Use of ear tags and injectable transponders for the identification and traceability of

pigs from birth to the end of the slaughter line

G. Caja, M. Hernndez-Jover, C. Conill, D. Garn, X. Alabern, B. Farriol and J. Ghirardi
J ANIM SCI 2005, 83:2215-2224.

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on
the World Wide Web at:
http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/83/9/2215

www.asas.org

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 19, 2012

Use of ear tags and injectable transponders for the identification

and traceability of pigs from birth to the end of the slaughter line1,2
G. Caja*3, M. Hernandez-Jover*, C. Conill*, D. Garn*4,
X. Alabern, B. Farriol, and J. Ghirardi*
*Produccio Animal, Departament de Cie`ncia Animal i dels Aliments, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona,
08193 Bellaterra, Spain; Tracex Trazabilidad en Alimentacion SL, 08228 Terrassa, Spain;
and Rumitag SL, 08037 Barcelona, Spain

ABSTRACT: A total of 557 newborn piglets were

used to compare eight identification devices, including
one plastic ear tag as a control (C, n = 348) and two
types of electronic ear tags (E1, n = 106; and E2, n =
103), and five types of injectable transponders (n = 557):
small 12-mm (D12, n = 116; and S12, n = 110), medium
23-mm (T23, n = 108), and large (32-mm, T32, n = 115;
and 34-mm, S34, n = 108). Injections were made s.c. in
the auricle base (n = 248) and intraperitoneally (n =
309) using a new technique. All piglets were identified
with two devices, but using electronic ear tags in conjunction with injection in the auricle was avoided on
the same pig. Readability of devices was checked during
fattening (until 110 kg BW) and slaughtering. On-farm
losses were lower for control than for electronic ear tags
(C = 1.1%; E1 = 8.8%; and E2 = 44.9%; P < 0.01); the
latter also suffered electronic failures (E1 = 5.5%; and
E2 = 55.1%; P < 0.001). On-farm losses of transponders
injected in the auricle base were greater in large (S34 =
72.5%; and T32 = 46.3%; P < 0.05) than in small transponders (S12 = 19.4%; and D12 = 17.1%), but T23
(29.8%) only differed from S34. Transponder size did
not affect on-farm losses for intraperitoneal injections
in which only one loss was recorded (0.4%). All ear

tags had similar losses during transportation to the

slaughterhouse (1.2%), but no losses were observed in
injectables. Slaughtering losses did not differ between
ear tags (C = 11.2%; and E1 = 6.4%), but apart from
losses, 12.8% of E1 failed electronically. Injection site
affected losses and breakages during slaughtering (auricle base = 6.4%; and intraperitoneal = 0%), but recovery time did not significantly differ (auricle base = 28.6
s; and intraperitoneal = 18.9 s). Transponders in the
auricle base were recovered by sight (30.2%), palpation
(27.4%), or by cutting (42.5%). Intraperitoneal transponders were mainly recovered loose in the abdominal
cavity (81.4%), whereas 18.6% fell on the floor. As a
result, traceability varied significantly (P < 0.05) between control (86.7%) and electronic ear tags (0 to
68.1%) and injectable transponders, with the auricle
base (17.8 to 75.0%) having lower values than intraperitoneal (98 to 100%). Intraperitoneal injection was a very
effective tool for piglet identification and traceability,
ensuring the transfer of information from farm to
slaughterhouse. To warrant the use of this technique
in practice, transponder recovery requires further investigation.

Key Words: Ear Tag, Electronic Identification, Swine, Traceability, Transponder

2005 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved.

J. Anim. Sci. 2005. 83:22152224

Introduction
1

Research supported by The European Commission, Fifth Framework Program, Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources,
Contract FAIR 5 QLK1-CT-2001-02229 EID+DNA Tracing (Electronic Identification and Molecular Markers for Improving the Traceability of Livestock and Meat). Available: http://www.uab.es/tracing/.
2
The authors appreciate the assistance of the crew of La Industrial
pig farm of the Cooperativa de Artesa de Segre (Artesa de Segre,
Lleida, Spain) for feeding and taking care of the animals; the Direction
and Veterinary teams of the slaughterhouse of LAgudana (Cervera,
Lleida, Spain) for the slaughtering and transponder recovery facilities; M. Emmenegger of Datamars (Bedano-Lugano, Switzerland), J.
Francesc Vilaseca of Rumitag (Barcelona, Spain), and M. Villamayor
of Sokymat (Granges, Switzerland) for the supply of the transponders;
and N. Aldam for the English revision of the manuscript.

Individual identification in pigs is a key point for management, traceability, trade control, and disease eradication. Conventional identification used by producers to
identify their pigs (i.e., ear notching, ear tags, and tat-

Correspondencefax: +34 93 581 1494; e-mail: gerardo.

caja@uab.es.
4
Current address: Facultad de Veterinaria, Universidad de la Republica, Av. Lasplaces 1550, 12500 Montevideo, Uruguay.
Received September 29, 2004.
Accepted May 26, 2005.

2215
Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 19, 2012

2216

Caja et al.

toos) are not sufficiently efficient (Holm et al., 1976;

Stark et al., 1998) to reach the 99 (3 mo) and 98% (12
mo) retention rates approved by the International Committee for Animal Recording (ICAR, 2005). The main
reasons for this inefficiency are losses, code erasing,
short reading distances, transcription errors, negative
effects on welfare, and fraud (Caja et al., 2001, 2002).
An effective identification has to be individualized,
permanent, simple to apply and read, welfare appropriate, and tamper-proof (Marchant, 1981; Merks and
Lambooij, 1990; McKean, 2001). Electronic identification
(e-ID) using passive transponders could be an alternative for pigs because it meets most of these requirements
(Lambooij and Merks, 1989; Stark et al., 1998; Caja et
al., 2001). The e-ID has been applied for swine management and feeding (Huiskes, 1991; Blair et al., 1994).
Electronic devices used in pigs include collars, ear tags
and injectable transponders. The auricle base and the
ear base are the recommended s.c. injection sites for
injectable transponders (Lambooij and Merks, 1989;
Lambooij, 1992; Lammers et al., 1995).
Slaughtering conditions for pigs, using fire, hot water,
and a high line speed, jeopardize the retention and recovery of the identifiers in the abattoir. Moreover, electronic
devices must remain functional at the slaughter line,
and removal from the carcass has to be performed in
less than 5 s to be considered acceptable (Merks and
Lambooij, 1990).
The aim of this experiment was to study the retention
rate and functionality of conventional and electronic
identification systems in pigs, including injectable transponders in different injection sites and electronic ear
tags to evaluate the traceability of pigs from birth to the
end of the slaughter line.

