A preliminary in vivo study on the potential application of e-tracking in poultry using ink printed 2D barcodes

Computers and Electronics in Agriculture

Volumn 73, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 112-117

  Mc Inerney, Barry ^a   Corkery, Gerard ^a   Ayalew, Gashaw ^a   Ward, Shane ^a   Mc Donnell, Kevin ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Abrasion; Beak; Inkjet printing; Poultry identification; Readability

Indexed keywords

2-D BARCODES; ABRASION TESTING; BEAK; BROILER CHICKENS; COMMERCIAL SETTINGS; ELECTRONIC TRACKING; EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE; IN-VITRO; IN-VIVO; PHYSICAL ABRASION; PHYSICAL EFFECTS; POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS; RESEARCH PROGRAMMES; SHORT PERIODS; TWO PHASIS;

ABILITY TESTING; ABRASION; BAR CODES; INK JET PRINTERS; INK JET PRINTING; TRIBOLOGY; TWO DIMENSIONAL;

INK;

COMMERCIALIZATION; ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT; POULTRY; TRACKING;

GALLUS GALLUS;

EID: 77955057364     PISSN: 01681699     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.compag.2010.06.004     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Barry B., Corkery G., Gonzales-Barron U., Mc Donnell K., Butler F., Ward S. A longitudinal study of the effect of time on the matching performance of a retinal recognition system for lambs. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2008, 64:202-211.
2. Barry B., Gonzales-Barron U.A., McDonnell K., Butler F., Ward S. Using muzzle pattern recognition as a biometric approach for cattle identification. Transactions of the Asabe 2007, 50:1073-1080.
3. Handbook of Avian Anatomy 1993, Cambridge, MA, Nuttall Ornithological Club. J.J. Baumel (Ed.).
4. Clayton D.H., Cotgreave P. Relationship of bill morphology to grooming behaviour in birds. Animal Behaviour 1994, 47:195-201.
5. Corkery G.P., Gonzales-Barron U., Ayalew G., Ward S., McDonnell K. A preliminary investigation of avian comb as a potential biometric marker for identification of poultry. Transactions of the Asabe 2009, 52:991-998.
6. Corkery G.P., Gonzales-Barron U.A., Butler F., McDonnell K., Ward S. A preliminary investigation on face recognition as a biometric identifier of sheep. Transactions of the Asabe 2007, 50:313-320.
7. Dennis R.L., Fahey A.G., Cheng H.W. Different effects of individual identification systems on chicken well-being. Poultry Science 2008, 87:1052-1057.
8. DG-SANCO Food Traceability-Tracing Food through the Production and Distribution Chain to Identify and Address Risks and Protect Public Health 2007, pp. 1-4.
9. Duncan I.J.H., Wood-Gush D.G.M. An analysis of displacement preening in the domestic fowl. Animal Behaviour 1972, 20:68-71.
10. European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 Laying Down the General Principles and Requirements of Food Law, Establishing the European Food Safety Authority and Laying Down Procedures in Matters of Food Safety 2002, EU.
11. Fallon M. Traceability of poultry and poultry products. Revue Scientifique Et Technique De L Office International Des Epizooties 2001, 20:538-546.
12. Fritz J., Russ D.H. DataMatrix and PDF417 Data Integrity Test 2009, The Center for Automatic Identification at Ohio University, Ohio.
13. Fröschle H.K., Gonzales-Barron U., McDonnell K., Ward S. Investigation of the potential use of e-tracking and tracing of poultry using linear and 2D barcodes. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2009, 66:126-132.
14. FSAI Campylobacter spp. Food Safety Authority of Ireland. Dublin 2007, 1-5.
15. Gellynck X., Verbeke W., Vermeire B. Pathways to increase consumer trust in meat as a safe and wholesome food. 52nd International Congress of Meat Science and Technology (52in ICoMST) 2006, 161-171. Elsevier Sci Ltd, Dublin, Ireland.
16. Gonzales-Barron U., Corkery G., Barry B., Butler F., McDonnell K., Ward S. Assessment of retinal recognition technology as a biometric method for sheep identification. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 2008, 60:156-166.
17. GS1 Bar Code Types 2009.
18. GS1 GS1 DataMatrix: An Introduction and Technical Overview of the Most Advanced GS1 Application Identifiers Compliant Symbology 2009, pp. 1-72.
19. GS1US GS1 DataMatrix 2009, GS1US.
20. McKean J.D. The importance of traceability for public health and consumer protection. Revue Scientifique Et Technique De L Office International Des Epizooties 2001, 20:363-371.
21. Nicol C.J. Social influences on the comfort behaviour of laying hens. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 1989, 22:75-81.
22. Palestis B.G., Burger J. Evidence for social facilitation of preening in the common tern. Animal Behaviour 1998, 56:1107-1111.
23. Palmer R.C. The Bar Code Book: Reading, Printing, and Specification of Bar Code Symbols 1995, Helmers Publishing, Dublin.
24. Plain-Jones C. Data Matrix identification. Sensor Review 1995, 15:12.
25. Proctor N.S. Manual of Ornithology: Avian Structure & Function 1993, Yale University Press, London.
26. Rusk C.P., Blomeke C.R., Balschweid M.A., Elliott S.J., Baker D. An evaluation of retinal imaging technology for 4-H beef and sheep identification. Journal of Extension 2006, 50.
27. Schwägele F. Traceability from a European perspective. Meat Science 2005, 71:164-173.
28. Simmons K.E.L. Anting: comfort behaviour; dusting; sunning. A Dictionary of Birds 1985, 101-104. Buteo Books, Vermillion, South Dakota. B. Campbell, E. Lack (Eds.).
29. van Rijswijk W., Frewer L.J. Consumer perceptions of food quality and safety and their relation to traceability. British Food Journal 2008, 110:1034-1046.
30. Verbeke W. The emerging role of traceability and information in demand-oriented livestock production. Outlook on Agriculture 2001, 30:249-255.
31. WHO, 2009. Cumulative Number of Confirmed Human Cases of Avian Influenza A/(H5N1) Reported to WHO. Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response (EPR).