The e-ROSA project seeks to build a shared vision of a future sustainable e-infrastructure for research and education in agriculture in order to promote Open Science in this field and as such contribute to addressing related societal challenges. In order to achieve this goal, e-ROSA’s first objective is to bring together the relevant scientific communities and stakeholders and engage them in the process of coelaboration of an ambitious, practical roadmap that provides the basis for the design and implementation of such an e-infrastructure in the years to come.
This website highlights the results of a bibliometric analysis conducted at a global scale in order to identify key scientists and associated research performing organisations (e.g. public research institutes, universities, Research & Development departments of private companies) that work in the field of agricultural data sources and services. If you have any comment or feedback on the bibliometric study, please use the online form.
You can access and play with the graphs:
- Evolution of the number of publications between 2005 and 2015
- Map of most publishing countries between 2005 and 2015
- Network of country collaborations
- Network of institutional collaborations (+10 publications)
- Network of keywords relating to data - Link
Comparison of visual and electronic identification devices in pigs: Slaughterhouse performance
Traceability during slaughter was studied in 1,581 pigs identified by different devices. Treatments were visual ear tags (n = 1,300), electronic ear tags of different technologies (half-duplex, n = 636; full-duplex, n = 632), and intraperitoneally injected transponders of different technologies (half-duplex 32 mm, n = 645; full-duplex 34 mm, n = 642). Piglets were individually identified at weaning and intensively fed until 100 kg of BW. Pigs were slaughtered in 2 commercial slaughterhouses (including scalding, flaming, and peeling) at different throughputs (450 and 550 pigs/h). Readability during slaughtering was checked visually and using standardized handheld transceivers. No effect of slaughterhouse was detected (P > 0.05). Ear tag losses in the slaughtering line were similar for visual (3.7%) and half-duplex (3.5%) but were increased for full-duplex (11.5%; P < 0.05). Moreover, electronic failures during slaughtering did not differ (P > 0.05) between ear tags (half-duplex, 1.1%; full-duplex, 0.6%). Intraperitoneally injected transponders were not affected by slaughtering (retention 100%, no failures), and 89.0% of the transponders were manually recovered from the abdominal viscera in the offal trays. The remaining transponders (11.0%) were lost on the floor, but none were found in the carcasses. No differences (P > 0.05) in recovery were observed between intraperitoneal transponders. Considering on-farm and slaughterhouse data, total traceability from farm to carcass release was greater (P < 0.05) for intraperitoneally injected transponders (98.2%) than for ear tags. Between ear tags, the greatest traceability was obtained with visual tags (95.7%), which differed (P < 0.05) from electronic tags (half-duplex, 91.4%; full-duplex, 84.5%; P < 0.05). Intraperitoneally injected transponders were an efficient and reliable identification system for tracing pigs from farm to the end of the slaughter line, allowing the transfer of pig identification to the carcass. Adherence of intraperitoneally injected transponders to the viscera should be improved to reduce risks of loss in the meat chain. A dual system based on intraperitoneally injected transponders and plastic ear tags would allow a redundant and automatic reading system that is efficient and reliable for data management and traceability in the swine industry.
Inappropriate format for Document type, expected simple value but got array, please use list format