| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
SPECIAL TOPICS |
Grup de Recerca en Remugants, Departament de Ciencia Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterials and MethodsResults and DiscussionImplicationsLiterature Cited |
|---|
2.48 and 4.64. The EID was the most expensive strategy (4.47 to 4.64) for all implementation options. Cost of CID and MID strategies ranged from 2.63 to 2.98 and from 2.48 to 3.03, respectively. The model was submitted to a sensitivity analysis without considering extra benefits of sheep and goat identification. Critical values for which the cost of MID equaled CID depended on strategy and option, and ranged from 7.5 to 11.5% for ear tag losses and from 1.80 to 3.30 for bolus price. In conclusion, the use of a mixed strategy combining conventional ear tags (animals intended for slaughter) and electronic boluses (breeding stock) seems to be an affordable strategy that fulfills the European Commission regulation requirements for the identification of sheep and goats in Spain. Price reductions for devices and equipment would make the full electronic identification strategy less expensive in the future.
Key Words: Animal Identification • Bolus • Cost Analysis • Ear Tag • Electronic Identification
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResults and DiscussionImplicationsLiterature Cited |
|---|
A new European Commission EC 21/2004 regulation (EC, 2004
) has been published that makes the identification and registration of all sheep and goats born in the EU after July 9, 2005, mandatory. The regulation adopts a double identification based on ear tags, but, given the size of the EU sheep and goat population (more than 100 million) and the results of previous research (Caja et al., 1994; Caja and Conill, 2000; Ribó et al., 2003), it also states that electronic devices must be used in countries with more than 600,000 sheep and goats after the first of January 2008.
A result of the regulation implementation is the increase of production costs, although no estimates are available. Cost analyses of different identification systems were done for pigs in Belgium (Saatkamp et al., 1997) and cattle in the United States (Disney et al., 2001). In the vertically integrated Belgian swine industry, the expected economic benefits did not justify the investment in electronic identification. On the contrary, improved levels of identification provided sufficient economic benefits for the bovine sector in the United States. The Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA, 2003) published a preliminary cost study of the implementation of EC 21/2004 in the United Kingdom and concluded that the use of electronic identification has a lower cost than conventional systems.
The aim of this work was to evaluate the cost of implementing the EC 21/2004 regulation for the identification and registration of sheep and goats in Spain, and also to assess a wide range of implementation strategies based on the use of conventional and electronic identification.
|
Materials and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResults and DiscussionImplicationsLiterature Cited |
|---|
, corresponding to the breeding stock and the animals slaughtered in Spain during 2000. A replacement rate of 15.4% (average sheep and goat life span 6.5 yr), a perinatal mortality rate of 6%, and a mortality rate for adult animals of 5% were estimated in accordance with information from Spain and international sheep and goat reports (Binns et al., 2002; Walton, 2002). As a consequence, the total number of lambs and kids born during 2000 was estimated at 26,777,114. Of these, 3,522,602 animals were considered to be for breeding and the rest for slaughtering before 6 mo of age. The total number of sheep and goat farms in Spain in 1999 was 181,725, of which 175,946 had breeding stock (INE, 2002). The total number of abattoirs (homologated by the EU and local abattoirs) was 408 estimated from official data (MAPA, 2003).
|
From the different identification systems allowed by the EC 21/2004 regulation for sheep and goats, the double tagging of all animals born after a given date was chosen for Spain. This option aimed to maximize the traceability of animals and meat, and consisted of three different strategies. First, conventional identification (CID) of all animals with a pair of officially approved ear tags printed with an individual animal code, according to Annex A of the EC 21/2004 regulation. Smaller and cheaper ear tags (tip tag type), only printed with the country code and the farm code of birth, were considered for young lambs and kids intended for slaughter. Second, electronic identification (EID) of all animals using one electronic bolus with an International Standardization Organization (ISO) animal code and one conventional plastic ear tag printed with an individual animal code. Third, a mixed CID and EID strategy (MID), using CID for all the animals intended for slaughter and EID for all the breeding stock.
