| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
ANIMAL PRODUCTION |
,3
* Departament de Producció Animal, Universitat de Lleida, Lleida, Spain;
and
Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain; and
and
Àrea de Producció Animal, Centre UdL-IRTA, Lleida, Spain
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Key Words: electronic identification • ear tag • injectable transponder • pig • traceability
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TopAbstractINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
and McKean (2001). Additionally, Peters (1991) indicated that the animal identification number must be readable at different points of the slaughter line.
One of the main advantages of using electronic identification (e-ID) in pigs is automatic reading and the possibility of a low-cost accurate transfer of the identity of the animal to the carcass. Most pig e-ID studies examined on-farm performance of electronic devices such as electronic ear tags or injectable transponders (Lambooij and Merks, 1989; Stärk et al., 1998; Caja et al., 2005). According to results obtained in previous experiments using electronic ear tags (Teixidor et al., 1995; Huiskes et al., 2000; Caja et al., 2005) and injectable transponders applied intraperitoneally (Caja et al., 2005), e-ID devices may improve animal identification and be a useful tool for sanitary and quality purposes.
This work completed the on-farm results of a previously published experiment on the comparison of different types of e-ID devices (Babot et al., 2006), with the study of their performance in commercial slaughterhouse conditions. The main objective of the study was to compare ear tags (visual and electronic) and injectable transponders and to evaluate the entire traceability process under on-farm and slaughterhouse conditions in the most common intensive system used for swine production in Spain.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TopAbstractINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
Animals and Management
A total of 1,822 crossbreed pigs from 2 commercial farms (farm A: Gescaser S.A., Almacelles, Lleida, Spain; n = 1,032; farm B: Ramaderies Miqueló, Puig Grós, Lleida, Spain; n = 790) were used to study the performance of different identification systems under practical conditions. One hundred fifty-six piglets died, mainly due to respiratory and digestive problems. Mortality rate averaged 8.4% and was in the normal range of mortality values of pig farms in Catalonia (IRTA, 2005). Moreover, 85 pigs were excluded from the experiment because they did not follow the normal on-farm growing patterns. Piglets were weaned at wk 3 of age and reared under intensive conditions during suckling, growing, and fattening, and they were slaughtered at approximately 100 kg of BW and 180 d of age. A detailed description of the animal management on each farm and on-farm performance of the identification devices used was published previously (Babot et al., 2006). A total of 1,581 pigs (farm A, n = 881; farm B, n = 700) were harvested at slaughter facilities, and they were used to compare the performance of the identification devices.
Pigs from farm A were transported 50 km to slaughterhouse A (Primayor, Torregrossa, Lleida, Spain), and pigs from farm B were transported 210 km to slaughterhouse B (Norfrisa, Riudellots de la Selva, Girona, Spain). All pigs were transported and slaughtered according to the usual processes of commercial pig transport and slaughter (stunning, bleeding, scalding, peeling, flaming, evisceration, and carcass cooling) and the European Directives 95/29/CE for animal transport and 93/119/CE for animal slaughter. Slaughterhouses differed in the stunning system and the slaughtering line throughput [A, electrical stunning (250 V, 1.25 A) and 450 to 500 pigs/h; B, carbon dioxide narcosis and 550 to 600 pigs/h]. Scalding temperature was similar between slaughterhouses (58 to 65°C), but no information was available on flaming and peeling strength.
Identification Procedures
Piglets were randomly identified by using 6 identification devices on both farms, including visual ear tags, electronic ear tags, and injectable transponders, to compare their traceability from birth to slaughter and the effects of the slaughter processes until carcass release.
Identification devices of slaughtered pigs consisted of 2 types of visual plastic ear tags differing in manufacturer (model 1, n = 657, Azasa-Allflex, Madrid, Spain; and model 2, n = 643, Cromasa, Berriozar, Spain), and 2 types of electronic ear tags (Azasa-Allflex) differing in the 2 methods of information exchange according to the International Standardization Office (ISO) standard 11785 (ISO, 1996): half-duplex (HDX, n = 636) and full duplex-B (FDX, n = 632). For each type of ear tag, 2 types of closing system (open or reusable, and closed or tamper-proof) were also tested on farm A. Differences in opening strength of each type of ear tag was measured by using an electronic dynamometer with a peak hold (maximum value) function, which is useful for strength tests because it indicates the greatest load measurement recorded (Fidens-IP2, Proman Instrumentación, Sant Fost de Campsentelles, Barcelona, Spain). A sample (n = 10) of new ear tags of each type, and corresponding male pieces, was closed with the pliers, and the opening strength was evaluated under laboratory conditions.
