Effects of injection position and transponder size on the performances of passive injectable transponders used for the electronic identification of cattle.

Conill, Carlos; Caja, G.; Nehring, R. Barry; Ribò, O.

doi:10.2527/2000.78123001x

Cited by 32 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings agree with those of Conill et al (2000Conill et al ( , 2002 and Caja et al (2005), who found no negative effects in cattle, lambs and pigs in similar experiments. Only 1 piglet died (perineal injection group) in our experiment, but the necropsy confirmed that the cause of death was not related to transponder injection.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 95%

Use of injectable transponders for the identification and traceability of pigs

Prola¹,

Perona²,

Tursi³

et al. 2010

Ital J Animal Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual identification in pigs is a key point for management, traceability and trade control. The aim of this experiment was to study retention rate and functionality of electronic identification systems in pigs, injected in different sites, to evaluate traceability of animals and highlight histopathological alterations of tissues in different inoculation sites. A total of 60 crossbred piglets were used to compare different transponder inoculation sites. One group (15 piglets) was identified only by plastic ear tags; and three groups were identified by passive injectable transponders (PIT) with different inoculation sites. Pigs were slaughtered in two different moments, in order to evaluate injection sites, macroscopically and histologically, either 50 days after injection or at a normal slaughtering weight. In general, no apparent animal health problems were observed the day after the injection or during the control readings performed during the experiment. Intraperitoneal localization gave excellent results in term of readability until the slaughter time. Transponders at the slaughter line were always recovered in the viscera tray because they were found loose in the peritoneal cavity. In some cases, they were found on the carcasses, attached to the peritoneum. In those cases a sample of peritoneal tissue was collected for histological examination. A reparative chronic reaction with moderate and multifocal fibrosis and neoformed vessels associated to multifocal and mild lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate were detected. In one case (6.7%) the transponder was found on the visceral side of the liver and the histological examination highlighted a localized superficial hepatic atrophy by compression. Retroauricolar site of injection gave lower readability results because 2 transponders (13.3%) were no more readable during the first month after injection. No lesions were found with this inoculation site. PIT injected in the perineal region were operative until slaughter time. Recovery procedures at the slaughter house were simple for animals slaughtered at a low weight, but much more difficult in the case of heavy pigs. Moreover, in three cases (20%), PITs were no more in the subcutaneous tissue but they had an intramuscular localization. The histological examination of the muscles revealed a chronic reparative process. In our experiment, injectable transponders in the intraperitoneal position provided the best identification system for pigs. Histopathological examination revealed only local reparative processes in the tissues interested by PIT contact, and no other pathological changes

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 95%

Use of injectable transponders for the identification and traceability of pigs

Prola¹,

Perona²,

Tursi³

et al. 2010

Ital J Animal Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No differences between glass-and polymerencapsulated microchips were detected by Løken et al (2011). The use of longer glass-encapsulated transponders (23 or 32 by 3.8 mm) in suitable body sites (ear scutulum and armpit) of fattening calves slaughtered at 8 to 12 mo by Conill et al (2000) showed 93.0 to 98.5% readability, which differed according to body site and transponder size. When comparing our results of microchip readability of the long term (7 yr) in camels with short and mid term (0.5 to 2.1 yr) in horses and cattle, it is clear that the values of estimated yearly losses by using the Seroussi et al (2011) expression in our camels (5.1%; Table 2) were consistent and within the range of those previously calculated in horses (0 to 13.7%) and cattle (1.8 to 8.4%).…”

Section: Previously Applied Identificationmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…The World Small Animal Veterinary Association (2016) strongly recommended that any microchipped food-producing animal should carry an external ID to indicate that a microchip is present (i.e., to be recognized and recovered at slaughter) and in some cases their use may not be permitted. Conill et al (2000) reported recovery times of approximately 1 min at the slaughterhouse when 23 and 32 mm transponders were injected in the ear base and armpit of fattening calves. The smaller size of RFID microchips used in camels (i.e., 12 to 15 mm, as in horses and pets), the uncertainty of their presence (i.e., high losses), and location difficulties (i.e., short reading distance) will compromise the safety of camel meat (i.e., neck) for consumers, making it not fully recommendable in the camel industry.…”

Section: Previously Applied Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of visual and electronic devices for individual identification of dromedary camels under different farming conditions

Caja

Díaz-Medina

Salama

et al. 2016

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The camel industry uses traditional (i.e., iron brands and ear tags) and modern (i.e., microchips) identification (ID) systems without having performance results of reference. Previously iron-branded ( = 45; 1 yr) and microchipped ( = 59; 7 yr) camels showed problems of healing (8.6% of brands) and reading (only 42.9% of brands and 69.5% of microchips were readable), which made their use inadvisable. With the aim of proposing suitable ID systems for different farming conditions, an on-field study was performed using a total of 528 dromedaries at 4 different locations (Egypt, = 83; Spain, = 304; Saudi Arabia, = 90; and Tunisia, = 51). The ID devices tested were visual (button ear tags, 28.5 mm diameter, = 178; double flag ear tags, 50 by 15 mm, = 83; both made of polyurethane) and electronic (ear tags, = 90, and rumen boluses, = 555). Electronic ear tags were polyurethane-loop type (75 by 9 mm) with a container in which a 22-mm transponder of full-duplex technology was lodged. Electronic boluses of 7 types, varying in dimensions (50 to 76 mm length, 11 to 21 mm width, and 12.7 to 82.1 g weight) and specific gravity (SG; 1.49 to 3.86) and each of them containing a 31-mm transponder of half-duplex technology, were all administered to the dromedaries at the beginning of the study. When a low-SG bolus was lost, a high-SG bolus was readministered. Readability rates of each ID system were evaluated during 1 to 3 yr, according to device and location, and yearly values were estimated for comparison. On a yearly basis, visual ear tag readability was not fully satisfactory; it was lower for rectangular ear tags (66.3%) than for button ear tags (80.9%). Yearly readability of electronic ear tags was 93.7%. Bolus readability dramatically varied according to their SG; the SG < 2.0 boluses were fully lost after 8 mo. In contrast, the SG > 3.0 boluses were efficiently retained (99.6 to 100%) at all locations. In conclusion, according to the expected long lifespan of camels, low ID performances were observed for iron brands, injectable microchips, and ear tags (visual and electronic), making their use inadvisable as unique ID systems in camels. The high readability of dense electronic boluses recommended their use as a permanent ID device of reference in camels.

show abstract

“…Injectable half-duplex passive responders in the armpit of cattle were more suitable on the farm than smaller-sized responders or subcutaneous injection in the ear scutulum or upper lip, but they required more care and a longer time for recovery at the abattoir than for the smaller-sized devices and ear or lip injection (Conill et al ., 2000). Ghirardi et al .…”

Section: Ruminantsmentioning

confidence: 98%