Desktop Review of NLIS Tagging Options for Australian Dairy Goats

Desktop Review of NLIS Tagging Options for Australian Dairy Goats November 2016 PREPARED FOR: Goat Industry Council of Australia (GICA) PREPARED BY: Maria Thompson (nee Butler) ABN: 14 632 695 203 PO Box 18, Katherine, NT 0850 M: 0411 961 545 E: maria@agstarprojects.com.au

1. Introduction... 3 2. Dairy Goat Breeds in Australia... 3 2.1 Saanen... 3 2.2 Anglo Nubian... 3 2.3 British Alpine... 4 2.4 Toggenburg... 4 2.5 The Australian Brown... 4 2.6 The Australian Melaan... 5 2.7 Other goat breeds... 5 3. Review of Tag Trials in Published Literature... 7 3.1 Types of Tags... 7 3.2 Long-term performance, retention and readability... 8 3.3 Reactions/infections from tags... 10 3.4 Other Benefits of Electronic Identification and Automation... 10 3.5 International goat tagging policies... 11 4. Australian Dairy Goat Producer Survey... 12 4.1 Survey results... 12 4.2 Photographs of tags in the goats... 14 5. Conclusion... 18 Reference List... 19 Appendix 1 Questions in the Dairy Goat Tag Survey... 20 Disclaimer This publication may be of assistance to you but AgSTAR Projects does not guarantee that the publication is without flaw of any kind or is wholly appropriate for your particular purposes and therefore disclaims all liability for any error, loss or other consequence, which may arise from you relying on any information in this publication. Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 2

1. Introduction The Goat Industry Council of Australia (GICA) contracted Maria Thompson from AgSTAR Projects to undertake a desktop review of NLIS tagging options for dairy goats in Australia. The desktop review involved examining the main dairy goat breeds in Australia and their respective ear structures, as well as a review of published literature on goat and dairy goat tagging trials. A survey of large-scale dairy goat operators who have been successfully tagging their goats was also conducted. This aimed to determine a range of factors including the type of tag, where the tag is inserted in the ear, hygiene steps followed at application and any other factors that my impact on the tagging of dairy goats. 2. Dairy Goat Breeds in Australia There are at least six key dairy goat breeds and three other dairy breeds recognised in Australia. Below is a brief outline of the goat breeds and their respective ear structures. The LaMancha breed and variants of this breed will require an alternative system to ear tagging. It is understood that there are less than ten breeders within Australia. 2.1 Saanen The Saanen the most common goat breed in Australia. Saanen does are typically long lactating and high producing dairy goats with placid temperaments. Saanen have upright ears, which are usually of medium size, carried erect and are preferably pointing forward. Figure 1. Saanen breed (source: https://ahdc.vet.cornell.edu/docs/goatbreeds) 2.2 Anglo Nubian The Anglo Nubian is an all-purpose goat, useful for meat, milk and hide production. They are recognized by their long droopy ears, which extend beyond the end of the nose. When an erect eared dairy breed is crossed with a Nubian, the result is airplane ears. Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 3

Figure 2. Anglo Nubian (source: http://www.gica.com.au/history-of-goats/dairy-goats) 2.3 British Alpine The British Alpine is a tall, rangy, highly active breed suited to open grazing and renowned as a good milk producer with better than average butterfat and solids-notfat. They have erect ears. Figure 3. British Alpine (source: http://www.gica.com.au/history-of-goats/dairy-goats) 2.4 Toggenburg The Toggenburg goat originated Switzerland, where the purity of the breed was strictly regulated. It is credited with being the oldest known dairy breed of goat. The breed has become popular in Australia with both small farm operations and commercial dairies because of its excellent milk production. The ears are erect. Figure 4. Toggenburg (source: https://ahdc.vet.cornell.edu/docs/goatbreeds) 2.5 The Australian Brown Australian Brown breed was developed in Australia over the 1990s and officially recognised as a breed in 2006. These goats are of a consistent type, tall and rangy with good dairy conformation and are known for long lactation and ease of milking. The ears are erect. Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 4