Materials and Methods

Animals and Management
A total of 557 new born piglets issued from a crossbreeding program of Pietrain boars and Tetras (Duroc
Landrace; Seleccion Batalle, Girona, Spain) hybrid sows,
were used to compare eight different identification devices, including one plastic and two electronic ear tags
and five passive injectable transponders (PIT). Experimental procedures were approved by the Ethical Committee on Human and Animal Experimentation of the
Universitat Auto`noma de Barcelona (CEEAH 331/2001),
and the experiment lasted from the beginning of summer
to the end of the fall.
Piglets were born and reared in an intensive feeding
system on a closed-cycle pig farm of the Cooperativa de
Artesa de Segre (Lleida, Spain). Farrowing crates (2.9
2.0 m) consisted of a farrowing stall for untied sows
(2.1 0.55 m), with metal slatted flooring and a liquid
manure pit. The farrowing barn had a controlled temperature (20 to 28C). The piglet creep area had plastic
covered slats and a heating plate kept at 28C. Sows
were fed a dry diet (2.2 Mcal of NE/kg and 17% CP, as-

fed basis) in an automatic trough twice a day. Piglets

were provided a creep concentrate ad libitum (3.0 Mcal
of NE/kg and 22% CP, as-fed basis). Both the sow and
piglets had free access to water through nipple drinkers.
Piglets were processed (navel cord and teeth cutting and
tail docking), and cross fostering was conducted on the
day of birth. An iron injection was applied on d 2. Sows
and piglets were checked twice daily for signs of farrowing problems and disadvantaged or dead pigs were
removed. Piglets were not castrated, and no relevant
health problems were detected.
Piglets were weaned on d 24 3 and mixed into groups
of 70 to 90 animals per nursery. Nursery pens (6.5 4.0
m) had a concrete slatted floor and a permanently open
outdoor dunging zone and two nipple drinkers. Automatic temperature (from 26 to 21C, decreasing 1C/wk)
and light (from 17 to 9 h/d, decreasing 2 h/wk) controls
were used indoors. Pigs were fed ad libitum with a
prestarter concentrate (2.7 Mcal of NE/kg and 21.9% CP,
as-fed basis) for approximately 12 d and then with a
starter concentrate (2.5 Mcal of NE/kg and 19% CP, asfed basis) for 25 d. Piglets were checked twice daily for
signs of discomfort, and disadvantaged or dead pigs
were removed.
Finally, the pigs were allocated into single sex groups
of 20 to 25 animals per finishing pen (6 4 m). The pens
had a concrete partially slatted floor, with an automatic
feeder and a bowl drinker. Pigs were checked once daily
and fed twice daily with a fattening concentrate (2.4
Mcal of NE/kg and 18% CP, as-fed basis) until they
reached 7 mo of age with an estimated market weight
of 110 kg BW.
Any pig that died during the experiment was sent to
the Pathology Service of the Universitat Auto`noma de
Barcelona for necropsy. Transport to the abattoir was
conducted according to European Commission regulations (Directive 95/29/EC). The distance to the abattoir
was 35 km, and the journey took approximately 45 min.
Pigs were processed in the LAgudana pig slaughterhouse (Cervera, Lleida, Spain), with electric stunning,
bleeding, scalding, dehairing, flaming, evisceration, and
carcass processing. The carcasses were immediately
chilled in a tunnel (20C) and stored in a cold room
(4C) for approximately 12 h.

Injectable Transponders and Injection Procedures

Five injectable devices (Figure 1) were chosen to compare different injectable transponders (n = 557) from the
two radio frequency technologies included in Standard
11785 of the International Standardization Office (ISO,
1996b) and different manufacturers. Full Duplex-B
(FDX-B) transponders were Datamars-12 (D12; 12
2.12 mm; model T-IS 8010; Datamars, Bedano-Lugano,
Switzerland), Sokymat-12 (S12; 12 2.12 mm; model
Glass Tag; Sokymat, Granges, Switzerland), and Sokymat-34 (S34; 34 3.8 mm; model Glass Tag; Sokymat).
Half Duplex (HDX) transponders were Tiris-23 (T23; 23
3.8 mm; model RI-TRP-RC2B; Rumitag SL, Barcelona,

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 19, 2012

Ear tags and injectable transponders in pigs

2217

Figure 1. Conventional and electronic devices used for the identification of piglets according to technology and
manufacturer. Ear tags and male piece (pin): control (C) and electronic (E1 = Allflex half duplex; E2 = Sokymat full
duplex-B). Injectable transponders: full duplex-B (D12 = Datamars 12 mm; S12 = Sokymat 12 mm; and S34 = Sokymat
34 mm) and half duplex (T23 = Tiris 23 mm; and T32 = Tiris 32 mm).
Spain) and Tiris-32 (T32; 32 3.8 mm; model RI-TRPRC2B; Rumitag SL). Serial numbers of injectable transponders agreed with ISO standard 11784 (ISO, 1996a)
and included the ICAR manufacturer codes for D12 (Datamars, 981), T23, and T32 (Rumitag SL, 964), and the
ICAR test transponder code (999) for S12 and S34. Manufacturer codes are available on the ICAR Website
(ICAR, 2004). Transponders were injected into two body
sites in piglets: s.c. in the auricle base of the ear and
intraperitoneally. Distribution of transponders according to technology, device type, and injection site is
shown in Table 1.
Injections were performed in the farrowing pens. Before each injection, the body site was disinfected with
an iodine solution (Betadine, Braunol, B. Braun Medical

Table 1. Number of injectable transponders used by injection site according to technology and devicea,b
FDX-B (n = 334)

HDX (n = 223)

Injection site

S12

D12

S34

T23

T32

Overall

Auricle base
Intraperitoneal
Overall

49
61
110

50
66
116

49
59
108

50
58
108

50
65
115

248
309
557

a
Transponder technology: full duplex-B (FDX-B); and half duplex
(HDX).
b
Transponder device: Sokymat 12 mm (S12); Datamars 12 mm
(D12); Sokymat 34 mm (S34); Tiris 23 mm (T23); and Tiris 32 mm
(T32).

