| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
ANIMAL PRODUCTION |
* Producció Animal, Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain;
and
Tracex Trazabilidad en Alimentación SL, 08228 Terrassa, Spain; and
and
Rumitag SL, 08037 Barcelona, Spain
3 Correspondence—fax: +34 93 581 1494; e-mail: gerardo.caja{at}uab.es.
A total of 557 newborn piglets were used to compare eight identification devices, including one plastic ear tag as a control (C, n = 348) and two types of electronic ear tags (E1, n = 106; and E2, n = 103), and five types of injectable transponders (n = 557): small 12-mm (D12, n = 116; and S12, n = 110), medium 23-mm (T23, n = 108), and large (32-mm, T32, n = 115; and 34-mm, S34, n = 108). Injections were made s.c. in the auricle base (n = 248) and intraperitoneally (n = 309) using a new technique. All piglets were identified with two devices, but using electronic ear tags in conjunction with injection in the auricle was avoided on the same pig. Readability of devices was checked during fattening (until 110 kg BW) and slaughtering. On-farm losses were lower for control than for electronic ear tags (C = 1.1%; E1 = 8.8%; and E2 = 44.9%; P < 0.01); the latter also suffered electronic failures (E1 = 5.5%; and E2 = 55.1%; P < 0.001). On-farm losses of transponders injected in the auricle base were greater in large (S34 = 72.5%; and T32 = 46.3%; P < 0.05) than in small transponders (S12 = 19.4%; and D12 = 17.1%), but T23 (29.8%) only differed from S34. Transponder size did not affect on-farm losses for intraperitoneal injections in which only one loss was recorded (0.4%). All ear tags had similar losses during transportation to the slaughterhouse (1.2%), but no losses were observed in injectables. Slaughtering losses did not differ between ear tags (C = 11.2%; and E1 = 6.4%), but apart from losses, 12.8% of E1 failed electronically. Injection site affected losses and breakages during slaughtering (auricle base = 6.4%; and intraperitoneal = 0%), but recovery time did not significantly differ (auricle base = 28.6 s; and intraperitoneal = 18.9 s). Transponders in the auricle base were recovered by sight (30.2%), palpation (27.4%), or by cutting (42.5%). Intraperitoneal transponders were mainly recovered loose in the abdominal cavity (81.4%), whereas 18.6% fell on the floor. As a result, traceability varied significantly (P < 0.05) between control (86.7%) and electronic ear tags (0 to 68.1%) and injectable transponders, with the auricle base (17.8 to 75.0%) having lower values than intraperitoneal (98 to 100%). Intraperitoneal injection was a very effective tool for piglet identification and traceability, ensuring the transfer of information from farm to slaughterhouse. To warrant the use of this technique in practice, transponder recovery requires further investigation.
Key Words: Ear Tag • Electronic Identification • Swine • Traceability • Transponder
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Hernandez-Jover, M. Wu, N. Schembri, P. K. Holyoake, and J-A. L. M. L. Toribio Technical note: Evaluation of the official identification system for pigs for sale in New South Wales J Anim Sci, February 1, 2008; 86(2): 472 - 475. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Schembri, F. Sithole, J. A. Toribio, M. Hernandez-Jover, and P. K. Holyoake Lifetime traceability of weaner pigs in concrete-based and deep-litter production systems in Australia J Anim Sci, November 1, 2007; 85(11): 3123 - 3130. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. F. Gosalvez, C. Santamarina, X. Averos, M. Hernandez-Jover, G. Caja, and D. Babot Traceability of extensively produced Iberian pigs using visual and electronic identification devices from farm to slaughter J Anim Sci, October 1, 2007; 85(10): 2746 - 2752. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Santamarina, M. Hernandez-Jover, D. Babot, and G. Caja Comparison of visual and electronic identification devices in pigs: Slaughterhouse performance J Anim Sci, February 1, 2007; 85(2): 497 - 502. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Babot, M. Hernandez-Jover, G. Caja, C. Santamarina, and J. J. Ghirardi Comparison of visual and electronic identification devices in pigs: On-farm performances J Anim Sci, September 1, 2006; 84(9): 2575 - 2581. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