Figure 5. The Australian Brown (source: http://dgsavic.weebly.com/dairybreeds.html) 2.6 The Australian Melaan The Australian Melaan is a black goat breed developed in Australia and particularly well suited to the diverse and highly variable local production conditions. Figure 6. The Australian Melaan (source: http://www.gica.com.au/history-ofgoats/dairy-goats) 2.7 Other goat breeds LaMancha The LaMancha is a dairy goat that originated in Oregon from short-eared goats common in Spain. It is defined by its ear shape, which is a dominant trait. Gopher ears have a maximum of 1 inch length and very little or no cartilage. Figure 7. LaMancha (source: https://ahdc.vet.cornell.edu/docs/goatbreeds) Figure 8. The elf ear variant of the LaMancha can be up to 2 inches long (source: https://ahdc.vet.cornell.edu/docs/goatbreeds) Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 5

Nigerian Dwarf This is a miniature goat from Africa but has a longer body than a pygmy goat and has the proportions of a dairy goat. Ears are upright and the animal can be of any color. Figure 9. Nigerian Dwarf (source: https://ahdc.vet.cornell.edu/docs/goatbreeds) Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 6

3. Review of Tag Trials in Published Literature A review of published literature focussing on trials in goats and specifically dairy goats, was conducted. The published literature was mostly from Europe across a range of goat breeds and primarily focussed on visual and electronic tags as well as rumen boluses, which are not applicable to the Australian system. Key findings from the literature that may be relevant to identification of Australian dairy goats included the following: Ear dimensions, environment and ear tag features result in variable retention and readability of visual and e-id ear tags in goats Light and high quality button ear tags provide suitable results under intensive conditions Morphological ear differences between goat breeds seem to be mainly responsible for the retention variability of the ear tags used Ear tag features were key factors to improve their retention rate The use of button-button ear tags prevented losses and nibbling 3.1 Types of Tags A dairy goat identification trial conducted by Carne et.al, 2009, in Spain, examined the long-term performance of visual and electronic identification devices in Murciano- Granadina dairy goats. This breed of goat originated in the semi arid areas in south eastern Spain. They were bred for two main traits, milk production and its ability to continue this production in dry and nutrient poor regions. This breed of goat has erect ears. Below is a figure of the identification devices used in the Spanish trial. The ear tags (E1, F, E2, V1 and V2) are the only devices examined in this literature review (figure 1 below). Two types of male pieces were used: E1 button type (Azasa-Allflex, Madrid, Spain; weight 1.8 g, button o.d. 28.5 mm, pin length o.d. 20.5 5.5 mm) and E2 flag type (Azasa-Allflex; 3 g; flag length width 48.5 42 mm, pin length o.d. 20.5 5.5 mm). Ear tags were applied to the middle of the ear at one third from the ear base, using tagger pliers recommended by the manufacturer (Universal Total Tagger, Allflex Europe); the F piece was placed on the internal side of the ear. Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 7