S.A., Jaen, Spain). For the auricle base injection, the

piglets were immobilized by an assistant, and the operator injected the transponder into the auricle base of the
left ear in a dorso-ventral direction according to the procedure described by Lambooij (1992).
For the intraperitoneal injection a new technique was
used. An assistant placed the piglet on its back and
immobilized it with a castration board. The operator
then injected the transponder, caudally to the navel,
between the fourth and fifth teat of the left side, at
approximately 2 cm from the navel and 1 cm from the
linnea alba, in an inclined direction toward the abdominal cavity. After the needle traversed the abdominal
wall, the injection direction changed to perpendicular
and the transponder was released. Injections were performed by five operators, three of them experts in injections in sheep, whereas the other two were trained in a
single previous session with five piglets. Each operator
injected approximately the same number of transponders in groups of 10.
Transponders were injected by using different injectors according to their size. Single-shot injectors were
used for 12-mm narrow transponders. The D12 transponders were applied by using a sterilized disposable
needle (25 2.5 mm) and syringe set (Datamars). The
S12 transponders were applied with an injector (model
3003, Avid, Norco, CA) with interchangeable needles (22
2.6 mm) that were immersed in the iodine solution
before each injection.

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 19, 2012

2218

Caja et al.

Table 2. Injection age of piglets according to body site

and injectable devicea
Injection body site

S12

Intraperitoneal
No. of piglets
61
Age at injection, d 13.7b
Auricle base
No. of piglets
49
Age at injection, d 7.2e

T32

S34

Mean SE

66
58
65
13.9b 10.5c 12.9b

59
13.2b

12.9 0.2x

50
50
50
49
15.6d 21.0b 20.4bc 19.2c

16.7 0.3y

D12

T23

a
Abbreviations: Sokymat 12 mm (S12); Datamars 12 mm (D12);
Tiris 23 mm (T23); Tiris 32 mm (T32); and Sokymat 34 mm (S34).
b,c,d,e
Within a row, mean values for individual transponder devices
without a common superscript letter differ, P < 0.05.
x,y
Within the column, mean values for each injection site without
a common superscript letter differ, P < 0.001.

For injection of the T23, T32, and S34 transponders,

a multishot injector (model RI-INJ-002 A, Tiris, Texas
Instruments, Almelo, The Netherlands) equipped with
a multiple-use 50 4.8 mm needle (model RI-NDL-002
A, Tiris, Texas Instruments) was used. Transponders
were in cartridges of 10 and were covered in an iodine
gel (Betadine Oplossing, Dagra, The Netherlands). The
needle was immersed in iodine solution before each injection.
Injections in the auricle base with D12 and S12 transponders were done in 1- to 3-wk-old piglets, and S34,
T23, and T32 transponders were injected in the auricle
base in 2- to 4-wk old piglets. Intraperitoneal injections
were done in 1- to 2-wk-old piglets for all transponder
sizes. The average injection age according to the injection
position and the transponder size is shown in Table 2.

Conventional and Electronic Ear Tags

All piglets also were tagged with ear tags at the time
of injection to study their retention rate in comparison
with injectable transponders. Two types of electronic
button tags were randomly applied to the right ear of
the injected piglets: E1 (Allflex Europe SA, Vitre, France;
n = 106) and E2 (Button tag Badaflex TPE-S 90A 1016
prototype; Sokymat, Granges, Switzerland; n = 103). The
remaining piglets also were tagged in the right ear with
button ear tags made of plastic which were used as control ear tags: C (Azasa, Madrid, Spain; n = 348). The
use of an electronic ear tag and an injectable transponder
in the auricle of the same pig was avoided. All ear tags
were applied using the same tagger pliers (Total tagger,
Allflex Europe SA). Features of the ear tags were
(weight, diameter, and height): E1 (4.14 g, 28 mm, and
10.8 mm); E2 (5.5 g, 35 mm, and 12 mm); and C (2.01
g, 28 mm, and 10.5 mm), respectively. Male pieces
(Azasa) of all ear tags were the same (1.85 g; 28 mm
diameter; pin = 21 5.2 mm) and showed a metallic
point and a laser-printed number to avoid losses of identification due to electronic failures. Ear tags used are
shown in Figure 1.

On-Farm Reading
The PIT were checked before and immediately after
injection with a handheld transceiver (Gesreader 2S,
Rumitag), and the ear tag number and the complementary data of the animal (dam number, birth date, sex,
and observations) were typed and automatically linked
to the PIT number. Time required for the injection (time
between the identification of two animals) was recorded
for both positions. Reading performances were evaluated
on d 1, 7, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and on the day before
slaughtering in static conditions with two different
handheld transceivers (Gesreader 2S, Rumitag; and Isomax I, Datamars). The Gesreader 2S was connected to
a stick antenna (GasISO, Rumitag). When a PIT could
not be read, the animal was immobilized and checked
by palpation to determine whether the PIT was lost or
broken; otherwise, if the PIT was present and intact, an
electronic failure was considered to be the cause.
The e-ID function of the ear tags was checked with
the same transceivers, and the identity number was
visually identifiable throughout the controls.

Reading and Recovery at Slaughtering

The pigs were slaughtered on different days over a 2mo period according to BW. The groups were made up
of 70 to 100 animals of different treatments. The PIT
losses on the slaughter line, the PIT location method
for the auricle base position (by sight, palpation, and
cutting), and recovery time were recorded.
The slaughter line speed was 200 to 225 animals per
hour. Transponders were located with the transceivers.
The intraperitoneal PIT were recovered at the slaughter
line, when the operator removed the gastrointestinal
tract from the animal and placed it in the viscera tray.
The PIT in the ear position were recovered before cooling
but after the slaughter line, as there was not sufficient
time during the process. Transponders were read with
the transceiver, and the operator checked its presence
visually, by palpation, and finally by cutting the ear.
Recovery time was recorded for both injection positions.
After PIT recovery, the carcasses with lost transponders were isolated and checked with a high-sensitivity
metal detector (Tiris GM17, Texas Instruments), and
the carcass weight was recorded.
Ear tags were recovered at the end of the slaughter
line, and the maximum and minimum diameters of the
ear hole were measured with a ruler.

