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

Ruminants Pub Date : 2024-04-09 DOI:10.3390/ruminants4020013

Jaira de Oliveira, Joseph Grajales-Cedeño, Mariana Parra Cerezo, T. Valente, M. P. D. Paranhos da Costa

{"title":"Hot Iron Branding of Beef Cattle: Process Characterization, Implications for Animal Welfare, and Its Efficiency for Cattle Individual Identification","authors":"Jaira de Oliveira, Joseph Grajales-Cedeño, Mariana Parra Cerezo, T. Valente, M. P. D. Paranhos da Costa","doi":"10.3390/ruminants4020013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed to characterize the hot iron branding (HIB) procedure by assessing its implications for animal welfare and its efficiency for cattle identification. The study was carried out in two stages: First, with 37 Nellore calves, by measuring the skin temperatures in the place of HIB application (ONB) and 10 cm above it (OFFB) immediately after its application and during four consecutive days, the time required for application of each HIB digit and the occurrences of rebranding; second, with two batches of cows (N = 97 and N = 94, respectively, by measuring the time spent to read cattle ID and comparing the efficiency of HIB vs. EET (electronic ear tag) and visual ear tags (VET) vs. EET. Skin temperature was significantly affected by the interaction between the place where the skin temperatures were taken (on and 10 cm above the HIB) and assessment day, with temperatures in ONB on days d0 and d2 being higher than in OFFB (p < 0.05), and 86% of the calves required at least one rebranding. EET reading was faster than HIB and VET (p < 0.001), and fewer errors were made when reading EET than HIB (1/97 vs. 17/97) and VET (2/94 vs. 12/94). We concluded that HIB potentially compromises cattle welfare and has a lower efficiency for cattle identification than EET and VET.","PeriodicalId":508508,"journal":{"name":"Ruminants","volume":"49 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ruminants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ruminants4020013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to characterize the hot iron branding (HIB) procedure by assessing its implications for animal welfare and its efficiency for cattle identification. The study was carried out in two stages: First, with 37 Nellore calves, by measuring the skin temperatures in the place of HIB application (ONB) and 10 cm above it (OFFB) immediately after its application and during four consecutive days, the time required for application of each HIB digit and the occurrences of rebranding; second, with two batches of cows (N = 97 and N = 94, respectively, by measuring the time spent to read cattle ID and comparing the efficiency of HIB vs. EET (electronic ear tag) and visual ear tags (VET) vs. EET. Skin temperature was significantly affected by the interaction between the place where the skin temperatures were taken (on and 10 cm above the HIB) and assessment day, with temperatures in ONB on days d0 and d2 being higher than in OFFB (p < 0.05), and 86% of the calves required at least one rebranding. EET reading was faster than HIB and VET (p < 0.001), and fewer errors were made when reading EET than HIB (1/97 vs. 17/97) and VET (2/94 vs. 12/94). We concluded that HIB potentially compromises cattle welfare and has a lower efficiency for cattle identification than EET and VET.

查看原文本刊更多论文

肉牛的热铁烙印：工艺特征、对动物福利的影响及其对牛个体识别的效率

本研究旨在通过评估热烙铁（HIB）烙印程序对动物福利的影响及其识别牛只的效率，确定热烙铁烙印程序的特点。研究分两个阶段进行：首先，研究对象是 37 头内洛尔犊牛，方法是测量烙铁熨烫处（ONB）和烙铁熨烫处上方 10 厘米处（OFFB）在烙铁熨烫后立即和连续四天内的皮肤温度、烙铁熨烫每个数字所需的时间以及重新烙印的发生率；其次，研究对象是两批奶牛（分别为 97 头和 94 头），方法是测量读取牛标识所需的时间，并比较烙铁熨烫与电子耳标（EET）和可视耳标（VET）与电子耳标的效率。采集皮温的地点（HIB上和HIB上方10厘米处）与评估日之间的交互作用对皮温有明显影响，第0天和第2天ONB的皮温高于OFFB（p < 0.05），86%的犊牛至少需要重新标记一次。EET 读数比 HIB 和 VET 更快（p < 0.001），EET 读数的错误率比 HIB（1/97 对 17/97）和 VET（2/94 对 12/94）更低。我们的结论是，与 EET 和 VET 相比，HIB 可能会损害牛的福利，而且识别牛的效率较低。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Ruminants

自引率

0.00%

发文量