Individual identification of pigs during rearing and at slaughter using microchips

Optimal implantation site of transponders for identification of experimental swine

“…Because we successfully read this transponder until 3 days after implantation, this transponder was considered to have dropped out of the body at 4 days or later. In porcine studies comparing different sizes of transponders, smaller transponders dropped out less frequently than larger one [1, 2, 14]. Although the length of JMC transponders (12 mm) was smaller than that of transponders used in previous porcine studies (23 mm) [2, 14], loss of JMC transponders implanted in the ventral neck (one of three transponders, 33%) was higher than that in ear bases reported in the previous porcine studies (18.1–29.8%) [2, 14].…”

“…High retentionability (i.e., long-term retention in tissues without detachment or loss) and biocompatibility of transponders are also needed to confidently and safely identify experimental swine throughout the study period. In agricultural swine, it was reported that retentionability of transponders varied depending on implantation site [2], while excellent biocompatibility of transponders was widely confirmed [1, 2, 4, 6,7,8,9,10, 13, 14]. However, it is necessary to determine the optimal implantation site for transponders with high readability, retentionability, and biocompatibility in experimental swine, as systematic comparison of implantation sites has not yet been performed.…”

“…The purpose of the current study was to determine the optimal implantation site for transponders in experimental swine with respect to readability, retentionability, and biocompatibility by comparing four implantation sites: ear base, ear auricle, ventral neck, and back. In addition to the ear base and ear auricle, which were frequently used in previous porcine studies [1, 2, 6,7,8,9,10, 14], we also chose the ventral neck and back, in which high retentionability of transponders is expected because the thick subcutaneous fat tissues at these sites would allow transponders to be implanted more deeply. The swine species (domestic swine, cross of Landrace and Large White) and the age at implantation (3 months) were determined based on their frequent use in preclinical studies of medical devices.…”

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

“…During the 5 minutes after injecting an electronic ear implant, piglets did not show increased frequencies of head shaking or ear scratching when compared to piglets receiving an electronic ear tag (Barbieri et al, 2012). Auricle based implants also lead to less ear lesions than ear tags (Bergqvist et al, 2015). Piglets injected intraperitoneally with an electronic implant spent less time standing and more time isolated and awake but inactive during the 3 hours following the procedure compared with sham-treated piglets, hence suggesting the presence of post-procedural pain (Leslie et al, 2010).…”

“…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.…”