Statistical Analyses
To study losses, breakages, and readability of each
identification device (on the farm, during transportation,
and at the slaughter line), a Logit model with an estimation method of maximum likelihood (Cox, 1970) was chosen due to the dichotomy of the variables. The CATMOD
procedure of SAS v. 8.0 (SAS Inst., Inc. Cary, NC) was
used, and factors and interactions that were not signifi-

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 19, 2012

Ear tags and injectable transponders in pigs

cant (P > 0.20) were removed from the model. The model
used was as follows:
Logit (pijkl) = log (pijkl/1 pijkl) = + Di
+ Tj + Sk + D Tij
where p depended on the analysis; pijkl = probability of
device losses, breakages, or readability; and = overall
mean. Variation factors were Di = identification device;
Tj = operator training; Sk = sex of the animal; and D
Tij = interaction identification device-operator training.
Results of losses and breakages for intraperitoneally
injected transponders could not be analyzed due to the
low number of losses throughout the production cycle
(one from a total of 309 injected).
Injection time and recovery time were analyzed with
the analysis of variance by using the GLM procedure
of SAS, and the factors and interactions that were not
significant (P > 0.20) were removed from the model. The
model included the general mean and the effects of the
animal, injectable transponder type, injection position,
operator training, sex of the animal, their interactions,
and the residual error. Recovery time was transformed
into the inverse of the square according to the Box-Cox
transformation method (Draper-Smith, 1981), due to the
asymmetrical distribution of time. Statistical significance was declared at P < 0.05, and following a significant
F-test, means were separated using the Tukey test of
SAS.

Results and Discussion

The average total fattening period was 207 15 d,
average mortality was 17.8%, and average carcass
weight was 70.7 9.1 kg. The greater carcass weight
(P < 0.001) reported in the intraperitoneally identified
animals (71.5 9.2 kg) compared with those identified
in the auricle base (69.8 9.1 kg) showed no negative
effect of the intraperitoneal injection on animal growth.
No apparent animal health alterations were observed
the day after injection or during control reading performed during the experiment. This finding agrees with
that of Conill et al. (2000, 2002), who found no negative
effects in cattle or lambs in a similar experiment. According to Whittemore (1993), reference values of mortality for the complete cycle in pig production are less
than 15%. In the present experiment, mortality was
greater (17.8%), due primarily to an overnight malfunction (10-h duration) of the water supply to a pen of approximately 100 weanling pigs. This occurrence was
promptly corrected when discovered the following morning, but resulted in 10.9% mortality for this phase of production.
Injection age differed (P < 0.001) for the auricle base
and intraperitoneal position (Table 2). Piglets injected
in the auricle base were older (16.7 d) than piglets injected in the intraperitoneal position (12.9 d). There were
significant differences (P < 0.05) between transponder

2219

sizes in the auricle base position, and older piglets were

necessary for large transponders.
Injection time according to injection position and transponder size is shown in Table 3. Time required for transponder injections differed (P < 0.001) between auricle
base (101.7 4.7 s) and intraperitoneal position (84.3
3.1 s). For the auricle base injection, time required was
greater because piglets were severely restrained to prevent head movement. Times observed to complete auricle
base injection in this experiment were greater than the
time estimated by Klindtworth et al. (1999) for PIT injection in the ear in cattle (<60 s) and greater than results
obtained by Conill et al. (2000) in cattle (44 s) and by
Caja et al. (1998) in adult sheep (34 s); there are no
previous values for injection time in pigs. A reason for
this greater value may be the difference in ear size between species. Injection time required for large transponders was greater (P < 0.05) than for small transponders
in both injection sites. There were no differences in injection time between experts (78.4 4.4 s) and inexperienced operators (90.0 3.7 s; P = 0.482). Conill et al.
(2000) showed that time required for auricle base injection in cattle was greater for inexperienced than for expert operators. Ear tags were applied without difficulty.
After PIT injection, no inflammatory reactions or abscesses were found, which contrasts with the results
obtained by Lambooij et al. (1995), who found that 0.6%
of pigs had an inflammatory reaction in the injection
area 3 wk after injection. No reactions were found after
ear tag application either, unlike the results obtained
by Huiskes et al. (2000), who reported that 13 to 55%
of pigs had a visible irritation of the ear during the first
week after application, and the results obtained by Stark
et al. (1998), who found that 18.9% of sows had an adverse reaction to tag application.
On-farm losses of transponders in the auricle base
position differed according to transponder size. The large
size S34 transponders had a greater percentage of losses
(72.5%; P < 0.05) than the other transponders. The T32
losses (46.3%) also were greater (P < 0.05) than those of
the small transponders (S12 = 19.4%; D12 = 17.1%),
which did not differ between them.
Despite the high loss percentage obtained, these results were expected, as it has been demonstrated previously that losses increase with transponder size in
swine (Lambooij, 1992; Stark et al., 1998), as well as in
other species (Klindtworth et al., 1999; Lambooij et al.,
1999; Conill et al., 2000). The losses of large transponders were greater than those obtained by Lambooij and
Merks (1989) with 29-mm transponders in the same
position; they reported 35.5% losses. Lambooij et al.
(1995) injected 30-mm transponders in the ear base of
piglets, a position similar to the auricle base, and obtained a lower percentage of losses (1.6 to 6.9%). Losses
of small transponders also were greater than results of
other authors, such as Lambooij (1992), who found 10.5%
losses with 18-mm transponders, and Stark et al. (1998),
who reported no losses for 11.5-mm transponders, both
in the auricle base. Losses of T23 (29.8%) only differed

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 19, 2012

2220

Caja et al.

