Caja G, Díaz-Medina E, Salama A A K, Salama O A E, El-Shafie M H, El-Metwaly H A, Ayadi M, Aljumaah R S, Alshaikh M A, Yahyahoui M H, Seddik M M, Hammadi M, Khorchani T, Amann O, Cabrera S
J Anim Sci. 2016 Aug;94(8):3561-3571. doi: 10.2527/jas.2016-0472.
The camel industry uses traditional (i.e., iron brands and ear tags) and modern (i.e., microchips) identification (ID) systems without having performance results of reference. Previously iron-branded ( = 45; 1 yr) and microchipped ( = 59; 7 yr) camels showed problems of healing (8.6% of brands) and reading (only 42.9% of brands and 69.5% of microchips were readable), which made their use inadvisable. With the aim of proposing suitable ID systems for different farming conditions, an on-field study was performed using a total of 528 dromedaries at 4 different locations (Egypt, = 83; Spain, = 304; Saudi Arabia, = 90; and Tunisia, = 51). The ID devices tested were visual (button ear tags, 28.5 mm diameter, = 178; double flag ear tags, 50 by 15 mm, = 83; both made of polyurethane) and electronic (ear tags, = 90, and rumen boluses, = 555). Electronic ear tags were polyurethane-loop type (75 by 9 mm) with a container in which a 22-mm transponder of full-duplex technology was lodged. Electronic boluses of 7 types, varying in dimensions (50 to 76 mm length, 11 to 21 mm width, and 12.7 to 82.1 g weight) and specific gravity (SG; 1.49 to 3.86) and each of them containing a 31-mm transponder of half-duplex technology, were all administered to the dromedaries at the beginning of the study. When a low-SG bolus was lost, a high-SG bolus was readministered. Readability rates of each ID system were evaluated during 1 to 3 yr, according to device and location, and yearly values were estimated for comparison. On a yearly basis, visual ear tag readability was not fully satisfactory; it was lower for rectangular ear tags (66.3%) than for button ear tags (80.9%). Yearly readability of electronic ear tags was 93.7%. Bolus readability dramatically varied according to their SG; the SG < 2.0 boluses were fully lost after 8 mo. In contrast, the SG > 3.0 boluses were efficiently retained (99.6 to 100%) at all locations. In conclusion, according to the expected long lifespan of camels, low ID performances were observed for iron brands, injectable microchips, and ear tags (visual and electronic), making their use inadvisable as unique ID systems in camels. The high readability of dense electronic boluses recommended their use as a permanent ID device of reference in camels.
骆驼养殖业使用传统(如烙铁烙印和耳标)和现代(如微芯片)识别(ID)系统,但没有参考性能结果。此前,烙有烙铁印的骆驼(n = 45;1岁)和植入微芯片的骆驼(n = 59;7岁)出现了愈合问题(8.6%的烙印)和读取问题(只有42.9%的烙印和69.5%的微芯片可读),这使得它们的使用不太可取。为了针对不同养殖条件提出合适的ID系统,在4个不同地点(埃及,n = 83;西班牙,n = 304;沙特阿拉伯,n = 90;突尼斯,n = 51)对总共528头单峰骆驼进行了一项实地研究。测试的ID设备包括视觉设备(直径28.5毫米的纽扣耳标,n = 178;50×15毫米的双旗耳标,n = 83;均由聚氨酯制成)和电子设备(耳标,n = 90,瘤胃丸剂,n = 555)。电子耳标为聚氨酯环型(75×9毫米),带有一个容器,其中放置一个22毫米的全双工技术应答器。7种不同尺寸(长度50至76毫米、宽度11至21毫米、重量12.7至82.1克)和比重(SG;1.49至3.86)的电子丸剂,每种都包含一个31毫米的半双工技术应答器,在研究开始时全部施用于单峰骆驼。当低SG丸剂丢失时,重新施用高SG丸剂。根据设备和地点,在1至3年内评估每个ID系统的可读率,并估计每年的值进行比较。每年来看,视觉耳标的可读性并不完全令人满意;矩形耳标的可读性(66.3%)低于纽扣耳标(80.9%)。电子耳标的年可读率为93.7%。丸剂的可读性根据其SG有很大差异;SG<2.0的丸剂在8个月后全部丢失。相比之下,SG>3.0的丸剂在所有地点都能有效保留(99.6%至100%)。总之,根据骆驼预期的长寿,观察到烙铁烙印、可注射微芯片和耳标(视觉和电子)的ID性能较低,使其作为骆驼唯一的ID系统不太可取。高密度电子丸剂的高可读性推荐将其用作骆驼永久性的参考ID设备。