Characteristics of the Identification Devices
The plastic ear tags differed according to animal use and farmer preferences. Officially approved and nonreusable ear tags have a tamper-proof locking system. There are two flaps made of polyurethane that are laser printed in both male and female pieces with the two-letter ISO 3166 code for Spain (i.e., ES) and a unique individual serial code (12 digits). Currently, the tags cost 0.30 on the Spanish market.
For lambs and kids intended for slaughter at typical Spanish harvesting weights (<30 kg BW), smaller and cheaper (0.15) primary or direct-to-slaughter plastic ear tags (closed tip tag or button tag type) were chosen. This ear tag is only printed with the country code and the identification code of the farm of birth in the CID and MID strategies, or with the country code (i.e. ES) and the unique 12 digits individual serial code in the EID strategy.
The electronic bolus consisted of a ceramic capsule containing a 32-mm ISO transponder, produced according to The European Community et al. (1997) and Caja et al. (2001) patents, and certified by the "Tempest" laboratory of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (Korn, 2004). This bolus was used in Spain and in other countries in the EU IDEA project (Ribó et al., 2003; San Miguel et al., 2004) and was readable from a distance and with animals in movement. According to the ISO 11784 modified standard in 2004, the electronic identification code of the electronic boluses contained a retagging counter (one digit), a species code (two digits), the ISO 3166 four-digit code for Spain (i.e., 0724), and the unique 12-digit individual serial code. Current price on the Spanish market is 2.2.
Simplified Option for Young Animals Intended for Slaughter
Article 4 (3) of the EC 21/2004 regulation authorized the use of a simplified method of identification for animals intended for slaughter before the age of 12 mo and not intended for intra-EU trade or for export to third countries. This simplified method consists of one tamperproof and nonreusable ear tag, approved by the appropriate authority, containing at least the two-letter country code (ISO 3166) and the code of the farm of birth.
Most Spanish lambs and kids are slaughtered before 4 mo of age (MAPA, 2002b) and could be identified according to this simplified method before leaving the farm on which they were born. This minimal option would be preferred by the farms selling the animals directly for slaughtering and will be included in the discussion of CID and MID strategies.
Option to Decrease the Reidentification Costs with the Use of Electronic Identification
For the EID and MID strategies, an implementation option was proposed considering the use of two conventional ear tags, as well as the bolus, at the initial identification of the breeding stock animals in order to decrease the reidentification costs. Thus, if one ear tag is lost, no reidentification will be necessary, whereas if both ear tags are lost, a double reidentification will be performed. Estimated annual losses of both ear tags for an average annual rate of 10% (1% annual losses of both ear tags) and a life span of 6.5 yr was 3.1%.
Cost Model
The cost model buildup consisted of a Microsoft Excel 2000 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) spreadsheet, which calculated the total annual cost and the annual cost per animal identified for the national implementation of three different identification and registration systems for sheep and goats in the above-defined Spanish scenario. The cost components included in the model are described in subsequent sections.
Identification and Reidentification Device Costs.
Besides the cost differences according to type of device, prices varied between identification and reidentification devices as a consequence of the specific logistic required in each case. The price of the reidentification device for replacement animals, in all strategies, was tripled, and then 2.5 was added to cover the costs of recording the device with the same code as the original and of sending the new device to the farms (Table 2).
|
, 1999; Conill et al., 2002). Metal ear tags and electronic ear tags were not considered for sheep and goats in this study due to the suppurative injuries in sheep in Scotland (12%) reported by Hosie (1995), and in sheep and goats in The Netherlands (10 to 50%) reported by Heeres and Hogerwerf (2003). An extension report published on conventional ear tags in cattle (Curtis, 2002) in the United Kingdom showed 18.1% losses on average (range = 0.6 to 45%) and clear differences between manufacturers. More losses are normally expected in sheep and goat than in cattle because of the relatively greater weight of the ear tag used for sheep and goats and their lower ear tissue consistency. As a consequence, ear tag loss was considered to be a key factor in the sensitivity analysis of our model. For the electronic ceramic boluses, the average rate of losses used in the model (0.3%) agrees with Caja et al. (1997, 1999) and the results of the European IDEA Project in sheep (Ribó et al., 2003; San Miguel et al., 2004). A new type of recently developed bolus will be used to reach a similar retention rate in goats (J. Capote, unpublished data).