Table 3. Effects of injection position and transponder size on injection timea

Injection body site
Intraperitoneal
No. of piglets
Age at injection, d
Auricle base
No. of piglets
Age at injection, d

S12

D12

T23

T32

S34

Mean SE

61
60.5b

66
68.9b

58
81.5bc

65
98.6c

59
194.3d

84.3 3.1x

49
60.0b

50
72.0b

50
62.9b

50
103.3c

49
122.1c

101.7 4.7y

a
Abbreviations: Sokymat 12 mm (S12); Datamars 12 mm (D12); Tiris 23 mm (T23); Tiris 32 mm (T32);
and Sokymat 34 mm (S34).
b,c,d
Within a row, mean values for individual transponder devices without a common superscript letter
differ, P < 0.05.
x,y
Within the column, mean values for each injection site without a common superscript letter differ, P
< 0.001.

(P < 0.05) from S34, and this percentage also was greater
than that obtained by Stark et al. (1998), who found
19.4% of losses for 23-mm transponders. Conill et al.
(2000, 2002) found a lower percentage of losses in cattle
(5.2%) and in lambs (4.3%) in the auricle base than the
present results. All PIT losses in the auricle base occurred during the first month after injection and the
highest percentage of total losses recorded was between
d 7 and 30 after injection (40.8%). One possible reason
is an inadequate application with insufficient needle
penetration, causing the transponder to remain near the
application point, facilitating its loss. One loss was found
in the intraperitoneal position (0.4%) 1 d after injection.
This case was considered to be either a loss or an electronic failure. The first hypothesis could have been a
consequence of an inadequate application, introducing
the PIT into the digestive system and losing it through
the anus. The second hypothesis was discarded at
slaughter because the transponder could not be found
with the metal detector.
An increase in breakages was anticipated in injectable
transponders with increasing transponder size, as
Klindtworth et al. (1999) indicated, but this did not occur
in our experiment. Mean percentage of PIT breakages
in the auricle base was 1.5%, and it did not differ among
transponder sizes. Nevertheless, the number of broken
transponders was greater than the average obtained by
Luini et al. (1996), who reported breakages of 0.3%, and
the results of Conill et al. (2000), who reported no breakages, both in the ear in cattle. No breakages were observed in the intraperitoneal position, owing to the fact
that in the peritoneal cavity the transponder is protected
and enveloped by the abdominal viscera. Electronic failures were only detected in the auricle base (0.5%).
Ear tag losses observed on farm differed among ear
tags (C = 1.1%; E1 = 8.8%; E2 = 44.9%), being greater for
electronic than control ear tags (P < 0.01). One possible
reason for the increased electronic ear tag losses is the
greater weight and dimensions of this type of ear tag,
as shown by Hasker et al. (1992), Caja et al. (1998),
and Klindtworth et al. (1999). These authors found that
electronic ear tags presented the same inconveniences
as plastic ear tags, as Huiskes (1991) showed in an experiment where different electronic devices, such as collars,

ear tags, and injectables, were compared in pigs. The

high E2 losses could be associated with an inappropriate
plastic used in the manufacture. Similar losses (40 to
60%) were observed in a previous experiment in The
Netherlands, with commercial ear tags applied to 3-wkold piglets, indicating that these ear tags were inadequate (Teer Wee and Aarts, 1991). We observed a relatively low percentage of losses with plastic ear tags, similar to the losses (1.7%) reported by Stark et al. (1998).
Losses of electronic ear tags in previous experiments
were lower than in our experiment. Teixidor et al. (1995)
obtained losses between 0 and 0.7% in production conditions similar to the present experiment, and Niggemayer
(1994) recorded a total of 5% unreadable electronic ear
tags (including losses, electronic failures, and breakages). Stark et al. (1998) showed no losses with electronic
ear tags, and Huiskes et al. (2000) recorded only 0.16%
losses before slaughter. Besides losses, electronic ear
tags also presented electronic failures (E1 = 5.5%; E2 =
55.1%; P < 0.01) and readability decreased. The percentage of electronic failures obtained with E1 is similar to
that reported (5.6%) by Teixidor et al. (1995) using the
same ear tags and under the same production conditions.
Readability at the end of the grow-out period varied
among devices (Table 4). On average, the auricle base
position exhibited a lower (P < 0.001) readability (61.0%)
than the intraperitoneal position (99.6%). Moreover,
readability differed (P < 0.05) between small (S12 =
80.5%; and D12 = 80.6%) and large (T32 = 51.2%; and
S34 = 22.5%) transponders injected in the auricle base;
the T23 (70.2%) only differed from S34. The readability
reported by Lambooij and Merks (1989) with 29-mm
transponders in pigs (57.1%) was relatively low and similar to what we observed. In contrast, Stark et al. (1998)
showed a readability of 80.6% for 23-mm transponders
and 100% for 11.5-mm transponders in pigs. Lambooij
et al. (1995) reported a readability of 88 to 98% for 30mm transponders injected in the auricle base in pigs.
Conill et al. (2000, 2002) observed a readability of 94.8%
in cattle and 95.7% in lambs, respectively.
For ear tags, on-farm readability differed (P < 0.001)
among types (C = 98.9%; and E1 = 85.7%), and E2 showed
0% readability (Table 5). Readability observed for C was
similar to that observed by Stark et al. (1998), who re-

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 19, 2012

2221

Ear tags and injectable transponders in pigs

Table 4. Effects of injection position and transponder size on on-farm retention and
readability in swinea
Item

S12

No. of slaughtered pigs

Intraperitoneal
Auricle base
Lost transponders, No. (%)
Intraperitoneal
Auricle base
Broken transponders, No. (%)
Intraperitoneal
Auricle base
Failed transponders, No. (%)
Intraperitoneal
Auricle base
Readability, No. (%)
Intraperitoneal
Auricle base

D12

50
41

51
36

T23

T32

S34

Overall

52
47

45
41

51
40

249
205

0
14 (29.8)bc

0
19 (46.3)c

0
29 (72.5)d

1 (0.4)
76 (37.1)

1 (2.0)
7 (17.1)b

0
7 (19.4)b

0
1 (2.4)

0
0

0
0

0
1 (2.4)

0
1 (2.5)

0
3 (1.5)

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
1 (2.5)

0
1 (0.5)

