| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
ANIMAL PRODUCTION |
,3
* Àrea de Producció Animal, Centre UdL-IRTA, Lleida, Spain;
and
Producció Animal, Universitat de Lleida, Lleida, Spain; and
and
Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONIMPLICATIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Key Words: ear tag • electronic identification • injectable transponder • pig • traceability
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TopAbstractINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONIMPLICATIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
; Stärk et al., 1998; Caja et al., 2005) because of the necessity to develop a permanent and tamperproof identification system for improving farm management and animal and meat traceability. The e-ID may be an alternative to conventional systems used in pig production (visual ear tags, ear notching, tattoos), which have not achieved the requirements of an efficient identification system. Animal identification must be unique, permanent, tamperproof, and easy to apply and to read. It should also allow automatic recording (Merks and Lambooij, 1990; McKean, 2001). The e-ID has been shown to satisfy most of these requirements (Stärk et al., 1998; Caja et al., 2005).
Two types of e-ID devices can be used in pig production: electronic ear tags and injectable transponders. Little information is available on performance of electronic ear tags under on-farm conditions, but Huiskes et al. (2000) found low losses (0.2%) and moderate electronic failures (0 to 2%) in a study conducted in the Dutch pig industry. The ear base and the auricle base have been the subcutaneous injection positions recommended for pigs (Lambooij and Merks, 1989; Lambooij et al., 1995; Lammers et al., 1995), but neither achieved the readability recommended by the International Committee for Animal Recording (ICAR) of >98% (ICAR, 2005b). A recent comparison between electronic ear tags, auricle base injected transponders, and intraperitoneally injected transponders reported that the intraperitoneal position alleviated problems of the other positions and could be an efficient method for the traceability of pigs (Caja et al., 2005).
Our experiment studied performance of visual ear tags, electronic ear tags, and intraperitoneally injected transponders and evaluated their effects on pig performances from suckling to the end of the fattening period under practical pig farm conditions.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TopAbstractINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONIMPLICATIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Animals, Management, and Feeding
A total of 1,822 pigs of 3 genetic lines of Landrace x Large White from 2 commercial farms (farm A: Gescaser, Almacelles, Lleida, Spain, n = 1,032 pigs; farm B: Ramaderies Miqueló, Puig Grós, Lleida, Spain, n = 790) were used to compare 5 different identification devices under commercial conditions. Pigs resulted from crosses with different boar lines in farm A (Large White x Pietrain, n = 543; Duroc, n = 489) and in farm B (Pietrain, n = 790). Piglets (male, n = 927; female, n = 895) were reared under intensive conditions during suckling (birth to wk 3 of age), rearing (wk 4 to 8), and growing-fattening periods (wk 9 to 23) and were slaughtered at approximately 100 kg of BW. They were teeth-cut and tail-docked after birth. Iron (1 mL, Calidex, Calier, Barcelona, Spain) and Mycoplasma vaccine (2 mL, Suvaxyn Mhyo, Fort Dodge, Barcelona, Spain) were injected i.m. to each piglet at d 1 and wk 4 of age, respectively.
Farm A was a multisite (farrowing and growing-fattening units), and farm B was a single-site unit (all-in, all-out management system). Conditions of farms A and B were similar in floor type (slats), manure management (liquid), climate control, and feeding program but differed in the design of rearing and growing-fattening pens. During suckling, piglets were kept in farrowing pens (2.45 x 1.80-m) with plastic slats and a 0.6 m2 heated floor area. Active suction ventilation and automatic temperature control were used during suckling (18 to 23.5°C) and rearing (26 to 21°C; decreasing 1°C/ wk) periods. Piglets had free access to nipple drinkers and a prestarter concentrate (3.26 Mcal of ME/kg, and 17% CP, as-fed) and to a starter concentrate (3.27 Mcal of ME/kg, and 18% CP, as-fed) during suckling and rearing, respectively. Concentrate (3.13 Mcal of ME/kg, and 18% CP, as-fed) ad libitum and free access to nipple bowl drinkers were offered during the growing-fattening period. Distribution of concentrate was automatic in the form of a dry meal or a liquid mixture on farms A and B, respectively.