For animals intended for slaughter in CID and MID strategies, as no individual code is required by the EU Regulation, the ear tag cost for reidentification was assumed to be the same (0.15) as for the initial identification. Farmers will use their own stock of ear tags with the same farm code in this case. With the aim of decreasing the reidentification cost, a similar procedure was considered when one ear tag of the animals intended for slaughter was lost (the retention of the bolus was assumed) in the EID strategy.
Labor Cost of Identification, Registration, and Reidentification.
Operational times and labor price used to calculate the initial identification and reidentification labor costs are shown in Table 2
. Although trained operators are required for the EID identification, no differences were considered in operational time and labor price between farmers and technicians for the conventional and electronic identification.
In the case of the simplified option for young animals intended for slaughter, the operational times reported in Table 2, for initial identification and registration, reidentification, and recovery of devices, were decreased by 10% (exclusively for fattening animals). Moreover, an increase of 10% also was assumed for the same cost components in the option to decrease the reidentification costs (exclusively for electronically identified animals).
Movement Reading Registration Costs.
This cost component evaluated the tasks required for the reading, recording, and registration of all the movements or readings of each animal for one year. Movement readings included the following: departure from a farm and arrival at a different farm, arrival at the slaughterhouse, reading before evisceration (for the EID and the breeding stock in MID strategies), and one annual inventory of the breeding stock present on the farm. Number of movement readings per animal and year are shown in Table 3. No differences in operational time or labor price were considered between farmers and technicians (Table 2), as indicated above. Handheld reading was supposed for all on-farm readings, except for the annual inventory, which was supposed to be dynamic. Dynamic reading also was considered in all the abattoir readings.
|
). This number included 20,989,735 movements between farms and 22,452,628 movements from farms to abattoirs, according to the animal trade movements in Spain (MAPA, 2002a), and the same number (22,452,628) for the readings done at device recovery on the slaughter line. For the EID strategy and for breeding stock in the MID strategy, a second reading on the slaughter line (before evisceration) was included. Finally, a total of 23,509,685 readings corresponding to one annual inventory in the farms was added.
Recovery and Reading of the Devices in the Abattoir.
With the aim of finalizing the database update for each animal and to enable the traceability of the slaughtered animals, the reading and recording of all conventional and electronic identification devices were included after manual recovery, as indicated above. Values used to calculate this cost component are shown in Tables 2 and 3.
Time estimated for recovery and registration of animals younger than 6 mo of age and intended for slaughter in the CID and MID strategies was the shortest (identified by batch; 0.07 min/animal). On the other hand, more time was required for the recovery and registration of the devices in the breeding stock in the CID and MID strategies (1.0 and 0.67 min/animal, respectively) because the reading and recording were manual in the CID strategy, and because it was necessary to recover the bolus in the MID strategy (Table 2).
Database Implementation and Maintenance Costs.
The cost of building, running, and maintaining of a national database for sheep and goats in Spain has been estimated to be the same as the "Simogan" cattle database currently in use, which corresponds to a total of 46,000,000 over a 6.5-yr period (NoticiasInfoagro, 2003). As a result, the annual cost for the database implementation and maintenance in the model was estimated at 0.15 per animal registered.
Equipment Costs.
