Comparison of visual and electronic identification devices in pigs: On-farm performances1,2

Abstract

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.

Recognised-by-law versus other identification systems in pigs: piglets discomfort evaluation and performance testing

“…The application of the ear tag is a rather simple operation and can be done by the farmer without risks for the animal. In literature, Stärk et al (1998) and, recently, Prola et al (2010) reported a readability of 100% for electronic ear tags in pigs; in contrast, Babot et al (2006) obtained a similar readability (96.7%) to the one observed in our trial. The reading shows a percentage of error of 0.1%, however, problems may rise as ear tags are subject to a high loss rate, up to 40% (Caja et al, 2004).…”

“…The method requiring the longest time was the tattoo with 20±6 s, followed by the transponder injected in the auricle base (14±4 s) and the transponder in the intraperitoneal position (11±4 s). For the application of the ear tag, the average time required was 7±3 s. The results reported in this experiment are in discordance with those reported by other authors (Table 3), who recorded longer times for the injection of electronic devices, ranging from 56 s (Babot et al, 2006) to 101.7 s (Caja et al, 2005). This huge variability among studies is probably due to the different equipment used, the level of experience of the operator and the method for restraining animals.…”

“…The most suitable injection sites, in relation to transponder size, are the auricle base and the auricle. Results obtained in different experiments showed that injectable transponders in the intraperitoneal position are suitable too (Caja et al, 2005;Babot et al, 2006) and easily removable avoiding carcass contamination. One drawback related to the intraperitoneal site is the complexity of the injection itself, which requires specific training.…”

Individual identification of pigs during rearing and at slaughter using microchips

“…Electronic ear tags can fail due to biting or friction from interior fittings (Babot et al, 2006), but in this study the reason for failure in readability during rearing was in all cases due to the electronic ear tag being lost.…”

“…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).…”