Figure 1. Electronic and visual devices used for the identification of dairy goats. V1 = tip-tag ear tag (Azasa-Allflex, Madrid, Spain); V2 = official tamper-proof ear tag (Azasa-Allflex); B1 = mini-bolus 13.7 g and 51.0 10.5 mm (Rumitag, Esplugues de LLobregat, Spain); B2 = mini-bolus 20.1 g and 56.4 10.5 mm (Rumitag); B3 = standard bolus 75 g and 68.2 21.0 mm (Rumitag); E1 = ear tag made of plastic button male piece (Azasa-Allflex) and electronic button female piece (Allflex Europe, Vitré, France); E2 = ear tag made of plastic flag male piece (Azasa-Allflex) and electronic button female piece (Allflex Europe); T1 = injectable transponder 15 2.1 mm (Avid Microchip España, Barcelona, Spain); T2 = injectable transponder 12 2.1 mm (Cromasa, Berriozar, Spain). 3.2 Long-term performance, retention and readability In Carne et al. (2009a), six losses of visual tag V1 (14.6%) were reported by the end of the rearing treatments. Ear tag losses occurred without producing split ears and were not related to year and rearing treatments (P > 0.05). No losses of visual tag V2 were observed during this period, most likely because of an improved design and the tamper-proof closing system. Nevertheless, 1 (2.0%) visual tag, V2, showed severe damage caused by bites, and was unreadable. As a consequence, readability of V1 (85.4%) and V2 (98.0%) at 5 months tended to differ (P = 0.053). No losses or failures were observed for the electronic tags E1 and E2 during the whole rearing period and readability for electronic ear tags was 100%. Nevertheless, 4 (8.7%) cases of damage to the flag piece of E2 were registered. During the study by Carne et al. (2009a), in the electronic ear tags, a total of 3 losses of E2 were registered after the first year; 2 of them during year 2 and 1 during year 3. This last loss was directly observed in the head-locker of the milking parlor during milking, when the male-female mechanism of the ear tag unlocked. No electronic failures were observed for E1 and E2 during the entire study. Because no split ears were observed for E2 losses, the researchers concluded that losses occurred by unlocking the E2 ear tags. Moreover, 3 E2 flag pieces (9.1%) showed biting damage. Similar damage was also found in 2 E2 that were eventually lost. The use of E1 (button-button) ear tags prevented losses and nibbling. The E1 electronic ear tag showed 100% estimated readability at the end of the 3-yr study, which differed (P = 0.022) from the E2 estimated readability (79.8%). Observed E2 late losses as a consequence of aging deterioration is an aspect to be taken into account when comparing the long-term readability of ear tags. A study by Caja et al, 2014, compared the performances of the most used e-id devices (i.e., ear tags, injects, boluses and leg tags) with plastic ear tags in goats. The results confirmed that ear dimensions, environment and ear tag features result in variable retention and readability of visual and e-id ear tags in goats. Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 8

The study found that light and high quality button ear tags provide suitable results under intensive conditions but they are not fully satisfactory under extensive conditions. A study by Karakus et al (2016) aimed to evaluate the readability of electronic and visual ear tags in hair goat kids managed under extensive conditions. A total of 74 kids were identified with electronic and visual ear tags at birth. Readability of electronic and visual ear tags was 97.3% and 94.6% in static conditions at the end of 7 months, and 96.8% and 93.5% at the end of the first year after tagging, respectively. No breakages and electronic failures occurred during this study. In the Kowalski et al (2014) trial, no early losses of devices were observed (after one week of application), but after a month of evaluation the loss of one big ear tag was recorded, which decreased the retention rate of this device to 95.5%. Small ear tag and ruminal bolus showed similar retention rates, which corresponded to 100%. Although the retention rate of the big ear tag was lower than the other devices, there was no statistical difference (P = 0.3170) for retention rate among the evaluated devices. With a retention rate of 95.5% after six months of evaluation, the big ear tag is not recommended, as it did not meet the requirements of the International Committee on Animal Recording (ICAR), which is responsible for establishing rules and standards for animal identification. The single loss of identification devices (big ear tag) occurred due to intense habit of scratching observed in goats. Probably, in the period that animals were confined overnight, one animal scratched itself on the fence and stuck the big ear tag in the wire, resulting in ear laceration and loss of this identification device. Thus, the production environment and the ear tag dimensions can directly affect the retention rate. In a study in the USA by Carne et al (2014), each goat was also identified with 1 standard flag-button plastic ear tag (4.6 g, 51 41 mm, flag dimensions; Allflex USA). Retention of boluses and ear tags was regularly monitored for 1 yr. No differences in ear tag retention according to breed were detected until 8 months, when retention of ear tags in Alpine (97.0%) and Boer-cross (98.6%) was greater (P < 0.05) than in Angora (87.5%). After one year, ear tag retention in Boer-cross (98.6%) and Alpine (96.9%) goats was greater (P < 0.05) than in Spanish (88.7%) and Angora (82.9%) and tended to differ (P = 0.095) between Spanish and Alpine. In this trial, only the retention rate of ear tags in Boer-cross goats met ICAR requirements (>98%). Morphological ear differences between breeds seem to be mainly responsible for the retention variability of the ear tags used, although different management and pens allocation may have contributed to ear tag loss as well. Caja et al (2014) also evaluated injectable transponders in different body sites (ear base, armpit, groin, tail, pastern and intraperitoneal) of goats. Main drawbacks of injects are migration and retrieval at slaughter, but injection in the armpit is suitable for goats under harsh conditions (i.e., game and feral goats) and carcass traceability. They found that injection in the pastern has the advantage of minimising carcass residues, although readability is compromised by the small size of the transponders used and is not recommended for most on-farm applications. Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 9

