121 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 8751271)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. The use of passive injectable transponders in fattening lambs from birth to slaughter: effects of injection position, age, and breed.
Conill C; Caja G; Nehring R; Ribó O
J Anim Sci; 2002 Apr; 80(4):919-25. PubMed ID: 12002329
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
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. Effects of injection position and transponder size on the performances of passive injectable transponders used for the electronic identification of cattle.
Conill C; Caja G; Nehring R; Ribó O
J Anim Sci; 2000 Dec; 78(12):3001-9. PubMed ID: 11132812
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. Pig identification: comparison of results from injected transponders and electronic ear tags.
Marchi E; Ferri N; Comellini F
Vet Ital; 2007; 43(1):97-102. PubMed ID: 20411503
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. 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]
17. 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]
18. Comparison of visual and electronic devices for individual identification of dromedary camels under different farming conditions.
Caja G; Díaz-Medina E; Salama AA; Salama OA; El-Shafie MH; El-Metwaly HA; Ayadi M; Aljumaah RS; Alshaikh MA; Yahyahoui MH; Seddik MM; Hammadi M; Khorchani T; Amann O; Cabrera S
J Anim Sci; 2016 Aug; 94(8):3561-3571. PubMed ID: 27695805
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Salmonella contamination in pigs at slaughter and on the farm: a field study using an antibody ELISA test and a PCR technique.
Nowak B; von Müffling T; Chaunchom S; Hartung J
Int J Food Microbiol; 2007 Apr; 115(3):259-67. PubMed ID: 17292500
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. A comparison of sites for implanting identification transponders in cattle.
Hasker PJ; Bassingthwaighte J; Round PJ
Aust Vet J; 1992 Apr; 69(4):91. PubMed ID: 1605792
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
