超高频RFID发光电子耳标测试方法研究

为满足动物个体查找和定位,发光电子耳标应运而生。针对发光电子耳标的检测方法尚未出现,为应对此类产品的迅速推广,有必要对发光电子耳标测试方法进行研究。本文基于RFID射频技术测试原理,搭建发光电子耳标测试平台,通过发送发光指令,采集发光信号,实现了电子耳标发光性能的测试。     

二维条码和RFID标签用于肉牛身份识别的性能比较

肉牛身份识别是牛肉食品安全保障体系的重要环节和关键技术。在肉牛生产全程质量安全追溯中用于记录肉牛身份信息的耳标载体主要有二维条码耳标和无线射频识别(RFID),电子耳标。本试验以实际饲养状态下的肉牛为试验动物,比较基于二维条码与RFID技术的耳标信息识读效果。结果表明:在肉牛实际饲养条件下,二维条码耳标读取信息的速度会受到来自牛只活动状态、污物、图像磨损、字迹模糊、光线和识读角度等因素的限制。RFID电子耳标具有支持信息自由采集、读取速度受外界条件干扰小、协助饲养过程管理、使用寿命长等优点。由此可得出,RFID耳标更适合于肉牛生产全程质量安全的追溯管理。     

农业部力推射频识别在动物产品追溯体系中应用

<正>农业部已印发了《动物电子耳标试点方案》的通知,要求在包括天津武清县、新疆建设兵团在内的四地开展动物电子耳标试点,总规模约4万头,主要采用RFID(射频识别)技术。农业部将根据试点情况提出下一     

超高频电子耳标物理层及标签识别层测试方法研究

基于RFID技术的电子耳标追溯体系可进行动物出生后、屠宰前的精准定位,实现畜产品的可追溯性管理。超高频电子耳标测试系统具有较远的读取距离及较高的传输速率,广泛应用于畜产品的可追溯性领域。该类标签的存储地址依据空中接口协议标准ISO18000-63定义,测试项目依据18047-6测试方法进行。对测试项目的测试方法和判定依据进行了详细介绍,并对链接时间T1进行10次测试,计算其测量不确定度,测量结果显示符合标准要求。     

智慧养猪中猪只个体识别技术的选择

智慧养猪已成为生猪产业发展的新趋势,其核心主要聚焦于智能环控、智能饲喂和对猪群的视频监控等技术的应用。大数据采集是实现智能化的前提,因此,通过射频识别（RFID）技术建立猪只大数据是实现智慧养猪的基础。通过正确的猪只个体识别技术的选型,在不同生命周期给猪只选配合适的电子耳标,给猪只建立精准的身份证明。在不同阶段的数据采集场景中,通过识别电子耳标产生真实数据的关联,准确掌握每一头猪从出生到屠宰再到消费市场终端之间的信息,从而确保了动物健康养殖、疫病控制和食品安全,真正意义上实现智慧养猪。     

猪场仔猪编号的剪耳法

在猪场要识别不同的猪只,光靠观察是很难做到的。为了随时查找猪只的血缘关系,便于管理记录,必须给每头猪进行编号。编号的方法有耳标法、剪耳号法和电子识别法。耳标法是用耳标安装器(耳标钳子)将耳标装钉在猪耳朵上,用专用记号笔书写数码。耳标虽简单,但易掉。有条件的猪场可用电子识别法。将仔猪的个体号、出生地、出生日期、品种和系谱等信息转译到脉冲转发器内,装在一个微型玻璃管内,插到耳后松弛的皮肤下,需要时用手提阅读器进行识别阅读。但此种方法很少使用。一般情况下,较常用剪耳法。剪耳法是用耳号钳在猪耳上打缺口,一个耳缺代表…     

奶牛塑料耳标的标记以及常见问题的解决办法

奶牛耳标的标记方法很多，一般的标记就是为了识别牛场内奶牛进行的标记。当犊牛出生以后利用不同的标记方法给牛标记．主要方法有耳标标记法、耳缺标记法、角部烙印标记法、刺墨标记法、颈环标记法、电子耳标标记法、冷冻标记法等，但是我们常用的标记方法就是塑料耳标标记法，这种方法最实用和方便。     

奶牛塑料耳标的标记以及常见问题的解决办法

当犊牛出生以后为了识别牛场内的奶牛,常利用不同的标记方法给牛标记,主要方法有耳标标记法、耳缺标记法、角部烙印标记法、刺墨标记法、颈环标记法、电子耳标标记法、冷冻标记法等,经常使用的标记方法为塑料耳标标记法.     