Rearing period was conducted in large pens (6.0 x 3.5-m) in groups of 80 piglets on farm A; whereas on farm B, pens were small (2.4 x 1.5-m) and groups consisted of 14 piglets. Plastic slats were used in both cases. The growing-fattening period on farm A was conducted in a different unit (15 km away from the farrowing-transition unit), in which the pigs in groups of 14 to 17 were allocated in 5.0 x 2.9-m pens with partially slatted floors. Growing-fattening on farm B was done with groups of 8 to 10 pigs in totally slatted pens of 3.0 x 2.5-m.
Pigs were slaughtered at approximately 100 kg of BW (180 d of age) in 2 commercial slaughterhouses. A total of 25 pigs in farm A and 60 pigs in farm B did not follow the growing pattern of the groups (slaughtering delayed more than 1 mo) and were excluded from the experiment. Transportation to the slaughterhouses was carried out in specific trucks for pig transport following the current European Commission regulations (Directive 95/29/EC). Pigs from farm A were transported 50 km to the commercial slaughterhouse Primayor (Lleida, Spain), and pigs from farm B were transported 210 km to the slaughterhouse Norfrisa (Girona, Spain).
Identification Devices and Procedures
Various types of identification devices (n = 4,434), including visual ear tags, electronic ear tags, and injectable transponders, were used. Visual plastic ear tags made of polyurethane (n = 1,533) consisted of 2 models of double-button (male and female pieces) commercial ear tags made by 2 manufacturers (Model 1, n = 776, Allflex-Azasa, Madrid, Spain; Model 2, n = 757, Cromasa, Berriozar, Spain). Electronic ear tags (n = 1,446) consisted of plastic button tags containing passive transponders of the 2 methodologies of information exchange (HDX, half-duplex; FDX, full-duplex B) recognized in the International Standardization Office (ISO) standard 11785 (ISO, 1996b) and activated at 134.2 kHz (HDX, n = 702; and FDX, n = 744); both types of electronic ear tags were produced by the same manufacturer (Allflex-Azasa). Features for each ear tag type and model are summarized in Table 1. For each ear tag type, 2 models differing in the closing system of the female piece were also tested (open, or reusable; and closed, or tamper-proof). Features for each type and model of visual or electronic ear tag are summarized in Table 1. Each ear tag used the type of male piece made of polyurethane with a metallic point that was recommended by the manufacturer (Allflex-Azasa, 28 mm o.d. and 1.8 g; Cromasa, 28 mm o.d. and 1.5 g). A serial number of 4 digits, corresponding to the individual identification number of each pig, was laser-engraved on the male piece. Ear tag application was done using the specific tagger pliers indicated by the ear tag manufacturer (Total tagger, Allflex Europe, Vitré, France; and Cromasa).
|
) and working at 134.2 kHz were also used: HDX (n = 732; 32 x 3.8-mm; Rumitag, Esplugues de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain) and FDX (n = 723; 34 x 3.8- mm; Sokymat, Granges, Switzerland). The HDX injectable transponders were in cartridges of 10 and were covered by an iodine gel (Betadine Oplossing, Dagra, the Netherlands). Transponders were injected intraperitoneally in nonsterile conditions by using 2 different injectors according to their type. A single-shot injector (Model Hüther, Planet ID, Essen, Germany) with interchangeable needles (28 x 4.6-mm; Rumitag) was used for HDX injectable transponders, and a single-shot injector prototype (Sokymat) with interchangeable needles (80 x 5.0-mm) was used for FDX injectable transponders. Intraperitoneal injection was performed on the left, ventral side of the animal, at approximately 1 cm from the ventral line and 2 cm caudal to the navel, according to the procedure proposed by Caja et al. (2005). The transponder was released in the abdominal cavity between the intestines. The injection area and needles were previously disinfected using an iodine solution (Betadine, Braun, Jaén, Spain). Injections were performed by trained operators. Distribution of the animals to the treatments is shown in Table 2. Serial numbers of the electronic ear tags and the injectable transponders agreed with the standard 11784 (ISO, 1996a) and included the ICAR manufacturer codes (ICAR, 2005a).
|
. Piglets were randomly allocated into identification treatments according to farrowing dates and management facilities of each farm, being identified at wk 1 to 3 of age on farm A, and after weaning at wk 3 of age on farm B.