51 (100)
9 (22.5)d

248 (99.6)x
125 (61.0)y

49 (98.0)
33 (80.5)b

51 (100)
29 (80.6)b

52 (100)
33 (70.2)bc

45 (100)
21 (51.2)c

a
Abbreviations: Sokymat 12 mm (S12); Datamars 12 mm (D12); Tiris 23 mm (T23); Tiris 32 mm (T32);
and Sokymat 34 mm (S34).
b,c,d
Within a row values, within injection position with different superscripts differ, P < 0.05.
x,y
Within the column, mean values for each injection site variable without a common superscript letter
differ, P < 0.001.

ported a readability of 98.3% for plastic ear tags, but

readability reported for electronic ear tags was 100%.
Teixidor et al. (1995) obtained a readability of 93.6%
during the grow-out period with the same electronic
ear tags.
During transportation, losses were similar for both
types of ear tags (C = 1.2%; and E1 = 1.3%). Losses
during transportation are probably a consequence of
fighting that occurs when different animal groups are
mixed. No losses of injectable transponders were observed during transportation. Huiskes et al. (2000), in
the Dutch Identification and Registration System to control pig transportation in The Netherlands, described
the need to have an identification system without losses
or reading problems at any stage of pig production, including transportation.
The readability and recovery of the injectable transponders at the slaughter line are shown in Table 6.
Losses and breakages of auricle base transponders at
the slaughter line were similar among transponder sizes
(D12 = 6.8%; S12 = 12.2%; and S34 = 22.2%) and were
probably due to carcass processing, such as flaming and
dehairing. Similar problems were reported by Lambooij

and Merks (1989) at the slaughter line, with a high

percentage of losses (12.5%) and breakages (62.5%). Despite this, Lambooij (1992) observed no losses with 18mm transponders in the auricle position at the slaughter
line. Similarly, Lammers et al. (1995) reported zero
losses of auricle-injected transponders, but some transponders (1.8 to 20%) could not be recovered from the
carcass after cutting the auricular canal. Stark et al.
(1998) observed low breakages (1.2%) with 23-mm transponders and no breakages with 11.5-mm transponders.
Ear tag losses during slaughter were quite substantial
(C = 11.2%; and E1 = 6.4%) but did not differ between
types. In addition, 12.8% of E1 failed electronically on the
slaughter line. Results obtained in previous experiments
with ear tags are similar to our values of losses and
electronic failures at the slaughter line. Teixidor et al.
(1995) reported a loss and failure rate of 5.4 and 21.6%,
respectively, for electronic ear tags. Stark et al. (1998)
observed a loss rate at the slaughter line of 3.6% for
plastic and 10.4% for electronic ear tags. They also observed 10.4% electronic failures. Recently, Huiskes et
al. (2000) reported a loss and failure rate of 1.8 to 4%
and 0 to 1.9%, respectively, at the slaughter line, which

Table 5. On-farm ear tag retention and readability in swinea

Item
No. of fattened pigs
Losses, No. (%)
No. of breakages
Electronic failures, No. (%)
Readability, No. (%)

E1

E2

Overall

263
3 (1.1)b
0

260 (98.9)e

91
8 (8.8)c
0
5 (5.5)e
78 (85.7)f

89
40 (44.9)d
0
49 (55.1)f
0

443
51 (11.5)
0
54 (12.2)
338 (76.3)

a
Abbreviations: Azasa control ear tag (C); Allflex electronic ear tag (E1); and Sokymat electronic ear tag
(E2).
b,c,d
Within a row, values without a common superscript letter differ, P < 0.01.
e,f
Within a row, values without a common superscript letter differ, P < 0.001.

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 19, 2012

2222

Caja et al.

Table 6. Effects of injection position and transponder size on slaughterhouse readability and recovery in swinea
S12
No. of slaughtered pigs
Intraperitoneal
Auricle base
Lost transponders, No. (%)
Intraperitoneal
Auricle base
Broken transponders, No. (%)
Intraperitoneal
Auricle base
Failed transponders, No. (%)
Intraperitoneal
Auricle base
Recovery, No. (%)
Intraperitoneal
Auricle base
Mean recovery time, s
Intraperitoneal
Auricle base
Readability, No. (%)
Intraperitoneal
Auricle base

48
33

D12
51
29

T23

T32

42
33

45
21

S34
45
9

Overall
231
125

0
2 (6.1)

0
1 (3.4)

0
0

0
0

0
1 (11.1)

0
4 (3.2)

0
2 (6.1)

0
1 (3.4)

0
0

0
0

0
1 (11.1)

0
4 (3.2)

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

0
0

33 (68.8)
31 (93.9)
29.3 7.9
57.4 15.8c
48 (98.0)
29 (70.7)b

41 (80.4)
28 (96.6)
37.1 6.3
28.4 7.1b
51 (100)
27 (75.0)b

38 (90.5)
33 (100)
7.6 1.5
12.0 2.6b
42 (100)
33 (70.2)bc

37 (82.2)
21 (100)
7.8 1.8
10.0 2.1b
45 (100)
21 (51.2)c

44 (86.3)
8 (88.9)
12.8 3.7
29.0 13.3b
45 (100)
7 (17.5)d

193 (81.4)x
121 (96.8)y
18.9 2.6
28.6 4.8
231 (100)x
117 (57.1)y

Abbreviations: Sokymat 12 mm (S12); Datamars 12 mm (D12); Tiris 23 mm (T23); Tiris 32 mm (T32); and Sokymat 34 mm (S34).
Within a row, values without a common superscript letter differ, P < 0.05.
x,y
Within a column and variable evaluated, values without a common superscript letter differ, P < 0.001.
b,c