农业部办公厅关于公布牲畜耳标质量检测结果的通报

按照《农业部办公厅关于开展牲畜二维码耳标质量检测工作的通知》（农办医[2009]20号）要求，近期，我部组织有关单位对各地抽检的113批牲畜二维码耳标质量进行了检测。检测项目包括常温结合力、高低温结合力、砂磨承受能力、耐腐蚀性、工艺缺陷、尺寸和颜色等，其中，前五项为检测关键项目，尺寸和颜色为检测参考项目。经检测，38家牲畜二维码耳标生产企业生产的113批耳标中有9家生产企业的11批耳标检测不合格（检测结果见附表）。     

动物身份识别方法综述

动物身份识别技术是人们管理动物、研究动物生态学的基础，随着社会的进步和科学技术的发展，动物身份识别技术也在不断地更新和完善。文章从有侵入性和无侵入性两方面对动物身份识别技术进行了梳理，介绍了侵入性动物身份识别技术，该技术包括烙印法、纹身法、耳痕法、喷涂法和传统耳标法、电子耳标法和生物识别技术(包括视网膜或虹膜识别、唇鼻纹识别、面部识别及DNA识别),并对无侵入性身份识别方法(包括传统图像处理和机器学习方法与深度学习方法两种)数据集的获取及不同应用场景(包括固定场景、开放场景、单一物种和多物种)进行了介绍，总结了动物身份识别技术的挑战与发展趋势，旨在为动物身份识别技术的研究和应用提供参考。     

低频电子耳标协议一致性测试系统研究

电子耳标的低频一致性测试是在测试步骤、测试装置、测试环境的限定下,对协议符合性进行的测试。本文选定改进的激励/响应测试模式,硬件层选取合适的模块化硬件,软件层包括RFID协议仿真软件及RFID协议一致性测试软件。根据电感耦合原理计算线圈电感,进而设计天线相关参数。最终完成低频电子耳标协议一致性测试系统的搭建,测试过程符合ISO24631.1的要求。     

Lifetime traceability of weaner pigs in concrete-based and deep-litter production systems in Australia

A field study was conducted on a 2,300-sow piggery in southwestern New South Wales, Australia, over a 17-wk period (from weaning at 4 wk of age) to assess the suitability for lifetime traceability of weaners of 4 identification devices: 1) full duplex ear tag (FDX, Allflex), 2) half duplex ear tag designed for cattle (HDX, Leadertronic), 3) conventional ear tag (Leader), and 4) ear tattoo (Ketchum ear tattoo 101). Visual readability, retention rate, electronic failures, and adverse side effects were assessed at 8 wk after application at both sites and before slaughter at 14 or 17 wk after application at site A and site B, respectively. A total of 394 weaner pigs were randomly assigned after weaning to 6 treatment groups and reared either in small groups in intensive, indoor, concrete-based pens (n = 224; site A) or in a large group on deep litter (n = 170; site B). Visual readability was similar for all ear tag types before slaughter (P > 0.05); however, visual readability of the ear tattoo was lower (P < 0.05), with between 78.2 and 60.0% illegible due to ink fading. Few tags were lost in the 8-wk period after application; however, tag loss increased for each tag device after this period and varied with housing system. Conventional tag loss was greater among pigs housed at site A (29.0%) than in pigs housed at site B (4.9%) in the 6- to 9-wk period before slaughter. The overall readability of FDX and HDX tags did not differ (P > 0.05) between sites; however, overall readability of FDX tags at 98.4% was better (P < 0.05) than 71.8% for HDX tags. Tag costs ranged from $0.73 for the conventional ear tag to $2.42 for the HDX ear tag. The identification devices did not induce production-limiting adverse effects after they were applied. Under conditions of this study, FDX electronic ear tags were the most efficacious for lifetime identification of weaner pigs on-farm.     

