Identificação de bovinos com marca a fogo: caracterização, eficiência de manejo, impactos no bem-estar animal e alternativas à prática
Carregando...
Data
2022-07-29
Autores
de Oliveira, Jaira
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Editor
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)
Resumo
Os objetivos com este estudo foram caracterizar o processo de marcação a fogo e avaliar seus impactos no bem-estar de bovinos de corte, nas condições laborais dos trabalhadores rurais envolvidos nesse processo e na eficácia desse processo. O estudo foi conduzido em duas etapas, sendo a primeira uma caracterização do processo de marcação a fogo, quando 37 bezerros da raça Nelore com aproximadamente 8 meses de idade foram marcados a fogo. Foram realizadas as seguintes medidas: 1) o tempo gasto para a aplicação de cada um dos dígitos da marca a fogo, 2) as temperaturas (oC) superficiais da pele dos animais sobre o local do posicionamento da marca e dez centímetros acima deste, estas últimas medidas (realizadas com câmera termográfica, sendo realizadas no dia da aplicação da marca a fogo e nos quatro dias subsequentes) e 3) o nível de ruídos (dB). Para avaliar o tempo para a aplicação de cada digito da marca foi registrado se as aplicações das marcas foram realizadas pegando um único ferro de marcar de cada vez (marcação individual, MI) ou pegando dois ferros ao mesmo tempo (marcação múltipla, MM), considerando também as situações em que foram aplicadas duas marcas ou mais ao mesmo tempo, sem retornar o ferro de marcar ao flambador (nos casos em que a identificação do bezerro tinha números repetidos). Foram registradas ainda as ocorrências de reaplicação das marcas. A segunda etapa do estudo foi conduzida em dois dias, utilizando 94 e 97 vacas adultas, respectivamente, para avaliar a eficiência na identificação, registrando-se os erros de identificação e o tempo para identificar as vacas comparando as leituras feitas nas marcas a fogo, nos brincos visuais e nos brincos eletrônicos. Houve efeito da local da marca sobre a temperatura da pele contemplando todos os dias das medições (de d0 a d4, p < 0,001) e também quando não foi considerado o dia de aplicação da marca, d0 (de d1 a d4, p < 0,001). Também houve efeito significativo (p < 0,001) da interação entre os locais onde foram realizadas as medidas da temperatura da pele e os dias de avaliação, mostrando haver diferenças significativas entre os locais onde foram medidas temperaturas da pele nos dias d0 e d2 (p < 0,05), mas não nos dias d1, d3 e d4. Nenhum animal teve todos os dígitos marcados na condição MI. A média de tempo quando os dígitos foram realizados por MM foi de 8,6 s por dígito, para MI a média de tempo foi de 13,0 s por dígito marcado. Dos 37 animais 86% (n = 32) receberam pelo menos uma remarcação. Dos 296 dígitos marcados, 57 foram remarcados e dentre esses 80,8% (46/57) ocorreram na condição MM. A intensidade sonora durante as marcações apresentou um aumento médio de 43% decibéis no nível de ruído durante o manejo com o flambador aceso em comparação com o apagado. Na análise de eficiência em ambos os dias de manejo, o método de identificação eletrônico foi tempo de leitura significativamente menor que o da marca a fogo (p < 0,001) e do brinco visual (p < 0,001). Houve menos erros de leitura da identificação individual de cada vaca quando utilizada a identificação eletrônica (perda do brinco) em comparação com a marca a fogo e com brinco visual (1,0% vs.17,5% vs e 2,1% vs. 12,7%, respectivamente). Com base nesses resultados concluímos que o uso de brinco eletrônico se apresenta como o melhor método para identificação dos bovinos, dada sua maior eficiência quanto ao tempo de leitura e confiabilidade da identificação. Além disso, seu uso combinado com outros métodos de identificação menos dolorosos, como a tatuagem e o brinco visual, oferece a possibilidade de substituição da marca a fogo, que tem um impacto muito negativo no bem-estar animal.
