Branding Practices on Four Dairies in Kantale, Sri Lanka

Abstract

Simple SummaryBranding cattle with hot irons is a painful procedure, inflicting severe burns that take weeks to heal. Although Sri Lanka prohibits hot-iron branding, the practice is still common in some areas of the country but has not been described. We observed branding practices on four smallholder farms and identified welfare concerns and challenges impeding adoption of alternative methods of identification, such as ear tags. Farmers used multiple irons to mark their initials and, in some cases, their address, with the largest brands extending across the ribs and hip. Farmers did not consider ear tags a viable alternative to hot-iron branding because of issues with security and tag retention. Hot-iron branding raises serious animal welfare concerns and efforts to introduce more welfare-friendly alternatives are needed.AbstractHot-iron branding is illegal in Sri Lanka, but is still commonly used to identify dairy herds in extensive farming systems, which are primarily located in the country’s Dry Zone. Despite the negative welfare implications of this practice, there is no written documentation of branding in this region. We observed branding on four smallholder farms in Kantale, Eastern Province to understand the welfare implications associated with the procedure and challenges limiting the uptake of more welfare-friendly alternatives, such as ear tagging. Areas of welfare concern included the duration of restraint, the size and location of the brand, and the absence of pain relief. Animals were restrained with rope for an average duration of 12 min (range 8–17 min). Farmers used multiple running irons to mark their initials and, in some cases, their address, with the largest brands extending across the ribs and hip. Three farmers applied coconut or neem oil topically to the brand after performing the procedure. No analgesics were given before or after branding. Farmers reported that poor ear tag retention in extensive systems and theft were the main factors impeding the uptake of alternative forms of identification. Branding is also practiced as part of traditional medicine in some cases. Given the clear evidence that hot-iron branding impairs animal welfare and there is no evidence that this can be improved, alternative identification methods are needed, both in Sri Lanka, as well as in other countries engaging in this practice.

Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia. Part 2: Categorisation and Scoring of Welfare Assessment Measures

“…With regards to painful management procedures, unlike castration and disbudding that can be performed at an early age (<2 months) and with anaesthesia to mitigate pain [37], the downside of branding early is that the brand becomes unreadable with time in adult cattle. Rebranding is a permissible requirement for cattle trading in Namibia [38], but the practice of multiple brands requires longer restraining of animals and causes more wounds on any part of the animals' body [39]. Farms with only the initial brand were given a marginal score of welfare, while the extraneous brands/cuts (to mitigate the risk of stock theft) were regarded more extreme and indicated a poor welfare score.…”

“…However, the imposed threshold of >5% of cattle in a herd with this trait (also close to the orange threshold of 3% and 4% at the villages) was retained as reasonable to bring awareness to these painful practices. Hence, the mounting scientific evidence that relates hot-iron branding to the welfare compromise of cattle [40][41][42] could guide Namibia to abolish hot-iron branding and join many countries that are increasingly prohibiting this practice [39]. Alternatively, the country could opt for microchipping for identification, or freeze branding or the use of cooling gel to reduce pain sensitivity and aid in faster brand wound healing [40][41][42].…”

Assessing Extensive Semi-Arid Rangeland Beef Cow-Calf Welfare in Namibia. Part 2: Categorisation and scoring of welfare assessment measures

“…With regards to painful management procedures, unlike castration and disbudding that can be performed at an early age (<2months) and with anaesthesia to mitigate pain [35], the downside of branding early is that the brand becomes unreadable with time in adult cattle. Rebranding is a permissible requirement for cattle trading in Namibia [36] but the practice of multiple brands requires longer restraining of animals and causes more wounds on any part of the animals' body [37]. Farms with only the initial brand were given a marginal score of welfare, while the extraneous brands/cuts (to mitigate the risk of stock theft) were regarded more extreme and indicated a poor welfare score.…”

“…However, the imposed threshold of > 5% of cattle in a herd with this trait (also close to the orange threshold of 3% and 4% at the villages) was retained as reasonable to bring awareness to these painful practices. Hence, the mounting scientific evidence that relates hot-iron branding to the welfare compromise of cattle [38][39][40] could guide Namibia to abolish hot-iron branding and join many countries that are increasingly prohibiting this practice [37]. To this end, mitigating strategies for stock theft along with awareness of compromising welfare practices (e.g.…”

Evaluation of Deep Learning for Automatic Multi-View Face Detection in Cattle

“…Classical livestock identification techniques, such as ear notching [10], ear tattooing [11], hot iron branding [12], and ear tags [13][14][15][16], is subject to equipment loss, duplication, fraud, animal welfare security, monitoring cost, and distance challenges. Instead, based on biometric traits, non-contact identification is a new trend in livestock identification due to its uniqueness, invariance, low cost and easy operation, and high animal welfare.…”