Two types of intraperitoneally injected, glass encapsulated transponders from the 2 ISO methodologies of information exchange (ISO, 1996) were also used: HDX (n = 645; 32 x 3.8 mm; Rumitag, Esplugues de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain) and FDX (n = 642; 34 x 3.8 mm; Sokymat, Granges, Switzerland). Intraperitoneal injection was performed on the left ventral side of the animal, according to Caja et al. (2005). Piglets were randomly identified with 2 (n = 1,032) or 3 (n = 790) devices by trained operators, at wk 1 to 3 of age on farm A and after weaning at 3 wk of age on farm B. Features of the identification devices, the detailed identification procedures, and the final distribution of the animal treatments are detailed in Babot et al. (2006).
Reading and Recovery at Slaughter
Pigs were slaughtered in weekly batches for a period of 6 wk on farm A (n = 881) and 4 wk on farm B (n = 700). Readability of all devices was checked twice at the slaughtering line by using full, ISO hand-held transceivers (Gesreader 2S and Gesreader Smart, Rumitag). Visual and electronic ear tags were read after animal bleeding and at the end of the slaughter line before carcass cooling to evaluate the effects of the slaughter processes on retention and readability of these devices. All ear tags were recovered by cutting the male piece with scissors at the end of the slaughter line. Injectable transponders were read after animal bleeding and before evisceration. Recovery of intraperitoneal transponders was performed manually at the moment of evisceration, when the gastrointestinal tract was placed in the viscera tray, without altering the throughput of the slaughtering line. If the transponder was not recovered on line, the gut was removed from the slaughter line for later checking with the help of a handheld transceiver. To assure the absence of injectable transponders in the carcasses, a carcass inspection using a hand-held transceiver (Gesreader 2S) was performed before carcass cooling.
Statistical Analysis
Losses, electronic failures, and readability of e-ID devices during the slaughter process were analyzed using the CATMOD procedure (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC), because of the dichotomy of variables, assuming a binomial distribution of these variables. Type of identification device (1 to 6), closing system (open or closed), slaughterhouse (A or B), the simple interactions among these 3 principal factors, and the error were considered in the model. To make all contrasts, at least 1 failure was simulated within each level of factor. Differences between significant factor levels were evaluated by means of contrasts using a 
2 test. Ear tag opening strength was analyzed using the GLM procedure of SAS. Only significant (P < 0.05) factors and interactions were included in the final models.
|
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TopAbstractINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
). Intraperitoneally injected transponders were not affected by slaughtering line differences. Type of device was the only factor significantly affecting slaughterhouse readability and final traceability of e-ID devices. As a consequence, results from farm (A or B), slaughterhouse (A or B), and ear tag closing system (open or closed) were discussed jointly.
|
), increased during slaughter and ranged between 3.0 and 11.5% (Table 2). No differences between losses of the 2 models of visual ear tags (3.7%, on average) and the electronic HDX ear tags (3.5%) were detected, but FDX ear tags (11.5%) showed the greatest losses (P < 0.05). Visual ear tag losses were similar to values reported by Stärk et al. (1998; 3.6%) and lower than indicated by Caja et al. (2005; 11.2%) during the slaughter. Values of losses reported in the literature with similar HDX electronic ear tags during slaughter ranged between 5.4 (Teixidor et al., 1995) and 10.4% (Stärk et al., 1998). Recently, Caja et al. (2005) reported 6.4% of losses in slaughterhouse with the same type of HDX ear tags. Moreover, in an implementation study with 2,500 pigs, in which 5 different prototypes of electronic ear tags were evaluated, Huiskes et al. (2000) reported a range of slaughterhouse losses between 1.8 and 4.0%.
|
. Moreover, the opening strength did not differ between electronic ear tag types when they were new (HDX, 30.1 ± 2.7 kg; FDX, 31.4 ± 3.0 kg; P = 0.90), but the results may have been different during ear tag aging. No differences were observed either according to ear tag closing systems, as shown in Table 3 from data obtained in pigs from farm A and slaughterhouse A.
|
), as a consequence of the slaughtering process. No differences in failures were found between HDX and FDX ear tags, indicating that both technologies were similarly resistant to stresses of slaughtering. Electronic failures obtained in our results were very low compared with the values previously reported by Teixidor et al. (1995; 21.6%), Stärk et al. (1998; 10.4%), and Caja et al. (2005; 12.8%). These differences may be attributed to characteristics of slaughtering equipment (scalding, peeling, flaming), as well as to changes of the encasing materials and the design of the electronic ear tags.
Intraperitoneal transponders were not affected by the slaughtering process (Table 1), as previously indicated by Caja et al. (2005), and pig identification was 100% maintained until evisceration (Table 2).
