I suppose there is a debate on relative musculatur of entire vs. castrates. Bulls do develop a shape that people would recognise as being male, however, you don't see many castrates that are the same age as this big bulls because they've already found their way onto your plate! (no meat in meat chain is over 30 months old). You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between some young castrates & bulls unless you have an experienced eye - a well bred castrate can look more bull like than a poorly bred bull! If you left a castrate to grow to same age as a bull it would also grow to a similar size though perhaps not just as big(!) but this is more dependant upon the breed of animal. Anyways, I still haven't grasped why they would castrate as a bigger, stronger meatier animal would be better - unless it is for domestication i.e. more docile. This may suggest that they were required for draft work? Mind you, who first asked the question " I wonder what will happen if we chop it's **** off"?!
The use of castrated animals for draft purposes (which ties in with the development of settled agriculture) is the obvious explanation. But I couldn't let pass, in the context of this programme, that it could also have been done for ritual purposes .... Seriously, this may well explain how anicent people learnt that castration had a beneficial behavioural effect. Surprised you haven't tried it in class, Lesley.
Re the 'up to 50%' reduction in neck and forelimb muscle in castrated animals, I got this from a review of studies into the effects of castration on cattle.
Does a 6.49 posting time mean you're a farmer Nick (in which case you've probably been up for a few hours already)?
quote:Originally posted by Steve Platt: The use of castrated animals for draft purposes (which ties in with the development of settled agriculture) is the obvious explanation. But I couldn't let pass, in the context of this programme, that it could also have been done for ritual purposes .... Seriously, this may well explain how anicent people learnt that castration had a beneficial behavioural effect.
The knowledge that castration made male animals more docile could just has easily have come from the raising of animals that had lost their testes through an accident. Ritual - bah humbug!
Peter Rowley-Conwy had this to say on the subject:
Castration lengthens bones, but it does not increase the width of the articular end (the joints). We know quite a lot about the sizes of cattle (and their bones) from the period of Northborough through work in various countries in NW Europe. The cattle seem to have been the same size in the areas round the North Sea at that time.
Measuring across the bottom end of the bone (it was a metatarsal, i.e. a footbone - the one David Beckham broke, although it looks quite different in cattle!) will tell you if it is male or female - males are larger. I had the comparative measurements with me and this came out clearly. The interesting thing about the Northborough bone was that it was complete, so I could measure length as well as width of the end. It was quite a lot longer than any of the entire bulls we know from that period but fell in the range of the bullocks. So I'm pretty confident that it was a castrate, with all that that implies for agricultural knowledge and so on. It's possible some bullocks were used for pulling primitive ploughs but we can't be certain of that from the bone (NB there were no wheeled vehicles at that time). But at all events, castration creates larger animals (hence the longer bones) carrying more meat - reason enough to do it, so long as you know what you're doing.
Yes it is counter-intuitive. As I understand it (and I am no specialist on this aspect of physiology) it is a hormonal matter. Castration delays the fusion of the epiphyses (the ends or joints of the bones) onto the diaphyses (the shafts of the leg bones), which allows them to continue growing for longer. Energy that would otherwise be expended on macho things like fighting continues to go into growing more muscle. So basically, growth continues for longer.
Well Steve, I can see I've been rumbled but that was a pretty good deduction based on my early posting time!! I have to say that yes, we do rise quite early especially at the moment as were busy lambing, so these posts are after I've been out to check/feed up and am enjoying a nice cup of tea!! As far as the castration argument goes it has obviously been of interest to me particularly the growth comments. Your last post quoted that "castration creates larger animals" - I thought there was a common concensus that intact bulls grew bigger due to hormone surge etc. It's also a bit of a generalisation becasuse different cattle will grow differently within a breed as well as the differences between breeds. As all cattle for meat have to be under 30 months at the moment you don't see castrates over this age but if you compare them to bulls of same age they are usually a bit smaller but as I say it depends on the breed. If you could compare a 5yr old bull vs a 5 yr old castrate the bull would be larger (depending on breed).It's also a strange comment to say that castrates grow more because they're not fighting - if you take a sportsman as an analogy, those that excercise for the strength sports develop much more muscle than those that laze around all day! I still don't understand the comment that the bones of bullocks grow longer. I don't see many beast carved up but will try & ask a butcher if they see this in practice.