电子耳标空中接口参数测试的实验室间比对结果及分析

电子耳标一方面可满足农业部对个体动物的唯一标识和疫病追溯要求；另一方面可携带个体动物从出生到屠宰整个生命周期所有关键信息,满足农场信息化管理需求,实现精细化饲养的目的,对其进行空中接口参数测试可确保其与识读器正常通讯。通过实验室间比对,可对空中接口参数测试比对结果进行统计分析,发现实验室存在的问题,进一步提高检测水平。2021年,中国兽医药品监察所组织三家机构共同开展了电子耳标空中接口参数测试的实验室间比对工作,并依据Z比分数统计法对检测结果进行了分析,分析结果显示：59组数据为满意；1组数据为有问题；0组数据为不满意,总体上看测试结果一致性较好。     

Cost evaluation of the use of conventional and electronic identification and registration systems for the national sheep and goat populations in Spain

A cost model was developed to compare different implementation strategies of the new European Commission regulation for sheep and goat identification and registration (EC 21/2004) in Spain. Strategies were as follows: 1) conventional identification (CID) by two ear tags; 2) electronic identification (EID) by one bolus and one ear tag; and 3) mixed CID and EID strategy (MID), consisting of CID for fattening stock and EID for breeding stock. Complete and simplified implementations of the regulation were considered as options. Total costs per animal identified for all strategies and options varied according to the implementation option, ranging from Euros 2.48 and 4.64. The EID was the most expensive strategy (Euros 4.47 to 4.64) for all implementation options. Cost of CID and MID strategies ranged from Euros 2.63 to 2.98 and from Euros 2.48 to 3.03, respectively. The model was submitted to a sensitivity analysis without considering extra benefits of sheep and goat identification. Critical values for which the cost of MID equaled CID depended on strategy and option, and ranged from 7.5 to 11.5% for ear tag losses and from Euros 1.80 to 3.30 for bolus price. In conclusion, the use of a mixed strategy combining conventional ear tags (animals intended for slaughter) and electronic boluses (breeding stock) seems to be an affordable strategy that fulfills the European Commission regulation requirements for the identification of sheep and goats in Spain. Price reductions for devices and equipment would make the full electronic identification strategy less expensive in the future.     

Traceability of extensively produced Iberian pigs using visual and electronic identification devices from farm to slaughter

A total of 351 Iberian pigs with equal numbers of both sexes from 2 commercial farms were used to study the ability of various identification devices to guarantee the traceability required for labeled meat products from Iberian pigs reared under extensive production conditions in Spain. The performance of tattoos, visual ear tags, electronic ear tags, and i.p.-injected transponders of half duplex and full duplex technologies were compared during a production cycle from nursery to slaughter at 15 mo of age (156 +/- 3 kg of BW). No major health reactions to any of the identification methods were detected. Results showed that tattooing was not an adequate identification procedure due to reading difficulties as a consequence of dark skin, soiled appearance, and figure deformation. Ear tag losses and failures were affected by fencing type and increased in one of the farms (20.4 and 15.7% for losses and failures, respectively; P < 0.05) as a consequence of using barbed-wire fences. Ear tag losses decreased when fences changed to stone blocks at 365 d of age. Visual and electronic ear tag losses during transport and slaughter were low (3.7% for visual and 3.1% for electronic tag). Results of injectable transponders during the growing-fattening period were variable and were more readable for the half duplex than for the full duplex i.p. transponders (92.0 vs. 68.7% +/- 1.5; P < 0.05). Handheld transceivers worked properly under extensive conditions, although the body size and skin characteristics of the Iberian breed might limit the performance of reading devices, and the use of transceivers with longer reading distances is recommended. The main problem observed with i.p. transponders was their low recovery rate at slaughter due to the lack of adherence of the transponders to the omentum.     

耳标结合力测量的不确定度评定

为全面评价耳标结合力测量指标,分析耳标在结合力检测中的不确定度来源,对单次测量引起的不确定度分量进行不确定度评定,根据方差合成定理,合成标准不确定度,并计算扩展不确定度,给出结合力测量不确定度报告,完善耳标结合力单次测量结果的评定,为标准修订提供有效的参考值。     

Use of ear tags and injectable transponders for the identification and traceability of pigs from birth to the end of the slaughter line

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.