Results of retrieval of intraperitoneally injected transponders are shown in Table 4. Most of the intraperitoneal transponders were recovered (89.0%) from the guts in the viscera tray line during the available time for each pig according to the slaughtering line throughput (slaughter A, 7 to 8 s/pig; and, slaughter B, 6 to 6.5 s/pig). The remainder of the transponders (11.0%) fell onto the floor when the abdominal wall was cut (4 transponders were observed when they fell out). Recovered transponders were located in 3 places: 87.1% were adhered to the omentus, between the stomach and the spleen; 12.1% were loose among the gut mass; and 0.8% were found inside the urinary bladder (2 were covered by urinary salts). Bladder location of the transponders was probably a consequence of injections made behind the optimal injection point, using needles that were too large in relation to piglet size, or both. Despite the lack of differences on readability and traceability by slaughterhouse, recovery rate of intraperitoneally injected transponders was affected by slaughtering throughput (slaughterhouse A, 91.8%; slaughterhouse B, 86.6%; P < 0.01). Nevertheless, it should be stressed that no transponders were found in the carcasses at the end of the slaughter line. Moreover, recovery results for intraperitoneally injected transponders were greater than reported previously by Caja et al. (2005; 81.4%).
|
; 
5 s) and is lower than previous results obtained in experiments with subcutaneously injected transponders. Recovery time obtained for intraperitoneal transponders by Caja et al. (2005; 19 s) was greater than results of the present experiment, where most transponders were recovered in less than 10 s. The difference in the recovery procedures of the intraperitoneal transponders explains the difference observed in recovery time between both studies. Whereas in the present experiment transponders were recovered from the abdominal viscera tray in the slaughter line, in the study done by Caja et al. (2005) the abdominal viscera were separated from the slaughter line and recovery was performed from a container, requiring more time for the process. In the same study (Caja et al., 2005), recovery time for transponders subcutaneously injected in the auricle base was 29 s and Conill et al. (2000; 2002) obtained times greater than 25 and 10 s in different s.c. injection positions in cattle and lambs, respectively. Despite the low recovery time, it is still necessary to develop an automatic recovery system for commercial slaughterhouses.
As a result, traceability obtained after on-farm and slaughter periods varied between identification devices. Results of the overall traceability of ear tags and intraperitoneally injected transponders are shown in Table 2. The greatest (P < 0.05) overall traceability result was obtained with intraperitoneally injected transponders, which averaged 98.2%. Results of visual ear tags did not differ between types, averaging 95.7% traceability. This value was greater (P < 0.05) than traceability obtained with HDX (91.4%) and FDX (84.5%) electronic ear tags, which differed between them (P < 0.05).
Average traceability obtained with intraperitoneal transponders (98.2%) was slightly lower than previous results obtained by Caja et al. (2005; 99.6%). However, intraperitoneal results achieved the 98% traceability recommended by ICAR (2005) and were greater than values obtained in previous studies using injectable transponders in subcutaneous positions (Lammers et al., 1995; Stärk et al., 1998; Caja et al., 2005). Subcutaneous injection showed variable traceability results (57.1 to 97.1%). The best positions appeared to be the ear base and the ear auricle (Lambooij et al., 1995; Lammers et al., 1995). Nevertheless, these positions are not recommended because of implementation disadvantages such as the need for previous expertise for application, migration from the injection site, and recovery difficulties in the slaughterhouse (Caja et al., 2005). Values of overall traceability obtained with ear tags were greater than results of Caja et al. (2005), who reported a traceability of 86.7 and 68.1% for similar visual and electronic HDX ear tags, respectively. The difference between Caja et al. (2005) and our results could be a consequence of an improvement of the ear tag design or the material used. Stärk et al. (1998) reported a similar traceability of the visual ear tags (96.4%), but results of electronic ear tags were lower (76.6%). On average, HDX intraperitoneally injected transponders showed similar readability to FDX transponders during the on-farm period (97.1 and 97.4%, respectively), but overall traceability of HDX injected transponders was greater than the FDX transponders (94.8 and 91.4%, respectively; P < 0.05).
Intraperitoneal injection with passive transponders achieved the requirements of an efficient identification system for pigs and improved on-farm and slaughterhouse traceability in practical conditions. Pigs could be identified during wk 1 of age, and the individual identification was maintained from suckling to evisceration, guaranteeing traceability in 98% of animals. A dual system, based on a visual ear tag and an intraperitoneally injected transponder, is recommended for an efficient and tamper-proof traceability system for swine.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
2 The authors appreciate the assistance of the direction and veterinary teams of the slaughterhouse of Primayor (Torregrossa, Lleida, Spain) and Norfrisa (Riudellots de la Selva, Girona, Spain) for the slaughtering and transponder recovery facilities; and Nic Aldam for the English version of the manuscript.
3 Corresponding author: dbabot{at}prodan.udl.es
Received for publication May 15, 2006. Accepted for publication August 11, 2006.
|
LITERATURE CITED |
|---|
|
TopAbstractINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONLITERATURE CITED |
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  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 |
