Limited Effects of Pain Control Treatments on Behaviour and Weight Gain of Pure and Crossbred Nellore Heifer Calves When Subjected to Hot-Iron Branding

Abstract

Hot-iron branding is still commonly performed in cattle farming in tropical countries, and possibly has negative consequences for animal welfare and weight gain. This study examined the behavioural and weight gain responses of pure and crossbred Nellore heifer calves subjected to hot-iron branding on the cheek, without and with use of anaesthesia and analgesia. Ninety-two heifer calves, around 120 days old, were studied prospectively when subjected to hot-iron branding on the cheek (a statutory procedure in Brazil following brucellosis vaccination). Four randomly selected groups of calves were allocated to four treatments: no pain control (CO); subcutaneous anaesthetic local block (LA); intramuscular analgesia (meloxicam) (LT); and local anaesthesia plus meloxicam (LL). Behaviour, flight speed and body weight were evaluated before, during, and five (5-d) and 60 days (60-d) after branding. For these parameters, the only difference observed was higher tension in the CO group 5-d post-branding, suggesting a short-term negative effect of branding without pain control. The limited effects of the pain control treatments suggest interference in pain assessment by other factors, such as expression of fear and stress. Despite the lack of differences observed in behaviour and production parameters, facial hot-iron branding is an obvious welfare issue and, due to the additional handling involved, adoption of a simple pain relief protocol is not sufficient to minimise the welfare impact.

Hot Iron Branding of Beef Cattle: Process Characterization, Implications for Animal Welfare, and Its Efficiency for Cattle Individual Identification

“…The use of anesthetics is not a reality in routine management on Brazilian beef cattle farms, so the practice of hot iron branding, among others, negatively affects animal welfare, compromising aspects of the physical domains of health and behavior and, consequently, the mental domain [18]. Besides being painful and the limited effect of pain control on reducing it [6], HIB can also be unpleasant for the people involved in its management [19]. Such conditions, combined with the low efficiency in reading the hot iron mark and the longer time spent reading and transcribing cattle identification to the farm database, lead us to recommend reducing its use.…”

“…Besides the negative effect on the animals, cattle handling for hot iron branding also represents a risk for workers [6] due to the discomfort caused by the smoke resulting from the burning of the animal's hair and skin. Moreover, human well-being is compromised by the extra heat and noise generated by the propane branding iron heaters, with an associated increase in the risk of labor accidents.…”