Performances of e-id rumen boluses vary by bolus features and goat breed. Research showed that denser boluses than in sheep (>3.3) and high quality transponders allow >98% readability in goats. These results however, are not relevant to the Australian goat industry as the Australian Meat Industry Council (AMIC) indicated to GICA that injectables and boluses as a form of identification is unacceptable. 3.3 Reactions/infections from tags The Spanish trial by Carne et al (2009a) of electronic ear tags found 3.3% had profuse bleeding that stopped within a few minutes after ear tag insertion. Whereas 90.2% of ears were completely healed at 2 months after tagging, 3.3% ears showed infection with purulent secretion and 6.5% more ears showed a marked tissue reaction to the attached ear tags. Tissue reaction appeared as perceptible swelling of the ear and noticeable irritation under the ear tag but without bleeding or apparent signs of infection. Edwards et al. (2001) tested both plastic and metal ear tags in sheep and only reported the presence of tissue reaction to the metal tags. In this study by Carne et al (2009a), these findings remained apparent until 4 months and then progressively decreased until eventually disappearing at 6 months post application. The length of healing period did not affect the size of the hole made at ear tagging, although some cases of increased ear thickness and hair loss around the tagging hole were observed. Ear tag readability was not affected by the healing process. In a trial by Karakus et al (2016), they indicated that ear tags may result in an inflammatory response due to the wound created when they were inserted into the ear. Ear wounds should be considered in terms of ear tag losses and welfare implications, since re-tagging of an animal result in increased cost and animal stress. In this study electronic ear tags caused more problems than visual eat tags. Infected ear rate in electronic and visual ear tags was exceptionally high with 45.9% and 17.6%, respectively (P<0.01). Signs of infection were observed in the form of swelling of the ear, irritation under the ear tag, inflammation, and discomfort or pain when touched. All infected ears healed within 10 weeks of insertion of the ear tag based on lesion severity. Karakus et al state that they think that the problems in ears with electronic ear tags may be caused by the greater weight due to the presence of a transponder. This study was conducted in Turkey and there is no mention of how they were inserted or of hygiene steps. In a different trial by Kowalski et al (2014), conducted with Boer goats, examined big ear tags, small ear tags and ruminal boluses. Problems during application of the big ear tag were recorded and resulted in bleeding being observed in one goat. 3.4 Other Benefits of Electronic Identification and Automation Use of electronic identification (e-id) of caprine breeding stock, based on radio frequency passive transponders, is compulsory in most EU countries and it is foreseen as a key tool for the improvement of the goat industry (Caja et al, 2014). Application of automatic technologies is a growing trend in the livestock industry and plays an important role in the future prospects. The automatic systems most commonly used in animal production concern the various objectives which include automatic identification, drafting, feeding, milking, detection of estrus, detection of Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 10