The aims of this study were to characterize the hot iron branding process and to assess its impacts on the working conditions and the welfare of the animals, and its effectiveness of this process. The study was carried out in two stages, the first being a characterization of the hot iron branding process, when 37 Nellore calves with approximately 8 months of age were hot branded. The following measurements were performed: 1) time spent to apply each one of the digits of the hot iron brand, 2) skin temperature (oC, by using a thermographic camera) at the location of the hot iron brand positioning and ten centimeters above (these measurements were carried out on the day of branding (d0) and during the four subsequent days (d1-d4)) and 3) noise level (dB). To assess the time spent for the application of each digit of the hot iron brand, it was recorded whether the applications of the brands were carried out by taking a single hot iron at a time (individual marking, MI) or taking two irons at the same time (multiple marking, MM), it was also considered the situations in which three marks or more were applied at the same time, without returning the iron to the heaters (in cases where the calf identification had repeated numbers). The occurrences of reapplication of the hot iron branding were also recorded. In the second stage two groups of cows (n = 94 and 97) were used to assess the efficiency of three methods used for individual identification, by recording: 1) the time spend to identify each cow when using hot iron brand, visual ear tags and electronic ear tags, and 2) the identification errors. These assessments were carried out during a routine of cows weighing. Skin temperature was higher when measured on the hot iron brand when considering all assessment days (from d0 to d4, p < 0.001) and also when the d0 was not considered (from, d1 to d4 p < 0.001). There was also a significant effect (p < 0.001) of the interaction between the locations where the skin temperatures were taken and the assessment days, showing significant differences between the locations on days d0 and d2 (p < 0.05), but not on days d1, d3 and d4. No animal had all digits marked with MI. The average time when the digits were performed by MM was 8.6 s per digit, for MI the average time was 13.0 s per digit. Most of the calves (n = 32/37, 86%) had at least one brandreapplication and, of the 296 digits branded, 57 were rebranded, and among these, 80.8% (46/57) occurred in the MM condition. The sound intensity showed an average increase of 43% in the noise level (Db), when the heater was on fire compared to off. In the analysis of efficiency in both days of handling, the electronic identification method had a significantly shorter reading time than the hot iron brand (p < 0.001) and the visual tag (p < 0.001). There were fewer errors in reading the individual identification of each cow when using electronic identification (loss of the ear tag) compared with the hot brand and with visual earring (1.0% vs. 17.5% vs. and 2.1% vs. .12.7%, respectively). Based on these results, we concluded that the use of electronic ear tag is the best method for cattle identification, given its greater efficiency in terms of reading time and identification reliability. In addition, its use combined with other less painful identification methods, such as tattooing and visual ear tags, offers the possibility of replacing the hot iron brand, which has a higher negative impact on animal welfare.
The aims of this study were to characterize the hot iron branding process and to assess its impacts on the working conditions and the welfare of the animals, and its effectiveness of this process. The study was carried out in two stages, the first being a characterization of the hot iron branding process, when 37 Nellore calves with approximately 8 months of age were hot branded. The following measurements were performed: 1) time spent to apply each one of the digits of the hot iron brand, 2) skin temperature (oC, by using a thermographic camera) at the location of the hot iron brand positioning and ten centimeters above (these measurements were carried out on the day of branding (d0) and during the four subsequent days (d1-d4)) and 3) noise level (dB). To assess the time spent for the application of each digit of the hot iron brand, it was recorded whether the applications of the brands were carried out by taking a single hot iron at a time (individual marking, MI) or taking two irons at the same time (multiple marking, MM), it was also considered the situations in which three marks or more were applied at the same time, without returning the iron to the heaters (in cases where the calf identification had repeated numbers). The occurrences of reapplication of the hot iron branding were also recorded. In the second stage two groups of cows (n = 94 and 97) were used to assess the efficiency of three methods used for individual identification, by recording: 1) the time spend to identify each cow when using hot iron brand, visual ear tags and electronic ear tags, and 2) the identification errors. These assessments were carried out during a routine of cows weighing. Skin temperature was higher when measured on the hot iron brand when considering all assessment days (from d0 to d4, p < 0.001) and also when the d0 was not considered (from, d1 to d4 p < 0.001). There was also a significant effect (p < 0.001) of the interaction between the locations where the skin temperatures were taken and the assessment days, showing significant differences between the locations on days d0 and d2 (p < 0.05), but not on days d1, d3 and d4. No animal had all digits marked with MI. The average time when the digits were performed by MM was 8.6 s per digit, for MI the average time was 13.0 s per digit. Most of the calves (n = 32/37, 86%) had at least one brandreapplication and, of the 296 digits branded, 57 were rebranded, and among these, 80.8% (46/57) occurred in the MM condition. The sound intensity showed an average increase of 43% in the noise level (Db), when the heater was on fire compared to off. In the analysis of efficiency in both days of handling, the electronic identification method had a significantly shorter reading time than the hot iron brand (p < 0.001) and the visual tag (p < 0.001). There were fewer errors in reading the individual identification of each cow when using electronic identification (loss of the ear tag) compared with the hot brand and with visual earring (1.0% vs. 17.5% vs. and 2.1% vs. .12.7%, respectively). Based on these results, we concluded that the use of electronic ear tag is the best method for cattle identification, given its greater efficiency in terms of reading time and identification reliability. In addition, its use combined with other less painful identification methods, such as tattooing and visual ear tags, offers the possibility of replacing the hot iron brand, which has a higher negative impact on animal welfare.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Bovinos, Radiofrequência registro, Sistemas de identificação por radiofrequência