Long-term performance of visual and electronic identification devices in dairy goats

Abstract

Dairy goat kids born during a 3-yr period (n = 97) and their mothers (n = 29) were used for a long-term evaluation of the performance of 9 types of identification (ID) devices. Kids wore multiple ID devices: visual ear tags (V1, tip-tag, n = 47; V2, official, n = 50), electronic ear tags (E1, button-button, n = 46; E2, flag-button, n = 46), electronic rumen boluses (B1, mini-bolus 14 g, n = 92; B2, mini-bolus 20 g, n = 28; B3, standard bolus 75 g, n = 34) and glass-encapsulated transponders injected in the forefeet (T1, 15 mm, n = 75; T2, 12 mm, n = 100). Visual ear tags were applied at birth and removed in yearlings, whereas electronic ear tags were applied after bolusing with B1 (6.7 kg BW and 30 d, on average); B2 were administered in the event of a B1 loss, and B3 in case of a B2 loss and in goat does. At d 60 of age, kids were allocated into 2 groups to evaluate the effects of rearing system on ID. Treatments were: weaned (n = 46), and not weaned (n = 46) where kids suckled a milk substitute until d 150. Readability of ID devices (read/readable x 100) was monitored from 1 to 3 yr of age, depending on device and year of birth. Long-term readability was analyzed using a nonparametric survival analysis. A total of 3.3% infections and 6.5% tissue reactions were reported for electronic ear tags, but ears were fully healed in yearlings. Weaning numerically reduced B1 losses at d 150 (weaned, 84.8% vs. not weaned, 73.3%). Readability of visual ear tags in yearlings (V1, 82.9%; V2, 94.0%) was lower than for electronic ear tags (E1 and E2, 100%). Mini-bolus readability in yearlings did not differ by type (B1, 71.4%; B2, 84.6%) or with visual ear tags. No effect of inject type was reported (T1, 92.0%; T2, 96.0%). Survival analysis after yr 3 gave the greatest readability value for E1 (100%), which did not differ from B3 (96.8%). The lowest readability was estimated for B1 (66.3%), followed by E2 (79.8%), B2 (81.4%), and T1 (90.4%). In conclusion, button-button electronic ear tags and standard boluses were the more efficient devices under our conditions, their readability values being greater than injects, electronic mini-boluses, and visual and flag-button electronic ear tags. Transponders injected in the forefeet and mini-boluses used here are not recommended in practice. Further research on E1 and B3 electronic devices should be done in a higher number of goats to confirm the current results.

The use of infrared thermography for welfare assessment during the application of ear tags to lambs

“…Infections occurred in the form of ear swelling, irritation under the ear tags, inflammation, and feelings of discomfort or pain when touched. The num- ber of infected ears caused by metal-tipped ear tags is similar to the value of 3.3 % reported by Carne et al (2009). On the other hand, this value is lower than the 7.4 % average value reported by Thomas et al (2006) for five different types of electronic ear tags in ewes, the 80 and 50 % values reported by Karakuş et al (2015b), respectively, for electronic and official plastic ear tags (metal-tipped) in lambs, and the 17.6 and 45.9 % infected ear values also reported by Karakuş et al (2016) for, respectively, metal-tipped and electronic ear tags in goat kids.…”

“…In contrast, 8 out of 60 lambs with e-ET (13.3 %) had infections. The number of infected ears caused by e-ET is higher than that reported by Thomas et al (2006) and Carne et al (2009) but lower than that reported by Karakuş et al (2015bKarakuş et al ( , 2016.…”

“…In this study, all of the infected ears were completely healed by 6 weeks after the ear tags were attached. This finding is better in comparison to Carne et al (2009), who reported that 90.2 % of the infected ears recovered completely after 2 months, and in comparison to Karakuş et al (2016), who reported that all the infected ears recovered in 10 weeks after the ear tag application, based on the severity of the wound. On the other hand, Edwards et al (2001) reported that all wounds recovered after week 20 following the ear tag application, except for wounds resulting from metal loop tags.…”

“…Carne et al (2009) reported three (3.3 %) cases of extreme bleeding in 92 electronic ear tag applications. On the other hand, Kowalski et al (2014) observed bleeding in one goat only when using large-type plastic ear tags.…”

Performance of electronic and visual ear tags in lambs under extensive conditions in Turkey

“…), and ear tissue reactions at each reading control. Unreadable devices were due to either loss or device failure (Carne et al, 2009). When tags were missing, the date was recorded and the animal was re-tagged.…”