was attributed to the rubber fingers of the dehairing

machine.
Auricle base transponders were recovered after carcass processing because of time limitations on the
slaughter line. Total recovery of auricle base transponders was 96.8% (Table 6). Recovery values in the literature show great variability. Lambooij and Merks (1989)
only recovered 11.8% of transponders after the slaughter
line. In contrast, Lambooij (1992) and Stark et al. (1998)
reported 100% recovery in the same injection position.
For this position, three recovery procedures, sight, palpation, and cut, were used. Values for each procedure were
30.2, 27.4, and 42.5% respectively. No intraperitoneal
transponders were lost before evisceration, and the identification could be transferred to the carcass before opening the abdominal cavity; however, a successful recovery
system of intraperitoneal transponders has not been developed. Moreover, some of the transponders (18.6%) fell
out at the moment of evisceration. No intraperitoneal
injectable transponders were found in the carcasses and
transponder injection caused no damage or alteration to
the carcasses. Transponders were always found loose
in the peritoneal cavity, without any viscera adhesion.
Recovery times shown in Table 6 did not differ (P = 0.13)
between injection positions, but they differed among
transponder sizes (P < 0.05) in the auricle base position.
There are no previous results of recovery time for pigs.
Percentages of transponders recovered in less than 10 s
were 61.4 and 42.3% for intraperitoneal and auricle base
position (P < 0.01), respectively (Figure 2). This percentage increased to 77.3 and 64.4% in less than 20 s for
intraperitoneal and auricle base positions, respectively,
and for under 60 s, values reached 92.1 and 92.5%, re-

spectively, but differences were not significant. Recovery

times exceeded the recommendations for pigs (less than
5 s; Merks and Lambooij, 1990).
Recovery times of injectable transponders have been
reported in two studies in ruminants. For cattle, time
recorded for different injection position (armpit, ear scutulum, and upper lip) was greater than 25 s (Conill et
al., 2000). For lambs, time recorded for transponders
injected in the armpit and retroauricular position was
greater than 10 s (Conill et al., 2002). The slaughter line
speed for swine is usually between 350 and 400 animals
per hour, so recovery time should be less than 10 s to
maintain the work speed.
The traceability of all identification devices from farm
to evisceration is presented in Table 7. Best results were
achieved for the intraperitoneal location (99.6%). Stark
et al. (1998) achieved a 100% success rate, but 11.5-mm
transponders injected in the auricle base were used in
that study. Traceability obtained with PIT in the auricle
base averaged 57.1% and differed (P < 0.05) among transponder sizes (D12 = 75%; S12 = 70.7%; T23 = 70.2%;
T32 = 51.2%; and S34 = 17.5%). Lambooij (1992) recorded
traceability values of 89.5 and 100% with 18-mm transponders, and Lammers et al. (1995) obtained 91.7%
traceability with the same type of transponders. Stark
et al. (1998), found 76.1 and 100% traceability with 23and 11.5-mm transponders, respectively, in the auricle
base position. The only experiment in which very low
results of traceability were reported with large transponders in the auricle base, was the study carried out by
Lambooij and Merks (1989), who reported 11.8% final
readability. Traceability of ear tags was different (P <
0.05) between control (86.7%) and E1 (68.1%); E2 trace-

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 19, 2012

2223

Ear tags and injectable transponders in pigs

Figure 2. Slaughterhouse recovery time of transponders injected in the auricle base and in the intraperitoneal
position in pigs (AB = auricle base; and IP = intraperitoneal). a,b,cValues without a common superscript letter differ,
P < 0.01. Differences between both injection body sites were analyzed using the Catmod procedures of SAS (SAS
Inst., Inc., Cary, NC) for the indicated periods (not enough cases in the other periods).

ability was 0%. These results were lower than those

obtained by Stark et al. (1998), who reported a readability of 96.4 and 76.6% for plastic and electronic ear tags,
respectively, and were lower than results obtained by

Huiskes et al. (2000), who reported traceability to be

between 94.0 and 97.8%. Teixidor et al. (1995), however,
obtained a percentage of traceability (67%) similar to
our results with electronic ear tags.

Table 7. Traceability of selected identification devices in swine from farm to carcass

processing according to identification system
Identification system
Ear tags
C (Control)
E1 (Allflex half duplex)
E2 (Sokymat full duplex-B)
Overall
Injectable transponders
Intraperitoneal
S12 (Sokymat 12-mm full duplex-B)
D12 (Datamars 12-mm full duplex-B)
T23 (Tiris 23-mm half duplex)
T32 (Tiris 32-mm half duplex)
S34 (Sokymat 34-mm full duplex-B)
Overall
Auricle base
S12 (Sokymat 12-mm full duplex-B)
D12 (Datamars 12-mm full duplex-B)
T23 (Tiris 23-mm half duplex)
T32 (Tiris 32-mm half duplex)
S34 (Sokymat 34-mm full duplex-B)
Overall

Initial, No.

Final, No.

Traceability, %

263
91
89
443

228
62
0
290

86.7a
68.1b
0
65.5c

49
51
42
45
51
238

48
51
42
45
51
237

98.0
100
100
100
100
99.6d

41
36
47
41
40
205

29
27
33
21
7
117

70.7a
75.0a
70.2ab
51.2b
17.5c
57.1e

a,b
Within identification system (ear tags, and intraperitoneal and auricle base transponders), values
without a common superscript letter differ, P < 0.05.
c,d,e
Among identification systems (ear tags vs. intraperitoneal injectable transponders vs. auricle base
injectable transponders), values without a common superscript letter differ, P < 0.05.

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 19, 2012

2224

Caja et al.

Implications
Among the electronic ear tag and injectable transponder methods evaluated in this experiment, injectable
transponders in the intraperitoneal position provided
the best identification system for pigs. This method
meets the requirements of an identification system for
pigs that is permanent and unique, that does not produce
apparent disturbances to the animals at application, and
that is tamper-proof. The identification system can be
applied shortly and easily after birth. The use of 23- to
34-mm transponders in the intraperitoneal position is
proposed, and the use of the small size transponder is
rejected for having a shorter reading distance and a
greater recovery difficulty than larger transponders.
Nonetheless, it will be necessary to develop an automatic
system to decrease transponder recovery time and to
guarantee the identification transfer to carcasses.