births and many other farm operations. RFID can improve the automatic data collection by taking advantage of electronic transmission technology that provides quick access to dairy herd information and utilized for improving the feeding and management practices (Hamadani & Khan, 2015) In a study by Saidi (2014), the use of the semi-automatic milk recording system, based on e-id and handheld reader for automatic reading and data transfer to a computer, demonstrated advantages of reading and transferring milking data in dairy goats (9% of total time reduction). Implementation of the semi-automatic system reduced 40% of labor costs for milk recording and increased accuracy of milk recording data, avoiding confusion and errors during data transfer. Advantages of the system were expected to be greater when operators are well trained and when the semi-automatic system is used in large goat herds (Saidi, 2014). 3.5 International goat tagging policies The National Scrapie Eradication Program, coordinated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), requires producers to follow Federal and State regulations for officially identifying their sheep and goats. Producers must also keep herd records showing what new animals were added and what animals left the herd/flock. Official identification devices, including eartags and injectable transponders, must be approved by APHIS as being sufficiently tamper-resistant for the intended use, have good retention, and provide a unique identification number for each animal. APHIS provides official plastic or metal eartags free of charge to producers (APHIS 2014). Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 11

4. Australian Dairy Goat Producer Survey A survey was developed following consultation with GICA, a Dairy Goat Society of Australia representative and NLIS Ltd. The NLIS Accredited Devices document (November 2015) was also reviewed. Four large-scale dairy goat operators were provided with the survey questions in October 2016. 4.1 Survey results 1. Dairy locations Three surveyed dairies were located in Victoria and one in South Australia. 2. Goat breeds Dairy goat breeds that were run on the surveyed properties included: - Saanen - British Alpine - Toggenburg 3. Sample size (n) Three Victorian farms had a collective total 6000 does and the SA dairy had 328 milking does with a further 60 to kid in January 2017. 4. Year commenced tagging The three large farms commenced visual tagging in 1994 and RFID in 2007. The SA dairy has been tagging wethers since 2012 and doe kids that are sold. 5. Device types All dairies use the visual Allflex Mini Mini, and the three large dairies use Allflex Lightweight as the RFID tag. RFID Allflex Lightweight Allflex Visual Allflex Mini Mini GOAT ONLY (accredited for use in rangeland, farm and fibre goats only) Allflex Source: NLIS Sheep & Goats Accredited visual and RFID tags November 2015 6. Age of oldest tagged does The three large farms have does which were tagged ten years ago. On the SA dairy, the oldest are 12 months as they don t keep wethers much longer and don t tag the does unless they are sold. Tag Application 7. Age at application The three large dairies apply visual tags at birth and RFID tags at 8 weeks. The SA dairy tags their wethers around 4-8weeks. Any doe kids for sale are tagged at 8 weeks and sold at 10-12weeks old. Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 12

8. Tag location The three large dairies describe the location as being tagged near base of ear about 20mm from skull. The SA dairy describes it as We tag the animals in the middle of the inner third of the ear. 9. How tag is applied All producers used the Allflex Applicator. 10. How the goats are restrained The three Vic dairies indicated that the animal is tucked under their arm and the ear is held with one hand and applicator in the other. The SA dairy indicated that the goats are small so someone holds them or if working solo, they put the kid between their legs to restrain them. 11. Environment when tagging occurs Clean, freshly strawed shed and in the kid shed for young stock. 12. Hygiene steps The three large dairies describe the following process: i) Dip tag and applicator in disinfectant Hibitane ii) Ensure that the tags remain clean iii) Ensure animals are clean (ie. housed on clean straw) 13. Infection rates or swelling The three Victorian farms report that they have had zero infection and swelling. The SA dairy reports that there has been one infected ear since 2012 and the kid got the infection months after tagging. Tag Retention 14. Estimated loss rates The three Victorian dairies estimate 2% annual loss as an absolute upper limit. We rely on them (RFID tags) for herd recording, autodraft etc. We expect to draft mobs of 500 goats without a tag being missing my guess of 2% annual loss is probably an upper limit. I could work out the exact loss as is all on a database. The SA dairy reports I have put in 500 or so in the last 3 years, most were sold 4 weeks after tagging and I didn t get any complaints from the farm they went to. Some wethers are here until about 12 months I only recall loosing Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 13

