Laboratory of Biotechnology and Animal Reproduction, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, Embrapa Southeast Livestock, São Carlos, SP, Brazil.
Institute of Veterinary Medicine, Federal University of Pará, UFPA, Castanhal, PA, Brazil.
Trop Anim Health Prod. 2020 Nov;52(6):3725-3733. doi: 10.1007/s11250-020-02410-7. Epub 2020 Oct 3.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the viability of using transponders for the electronic identification of water buffaloes and compare their efficiency when used in animals of different age groups. Electronic transponders with RFID technology (2.1 × 12.2 mm) were implanted subcutaneously (D0) in the scutiform cartilage. The animals consisted of four groups: CLF-I (17 calves; 2.1 ± 1.9 months), CLF-II (20 calves; 5.1 ± 3.2 months), HFR (20 heifers; 22 ± 4.7 months) and STR (19 steers; 26.6 ± 6.7 months). The animals were kept under pasture grazing, a part of the year in the dryland and a part in the floodplain, and were monitored for up to 350 days. The average time required for individual transponder implant was 49.46 s, while the time required for reading the code was 3.76 s. The older calves required higher time for individual implant (P = 0.0001) and closer approximation of the reader in the D150 (P = 0.0001). The mean read distance was 2.98 cm in D0 and 1.94 cm in D150. The magnitude of the subcutaneous transponder migration was minimal, and was within an area of 17.2 mm. A slight bleeding was observed in 15.79% of the animals during the implant. A decreasing incidence of edema was observed until D21, with the heifers being more sensitive until that time (P = 0.0099). Considering the results, it is preferred to implant electronic transponders in calves up to two months of age. The physical rate of transponder loss was 1.3% and the loss of functionality was 9.2%. High reading rate was achieved when animals were raised both in dryland (93.9%) and floodplain (97.2%). Thus, the electronic identification of water buffaloes is a technique capable of replacing traditional and rudimentary methods to identify buffaloes and can provide safe identification of animals.
本研究的目的是评估使用应答器对水牛进行电子识别的可行性，并比较其在不同年龄组动物中的效率。使用具有 RFID 技术的电子应答器（2.1×12.2 毫米）在皮下（D0）植入盾状软骨。动物分为四组：CLF-I（17 头小牛；2.1±1.9 个月）、CLF-II（20 头小牛；5.1±3.2 个月）、HFR（20 头小母牛；22±4.7 个月）和 STR（19 头公牛；26.6±6.7 个月）。动物在牧场放牧条件下饲养，一年中的一部分时间在旱地，一部分时间在洪泛区，并进行了长达 350 天的监测。单个应答器植入所需的平均时间为 49.46 秒，而读取代码所需的时间为 3.76 秒。年龄较大的小牛需要更长的个体植入时间（P=0.0001），并且在 D150 时需要更接近读取器（P=0.0001）。D0 时的平均读取距离为 2.98 厘米，D150 时为 1.94 厘米。皮下应答器迁移的幅度很小，在 17.2 毫米的区域内。在植入过程中，15.79%的动物观察到轻微出血。直到 D21 观察到水肿的发生率逐渐下降，直到那时小母牛更为敏感（P=0.0099）。考虑到这些结果，最好在两个月大的小牛中植入电子应答器。应答器的物理丢失率为 1.3%，功能丧失率为 9.2%。当动物在旱地（93.9%）和洪泛区（97.2%）饲养时，都能实现高读取率。因此，水牛的电子识别是一种能够替代传统和原始方法来识别水牛的技术，可以为动物提供安全的识别。
