Hacker News Reader

Comment by zedpm | Hacker News Reader

I'm amazed that branding is being mentioned as some sort of old-time technique that's making a comeback; where I live it's always been done. I've helped brand calves before and got the impression that everyone does it. I wonder if it's just very large, corporate-type ranches that are skipping the brands.

View on HN

The article states that these were young and directly implies that they hadn't gotten to the branding bit yet. It usually occurs (as you probably know) several (often more than two~three) months after birth. Often late enough that the process is a real PITA.

I don't understand why they didn't/wouldn't brand the cattle.

In my country it's more common to use electronic tags that can be scanned to identify the owner.

It would technically be possible to switch the tags.

Not saying that this is the reason people are doing it less, but branding seems like a cruel act that should be avoided if at all possible.

Given that we're fine with castrating and killing cattle, I don't think that branding is that big a deal. And, of course, it has the benefit, as mentioned in the article, of being visible at a great distance, as opposed to requiring a handheld scanner and close contact.

I don't see the logic there. Either branding is cruel or it isn't. This issue should be decided on its own merits. Maybe castration should be done with anesthetic, or not done at all.

I read the article, my point was that you can't just ignore animal cruelty issues, or relegate their discussion to articles on artificial meat.

> Maybe castration should be done with anesthetic,

Uh, no. That's not the technique. The blood loss from your inferred surgical technique would lead to the death of the meat production device.

> or not done at all.

A testosterone filled bovine meat production device diverts its metabolic resources to typical bovine male activities, not manufacturing protein. That's no way to make a profit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com