Animal agriculture uses numerous methods to claim ownership over sentient beings – one of the most brutal being branding, which not only inflicts physical pain but is also an emblem of carnism.
For centuries, the branding of animals (permanently marking them for identification) has been a cornerstone of animal agriculture. While often framed as a necessary agricultural practice, marking an animal’s skin with several methods that involve causing them discomfort and pain is far more than a simple identification method. It is a potent symbol of carnism, the prevailing ideology that normalises and justifies the exploitation of animals — essentially, the opposite of veganism.
The act of branding animals dates back to ancient civilisations, with evidence suggesting its use as early as 2700 BCE in Egypt. Hieroglyphics found in Egyptian tombs depict oxen being branded. By the time of the Code of Hammurabi from ancient Babylon in Mesopotamia in 1750 BCE, branding was codified as a legal identifier of possession, embedding the notion that animals were mere things to be owned. The ancient Romans also used branding, sometimes choosing symbols believed to possess magical protective properties for the animals they farmed. In medieval Europe, it became a common method for marking ownership of cows and bulls with thick hides. The word ‘brand’ itself originates from the Old Norse “brandr”, meaning “to burn”. The primary purpose was to establish ownership and deter theft.
During the colonial expansion of European empires, branding became a widespread method in large-scale ranching, particularly in the Americas. Spanish conquistadors introduced the practice to the New World in the early 16th century, using hot iron brands to mark their cows. The practice found prominence in Spain, which had vast cow grazing regions and was later refined by the vaquero tradition in what is now the southwestern United States and northern Mexico. Branding nonhuman animals became iconic in the American West during the 19th century, when cowboys roped and branded cows on ranches. The use of branding was not confined to nonhuman animals alone. Throughout history, humans have also been branded as a mark of ownership or punishment — most notably in the context of slavery and concentration camps.
Branding still takes place in many countries today as a method of identification and traceability of farmed animals (it is also used in the vivisection industry). While the concept of branding has evolved, its fundamental purpose has remained unchanged. It is a way to mark an animal as property, a commodity within the system of animal agriculture.
Methods of Branding of Animals
Branding remains a common practice in modern animal agriculture. There are several methods used, all of which cause pain or distress to the animals involved:
- Hot-Iron Branding. The most traditional method (already used by the ancient Egyptians) involves heating an iron brand to a glowing red and pressing it into the skin of an animal —usually the hip or shoulder— burning away the hair and top layer of skin. The resulting scar forms a permanent identification mark. Typically used on cows, horses, mules, and buffaloes, this method has also been employed on sheeps and goats. Calves and colts are often branded before weaning, at approximately 3-5 months of age, as ranchers believe they are easier to handle at this stage.
The process, which can take weeks to heal, causes acute pain, with studies showing animals exhibiting clear behavioural distress: bellowing, kicking, and tail-flicking in futile resistance. In Brazil, a shocking 70.5% of farmers still rely on this archaic method, despite its known cruelty.
- Freeze Branding. This method uses liquid nitrogen or dry ice to super-cool a branding iron. It destroys the pigment-producing cells in the hair follicles, causing white hair to grow in the branded area. It still causes at least discomfort, destroys tissue, and can cause long-term skin irritation.
This method was introduced in 1966 by Dr. Keith Farrell as a supposedly “humane alternative” to hot-iron branding. As expected, some comparative studies have shown that this method causes less pain in cows than hot iron marking, but they confirm that it still causes pain. In the UK, hot iron branding has been largely phased out, but freeze branding persists.
- Ear Tagging and Notching. While not technically branding, these methods serve the same purpose of identification through bodily modification. Ear tagging involves piercing an animal’s ear with a plastic or metal tag, while ear notching removes a portion of the ear to create a permanent mark. Identification tags can be torn or lost, and the piercing itself can cause pain and infection. The mutilation of ear notching (aka earmarking) is performed with simple razors or sharp pincers. It is a painful method that can cause necrosis, parasitic infections, or torn ears. Both methods cause pain and stress, particularly in young animals.
