Talk:Ear tag

Theft

Interesting - Australia has the same setup which was introduced as preventing theft,too. However the problems lie with lost tags and in some cases removed tags, which is illegal. In one case a whole pen of tagged and documented cattle disappeared overnight from saleyards not to be seen again. The thief in this case was probably another cattle owner who replaced the tags with his own. The bolus woudl seem to be more secure, but they are seldom used here, although they are a legal alternative. Cgoodwin (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The tags prevent simple theft of live animals quite well – I have to have matching passports for all the cattle on my holding, and so could not easily explain any extras. There are a few situations which the system would not prevent – for example, if one of my cows died, I could get a replacement set of tags for her (saying they were lost), then steal a similar cow of the right age and put them on her. I could also steal a young calf, say it was born to my cow, then tag it with a new tag – but I'd have to have a mother to match. Not really practical on a large scale. Cattle could in principle be stolen for slaughter, though that too is difficult, as there is a traceability system so butchers have to be able to show which animals they have cut. Age is checked at slaughter, which means at least younger animals have to match the age of the passport. Sheep and goats are potentially somewhat easier for thieves, as the tags just show the herd number and so are not unique to the animal (this will probably change). Also, sheep are managed in larger numbers, and so are harder to count and therefore account for. If I am caught with more than one or two untagged cattle I risk having my subsidy docked, so it's worth keeping everything squeaky-clean.

As far as I know electronic tags and boluses are not used in the UK. Horses (including ours) are often microchipped though, and must also have a passport showing their unique pattern of whorls and markings.Richard New Forest (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Update... Individual electronic tags are being introduced in the UK for most sheep born after 2009 (see [1]). Richard New Forest (talk) 09:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of rumen bolus tagging needs to be explained

The article contains references to rumen boluses. If the rumen is part of an animal's stomach, and a bolus can mean various things like a ball of chewed food or a subcutaneous injection, among other meanings, then what does any of that have to do with tagging animals? Is it being hinted that identifying radio transmitters are injected into the animals' rumens? And, if so, what stops the transmitter being excreted like the food that passes through? And if the transmitter is injected into the stomach, why there, and not under the skin? This rumen bolus business is referred to vaguely in the article with no explanation of the meaning, how it is done, and why it is done that way. --O'Dea (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A bolus is a lump, and you're right, it can be a wad of food, or also an artificial object (not sure about the subcutaneous injection though). In this instance it is a plastic or ceramic cylinder containing a RFID chip, passed into the rumen down the throat (other types of boluses include minerals, medicines such as parasite treatments, or a magnet to prevent wire or nails passing down to more delicate parts of the gut). I don't really understand why boluses stay in the rumen, but apparently they do and they are rarely lost. As the rumen lies close to the skin on the animal's (left) side, the chip can be read from the outside. See for example [2] and [3].

I agree that this is not explained much in this article. However, the article isn't about boluses, it's about ear tags... Perhaps we need a separate article for them; alternatively we could change the title and content of this article (see below). Richard New Forest (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the interesting explanation. The article needs this information within it, or provided externally by way of a link to a separate Wikipedia article. I see a larger discussion has been provoked, below. As a neophyte where these subjects are concerned, I have for now simply encoded in the article the two external references you supplied, so a measure of insight is offered to the reader while the broader debate is being resolved. --O'Dea (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That looks good – thanks.

I didn't answer another part of your question: "why into the rumen and not under the skin?" In other animals (such as pets, horses, lab animals and wild animals), chips are indeed often injected under the skin. This does presumably involve a minor risk of infection, and in a food animal there is also the risk of the chip ending up on the plate and breaking someone's dentures. In ruminant animals the rumen is a safe and convenient place to put it, and it can be done with minimal training using simple, non-sterile equipment. I have to get the vet out to chip a horse, but not for chipping a sheep (and I have a lot more of those...). Richard New Forest (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Article content and title

There are currently several articles containing closely related material:

• This article, currently called Ear tag. Covers various aspects of marking livestock using tags in the ears.
• Earmark (agriculture). Covers identification of livestock by cuts and notches in the ears.
• Microchip implant (animal). Identification of pets (and horses) using injected RFID chips.
• National Animal Identification System. US animal tracing system, including identification of livestock.
• National Livestock Identification System. Similar system used in Australia.
• National Animal Identification and Tracing. Similar system proposed for New Zealand.
• British Cattle Movement Service. Similar system used in Britain for cattle.

There is a lot of repetition between these articles, and some aspects are poorly covered. For example, identification boluses (discussed above) and anklets are not ear tags or earmarks, so where do they go?

I wonder if it might be better to have a broader main article with sections covering each of the various aspects, and if there was enough material, further articles would link to these. How about Livestock identification as the name for this? It would incorporate Ear tag, Earmark (agriculture) and relevant bits of other articles.

Any thoughts? Richard New Forest (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, with a tweak: I think a list-style article with that title (or "Types of livestock identification" or something similar) might be best, the really minor stuff , such as the rumen bolus, can be explained there, with the bigger articles simply linked. Microchipping is a big enough topic for its own article, particularly as it can emcompass house pets as well as livestock. We also have Livestock branding, which is a fairly long article. Perhaps merging ear tag and ear mark makes sense though. I'll propose the merge. Montanabw^(talk) 16:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that this woudl proabaly be the way to go. There are also other forms such as dewlapping, which would only need a passing mention.Cgoodwin (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Suddenly, this whole conversation reminded me of the Far Side cartoon of the humans who wake up to find they are tagged with radio collars! (Cannot recall if they were tagged by aliens, or by bears!) LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 21:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the notion of merging ear tag and ear mark. different entirely. do you have cattle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.81.247.211 (talk) 02:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree with the merger. Earmarking (which I believe should be termed ear-notching) is a relatively simple procedure and requires only a short article. Ear tags are a developing technology and there are various types requiring a much larger article. I believe these are both stand-alone articles. If a merger is forthcoming, it should also probably include tattooing and ear-amputation to make an exhaustive article on what we do to animals' ears. DrChrissy (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess it isn't a huge deal to me, the issue is probably if we want a bunch of poor stubs or one decent article. Montanabw^(talk) 06:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

One-sided

I'm no treehugger, but I think it's weird that the article pays no attention to animal welfare and medical aspects of ear tagging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ear tag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204163904/http://cattleidentification.org/ear-tags/eid-tags to http://cattleidentification.org/ear-tags/eid-tags
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430152002/http://www.mla.com.au/TopicHierarchy/IndustryPrograms/NationalLivestockIdentificationSystem/default.htm to http://www.mla.com.au/TopicHierarchy/IndustryPrograms/NationalLivestockIdentificationSystem/default.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ear tag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706104049/http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/livestock/news/rumen-bolus-system-pays-off/26371.aspx to http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/state/livestock/news/rumen-bolus-system-pays-off/26371.aspx
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/movements/sheep/documents/eid-quickguide.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120207062514/http://www.bcsheepfed.com/news.html to http://www.bcsheepfed.com/news.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)