FEBRUARY 2020

SUMMARY: AABP ANIMAL WELFARE COMMITTEE

BRANDING WORKING GROUP ACTIVITIES
CURRENT PRACTICES/REASONS FOR BRANDING
Primary reasons for branding cattle include prevention of theft and ease of identi-
fication of cattle in open grazing situations. Cattle theft still occurs in the U.S., and
several western states have full-time livestock detectives to investigate cattle theft
and recover stolen cattle. Some pertinent data include:
OKLAHOMA According to a Reuters article, an average of 2,500–3,000
head of cattle are reported stolen annually.
TEXAS In the same article referenced above, Texas reports 3,500–4,000
head of cattle stolen each year.
COLORADO Brand laws are some of the strictest in the U.S., but still have
around 100 head of cattle reported stolen each year (Colorado Sun).
KANSAS Employs a full-time livestock detective, branding is not required.

A ABP An estimated 25–70 cattle theft incidents are reported each year (The Kansas
City Star).
MISSOURI No statistics on annual reports of cattle theft were found, but in recent
OVERVIEW years, there were several news articles reporting cattle theft ranging from one to
The American 600 head. The most recent story includes two brothers from Wisconsin who came
Association Bovine to Missouri to check on cattle missing while in a Missouri man’s care. The two
brothers were killed, their bodies burned and disposed of in various sites (https://
Practitioners (AABP) www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/missouri-farmer-charged-killing-two-wiscon-
Animal Welfare sin-brothers-cattle-business-n1070666).
Committee formed WYOMING Another state with strict brand laws, in 2018, seven cattle thefts
a working group to were reported, involving a total of 590 head (Buffalo Bulletin).
provide information on IDAHO Averages 250 reports of stolen cattle per year (Reuters).
branding practices, MONTANA Over a three-year span, 7,300 head of cattle have been
stolen (Reuters).
particularly research
on the effect of LITERATURE REVIEW
branding on animal Assessment of pain and welfare in animals is difficult because it requires interpre-
welfare, branding tation of physiological or behavioral responses and the translation of these re-
requirements of sponses back into a scale for pain and welfare. In general, opinions should not be
various states, and formed based on a single study, but on the body of knowledge and on consistency
of findings. Lay et al published three experiments[1-3] in 1992 studying the effect of
alternative methods hot-iron branding, freeze branding and sham branding (pressure with a cold brand-
of identification. ing iron). Both types of brands caused more pain compared to the sham proce-
The group was formed dure. Hot-iron branding caused more pain than freeze branding and the pain was
in June of 2019, and interpreted as more intense at time of branding while freeze branding was more
spent the last six painful after 15–30 minutes.
months gathering In 1997, Schwartzkopf-Genswein et al performed similar experiments[4-6]. The
research quantified force and duration of escape behaviors by measuring forces
information. exerted by the animal on the head gate and squeeze chute during procedures.
The group has Hot-iron branding was more painful at the time of branding than freeze branding.
summarized the Higher skin temperatures post branding were found in both hot-iron and freeze
information here, branded sites compared to control and higher temperatures in hot-iron branded
and welcomes sites versus freeze-branded sites after 144 hours, again leading to the conclusion
member feedback. that hot-iron branding causes more inflammation and thus more pain than freeze
branding. Tucker et al found that hot-iron branding wounds stayed painful for at
least eight weeks based on avoidance behavior and a single dose of flunixin does
not mitigate the pain associated with branding[7]. In a separate trial by Tucker et al,
a cooling gel applied either once or twice after branding cooled the brand but did
not improve healing[8]. A study by Melendez et al in 2018[9] compared a multitude of
outcomes between groups of two-month-old bull calves and found that castration
plus branding led to greater behavioral and physiological responses than castration
alone and was considered more painful. A subcutaneous injection of meloxicam
prior to the procedure reduced some of the pain parameters and was considered
1 effective at mitigating pain caused by branding.