Transceivers and On-Farm Reading Performances
Readability of all electronic devices was checked in laboratory conditions before the application and immediately after the application by using a full-ISO hand-held transceiver (Gesreader 2S, Rumitag). After the e-ID of each piglet, individual data (visual ear tag number, sex, BW, sow identification, and date of birth) were manually typed and linked to the transponder code in the Gesreader 2S. Injection time, described as the time elapsed between 2 consecutive intraperitoneal injections, was automatically recorded by the handheld transceiver when the injectable transponders were read and included all of the sequential operations done at piglet identification (piglet catching, restraining, identification, data typing, and release).
Reading controls throughout the on-farm period were performed the day after application, at weaning (in farm A), at the end of the rearing period (56 and 59 d of age, for farm A and B, respectively), and at the end of the growing-fattening period (161 and 155 d of age, for farm A and B, respectively), by using different full-ISO handheld transceivers (Gesreader 2S, Rumitag; SLX15 reader, Cromasa; and Agrident reader, Barsinghausen, Germany). For heavy pigs the Gesreader 2S was connected to a tuned stick antenna (GasISO, Rumitag). Readability was calculated as (transponders read/ transponders applied) x 100, according to Caja et al. (1999) and Conill et al. (2000). Readability of visual ear tags was registered by sight at each reading, and reading ease was subjectively assessed by sight (quick and easy, 1; not quick and easy, 0). Moreover, ear infection was checked at each reading. Pig mortality was also recorded throughout the rearing and growing-fattening periods to study the effects of the different types of identification devices on pig performances.
With the aim of avoiding pig stress in the last days of fattening and during transportation to the slaughterhouse, transponder losses from the last reading to the slaughtering date (approximately 100 kg of BW or 180 d of age) were considered jointly with transportation losses.
Individual BW recording was performed on farm A at piglet identification and at the end of the rearing period (56 ± 4 d of age) by using an automatic weighing scale (Iconix, FX series, Azasa, Madrid, Spain). A sample of pigs from farm A, including animals with (n = 114) and without (n = 60) intraperitoneally injected transponders, was weighed at the end of the growing-fattening period (161 ± 8 d of age) to evaluate the effect of the intraperitoneal injection on pig performances. No more pigs were individually weighed to avoid weight losses as a consequence of the management stress. Recording of pig BW in farm B was not allowed by the owner for sanitary and management reasons.
Statistical Analysis
Statistical analysis of data was conducted by using SAS (version 8.1, SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). Readability and reading ease of identification devices, and pig mortality, were analyzed with the CATMOD procedure, assuming a binomial distribution of the variables. The model included the type of identification device (visual and electronic ear tag, and injectable), the ear tag closing system (open or closed), the pig sex (male or female), the boar line (Large White x Pietrain, Duroc, or Pietrain), the farm (A or B), and their simple interactions as factors. Additionally, the effect of identification week (wk 1 to 3) was analyzed in the case of farm A. To make possible all the contrasts when no device failures or no pig deaths occurred, at least 1 case within each level of factor was simulated. Only significant (P < 0.05) factors and their interactions were considered in the final model. No significant effects were detected due to ear tag closing system, pig sex, or week of identification. These factors were therefore excluded from the model used for the statistical comparisons. Differences between factor levels were evaluated by means of contrasts using the 
2 test of SAS.
The ADG of pigs from farm A and the injection time were analyzed using the GLM procedure of SAS for repeated measures. The presence of intraperitoneally injected transponders (0 or 1), pig sex, boar line, BW at identification (<5 kg or 
5 kg), and the simple interactions of the factors were included in the model. The level employed to remove factors and interactions from the model was P > 0.05. Least squares means and their SE were estimated using the GLM procedure of SAS. Separation of the least squares means was made with Tukey’s test considering the P < 0.05 level of significance.
|
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TopAbstractINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONIMPLICATIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
using similar ear tags and intraperitoneally injected transponders in fattening pigs. No relevant infections or inflammatory reactions were observed after ear tag application, and all the ear tag holes in the ear appeared dry and healed unlike results obtained by other authors (Stärk et al., 1998; Huiskes et al., 2000).
