Babot D, Hernández-Jover M, Caja G, Santamarina C, Ghirardi J J
Area de Producció Animal, Centre UdL-IRTA, Lleida, Spain.
J Anim Sci. 2006 Sep;84(9):2575-81. doi: 10.2527/jas.2006-119.
A total of 1,822 pigs from 2 farms (farm A, n = 1,032; farm B, n = 790) were used to evaluate pig traceability under on-farm conditions by using identification devices (n = 4,434) of different technologies. The devices were visual ear tags (n = 1,533; Model 1, n = 776; Model 2, n = 757), electronic ear tags (n = 1,446; half-duplex, n = 702; full-duplex, n = 744), and intraperitoneally injected transponders (n = 1,455; half-duplex, n = 732; full-duplex, n = 723). A group of 790 pigs wore 3 types of devices, and 1,032 wore 2 devices. Piglets were identified before (wk 1 to 3 of age; farm A) or after (wk 3 to 4 of age; farm B) weaning and intensively fattened until approximately 100 kg of BW. Readability of devices was checked at each farm operation by using standardized handheld transceivers. No negative effects of the identification devices on animal health (mortality rate, 8.4%) or performance were detected. On-farm losses averaged 1.6% for ear tags (visual, 0.8%; half-duplex, 1.9%; full-duplex, 2.7%; P > 0.05) and 1.8% for intraperitoneally injected transponders (half-duplex, 1.7%; full-duplex, 1.9%; P > 0.05). Moreover, 1.4% electronic failures occurred in the electronic ear tags (half-duplex, 2.2%; full-duplex, 0.6%; P < 0.05) but not in the intraperitoneally injected transponders. Final on-farm readability was greater (P < 0.05) for visual ear tags (99.2%) than for electronic ear tags (half-duplex, 95.9%; full-duplex, 96.7%; P > 0.05). Readability for intraperitoneally injected transponders was intermediate (half-duplex, 98.3%; full-duplex, 98.1%; P > 0.05). Electronic devices were in all cases easier and faster to read than the visual ear tags. Visual ear tags and intraperitoneally injected transponders were efficiently retained under conditions of commercial pig farms, which agrees with the minimum values recommended by the International Committee for Animal Recording (> 98%). When readability and reading ease were also included as decision criteria, injectable transponders were preferred.
来自2个农场(农场A,n = 1032;农场B,n = 790)的总共1822头猪被用于通过使用不同技术的识别设备(n = 4434)来评估农场条件下猪的可追溯性。这些设备包括可视耳标(n = 1533;型号1,n = 776;型号2,n = 757)、电子耳标(n = 1446;半双工,n = 702;全双工,n = 744)以及腹腔注射应答器(n = 1455;半双工,n = 732;全双工,n = 723)。一组790头猪佩戴3种类型的设备,1032头猪佩戴2种设备。仔猪在断奶前(农场A,1至3周龄)或断奶后(农场B,3至4周龄)进行标识,并集中育肥至体重约100 kg。在每个农场操作时,使用标准化手持收发器检查设备的可读性。未检测到识别设备对动物健康(死亡率8.4%)或性能有负面影响。农场中可视耳标的损失平均为1.6%(型号1为0.8%;半双工为1.9%;全双工为2.7%;P>0.05),腹腔注射应答器的损失为1.8%(半双工为1.7%;全双工为1.9%;P>0.05)。此外,电子耳标出现了1.4%的电子故障(半双工为2.2%;全双工为0.6%;P<0.05),而腹腔注射应答器未出现此类故障。最终农场中可视耳标的可读性(99.2%)高于电子耳标(半双工为95.9%;全双工为96.7%;P>0.05)(P<0.05)。腹腔注射应答器的可读性处于中间水平(半双工为98.3%;全双工为98.1%;P>0.05)。在所有情况下,电子设备比可视耳标更易于读取且速度更快。可视耳标和腹腔注射应答器在商业猪场条件下能有效留存,这与国际动物记录委员会推荐的最低值(>98%)相符。当将可读性和读取便利性也作为决策标准时,可注射应答器更受青睐。