 STATE BRANDING LAWS
At the federal level, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS)
Animal Disease Traceability (ADT) regulations require “official ID” for all breed-
ing animals over 18 months of age entering interstate commerce but not going
directly to slaughter [10]. Through the program, APHIS mandates that certain forms
of animal identification (i.e. specific ear tags) be recognized by all states. How-
ever, ADT regulations do not mandate whether states accept brands or tattoos
A ABP as “official” identification. Each state has different laws and regulations regarding
branding, which leaves the industry with a patchwork of various regulations that
SUMMARY: must be followed.
AABP ANIMAL Based on the working group’s research, the only state that does not recognize
WELFARE COMMITTEE a brand as an official form of animal identification is Kentucky. States that require
BRANDING WORKING branding are Arizona, New Mexico and Utah; however, all three states offer exemp-
GROUP ACTIVITIES tions from branding for certain classes of cattle. New Mexico, in particular, offers
a number of exceptions for cattle of various classes. In most states, if producers
elect to brand their cattle, they are required to register the brand with the state.
Some states merely suggest registering a brand. Additionally, to move between
states or counties, or for a change in ownership, a brand inspection is required in
about half of the states, most of them being in the western part of the country. The
term “brand inspection” is relative to each state. For example, in Oregon, a brand
inspection is equivalent to an “ownership inspection” and is required for cattle,
whether or not they are branded, when a change of ownership occurs, before
shipment out of state, before sale at auction, and before slaughter. Because of this
patchwork of regulatory requirements, it is difficult to provide specific information
for each state. If AABP members are interested in the branding requirements of a
specific state, the information can be found on the AABP website on the Animal
Welfare Committee page at https://aabp.org/members/resources/State_Brand-
ing_Laws_2020.xlsx

POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES TO BRANDING

One of the primary challenges when considering the welfare aspects of hot-iron
branding is reliance on this method of permanent identification by many producers
with extensive management systems and the requirement or recognition of brands
as official animal identification by many states, particularly in the western part of
the U.S. Several states require branding of cattle and many more have brand reg-
istries and recognize branding as the primary proof of ownership. This permanent,
visible proof of ownership is one of the primary drivers of the practice.
Producers with extensive management systems also rely upon brands as a theft
deterrent and as a method of tracing and reclaiming stray cattle. While veterinar-
ians recognize the current research establishes that hot-iron branding is indeed
painful and stressful on the animal, they also understand that clients need a viable
alternative before they will be willing or able to end this practice. To answer this
question, the working group reviewed several potential alternatives for their abil-
ity to replace branding as a permanent identification system. This review focused
upon three factors which are important for a viable method of permanent identi-
fication: permanence, visibility and traceability. An additional factor which can be
considered is pain and stress of implementation in comparison to branding, how-
ever there is very little literature available regarding pain and stress associated with
the methods outlined below.

USDA IDENTIFICATION
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) employs several permanent
identification systems which are required and recognized for USDA testing pro-
grams and official records. For many years, the USDA has pushed to build this into
a required permanent identification program for the country which would provide a
viable and recognized method of animal identification both practically and legally.
Implementation of a full traceability system that includes all cattle in the U.S. has
been blocked for many years by multiple industry and political groups. Like all tag-
2 ging methods, these would involve some pain and stress associated with handling.
METAL TAGS This is the older form of USDA identification. These tags were
either the USDA Brucellosis Eradication Program (orange) tags or the generic
silver identification tags. These tags are managed by the state USDA offices
and numbers are individual and traceable.
Permanence Semi-permanent; can still be removed
Visibility Poor; animal must be restrained to read
Traceability Good; could be better
RFID TAG The move by the USDA to build a program around Radio Frequency
Identification (RFID) tags as the primary form of permanent identification provides
some significant advantages. This move, however, has been a significant stumbling
A ABP
block for producers who do not wish to pay the higher cost of the tags, but in many SUMMARY:
production programs these tags have been adopted for their ease of use and sig- AABP ANIMAL
nificant data management advantages. WELFARE COMMITTEE
Permanence Semi-permanent, can still potentially be removed (despite BRANDING WORKING
label that reads “Should not be removed under penalty of law”) GROUP ACTIVITIES
Visibility Poor; animal must be restrained to read visibly, but easily read by
electronic readers
Traceability Good; could be a good basis for efficient traceability system
BREED TATTOO OR INDIVIDUAL NUMBER Many breed associations recognize
and register individual registration numbers which can be tattooed in an animal’s
ear. In several states these tattoos are recognized by state livestock identification
bureaus as proof of ownership. As this method uses skin puncture during the tattoo
process, it would involve a degree of pain and stress of handling.
