Technical efficiency and economic viability of different cattle identification methods allowed by the Brazilian traceability system

• Autor(a) principal: Lopes, Marcos Aurélio
• Data de Publicação: 2017
• Outros Autores: Junqueira, Lucio Violin, Bruhn, Fábio Raphael Pascoti, Demeu, Andreia Alves, Silva, Marilane das Dores
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UFLA
• Texto Completo: http://repositorio.ufla.br/jspui/handle/1/32299
• topic: Cattle farming; Electronic identification; Cattle identification; Bovinocultura; Identificação eletrônica; Identificação de gado

We aimed to evaluate the technical efficiency and economic viability of the implementation and use of four cattle identification methods allowed by the Brazilian traceability system. The study was conducted in a beef cattle production system located in the State of Mato Grosso, from January to June 2012. Four identification methods (treatments) were compared: T1: ear tag in one ear and ear button in the other ear (eabu); T2: ear tag and iron brand on the right leg (eaib); T3: ear tag in one ear and tattoo on the other ear (eata); and T4: ear tag in one ear and electronic ear tag (eael) on the other. Each treatment was applied to 60 Nelore animals, totaling 240 animals, divided equally into three life stages (calves, young cattle, adult cattle). The study had two phases: implementation (phase 1) and reading and transfer of identification numbers to an electronic database (phase 2). All operating expenses related to the two phases of the study were determined. The database was constructed, and the statistical analyses were performed using SPSS® 17.0 software. Regarding the time spent on implementation (phase 1), conventional ear tags and electronic ear tags produced similar results, which were lower than those of hot iron and tattoo methods, which differed from each other. Regarding the time required for reading the numbers on animals and their transcription into a database (phase 2), electronic ear-tagging was the fastest method, followed by conventional ear tag, hot iron and tattoo. Among the methods analyzed, the electronic ear tag had the highest technical efficiency because it required less time to implement identifiers and to complete the process of reading and transcription to an electronic database and because it did not exhibit any errors. However, the cost of using the electronic ear-tagging method was higher primarily due to the cost of the device.