- Tattooing. Some industries, such as pig farming, use tattooing as a form of branding. This involves puncturing the skin and applying ink, creating a permanent mark. While potentially less invasive than burning, it still involves forcefully altering the animal’s body against their will. Given that the complete immobilisation of the animal is required to be able to read the tattoos, they are often used in combination with some other kind of branding.
- Electronic branding. Although it could be argued that the term “branding” may no longer be precise if it does not involve painful procedures. “Microchipping” farmed animals, or the injecting of electronic chips under the skin, still serves the same carnist purpose of identifying sentient beings as commodities to be exploited by those who consider “owning” them. While less visibly brutal, they still treat animals as goods to be added to a business inventory. Each method reinforces the carnist belief that animals exist for humans to mark, manage, and ultimately slaughter.
Beyond the physical pain, branding can have lasting psychological effects on animals. The trauma of being forcibly restrained and often subjected to intense pain can lead to increased fear and stress responses, potentially affecting the animal’s behaviour and well-being long after the branding event.
Branding as a Sign of Carnism
Viewing branding solely as a cruel agricultural practice is to miss its deeper significance. It’s much more than that. It is the clearest physical manifestation of carnism. Each brand — be it a scalded scar or a clipped tag — is a declaration: this being belongs to us. It is a ritual of possession where marks of ownership strip individuals of autonomy. In branding, we see carnism’s core lie: animals are less than us, their pain less real, their lives less valuable.
Branding reinforces the notion that animals exist solely for human use, stripping them of their autonomy and reducing them to objects with economic value. Branding quite literally marks animals as products rather than sentient beings capable of feeling fear and pain and requiring freedom to develop a fulfilled life. The justification for branding stems from the same cognitive dissonance that allows society to perceive some nonhuman animals as family members while accepting the violent commodification of others.
The language used around branding also reveals how deeply ingrained the ideology of carnism is. Farmers speak of ‘identification’ and ‘ownership’ rather than ‘mutilation’ and ‘suffering’. The process is framed as a necessity rather than a choice, masking the inherent harm of exploitation behind a veil of normalisation. Even the idea of a commercial “brand” beyond animals has that proprietary element in it.
For vegans, this symbolism is undeniable. The bull wrestled to the ground, its flesh sizzling under a hot iron, is not just an animal in pain but a sentient creature reduced to a logo, a number, or a barcode. The farmer who brands sees the animal as a unit of production. This mindset, ingrained over millennia, has been blinding most of society until veganism came along, waking people up. Branding is not just a tool of agriculture but a propaganda of power, a reminder that carnism thrives by rendering the suffering of others invisible and replacing an identity with a sign or a number.
Policies and Regulations
Branding policies vary worldwide, with some countries implementing stricter regulations than others. In countries like the United States and Australia, branding remains a widely accepted practice, particularly in the farming of bovines. In Australia, farmed animal branding has been practised since 1866, and after 1897, “owners” were required to register their brands. This registration system continues today, with strict regulations on brand design and placement to prevent duplication and fraud.
On the other side, in the EU, animal welfare legislation has led to a decline in the use of traditional branding methods, though they are still permitted in some cases. The UK has largely moved away from hot-iron branding in favour of ear tagging, particularly for cows and sheeps. Hot branding of horses was banned in 1948 in the UK, but freeze branding is still permitted under certain conditions. Since 2021, the UK government has pushed for “Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)” ear tags for cows, a system that tracks animals digitally. Pigs, sheeps, and goats increasingly bear these tags too.
These policies, while softening the edges of brutality, do not dismantle the animal exploitation framework. Animals remain objects to be tagged and tracked, their sentience acknowledged only insofar as it is a politically correct animal welfare goal. For vegans, this is a hollow victory — replacing a hot iron with a microchip does not erase the commodification at the heart of animal agriculture.
Sign the Pledge to Be Vegan for Life: https://drove.com/.2A4o