Pig performance throughout the rearing and the growing-fattening periods for each farm is shown in Table 3. Total mortality averaged 8.4%, differing between farms (farm A, 11.9%; farm B, 4.7%; P < 0.001) and boar line within farm A (Large White x Pietrain, 14.6%; Duroc, 9.3%; P < 0.001). No differences were observed (data not shown) between pig sexes (P = 0.12) and number of identification devices applied (P = 0.90).
|
). Results showed no negative effects of the intraperitoneal injection on pig performance as reported by Caja et al. (2005).
|
. No differences in readability (P = 0.99) were detected between farms (A, 97.2%; B, 97.8%), pig sex (male, 97.9%; female, 97.7%), the closing system of the female piece of the ear tags (open, 96.6%; closed, 96.4%), or by the week of identification (wk 1, 97.5%; wk 2, 97.2%; wk 3, 97.2%). As a consequence, these factors were excluded from the model used for the statistical comparisons. Reading ease was greater for the electronic devices than for visual ear tags (P < 0.05), although no differences between electronic ear tags and intraperitoneally injected transponders were found (P = 0.87).
|
; P > 0.05) and averaged 0.8%. No losses were observed in visual ear tag Model 2, which might have been influenced by its later application in weaned piglets. Although Teer Wee and Aarts (1991) reported greater ear tag losses (>40%), probably as a result of using first prototypes of ear tags (inadequate design and materials) or farm conditions for ear tag retention, our values agreed with those previously reported by Stärk et al. (1998; 1.7%) and Caja et al. (2005; 1.1%) in intensive fattening pigs.
Losses of electronic ear tags were moderate (2.3% on average) and did not differ by ear tag type (Table 5; P > 0.05). Our values were greater than those obtained by Teixidor et al. (1995; 0.7%), Stärk et al. (1998; 0%), and Huiskes et al. (2000; 0.2%) but were lower than losses reported by Caja et al. (2005; 8.8%) with the same type of electronic ear tags. Most ear tag losses occurred during the last period of fattening (160 to 180 d) or during transportation to the slaughterhouse as indicated by Caja et al. (2005). A possible explanation for the increase in losses at the end of the fattening period and during transportation could be the changes in the social behavior of the pigs as they get heavier and as a consequence of fighting that occurs when different animal groups are mixed (Schmolke et al., 2004). Nevertheless, these aspects need further research.
Failures of electronic ear tags, including on-farm periods and transportation, varied according to the transponder technology (Table 5; P < 0.05), being greater in HDX (2.2%) than in FDX (0.6%) electronic ear tags. Most failed electronic ear tags showed bite or friction marks. These values are lower than those previously reported by Teixidor et al. (1995; 5.6%) and Caja et al. (2005; 5.5%), who both used HDX electronic ear tags. Differences between experiments may be attributed to differences in pig behavior (e.g., breed and castration) and lodging characteristics (e.g., floor and feeders design). Moreover, manufacturing differences in the characteristics of the plastic encasing the transponders may also be responsible for the effects.
Time required for intraperitoneal injection (Table 6) averaged 56 s in total, with differences according to farm (farm A, 63 s; farm B, 50 s; P < 0.01) and transponder type (half-duplex, 59 s; full-duplex, 53 s; P < 0.01). Although HDX and FDX injectable transponders showed similar injection times on farm A (63 s, on average), differences between transponders were reported on farm B (Table 6). The main reason explaining the difference between farms was the heterogeneity of the FDX injectable transponder o.d. in one of its extremes (probably as a result of the closing system used), which produced the blockage of the injection needles or the breakage of the transponder glass capsule in some cases on farm A. This unexpected problem was found despite using the needle and injector recommended by the manufacturer. The difficulties of injection were overcome on farm B by assuring previously that all the FDX injectable transponders used were able to pass through the needles (25% of transponders were rejected). As a result, FDX transponders were injected faster in the case of farm B, most probably as a consequence of the injector and needle design. No effect (P > 0.05) of piglet age or BW on injection time was found in the case of farm A. Injection times obtained in our experiment for intraperitoneally injected transponders (45 to 69 s) were shorter than those reported by Caja et al. (2005) in suckling pigs (84 s), indicating an improved ability in the intraperitoneal injection. Our results were in the range of values obtained for subcutaneous injections of transponders in other species, as reported by Caja et al. (1999; 34 s) in adult sheep, and Klindtworth et al. (1999; 60 s) and Conill et al. (2000; 44 s) in calves.