The number of units required, and unitary prices and specific amortization period of all equipment used for the identification and recording of the sheep and goats in the project are shown in Table 4. Although the use of a personal computer was considered necessary for data management in all identification strategies, only the cost of one shared computer for every 50 farms was included in the model. Use of information technology is currently low in Spanish sheep and goat farms and, in most cases, it is used by consultants, technicians (cooperatives, breeders associations, etc.), and veterinary practitioners (official and private animal health services). Recent data from the National Animal Health Monitoring System in the United States indicates that only 10.2% of sheep farm operations use computerized registration (Walton, 2002). Similarly, only one shared stationary reader for every 50 farms was considered to be sufficient for EID under the current Spanish conditions, allowing six uses per farm for 300 working days in the year. For manual equipment (ear tag pliers, bolus gun, and hand-held readers), one unit per farm was considered necessary.
|
An analysis of sensitivity was performed to evaluate the effects of the changes in ear tag losses rate and price of bolus, which are considered to be key variation factors of the model, on the total cost of the different implementation strategies and simplification options. Changes were performed separately, maintaining all other parameters constant as indicated by Kosgey et al. (2004) for the economic values of breeding objectives in sheep.
|
Results and Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResults and DiscussionImplicationsLiterature Cited |
|---|
. A breakdown of the attributable costs for the fattening and breeding stock in the MID strategy also has been included. This implementation option, considered to be a complete application of the EC regulation, was simplified by adopting the exception referred to in Article 4 (3), allowing the use of only one ear tag with the country and farm codes for animals intended for slaughter before the age of 12 mo. The resulting costs are reported in Table 6.
|
|
and 8.
|
|
66.3 to 124.1 million, with EID being the most expensive (Table 5) and MID the cheapest (Table 8) strategy. Corresponding cost per animal identified varied between 2.48 and 4.64, indicating that electronic technology can now offer a cost competitive solution for the breeding stock of sheep and goats in Spain (Table 9).
|
Results in Table 5 show that with the CID strategy, the labor-related components represented 51.6% of the total cost. Of these components, the labor cost of identification, reidentification, and registration represented more than half of the labor cost (34.8%), followed by movement reading and registration (15.9%). Labor required for the initial identification and registration represented 27.2% of the costs, and the reidentification labor represented 7.6% (data not shown). As animals intended for slaughter (younger than 6 mo of age) were identified by batch, the recovery cost of the identification device (due to cutting and collection of the ear tags) and registration (as a batch number) in the slaughterhouse was very low (0.9% of total cost).
The second significant cost was the acquisition of the reidentification devices (24.1%). This was due to the greater price (3.4) of the ear tags used for the reidentification of breeding stock with the same previously assigned identification code (individually printed and dispatched in small groups), according to the mandatory procedures of Regulation EC 21/2004, and to the rate of annual losses used in the calculations (10%).
As expected, the lower cost of the CID strategy corresponded to the acquisition of initial identification ear tags (11.5%) and equipment amortization (3.9%). Database cost was estimated to be approximately 7.1 million (8.9%), which was greater than expected compared with the value reported in other studies. The DEFRA (2003) estimates that nearly 3.05 million (set-up cost) plus 1.16 million (annual running cost) would be necessary for the identification and registration of sheep and goats in the United Kingdom, giving an annual cost of 1.8 million when estimated as in our model (5-yr amortization period).
When a simplified identification method is considered for lambs, according to the exception referred to in Article 4 (3) of the EU regulation for young animals (<12 mo), the model estimates for total costs were 70.4 million and 2.63/animal identified (Table 6). Calculated annual savings were 9.3 million and 0.35/animal identified (11.7%) compared with not using the simplified system for young slaughter animals. These savings were mainly due to the decrease in the identification (devices) and reidentification costs (devices and labor).
Electronic Identification Strategy Costs
For the complete option (Table 5), initial cost of the identification devices was the greatest source of total costs (51.2%) due to the high price of the electronic identification device (2.2). Moreover, the use of EID requires specific and high-priced reading equipment (16.4% in our case), totaling 67.6% of the EID cost. The use of EID allowed for an automatic reading and recording of movements, the cost of which represented 2.0% of and which decreased dramatically the labor costs estimated for this strategy (17.8%). In contrast, the cost of recovery and reading of electronic devices in the abattoir increased (3.6%) compared with CID because of the manual retrieval of the boluses in the slaughterhouse offal plant. An automatic retriever will be necessary to decrease this cost component in practice. As with the CID strategy, the annual cost of the EID database was estimated to be approximately 7.1 million (5.7%).
