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

Abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate the performance of recognised by Italian law (tattoos) and other (ear tags and injectable transponders) identification systems and to investigate if they caused different levels of short-term discomfort in piglets. Ninety-six ten-day-old piglets -equally assigned to four experimental groups -were identified with electronic ear tags (EET), transponders injected in the auricle base (TAB), in intraperitoneal position (TIP), or ear tattoo (T). Losses, breakages and readability of the identification devices were recorded to evaluate their efficiency. Fortyeight piglets were observed continuously for 5 min after identification. Behavioural indicators of pain, discomfort or ease were recorded in terms of duration of occurrence or frequency. Non-parametric analyses of variance were used to compare time required for the application of the devices and behavioural reactions of piglets. No healing problems or breakages of the electronic devices were observed during the trial. The readability after nine months was 93.8% for EET and TIP, 86.7% for TAB and 0% for T. The time required for the application differed significantly (P<0.001) among the four identification devices. EET and TIP showed better results than T considering losses, breakages, readability and time required for application. Behaviours most frequently recorded were head shaking and ear scratching, observed more frequently in piglets after the application of EET (P<0.001). The application of these identification devices caused a mild discomfort in piglets; further studies should investigate in detail the intensity and duration of reactions to the identification procedure.

The feasibility of using passive injectable transponders in field operations for individual identification of sheep in Italy

“…At the first check at 15 days p.i., the proportion of non-readable PITs was higher than the values reported in previous studies on sheep (Rib o 1996;Caja et al 1998;Conill et al 2002). Only pigs have previously shown losses as high as 13.3% (Barbieri et al 2012).…”

4. Husbandry interventions in suckling piglets, painful consequences and mitigation

“…Tattooing is less used than ear notching or tagging and studies on its welfare consequences are scarce. One very important flaw of tattooing is its low readability after a few months (Barbieri et al, 2012;Gosalvez et al, 2007). Only one study reported on the behaviour of piglets within 5 minutes of the procedure in comparison to other identification methods (Barbieri et al, 2012).…”

“…One very important flaw of tattooing is its low readability after a few months (Barbieri et al, 2012;Gosalvez et al, 2007). Only one study reported on the behaviour of piglets within 5 minutes of the procedure in comparison to other identification methods (Barbieri et al, 2012). Tattooed pigs displayed similarly low frequencies of head shaking or ear scratching than pigs receiving an intraperitoneal implant, being much lower than in pigs receiving an electronic ear tag (Barbieri et al, 2012).…”

“…New identification techniques using microchip implants of various size (from 1.4 × 8 mm to 4 × 32 mm) allowing wireless RFID identification have been tested (Barbieri et al, 2012;Bergqvist et al, 2015;Leslie et al, 2010). These implants can be injected subcutaneously at the auricle base or intraperitoneally.…”

The Use of Vocalization Signals to Estimate the Level of Pain in Piglets

“…Practical alternatives such as the development of more appropriate methods, local and general anesthetics, or the use of non-surgical methods (e.g., immune castration) (Martins et al, 2013;Bruno et al, 2013) should be designed to improve animal welfare. Barbieri et al (2012) evaluated distinct methods of marking and concluded that using the RFID transponder in the perineum area is the adequate swine identifying process.…”