|
; P > 0.05). Half of the total intraperitoneal transponder losses (n = 12; 52%) occurred in the first 24 h after injection (4 piglets identified in suckling in farm A, and 8 piglets identified in rearing in farm B). The other half was divided between rearing (n = 6; 26%) and growing-finishing (n = 5; 22%) periods. A possible cause of these losses is an incorrect injection (i.e., too fast or too deep) placing the transponder inside the intestines (Caja et al., 2005) or into the urinary bladder (M. Hernández-Jover, personal communication). In these cases, transponders may be lost with time through the anus or the urethra. A possible way to reduce the risk of an incorrect intraperitoneal injection at a high throughput may be to use shorter injection needles.
Intraperitoneal transponders were not affected by transportation to slaughterhouse, and no more losses were reported after the last on-farm reading control. Average total losses of intraperitoneally injected transponders in our results (1.8%) were greater than the 0.4% reported by Caja et al. (2005) in the same injection position in pigs. Despite the difference in values, our results of intraperitoneally injected transponders can be considered satisfactory because they agreed the ICAR (2005b) recommendation (losses <2%). Moreover, it also supported the early conclusions of Caja et al. (2005) on the best results of intraperitoneally injected transponders, compared with subcutaneous injections and electronic ear tags, with a larger number of pigs. Although many subcutaneous positions have been tested for pig identification in the last few years, and even though the best injection site was the ear base, their losses are on average greater than those obtained in our intraperitoneal results. Lambooij et al. (1995) obtained losses between 1.6 and 6.9% using 30-mm transponders, and Stärk et al. (1998) obtained 19.4% losses with 23-mm transponders, both in the ear base. Caja et al. (2005) reported the greatest losses (17.1 to 72.5%) using 12 to 34-mm transponders in the auricle base of pigs.
Final readability results obtained during the overall on-farm periods and transportation are also included in Table 5. Although there were numerical differences in the average values of visual plastic ear tags (99.4%), electronic ear tags (96.3%), and injectable transponders (98.2%), significant differences (P < 0.05) were only observed between the values of the visual and the electronic ear tags.
In conclusion, visual ear tags and intraperitoneally injected transponders showed similar on-farm and transportation efficiency for the identification of fattening pigs (98.8%, on average) and fulfill the minimum 98% efficiency required by ICAR (ICAR, 2005b) for an official animal identification device. Compared with visual tags, the main additional advantage of using e-ID devices is the possibility of an automatic reading in dynamic conditions. This possibility allows their use as an electronic key for automatic farm management and data recording, which should improve animal efficiency or reduce labor costs. On the contrary, the main current drawbacks of the use of electronic identifiers are their greater cost (7 to 10 times greater than a visual ear tag) and the need of acquiring an efficient reading device. Although it might be thought that the most efficient solution would be combining a visual and an electronic identifier in a unique device (i.e., electronic ear tag), our results indicate the possibility of using a dual system based on one well-designed plastic ear tag and one intraperitoneally injected transponder as a tamper-proof traceability system in pigs.
|
IMPLICATIONS |
|---|
|
TopAbstractINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONIMPLICATIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
2 The authors appreciate the assistance of Antoni Casañé (Almacelles, Lleida, Spain) and Eduard Cau (Puig Grós, Lleida, Spain) for feeding and taking care of the animals; J. L. López-Belmonte (Azasa-Allflex, Madrid, Spain), P. Ariztegui (Cromasa, Pamplona, Spain), and J. F. Vilaseca (Rumitag, Barcelona, Spain) for the technical support on identification and reading materials; and Nic Aldam for the English version of the manuscript.
3 Corresponding author: gerardo.caja{at}uab.es
Received for publication March 1, 2006. Accepted for publication May 8, 2006.
|
LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
|
TopAbstractINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONIMPLICATIONSLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  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]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