one that I saw get hooked on a piece of string and panic until it ripped out. 15. Tag losses Likely to be from fences 16. What types of fencing and landscape is prominent on your property? The three large dairies when housed, the fence is timber rails. When in paddock, it is a prefabricated fence (stock lock). Catching tags in fence is perhaps the main reason for loss. The SA Dairy has very few trees, dryland pasture paddocks. Milkers have electric fencing, young stock and wethers have ring lock with some electric. 4.2 Photographs of tags in the goats In addition to providing the survey feedback, the dairy goat operators also provided the following photos. Figure 10. 10-week-old kids with visual tags applied two weeks prior to the photo. Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 14

Figure 11. 10-week-old kids with visual tags applied two weeks prior to the photo. Figure 12. Visual tag Figure 13. Visual tag Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 15

Figure 14. RFID tag in 4-year old milking doe (front) Figure 15. RFID tag in 4-year old milking doe (back) Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 16

Figure 16. RFID tag in 4 year old milking doe Figure 17. RFID tag in 4 year old milking doe (Front) Figure 18. RFID tag in 4 year old milking doe (back) Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 17

Figure 19. RFID tag in 4-year-old milking doe (back) 5. Conclusion The main dairy goat breeds in Australia have similar erect ear structures, while the Anglo Nubian has droopy ears similar to a Boer goat and the LaMancha goat has no ears or gopher ears. The published literature on goat and dairy goat tagging trials found that ear dimensions, environment and ear tag features result in variable retention and readability of ear tags in goats; that light and high quality button ear tags provide suitable results under intensive conditions; and that morphological ear differences between goat breeds seem to be mainly responsible for the retention variability of the ear tags used. A survey of four large-scale dairy goat operators who have been tagging their goats over a number of years was also conducted. The survey results from tagging over well over 6000 goats with either visual (Allflex Mini Mini) or RFID (Allflex Lightweight) button tags indicate a very successful rate of tag retention. The survey results indicate that a clean environment, clean tags and the use of disinfectant on the tag and applicator can result in no infection rates. The ear tag position in the ear is also a critical factor with the ideal tag location in the ear being in the middle of the inner third of the ear or 20mm from the skull. Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 18

