These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

109 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30078789)

  • 1. Optimal implantation site of transponders for identification of experimental swine.
    Nakamura S; Sakaoka A; Ikuno E; Asou R; Shimizu D; Hagiwara H
    Exp Anim; 2019 Feb; 68(1):13-23. PubMed ID: 30078789
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Use of ear tags and injectable transponders for the identification and traceability of pigs from birth to the end of the slaughter line.
    Caja G; Hernández-Jover M; Conill C; Garín D; Alabern X; Farriol B; Ghirardi J
    J Anim Sci; 2005 Sep; 83(9):2215-24. PubMed ID: 16100077
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Biocompatibility of glass-encapsulated electronic chips (transponders) used for the identification of pigs.
    Gruys E; Schakenraad JM; Kruit LK; Bolscher JM
    Vet Rec; 1993 Oct; 133(16):385-8. PubMed ID: 8310604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Comparison of visual and electronic identification devices in pigs: slaughterhouse performance.
    Santamarina C; Hernández-Jover M; Babot D; Caja G
    J Anim Sci; 2007 Feb; 85(2):497-502. PubMed ID: 17235033
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Comparison of visual and electronic identification devices in pigs: on-farm performances.
    Babot D; Hernández-Jover M; Caja G; Santamarina C; Ghirardi JJ
    J Anim Sci; 2006 Sep; 84(9):2575-81. PubMed ID: 16908663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Electronic identification with injectable transponders in pig production: results of a field trail on commercial farms and slaughterhouses concerning injectability and retrievability.
    Lambooij E; Langeveld NG; Lammers GH; Huiskes JH
    Vet Q; 1995 Dec; 17(4):118-23. PubMed ID: 8751271
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Effects of injecting electronic transponders into the auricle of pigs.
    Lammers GH; Langeveld NG; Lambooij E; Gruys E
    Vet Rec; 1995 Jun; 136(24):606-9. PubMed ID: 7571264
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Readability and histological biocompatibility of microchip transponders in horses.
    Wulf M; Wohlsein P; Aurich JE; Nees M; Baumgärtner W; Aurich C
    Vet J; 2013 Oct; 198(1):103-8. PubMed ID: 23769456
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Subcutaneous electronic identification in cattle: a field study.
    Løken T; Vatn G; Kummen E
    Vet Rec; 2011 Sep; 169(10):250. PubMed ID: 21813580
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [Implantation of transponders at the bottom of the ear in equines].
    Mader Ch; Geisel O; Gerhards H; Hermanns W
    Berl Munch Tierarztl Wochenschr; 2002; 115(5-6):161-6. PubMed ID: 12058588
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Subcutaneous tissue reaction to polyethylene terephtalate-covered electronic identification transponders in pigs.
    Lambooij E; de Groot PH; Molenbeek RF; Gruys E
    Vet Q; 1992 Dec; 14(4):145-7. PubMed ID: 1485404
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Long-term performance of visual and electronic identification devices in dairy goats.
    Carné S; Caja G; Ghirardi JJ; Salama AA
    J Dairy Sci; 2009 Apr; 92(4):1500-11. PubMed ID: 19307631
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Readability of visual and electronic leg tags versus rumen boluses and electronic ear tags for the permanent identification of dairy goats.
    Carné S; Caja G; Rojas-Olivares MA; Salama AA
    J Dairy Sci; 2010 Nov; 93(11):5157-66. PubMed ID: 20965331
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Positioning of identification transponders in the auricle of pigs.
    Lambooij E
    Vet Rec; 1992 Oct; 131(18):419-20. PubMed ID: 1462494
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Traceability of extensively produced Iberian pigs using visual and electronic identification devices from farm to slaughter.
    Gosálvez LF; Santamarina C; Averós X; Hernández-Jover M; Caja G; Babot D
    J Anim Sci; 2007 Oct; 85(10):2746-52. PubMed ID: 17609464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Innovative use and efficiency test of subcutaneous transponders for electronic identification of water buffaloes.
    Garcia AR; Barros DV; de Oliveira Junior MCM; Barioni Junior W; da Silva JAR; Lourenço Junior JB; Dos Santos Pessoa J
    Trop Anim Health Prod; 2020 Nov; 52(6):3725-3733. PubMed ID: 33009587
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Read distance performance and variation of 5 low-frequency radio frequency identification panel transceiver manufacturers.
    Ryan SE; Blasi DA; Anglin CO; Bryant AM; Rickard BA; Anderson MP; Fike KE
    J Anim Sci; 2010 Jul; 88(7):2514-22. PubMed ID: 20407068
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Lifetime traceability of weaner pigs in concrete-based and deep-litter production systems in Australia.
    Schembri N; Sithole F; Toribio JA; Hernández-Jover M; Holyoake PK
    J Anim Sci; 2007 Nov; 85(11):3123-30. PubMed ID: 17686903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Biological and migrational characteristics of transponders implanted into beagle dogs.
    Jansen JA; van der Waerden JP; Gwalter RH; van Rooy SA
    Vet Rec; 1999 Sep; 145(12):329-33. PubMed ID: 10530881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Re-Sterilisation of Single-Use Telemetric Devices.
    Zieglowski L; Kümmecke AM; Tolba RH; Ernst L
    Eur Surg Res; 2021; 62(4):271-275. PubMed ID: 34082422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.