Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T08:12:54.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Commonly Used Ear Tags on the Ear Damage of Sheep

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 January 2023

D S Edwards ,
A M Johnston  and
D U Pfeiffer
D S Edwards*
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Animal and Equine Medicine and Surgery, The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Herts AL9 7TA, UK
A M Johnston
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Animal and Equine Medicine and Surgery, The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Herts AL9 7TA, UK
D U Pfeiffer
Affiliation:
Department of Farm Animal and Equine Medicine and Surgery, The Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hawkshead Lane, North Mymms, Hatfield, Herts AL9 7TA, UK
*
† Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The damage caused by ear tags used for sheep identification was investigated in a two-part study. In Part I, ear tags classified as metal loop, golf-tee, single flex or lambtag were inserted into the ears of 62 ewes. The severity of ewe ear lesions was monitored until 20 weeks after ear tag insertion. In Part II, 351 lambs had tags classified as metal loop, plastic loop, golf-tee, double flex, single flap, lambtag and electronic, inserted in their ears. The behaviour of the lambs was observed for 30s after insertion of the ear tag. The severity of lamb ear lesions was monitored until 5 weeks after ear tag insertion. In both ewes and lambs there was a significantly greater risk of severe and persistent ear lesions following the use of metal loop tags as compared with the other types of ear tag (P < 0.001). The single flap tag was difficult to insert in a greater proportion of lambs (P < 0.001), and more lambs haemorrhaged (P < 0.001), vocalized (P = 0.002) and shook their heads (P = 0.004) with it, than with the other types of ear tags. All ear tags resulted in an inflammatory reaction and required correct positioning to minimize the severity of ear lesions.

Keywords

animal identificationanimal welfareear tagslesion scoresheep
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , May 2001 , pp. 141 - 151
Copyright
© 2001 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aslani, M R, Bazargani, T T, Ashkar, A A, Movasaghi, A R, Raoofi, A and Atiabi, N 1998 Outbreak of tetanus in lambs. Veterinary Record 142: 518–519CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dean, A G, Dean, J A, Burton, A H and Dicker, R C 1990 Epi Info, Version 6: A Word Processing, Database, and Statistics Program for Epidemiology on Microcomputers. USD Incorporated: Stone Mountain, USAGoogle Scholar
Edwards, D S and Johnston, A M 1999 Welfare implications of sheep ear tags. Veterinary Record 144: 603–606CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Directive 92/102/EEC 1992 On the Identification and Registration of Animals. Council of the European Communities: Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
Hosie, B 1995 Problems with the use of ear tags in sheep. Veterinary Record 137: 571CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnston, A M and Edwards, D S 1996 Welfare implications of identification of cattle by ear tags. Veterinary Record 138: 612–614CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kirkwood, J K, Sainsbury, A W and Bennett, PM 1994 The welfare of free-living wild animals: Methods of assessment. Animal Welfare 3: 257–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lester, S J, Mellor, D J, Holmes, R J, Ward, R N and Stafford, K J 1996 Behavioural and Cortisol responses of lambs to castration and tailing using different methods. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 44: 45–54CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mead, R and Curnow, R N 1990 Statistical Methods in Agriculture and Experimental Biology. Chapman & Hall: London, UKGoogle Scholar
Sanford, J, Ewbank, R, Molony, V, Tavernor, W D and Uvarov, O 1986 Guidelines for the recognition and assessment of pain in animals. Veterinary Record 118: 334–338Google Scholar
Steärk, K D C, Morris, R S and Pfeiffer, D U 1998 Comparison of electronic and visual identification systems in pigs. Livestock Production Science 53: 143–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardrope, D D 1995 Problems with the use of ear tags in cattle. Veterinary Record 137: 675Google ScholarPubMed