Reference List APHIS Veterinary Services (2014), Fact sheet, National Scrapie Eradication Program: Animal Identification and Recordkeeping Guide for Sheep and Goats (accessed Nov 2016) https://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/content/printable_version/fs_ scrapie_recordkeeping.pdf Anon, (accessed 2016), Dairy goats: Breeds of importance in the USA (source: https://ahdc.vet.cornell.edu/docs/goatbreeds) Australian Dairy Goat Society of Australia (accessed 2016) http://www.dairygoats.org.au/breeds/index.html Caja, G., S. Carné, A.A.K. Salama, A. Ait-Saidi, M.A. Rojas-Olivares, M. Rovai, J. Capote, N. Castro, A. Argüello, M. Ayadi, R. Aljumaah, M.A. Alshaikh (2014), Stateof-the-art of electronic identification techniques and applications in goats, Journal of small ruminant research 121: 42-50 Carné, S., Caja, G., Ghirardi, J.J. & Salama, A. (2009a), Long-term performance of visual and electronic identification devices in dairy goats, Journal of Dairy Science. 92:1500 1511 Carné, S., T. A. Gipson, M. Rovai, R. C. Merkel and G. Caja (2009b), Extended field test on the use of visual ear tags and electronic boluses for the identification of different goat breeds in the United States, Journal of Animal Science. Carné, S., Caja, G., Rojas-Olivares, M.A & Salama, A.A.K (2010) Readability of visual and electronic leg tags versus rumen boluses and electronic ear tags for the permanent identification of dairy goats, Journal of Dairy Science 93:5157 5166 Carné, S., T. A. Gipson, M. Rovai, R. C. Merkel and G. Caja, (2014), Extended field test on the use of visual ear tags and electronic boluses for the identification of different goat breeds in the United States, Journal of Animal Science Vol. 87 No. 7, p. 2419-2427 (Carne et al 2014) Edwards, D. S., A. M. Johnston, and D. U. Pfeiffer. (2001). A comparison of commonly used ear tags on the ear damage of sheep. Anim. Welf. 10:141 151. Hamadani, H & Khan, A.A. (2015) Automation in livestock farming A technological revolution, International Journal of Advanced Research 3, 5: 1335-1344 Karakuş, F., Özge Demir A., Akkol S., Düzgün A., Karakuş M, (2016), Readability of Electronic and Visual Ear Tags in Hair Goat Kids, Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 4(5): 407-410 (Karakus et al 2016) Kowalski, L. H., Monteiro, A.L.G, Hentz, F., Prado, O.R., Kulik, C.H., Fernandes, S.R., da Silva, C.J.A. (2014), Electronic and visual identification devices for adult goats reared in semi-intensive system, Short Communication, Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia v.43, n.2, p.100-104 Saidi, A. A. (2014), Implementing electronic identification for performance recording in sheep and goat farms, Thesis Doctoral, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 19

Appendix 1 Questions in the Dairy Goat Tag Survey 1. Where is your dairy located (town, state)? 2. What breed(s) of goats do you run? 3. How many milking does do you have? 4. What year did you commence tagging your goats? 5. What brand(s) and type(s) of tag do you use that have been successful? 6. Device type (visual ear tag, electronic ear tag with RFID chip)? 7. Are the tags NLIS accredited (ie. did it have a NLIS logo on it, is it on the list of accredited devices in the attached)? 8. Manufacturer (i.e. Allflex, Leader, Arlunga etc.) 9. Product name (please refer to the list of accredited devices to ensure the correct name)? 10. If possible, attach photograph(s) of the tag, including one of the device in a goat? 11. How old are your oldest does and have they retained tags well? If so please specify which tag these animals are identified with. 12. Have you tried any other tags? If so, what brand(s)and type(s)? Why did you stop using them? 13. What age do you typically tag your goats? (If you tag at different ages, please specify i.e. visual tag kids at XXX age, RFID does at XX age) 14. Describe the tag location on the ear? (If possible, also take a photo of the tag on an ear or draw a diagram). Do you find the location has an impact on tag retention in your mob? 15. How are the tag(s) applied? (i.e. name the brand and type of applicator) 16. How are the goats restrained during tagging? 17. What steps do you take to minimize infection? (i.e. alcohol swipes, dip applicator in disinfectant etc.) 18. If you have this information, please provide an outline of tag loss rates? And the period of time that the tag was in? (i.e. 2015 drop, 100 tags put in, lost 4 by 4 months post application, lost 8 by 6 months post-application etc.) 19. Do you know where/how the tags are being lost? (ie. at milking, in fences etc.) 20. Please outline any infection rates? And outline any reactions to the tag(s)? (i.e. 2015 drop had 5 infections, 3 profuse bleeding, 2 swelling etc.) 21. Please outline the environment where tag application occurs (i.e. shed, yards)? 22. What types of fencing and landscape is prominent on your property? (i.e. Scrub paddocks with barbed wire fencing, Pasture paddocks with electric fencing etc.) 23. For NLIS RFID tags, is the information uploaded on NLIS database individually? 24. Do you have any other information/observations that you would like to share? Desktop review of NLIS tagging options for Australian Dairy Goats 20