Permanence Permanent
Visibility Poor; animal must be restrained to read; colored breeds may be
even more difficult
Traceability Good for registered breeds, less for non-registered
FLAP OR PLASTIC TAGS The primary form of identification on many farms is a
numbered ear tag which then traces back to farm records. While this system is
convenient and widely-used on farms, it would require significant work to build
it into a permanent identification system. However, it could be recognized as a
part of an identification program. One example of this is the branding alternative
offered by New Mexico for confined animals. The state uses a flap tag which has
the farm’s brand, along with the animal’s farm number, in lieu of a brand on the
animal. Like all tagging methods, this would involve some pain and stress
of handling.
Permanence Could be removed or lost
Visibility Good visibility
Traceability Currently poor, but could be used as part of permanent ID
(visible with secondary permanent)
FREEZE BRAND While freeze branding is potentially less painful than hot-iron
branding there is still concern about pain and stress associated with this method.
This method has been used on many farms for individual cattle identification and in
different species (horses) as permanent identification. One challenge with this form
of identification is that it does not work as well on light-colored hair coats. In cases
where cattle have lightly colored hair, the brand has to be left on longer to produce
alopecic areas rather than just bleaching of the coat.
Permanence Permanent
Visibility Good; except on potentially light-colored hair coats
Traceability Good; could be better
BOLUS RFID There are several RFID bolus devices which are available for on-farm
identification of animals. The advantage of this system is that the bolus is admin-
istered like a magnet and will come to rest in the animal’s digestive system. Since
this device is internal it is difficult to remove. Because it lodges in the digestive con-
tent, which is discarded when the animal is slaughtered, it should not contaminate
the food supply. The challenge associated with this method is the need to provide
an external alert to indicate the presence of the RFID device, so a paired flap tag
would be a good option. This would potentially involve some stress of handling and
discomfort during the passage of the bolus, but likely little pain. 3
 Permanence Permanent (except for surgical removal or potential passage)
Visibility Poor; essentially invisible without a paired external ID or RFID reader
Traceability Good; could be better
MICROCHIP While this form of permanent ID is widely recognized in non-food ani-
mal species it would pose a potential food safety risk in cattle. These devices could
be placed in a non-edible location, like the ear, however there would be a small
chance of migration of a microchip implant to an unapproved location. This method
A ABP would also not be visible and would benefit from a paired visible ID to denote the
presence of a microchip. This method would likely involve handling stress, particu-
SUMMARY: larly if the ear is used, as the animal would need to be well-restrained, and may
AABP ANIMAL cause a small amount of pain, as the microchip would need to be injected.
WELFARE COMMITTEE Permanence Permanent (could potentially be cut out, especially if
BRANDING WORKING located in the ear)
GROUP ACTIVITIES Visibility Poor; essentially invisible without a paired external ID or RFID reader
Traceability Good; these form the basis for permanent identification
for many other species
REFERENCES GPS NECK COLLARS AND EAR TAGS One of the emerging technologies which
1. Lay, D.C., Jr., et al., A compara-
tive physiological and behavioral could provide a significant tool for traceability of animals, especially in extensive
study of freeze and hot-iron
branding using dairy cows. J Anim management systems, is the use of GPS tracking. This technology has been used for
Sci, 1992. 70(4): p. 1121-5.
