Comparison of visual and electronic identification devices in pigs: Slaughterhouse performance1,2

Abstract

Traceability during slaughter was studied in 1,581 pigs identified by different devices. Treatments were visual ear tags (n = 1,300), electronic ear tags of different technologies (half-duplex, n = 636; full-duplex, n = 632), and intraperitoneally injected transponders of different technologies (half-duplex 32 mm, n = 645; full-duplex 34 mm, n = 642). Piglets were individually identified at weaning and intensively fed until 100 kg of BW. Pigs were slaughtered in 2 commercial slaughterhouses (including scalding, flaming, and peeling) at different throughputs (450 and 550 pigs/h). Readability during slaughtering was checked visually and using standardized hand-held transceivers. No effect of slaughterhouse was detected (P > 0.05). Ear tag losses in the slaughtering line were similar for visual (3.7%) and half-duplex (3.5%) but were increased for full-duplex (11.5%; P < 0.05). Moreover, electronic failures during slaughtering did not differ (P > 0.05) between ear tags (half-duplex, 1.1%; full-duplex, 0.6%). Intraperitoneally injected transponders were not affected by slaughtering (retention 100%, no failures), and 89.0% of the transponders were manually recovered from the abdominal viscera in the offal trays. The remaining transponders (11.0%) were lost on the floor, but none were found in the carcasses. No differences (P > 0.05) in recovery were observed between intraperitoneal transponders. Considering on-farm and slaughterhouse data, total traceability from farm to carcass release was greater (P < 0.05) for intraperitoneally injected transponders (98.2%) than for ear tags. Between ear tags, the greatest traceability was obtained with visual tags (95.7%), which differed (P < 0.05) from electronic tags (half-duplex, 91.4%; full-duplex, 84.5%; P < 0.05). Intraperitoneally injected transponders were an efficient and reliable identification system for tracing pigs from farm to the end of the slaughter line, allowing the transfer of pig identification to the carcass. Adherence of intraperitoneally injected transponders to the viscera should be improved to reduce risks of loss in the meat chain. A dual system based on intraperitoneally injected transponders and plastic ear tags would allow a redundant and automatic reading system that is efficient and reliable for data management and traceability in the swine industry.

Traceability of extensively produced Iberian pigs using visual and electronic identification devices from farm to slaughter1

“…At slaughter, losses, failures, and readability did not differ (P > 0.05) between abattoirs for any of the studied identification devices. Losses of conventional (average Losses, % (n) 0 (0) 1.4 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) --Failures, % (n) --0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Readability, 5 % (n) 100 (155) 98.6 (139) 100 (64) 100 (47) 100 (71) 100 (79) 100 (92) 100 (66) Slaughter Losses, % (n) 3.2 (5) 2.9 (4) 0 (0) 8.5 (4) 0 (0) 3.8 (3) --Failures, % (n) --0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) Readability, 5 % (n) 96. value of 3.0%) were similar to those found by Santamarina et al (2007), but lower than those obtained by Caja et al (2005) in 100 kg of BW pigs. Losses of e-ID ear tags were slightly lower than those of conventional ear tags (2.7%), which agrees with findings of Teixidor et al (1995), Stä rk et al (1998), and Santamarina et al (2007.…”

“…Pig electronic identification (e-ID) based on injectable transponders was proposed as an alternative to conventional ear tags (Lambooij et al, 1995;Lammers et al, 1995), although results were not conclusive (Stä rk et al, 1998). New approaches for e-ID of intensively produced pigs have been recently proposed (Caja et al, 2005;Babot et al, 2006;Santamarina et al, 2007), but little research has been conducted using Iberian pigs (Herná ndez-Jover et al, 2005). To our knowledge, no studies on e-ID in Iberian pigs under extensive commercial production conditions exist.…”

Possibilities of establishing a smallholder pig identification and traceability system in Kenya

“…On recovery, intra-peritoneal transponders are found loose in the peritoneal cavity and enveloped by abdominal viscera (Prola et al 2010). There are safety concerns over the use of transponders in food animals (Caja et al 2004;Gosalvez et al 2007); however, Caja et al (2005) and Santamarina et al (2007) did not find any transponder in carcasses examined. In the study by Lamboolj et al (1995), a small percentage of transponders injected at the base of the ears was unreadable at slaughter.…”

“…Automated techniques (including the use of machine-readable barcodes and radiofrequency identification (RFID)) allow for automation of traceability systems and promote faster and less expensive data collection processes (Stark et al 1998). They allow for automatic reading of details, record large volumes of data and help reduce possibilities of errors during recording (Santamarina et al 2007;Senk et al 2013). RFID technologies use radio waves to automatically identify animals (McCathie 2004) and have the data stored in passive transponders.…”

Individual identification of pigs during rearing and at slaughter using microchips

“…External identification methods are not tamperproof and the losses can be extensive. For ear tags, losses of 5-60% have been reported (Madec et al, 2001;Caja et al, 2005;Babot et al, 2006;March et al, 2007, Santamarina et al, 2007. Pigs may lose their ear tags if they become caught on interior fittings in the pen, on the way to slaughter or be lost at the slaughter line after slaughter (Stärk et al, 1998).…”