Departament de Ciència Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain.
J Dairy Sci. 2010 Nov;93(11):5157-66. doi: 10.3168/jds.2010-3188.
Murciano-Granadina dairy goats (n=220) were used to assess the performance of visual and electronic identification devices: 1) leg tags (LT) on the shank of the right hind leg (metatarsus) consisting of plastic bands (181 × 39mm, 21g; n=220) printed with a 3-digit code and closed with 2 types of electronic button tags (ET1, 3.9 g, 26 mm o.d., n=90; ET2, 5.5 g, 25 mm o.d., n=130); 2) electronic rumen boluses (RB, 75 g, 68 × 21 mm, n=220) containing 32 × 3.8 mm transponders; 3) electronic ear tags (EE, button-button, 4.8 g, 24 mm, n=47); and 4) visual plastic ear tags (VE, flag-button, 4.2 g, 40 × 38 mm, n=220). The shank circumference of 47 replacement kids (5 to 6 mo of age) and 103 adult goats was measured to evaluate the proper circumference for fastened LT. Goats were identified with RB and VE before the experiment. Time for leg tagging, reading, and data recording with a handheld transceiver was measured. Readability [(read/readable) × 100] was monitored for 1 yr with goats restrained in the milking parlor. Reading time and errors of RB and ET2 in the milking parlor using the handheld transceiver were recorded. Shank circumference of kids (70±1 mm) was 79.5% of that in adult goats (88±1 mm), thus LT (107±1 mm inner circumference) were only applied to adult goats as they were inadequate for 6-mo-old kids. Time for leg tagging and data recording was 53±3 s. At 1 yr, readability of RB was 96.5%. No LT losses occurred and all were visually readable, although 3 (1.5%) had to be removed due to limping, leading to a final LT retention of 98.5%. Moreover, 7 (3.6%) LT were found open and electronically unreadable. Readability of button transponders, excluding removed LT, was 93.6% (3 lost and 2 unreadable) for ET1, and 98.3% (2 lost) for ET2. Readability was 95.7 and 97.0% in EE and VE ear tags, respectively. Only LT and ET1 readabilities differed. Reading time and reading errors (0.3 vs. 0%) in the milking parlor were greater for RB (61.2s) than for ET2 (45.9s). In conclusion, LT were not adequate for the identification of goat kids under 6 mo of age. Only LT with ET2 transponders met International Committee for Animal Recording requirements for official identification of adult goats (readability >98%) under the conditions of this experiment.
使用 220 只默西亚-格拉纳迪纳奶山羊来评估视觉和电子识别设备的性能:1)腿标签(LT)位于右后腿(跖骨)的小腿上,由塑料带(181×39mm,21g;n=220)制成,印有 3 位数字代码,并使用 2 种电子按钮标签(ET1,3.9g,26mm 外径,n=90;ET2,5.5g,25mm 外径,n=130)封闭;2)电子瘤胃丸(RB,75g,68×21mm,n=220),内含 32×3.8mm 应答器;3)电子耳标(EE,纽扣按钮,4.8g,24mm,n=47);和 4)可视塑料耳标(VE,旗形按钮,4.2g,40×38mm,n=220)。47 只替换羔羊(5 至 6 月龄)和 103 只成年山羊的小腿周长进行了测量,以评估紧固 LT 的适当周长。在实验前,使用 RB 和 VE 对山羊进行了识别。用手持收发器测量了腿标记、读取和数据记录的时间。在泌乳厅中,通过监测 1 年的可读性[(读取/可读)×100]来进行监测。使用手持收发器记录了 RB 和 ET2 在泌乳厅中的读取时间和错误。羔羊(70±1mm)的小腿周长为成年山羊(88±1mm)的 79.5%,因此 LT(内周长 107±1mm)仅适用于成年山羊,因为它们不适合 6 月龄的羔羊。腿标记和数据记录时间为 53±3s。在 1 年时,RB 的可读性为 96.5%。没有 LT 丢失,所有 LT 都可以通过视觉读取,尽管有 3 个(1.5%)由于跛行而不得不移除,导致 LT 的最终保留率为 98.5%。此外,发现 7 个(3.6%)LT 打开且电子不可读。排除已移除 LT 后,按钮应答器的可读性为 ET1 的 93.6%(3 个丢失,2 个不可读),ET2 的 98.3%(2 个丢失)。EE 和 VE 耳标的可读性分别为 95.7%和 97.0%。仅 LT 和 ET1 的可读性不同。在泌乳厅中,RB(61.2s)的读取时间和读取错误(0.3%对 0%)大于 ET2(45.9s)。总之,LT 不适合 6 月龄以下的羔羊识别。只有带有 ET2 应答器的 LT 满足了国际动物记录委员会对成年山羊正式识别的要求(在本实验条件下,可读性>98%)。