I'm very cautious that they castrated in order to produce bigger animals - I think it was purely to domesticate them. Anyways, it's an interesting debate & thanks for the comments all!
Nick, a farmer once told me that he had become extra careful when applying the 'ring' to a ram. The reason being that if he only managed to catch one of the testies the damn thing seemed to become more randy than ever before.
A quick and easy way of reducing class size, it should have been thought of before...
Which particular Class were you thinking of, D? Upper, Middle, Working or Under?
(With the Upper Classes the small gene pool seems to be a natural castration, whilst the Under and Middle seem to opt for chemical castration and the Working Class are a victim of political castration)
I have done some research into the effects of castration on growth, and bone growth in particular. The conclusions I have reached after a literature search and extensive reading bear out the comments of Peter Rowley-Conwy about the delayed fusion of the epiphyses in castrates. If studies of maturation are analysed, it is normally possible to see a significant increase in the rate of growth around puberty, followed by fusion of the epiphyses and minimal future growth. The lack of hormone 'surge' in castrates means that this increase in rate of growth does not happen, but also that fusion of the epiphyses is not promoted and growth continues for longer. It is possible therefore that a castrated animal ends up taller than an entire animal. However, I too am sceptical that castration was carried out to increase muscle mass; I think it far more likely that it was a means of domestication.
I am interested to read nick's comments about the shape of castrates and entire bulls - nick, at what age do bulls acquire sexual maturity and the traditional 'bull' shape?
Castration - what a marvellously innocent topic to be discussing!! I'm just wondering if there is a male/female divide on the benefits of this practice!!
D - you do have to be very careful when castrating lambs, particularly to make sure you have both stones. if they haven't dropped enough to catch them we leave them a little longer to be sure. I haven't seen any difference between one stoners & two!! I would assume that as long as it has one then it will have the same urges as two!
Lesley - age of sexual maturity. A good question & I suppose there isn't a single answer. As in all (?) species it will happen to individuals at different times. You do get animals "riding" eacg other from quite an early age, ie within months but as for when they are "ready for service" as I say this varies. However, young bulls can be working propery around a year old but usually have to grow large enough to be able to physically mount. But as IO say, as with men, it varies!!
I also wonder how much potential evidence was removed by the JCBs ?
Almost certainly very little, as the site had not been disturbed by ploughing, so there would have been little evidence from the causewayed enclosure in the layers removed by machine.
Evidence relating to the enclosure perhaphs, but what about later periods, Roman for instance ?
The Roman remains would have been similarly well preserved had there been any in the trenches. As it was, all that was Roman in date was some limited evidence for the spreading of the bank of Car Dyke
Talking to a digger friend, I understand it's a big no no to machine through any archaeological layers as they did with the causewayed enclosure. Still, with only 3 days I expect many corners are cut.
quote:Originally posted by digger's girl: Talking to a digger friend, I understand it's a big no no to machine through any archaeological layers as they did with the causewayed enclosure. Still, with only 3 days I expect many corners are cut.
Why do you think that any archaeological layers were machined through?
Whilst what you say is true as a general rule of thumb, on an evaluation it is sometimes necessary to use a machine to establish the depsth of the deposits on a site
Reasons for castration. 1)Selective Breeding. You leave your best bull complete, but remove the dangly bits off other young males. 2) Health and Safety. If your young bulls are away ravishing your neighbours cattle, he's likely to come over and pillage your household a little. 3) Meat production. You need your cattle to fatten quickly in the summer months off grazing. Winter feed would have been more scarce, so you need your cattle to be in good condition in the Autumn ready for the Winter. Castrated animals flesh out more easily and lay down a layer of fat quicker than entires. 4)Work animals. It would have ben far easier to plough etc with a bullock than a bull, which would have been more concerned about where the nearest bunch of cows were. Racehorses are often gelded today "just to keep their mind on the job."
ps,it would have been the ultimate in fresh meat. While your were eating your sweetbreads, your steer would still be out grazing.