Literature Cited
Blair, R. M., D. A. Nichols, and D. L. Davis. 1994. Electronic animal
identification for controlling feed delivery and detecting estrus in
gilts and sows in outside pens. J. Anim. Sci. 72:891898.
Caja G., M. Hernandez-Jover, J. Ghirardi, D. Garin, and J. H. Mocket.
2002. Aplicacion de la identificacion electronica a la trazabilidad
del ganado y de la carne. Pages 147167 in Seguridad Alimentaria
de la Carne y los Productos Carnicos. Fundisa, Madrid, Spain.
Caja G., R. Nehring, C. Conill. 2001. Identifying livestock with passive
transponders. Meat Automation 1:18-21.
Caja, G., O. Ribo, and R. Nehring. 1998. Evaluation of migratory
distance of passive transponders injected in different body sites
of adult sheep for electronic identification. Livest. Prod. Sci.
55:279289.
Conill, C., G. Caja, R. Nehring, and O. Ribo. 2000. Effects of injection
position and transponder size on the performances of passive
injectable transponders used for the electronic identification of
cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 78:30013009.
Conill C., G. Caja, R. Nehring, and O. Ribo. 2002. The use of passive
injectable transponders in fattening lambs from birth to slaughter: Effects of position, age and breed. J. Anim. Sci. 80:919925.
Cox, D. R. 1970. The Analysis of Binary Data. Chapman & Hall,
London, U.K.
Drapper, N., and H. Smith. 1981. Applied Regression Analysis. John
Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Hasker, P. J. S., J. Bassingthwaighte, and P. J. Round. 1992. A comparison of sites for implanting identification transponders in cattle.
Aust. Vet. J. 69:91.
Holm, D. M., R. E. Bobbett, A. R. Koelle, S. W. Landt, W. M. Sanders,
S. W. Depp, and G. L. Seawright. 1976. Passive electronic identification with temperature monitoring. In Perspective voor de Toepassing van Elektronische Koehernnings-Systemen. Verlslag van
een Symposium Gehouden, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Instituut voor Mechanisatie, arbe-ID en Gebouwen. IMAG IV, Publikatie 63, G1-13.
Huiskes J. H. 1991. The use of electronic identification in breeding
and fattening of pigs. Pages 6872 in Automatic Electronic Identification Systems for Farm Animals. Commission of the European
Communities. E. Lambooij, ed. Serie: Agriculture. Report EUR
13198 EN. Brussels, Belgium.

Huiskes, J. H., G. P. Binnendijk, and H. J. A. Diepstraten. 2000.

Practical value of ear tags with transponder and corresponding
equipment for identification and registration of pigs. Praktijkonderzoek Varkenshouderij, Proefverslag Nummer P 1.252. Rosmalen, The Netherlands.
ICAR. 2003. Guidelines Approved by the General Assembly Held in
Interlaken, Switzerland on 30 May 2002. International Committee for Animal Recording. Rome, Italy.
ICAR. 2004. Animal Identification: List of manufacturer codes. Available:
http://www.icar.org/sc%5Fanimal%5Fidentification.htm.
Accessed Dec. 22, 2004.
ISO. 1996a. Agricultural Equipment. Radio-frequency Identification
of Animals-Code structure. ISO 11784:1996 (E). 2nd ed. Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO. 1996b. Agricultural Equipment. Radio-frequency Identification
of Animals-Technical Concept. ISO 11785:1996 (E). 1st ed. Geneva, Switzerland.
Klindtworth, M., G. Wendl, K. Klindtworth, and H. Pirkelmann. 1999.
Electronic identification of cattle with injectable transponders.
Comp. Electr. Agric. 24:8190.
Lambooij, E., and J. W. M. Merks. 1989. Technique and injection place
of electronic identification numbers in pigs. Pages 514 in Rapport
B-335. Research Institute for Animal Production Schoonoord,
Zeist, The Netherlands.
Lambooij, E. 1992. Positioning of identification transponders in the
auricle of pigs. Vet. Rec. 131:419420.
Lambooij, E., N. G. Langeveld, G. H. Lammers, and J. H. Huiskes.
1995. Electronic identification with injectable transponders in
pig production: Results of a field trial on commercial farms and
slaughterhouses concerning injectability and retrievability. Vet.
Q. 17:118123.
Lambooij, E., C. E. Vant Klooster, W. Rossing, A. C. Smits, and C.
Pieterse. 1999. Electronic identification with passive transponders in veal calves. Comp. Electr. Agric. 24:8190.
Lammers, G. H., N. G. Langeveld, E. Lambooij, and E. Gruys. 1995.
Effect of injecting transponders into the auricle of pigs. Vet. Rec.
136:606609.
Luini, M., D. Andreoni, M. Rocco, L. Brugola, and A. Belloli. 1996.
Localizzazione e recupero al macello di transponders impiantati
in vitelli a carne bianca. La Selezione Veterinaria 1:18.
Marchant, B. A. 1981. Identification requirements in the context of
animal disease control in the community. Pages 122126 in Automatic Electronic Identification Systems for Farm Animals. E.
Lambooij, ed. Commission of the European Communities. Serie:
Agriculture. Report EUR 13198 EN. Brussels, Belgium.
Merks, J. W. M., and E. Lambooij. 1990. Injectable electronic identification systems in pig production. Pig News Inf. 11:3536.
McKean, J. D. 2001. The importance of traceability for public health
and consumer protection. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz. 20:363
371.
Niggemayer, H. 1994. Experiences with injected transponders in pig
management. KTBL Arbeitspapier 205:3649.
Stark, K. D. C., R. S. Morris, and D. U. Pfeiffer. 1998. Comparison of
electronic and visual identification systems in pigs. Livest. Prod.
Sci. 53:143152.
Teer Wee, E., and H. L. M. Aarts. 1991. Advantages and disadvantages
of the use of injectable electronic identification for nationwide
registration of pigs. Pages 9399 in Automatic Electronic Identification Systems for Farm Animals. E. Lambooij, ed. Report CEE.
Serie: Agriculture. EUR 13198. Brussels, Belgium.
Teixidor, H., J. Soler, and J. Tibau. 1995. Test de un sistema electronico
de identificacion animal. Anaporc 148:131139.
Whittemore, C. 1993. The Science and Practice of Pig Production.
Longman Scientific & Technical, Longman Group U.K. Ltd. Harlow, Essex, U.K.

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 19, 2012

References

This article cites 13 articles, 4 of which you can access for free at:
http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/83/9/2215#BIBL

Citations

This article has been cited by 7 HighWire-hosted articles:

http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/83/9/2215#otherarticles

Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by guest on November 19, 2012