bud was retained. For calves in the BUD-OUT group, the cauterized horn bud was removed while maneuvering the dehorner in a circular motion until the horn bud could be removed with a scooping motion. The mechanical nociceptive threshold (MNT), wound diameter, and time to epithelization were assessed on a weekly basis for 8 weeks. Generalized linear mixed models were used to compare group differences in MNT and wound diameter, and Cox proportional hazard analysis to compare time to epithelization.
Results:
Mechanical nociceptive threshold did not differ between groups with LSM (95% CI) of 1.86 (1.77 – 1.94) and 1.86 (1.78 – 1.95) kgf at wk 1, and 4.03 (3.95 – 4.12) and 4.08 (4.00 – 4.17) kgf at wk 8 in the BUD-IN and BUD-OUT groups, respectively. Wound diameter did not differ between treatments with LSM (95% CI) of 14.8 (14.5 – 15.1) and 14.7 (14.4 – 15.1) mm at wk 1, and 5.3 (4.0 – 6.7) and 6.7 (4.0 – 9.4) mm at wk 8 in BUD-IN and BUD-OUT groups, respectively. Wound discharge was observed during the initial 4 wk post-disbudding. Purulent wound discharge was less common in BUD-OUT than BUD-IN, with an odds ratio (95% CI) of purulent wound discharge in BUD-OUT of 0.30 (0.20 – 0.45). Time to complete wound healing did not differ between treatments [hazard ratio (95% CI) = 1.00 (0.83 – 1.21)]. Average daily gain was not different among groups, with 822 g/d (805 – 838) for the BUD-IN and 822 g/d (805 – 838) for the BUD-OUT group.
Significance:
Under the conditions of this study, removal of the horn bud during cautery disbudding did not result in differences in pain sensitivity, time to wound healing, or growth performance compared with horn bud retention. However, horn bud removal was associated with reduced odds of early wound discharge, suggesting potential benefits for early wound management. These findings indicate that, when combined with effective analgesia, both disbudding techniques result in comparable long-term outcomes, and the selection of technique may be guided by considerations of early wound appearance and management preferences. Although clinical outcomes did not differ between techniques, practical considerations such as ease of performing the procedure may influence method selection in field conditions and should be considered in future research and recommendations.
