Welcome to vnonline.co.uk

vnonline.co.uk provides the veterinary nursing profession with the latest news and industry developments, as well as events, resources, learning materials and careers.

Our website is dedicated to veterinary nurses and we strive to provide a platform where you can voice and explore your interests.

Not a member yet? Sign up for free!

Register for free with vnonline.co.uk to gain unlimited access to news, resources, jobs and much more!



Click here to become a member






Log in to vnonline

Forgot your password?

Posted: 28th August 2012

Is branding horses the best method of identification?
New study reveals answers

Despite increasing evidence that branding foals causes the animals stress, many horse breeders still claim that this practice represents the best method for identifying the animals.

This issue has now been addressed by Jörg and Christine Aurich at the University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna. The results have just been made available online in The Veterinary Journal and may well spell the end for the traditional practice of branding horses.

There are many reasons why it is important to be able to identify farm animals, horses and small companion animals. Unique identification marks are essential for ensuring the accuracy of breeding programmes, for preventing the spread of disease and for eliminating the possibility of deceit in competitions or when animals are sold.

The traditional method of marking larger farm animals relies on branding with hot irons or on ear-tagging but this is considered inappropriate for use on dogs and cats, which are identified by the implant of a microchip. Until recently, horses were generally branded, but following concerns that the practice is unnecessarily cruel, there has been a gradual switch towards the use of microchips.

Brands on horses generally combine a symbol to indicate the particular breed with a two-digit number to identify the individual animal. To assess the readability of the markings, the researchers asked three experienced people to record the brands of about 250 horses participating in an equestrian tournament in Germany. All three testers were able to recognise the breed symbols on about 90% of the animals and for about 84% of the animals the symbol was recorded correctly by all three people. However, the situation for the two-digit numbers was dramatically different. While each of the three readers read the numbers correctly on about half of the horses, the correct number was recorded by all three of them for less than 40% of the animals.

To assess the legibility of brand marking under 'ideal' conditions, the researchers examined the markings on 28 horses that had been euthanised, in each case for reasons not related to branding. Surprisingly, the brand marks could be clearly identified on only nine of the animals, while for six horses neither the brand symbol nor the two-digit number could be worked out even after the site of branding had been shaved. This finding confirmed the unreliability of marking horses by branding.

Jörg Aurich sums up the results: "Branding is clearly associated with local tissue damage and the markings are often insufficiently clear, even by experienced observers or after the horse has died. There really isn't any reason to continue to mark horses in this outdated way."



Become a member or log in to add this story to your CPD history



Latest news | Careers | Events | Resources | Contact us | Terms and conditions | Data Protection and Privacy |Cookie policy | About us | Copyright
© 2024 Vision Media, all rights reserved. vnonline.co.uk is not responsible for the content of external websites.