2. Lay, D.C., et al., Effects of freeze
years to follow wildlife, but traditionally has been bulky and limited in range. With
or hot-iron branding of Angus modern GPS systems, the size of devices has decreased significantly, potentially
calves on some physiological and
behavioral indicators of stress. providing a viable method of tracking cattle on extensive ranges. Currently, there are
Applied Animal Behavior Science, several forms of neck collars with trackers which can link via satellite, allowing their
1992. 33: p. 137-147.
3. Lay, D.C., Jr., et al., Behavioral use without a ground sensor. There are also several ear tags with trackers which require
and physiological effects of freeze
or hot-iron branding on crossbred a closer ground sensor to track cattle. While these technologies do not provide a form
cattle. J Anim Sci, 1992. 70(2):
p. 330-6. of permanent identification, they could be used to trace animals on extensive ranges
4. Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S.
and J.M. Stookey, The use of
to prevent strays and theft which, again, are two primary reasons cited for branding.
infrared thermography to assess The neck collar would not be associated with pain unless poorly fitted, and the ear tag
inflammation associated with hot-
iron and freeze branding in cattle. would involve similar pain and stress experience as other tagging methods.
Canadian Journal of Animal Sci- Permanence Neck collars easily removed; ear tags semi-permanent
ence, 1997. 77(4): p. 577-583.
5. Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S., Visibility Provide extensive visibility and tracking of cattle
et al., Comparison of image analy-
sis, exertion force, and behavior Traceability Good for tracking cattle; poor as a regulatory form of traceability
measurements for use in the as-
sessment of beef cattle responses BLEACHED NUMBERING One method of identification occasionally used for re-
to hot-iron and freeze branding.
J Anim Sci, 1998. 76(4): p. 972-9.
search projects is the use of hair bleaches to lighten the hair coat color and produce
6. Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S., visible numbers. This method would likely be pain-free but would not be permanent.
J.M. Stookey, and R. Welford,
Behavior of cattle during hot- Permanence Temporary
iron and freeze branding and the Visibility Good visibility
effects on subsequent handling
ease. J Anim Sci, 1997. 75(8): Traceability Poor; not as not permanent
p. 2064-72.
7. Tucker, C.B., et al., Pain sensi- COMBINATION OF METHODS Using the three criteria identified above, there is
tivity and healing of hot-iron cattle
brands. J Anim Sci, 2014. 92(12): not one method of cattle identification which provides permanence, visibility and
p. 5674-82.
8. Tucker, C.B., et al., Effect of a
traceability. However, a combination of two or more methods could provide both
cooling gel on pain sensitivity and permanence and visibility. For example, the method of combining tattoos or RFID
healing of hot-iron cattle brands. J
Anim Sci, 2014. 92(12): p. 5666-73. along with a flap tag is already available for the USDA system and for several state
9. Melendez, D.M., et al., Effect of ID systems. The only challenge is that the tags could potentially be cut out in the
subcutaneous Meloxicam on indi-
cators of acute pain and distress case of stolen cattle.
after castration and branding in
2 mo old beef calves. J Anim Sci,
2018.
10. United States Department CONCLUSION
of Agriculture Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service Animal
After reviewing the current literature, state branding laws and alternative methods
Disease Traceability Program: of identification, the AABP Branding Working Group concludes that while hot-iron
https://www.aphis.usda.gov/
aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/ branding has been associated with pain in cattle, there is no clear method of
SA_Traceability. Accessed animal identification which provides an obvious alterative to the method, meets all
February 13, 2020.
the concerns of cattle producers regarding stray cattle and cattle theft, and meets
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION the legal requirements of states which rely upon branding. Freeze branding has
OF BOVINE PRACTITIONERS consistently been shown to be less painful than hot-iron branding and, although
1130 E. Main Street, Suite 302
Ashland, Ohio 44805 not pain-free, could be recommended as an alternative until better methods be-
1-800-COW-AABP come available. At this point in time, the working group believes that the best
419-496-0685 • aabp.org alternative to avoid the pain associated with hot-iron or freeze branding is the use
email: [email protected]
of USDA RFID tags and implementation of a robust traceability program, either by
4 the producer him/herself, or through a full national animal identification program. ■