The cost of the reidentification devices was lower in the EID than in the CID strategy (8.9 vs. 24.1%) as a result of the low annual losses of electronic devices, which was estimated at 0.3% (Caja et al., 1999; Ribó et al., 2003; San Miguel et al., 2004). Nevertheless, the decrease in reidentification costs was impaired by the use of a double system as required by EC 21/2004 (one ear tag and one electronic device), in which ear tags have greater losses than boluses. As a result of the changes introduced by the proposed double ear tagging option, the total cost of the EID strategy was decreased to 119.8 million (Table 7), representing a saving of 3.7% (4.4 million or 0.17/animal identified) compared with values in Table 5. Despite the increase of the initial identification costs (devices = 64.6 million, and labor = 13.3 million; data not shown), they were compensated by the decrease of reidentification costs (devices = 4.8 million, and labor = 2.0 million; data not shown) as a consequence of the lower rate of losses for both ear tags simultaneously (3.1 vs. 10%). When expressed as total cost per animal identified the value for the modified EID strategy was 4.47.
Mixed Conventional and Electronic Identification Strategy Costs
The labor-related components of the MID strategy made up 33.6% of costs, being the most important cost component as in the CID strategy (Table 5). Of these, labor costs associated with identification, reidentification, and registration were the greatest (30.5%). Labor required for the initial identification and registration represented 25.0% (data not shown) of all costs. The labor cost of movement reading and registration was 2.3% as a consequence of the high percentage of fattening animals in the Spanish scenario (86%), which would be tagged by batch. The recovery cost of the identification device remained very low (0.8%).
Other significant costs were the amortization of equipment (24.5%) required for the reading of electronic boluses, and the acquisition of initial (20.0%) and re-identification (13.2%) devices. The annual cost of the MID database (Table 5) was estimated to be the same as for the CID and EID strategies, in this case representing 8.7% of total costs.
When the simplified identification method was considered for lambs (Table 6), the total cost value estimated by the model was 72.2 million (2.70/animal identified). Annual saving for this simplified option compared with the complete strategy presented in Table 5 was 10.9% (9.0 million and 0.33/animal identified) as a consequence of the decrease in the costs of devices and labor for identification and reidentification.
If the implementation option of applying two ear tags as well as the bolus is considered (Table 7), the total cost of the MID strategy was decreased to 75.3 million, representing a savings of 7.3% (5.9 million) compared with values in Table 5. The unitary cost of this optional MID strategy was 2.81/animal identified. Savings for CID and EID were 0.17 and 1.83 compared with reference values reported in Table 5. Moreover, when this strategy was joined with the exception referred to in Article 4 (3) of the regulation (Table 8), the MID total costs were decreased to 66.3 million or 2.48/animal identified, making it the least expensive strategy of all those considered in the study.
Comparison of Different Strategies
A summarizing comparison of the annual cost per animal identified for all strategies and implementation options analyzed in the model is shown in Table 9. Although EID was in all cases the most expensive strategy when applied for all sheep and goats in Spain (4.47 to 4.64/animal identified), the MID strategy combined the advantages of EID and CID in breeding and fattening stocks, respectively. As a result, MID was the least expensive option (2.48/animal identified) when the implementation option agreed with the exception of Article 4 (3) and the double initial ear tagging of breeding stock.
A similar simulation previously done by DEFRA (2003) to estimate the effect of regulation EC 21/2004, gives an annual cost of 9.09 and 6.01 per animal identified for CID and EID, respectively, in the British sheep and goat situation (animals, 18.2 million; ear tag lifetime losses, 10%; and, electronic devices losses, 3%) and current prices (conventional ear tags = 0.6; electronic device = 2.8).
Our values also were lower than the forecast made in the 1995 for a simulated large-scale sheep EID project in the EU (5.43/yr; Caja et al., 1998). All of these values are included in the range of EID annual costs calculated by partners participating in the IDEA Project (Cuypers et al., 1996), which averaged 10.25/animal (range = 3.9 to 16.6/animal) given a price of 3 for the electronic device.
