J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online first on October 16, 2007
J. Anim Sci. 1990. doi:10.2527/jas.2007-0623
© 2007 American Society of Animal Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
jas.2007-0623v1
86/2/472    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hernández-Jover, M.
Right arrow Articles by Toribio, J. -A. L. M. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hernández-Jover, M.
Right arrow Articles by Toribio, J. -A. L. M. L.
J. Anim Sci., doi: 10.2527/jas.2007-0623
©Copyright, 2007, The American Society of Animal Science

ARTICLE

Technical Note: Evaluation of the official identification system for pigs for sale in New South Wales

M. Hernández-Jover 1*, M. Wu 1, N. Schembri 1, P. K. Holyoake 1, J. -A. L. M. L. Toribio 1

1 University of Sydney, Faculty of Veterinary Science, 425 Werombi Road, Camden, NSW 2570 Australia

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: mhernandez_jover{at}usyd.edu.au.


  Abstract

A study was undertaken at 2 saleyard (1 domestic, DS; and, 1 export, ES) and 2 abattoir (1 domestic, DA; and, 1 export, EA) locations in New South Wales (NSW, Australia) to assess the compliance (presence) and readability of body tattoos used to identify individual pigs presented for sale or slaughter. Each location was visited on 3 different trading or slaughter days and tattoo presence and readability of porkers (25 to 60kg BW), baconers (60 to 90kg BW), backfatters (> 90 kg BW but not for breeding), and breeders were recorded. A total of 4,655 pigs were inspected, including 158 (DS), 1,599 (ES), 1,257 (DA), and 1,641 (EA). Tattoo performance at the saleyards was influenced by producer (P < 0.05). Average brand presence at the DS (93.0%) did not differ (P = 0.28) from ES (74.2%). Tattoo compliance ranged from 88.3% to 100% of pigs across pig classes (P > 0.05) at DS. At the ES, tattoo compliance among baconers, backfatters, and breeding stock ranged from 82.4% to 88.3% and was greater (P < 0.05) than that of porkers (70.3%). Average readability was 85.4% at ES and 77.6% at DS (P > 0.05). Tattoo compliance differed (P < 0.05) between abattoirs (98.7% at DA and 92.6% at EA). Readability was greater (P < 0.05) at the EA (80.1%) than at the DA (72%). Final performance, as readable brands among animals sold or slaughtered, of the official tattoo system was similar between locations and ranged from 63% to 74%. Our results suggest that current compliance and readability of tattoos would compromise trace back to the farm of origin in the event of an emergency animal disease outbreak. Education activities on legislation requirements and tattoo procedure would likely increase compliance and performance of the system.

Key Words: Australia, identification system, pig, tattoo, readability






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2007 by the American Society of Animal Science.