It is important to stress that these analyses did not include the costs (and benefits) associated with programs of disease control and performance recording. In these cases, additional costs will result as a consequence of a greater number of readings per animal, increasing the advantages of the strategies using electronic identification.
Effect of Rate of Ear Tag Losses on the Cost of Conventional Identification Strategy
The cost model was used to perform a sensitivity analysis to estimate the critical rate of ear tag losses for which the annual cost of EID and MID equals the CID annual cost. Extreme annual cost values obtained for the different identification strategies and implementation options are summarized in Figure 1. As shown, CID was the most sensitive strategy to ear tag loss rate, showing the greatest increase of the annual cost per animal identified (approximately 0.94 for each 10% of ear tag losses). For EID and MID, the respective increases were approximately 0.46 and 0.54 for each 10% of ear tag losses.
|
) for the implementation option that included the exception of Article 4 (3) of regulation EC 21/2004, as well as double ear tagging for the EID option. The total annual cost per animal identified for this implementation strategy and option was 5.97. A lower critical value of 35% of ear tag losses also was obtained when the CID and double ear tagging for EID options were compared, due to the greater identification cost of the animals intended for slaughter in CID (exception of Article 4 (3) not considered). In this case, the total annual cost was 5.33/animal identified. On the contrary, 70% of ear tag losses were obtained when CID option including the exception of Article 4 (3) and complete EID were compared (total annual cost was 7.42/animal identified).
Comparison of the CID and MID strategies also showed lower cost values for the identification of sheep and goats. As a consequence, the critical rate of ear tag losses was lower than for the EID comparison, and ranged from 8 to 12%. Moreover, for the 8% rate of ear tag losses, the MID option using the exception of Article 4 (3) and double ear tagging equaled the cheaper CID option. The annual cost for this situation was 2.43/animal identified.
Effect of the Ruminal Bolus Price on the Annual Total Cost of Electronic Identification Strategy
The model also was used to estimate the critical price of the electronic bolus at which the annual total cost of the EID strategy equals the CID strategy. Critical values of bolus price obtained in the sensitivity analysis also depended on the implementation strategy. Values obtained are summarized in Figure 2. As expected, EID was the most sensitive strategy to bolus price, increasing the annual cost per animal identified by approximately 1.02 for each 1 of bolus price increase. On the other hand, MID was less affected and only increased 0.15 for each 1 of price increase.
|
0.55 for the comparison of CID and complete EID (according to the EC 21/2004 regulation), and 0.40 when the exception of Article 4 (3) and double ear tagging of breeding stock option was considered. Total annual costs per animal identified for these prices were 2.98 and 2.63, respectively. The same low values were obtained when the implementation strategy considered the Article 4 (3) exception (2.63/animal) and the double tagging of breeding stock option (2.98/animal identified).
For the CID and MID comparison, the critical bolus price was 1.80 for the complete implementation of the EC 21/2004 regulation, and for the option considering the exception of Article 4 (3), the total cost was 2.63/animal identified. Nevertheless, the critical price increased to 3.30/bolus when the option of double tagging (2.98/animal identified) and with the exception of Article 4 (3) and double ear tagging for breeding stock (2.63/animal identified) were calculated.
The reference price of electronic boluses used in our work (2.20) and the current prices of the boluses observed on the market (1.5 to 3.5 according to manufacturer) are a long way from the values calculated here for recommending the EID as the only strategy for the entire sheep and goat populations in Spain. Nevertheless, EID may be a cheaper option for large animal populations when identification is used for improved management systems (health programs, performance recording, animal breeding, farm management, etc.). For the current scenario, the MID strategy brings together most of the advantages of the electronic identification system (greater retention rates and reading performances) for the breeding stock, with the use of a low-price identification device for the animals intended for slaughter (86% in the Spanish sheep and goats industry).
|
Implications |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResults and DiscussionImplicationsLiterature Cited |
|---|
4.47 to 4.64/animal) for the implementation of the EC 21/2004 regulation and also may improve the traceability of sheep and goats in Spain. Although the cost of electronic identification was greater than conventional identification based on the use of plastic ear tags (2.63 to 2.98), other uses are foreseen that will add extra benefits to the comparison. Employing the exception to Article 4 (3), consisting of the identification of fattening stock with one ear tag printed with the farm number, will decrease the cost but also will impair the efficiency of traceability. In practice, the use of a mixed strategy (conventional plastic ear tags in fattening stock and electronic bolus in breeding stock) is presently the least expensive option (2.48 to 3.03) for the implementation of the regulation in Spain. Moreover, cost and efficiency of the mixed strategy would be improved if electronic identification were adopted as the reference identification system. In conclusion, a general implementation of electronic identification based in the mixed strategy is currently recommended for the Spanish sheep and goat sector.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
2 The authors appreciate the data and commentaries supplied by J. F. Vilaseca (Gesimpex Com. SL, Barcelona, Spain) for the inputs of the model, as well as the discussion and suggestions made by J. Lueso, F. Miranda, and A. Ruiz (Subdirección General de Ordenación de Explotaciones, Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, Madrid, Spain), O. San Miguel (Tragsega, Madrid, Spain), and J. A. Fernández (Federación de Asociaciones de Ganado Selecto, Madrid, Spain). Thanks also are given to M. Cuypers (Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy), J. Jacquot (former Director of the FEOGA), P. De Winne (D. G. Agri), and S. Amendrup (D. G. Sanco) from the European Commission (Brussels, Belgium), for their contributions, and to N. Aldam for the English revision of the manuscript.
3 Correspondence—phone and fax: +34 93 5811442; e-mail: gerardo.caja{at}uab.es.
Received for publication July 29, 2004. Accepted for publication February 9, 2005.
|
Literature Cited |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterials and MethodsResults and DiscussionImplicationsLiterature Cited |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. D. Bass, D. L. Pendell, D. L. Morris, J. A. Scanga, K. E. Belk, T. G. Field, J. N. Sofos, J. D. Tatum, and G. C. Smith Review: Sheep Traceability Systems in Selected Countries Outside of North America Professional Animal Scientist, August 1, 2008; 24(4): 302 - 307. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Ait-Saidi, G. Caja, S. Carne, A. A. K. Salama, and J. J. Ghirardi Short Communication: Comparison of Manual Versus Semiautomatic Milk Recording Systems in Dairy Goats J Dairy Sci, April 1, 2008; 91(4): 1438 - 1442. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. J. Ghirardi, G. Caja, C. Flores, D. Garin, M. Hernandez-Jover, and F. Bocquier Suitability of electronic mini-boluses for early identification of lambs J Anim Sci, January 1, 2007; 85(1): 248 - 257. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Antonini, M. Trabalza-Marinucci, R. Franceschini, L. Mughetti, G. Acuti, A. Faba, G. Asdrubali, and C. Boiti In vivo mechanical and in vitro electromagnetic side-effects of a ruminal transponder in cattle J Anim Sci, November 1, 2006; 84(11): 3133 - 3142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. J. Ghirardi, G. Caja, D. Garin, M. Hernandez-Jover, O. Ribo, and J. Casellas Retention of different sizes of electronic identification boluses in the forestomachs of sheep J Anim Sci, October 1, 2006; 84(10): 2865 - 2872. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
); electronic identification (EID, •); and mixed identification (MID, 
). Upper and lower cost lines for each strategy represent the more expensive (complete tagging according to regulation EC 21/2004) and the less expensive (tagging simplification according to Article 4 (3), and double ear tagging when possible) simplification options. Arrows and dotted lines indicate the rate of ear tag losses at which the least expensive options of each strategy are equal.
). Upper and lower cost lines for each strategy represent the more expensive (complete tagging according to regulation EC 21/2004) and the less expensive (tagging simplification according to Article 4 (3), and double ear tagging when possible) simplification options. Arrows and dotted lines indicate the price of electronic bolus at which the least expensive options of each strategy are equal.