Talk:Microchip implant (animal)

To Do list

 * Information about lawsuits.
 * coating of plastic to prevent movement of chip
 * encryption.
 * database registries
 * ISO standard covers other things besides the frequency. What is in the standard?
 * Lawsuits Banfield was sued and the other companies were sued by the feds.
 * Patent. Can they really patent the idea of a chip?
 * How does the chip work? I'm guessing it is powered by the induced signal it receives.

Criticism section
The criticism section, indicating cancer risks, is woefully inadaquate. It doesn't discuss the study at all, or offer any additional information whatsoever. I call for its expansion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but it should be made clear that this finding was only in the laboratory setting and has not been seen clinically in pets. --Joelmills (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't even see a criticism section anymore! No mention of farmers refusing to use the chips and the sanctions they get in countries where rfid tagging is mandatory..
 * This is fishy. Nowhere I can find the four actual studies linking tumors to the microchip, just a lot of hysterical denial that it is not possible or that the benefit outweight the risks. Let's understand the possible mechanisms an interactions that a chip may have that could possibly cause a tumor. 1) What material enters in contact with tissue? Glass. And unless they are putting lead on that glass or something, it should be safe. Do we know if they are putting lead or something on that glass? No. Besides that the internal electronic mechanism is quite simple: an antenna, a capacitor and a silicon chip. All of those should be fine in themselves, and even more safe inside a glass capsule. Now let's consider the interactions. The chip is usually located at the site where everything is injected (vaccines). This interaction may cause the immune system to identify the chip as malignant, although this is very little probable. Instead, we have to remember what the components of a vaccine are and that they can unequivocally and officially acknowledged to cause complications such as tumors, autoimmune disease and allergies. Thus it has been advised by Jessica Tremayne For Veterinary Practice News (https://petkareclinic.com/chip-claim-gets-under-oncologists-skin/) to use a different place for the implant and the injections to try to differentiate if those tumors were caused by the injection or by the chip. Another possible causality is the radio-frequencies. Although the antenna is tuned to an specific frequency, it is not specific to that one frequency alone. Upon interaction with frequencies resonant to the antenna, it would emit a radio frequency of 125 to 134 kHz which is too weak to cause tissue damage, and although it could interfere with some chemical processes, it is nothing more special than typical environmental radiation, particularly dwarfed compared to the potential damage of high powered permanent wifi on and cell towers. Just keep your phone off your pooch and turn the wifi off when not in use if that was a concern. Therefore I conclude that the the chip is unlikely to be the actually cause of the tumors but the vax... and problem is that we cannot even suggest nowadays that a vax can be anything but godly perfect or otherwise you are an antivaxxer conspiracy theory right wing extremist who should get their medical license removed and chastised from society and thrown into the fires of hell for such heresy. But I am a heretic, so I suggest that this is not an issue with the microchip but yet one more suggestion (because nobody has taken the time and effort to do serious investigation on this possible relationship) that we all are over-excessively irrationally vaxxing even our pets... Nothing against vax in itself, but the idea that we have to, for a related example, vax our pets against rabies every year when the thing is virtually eradicated and the very scant and few cases around the world are localized and many times misidentified. If your cat/dog is a 100% indoors animal and has never been bitten by another animal, the possibilities of it getting rabies are 0. Exactly zero. None, zilch zero, nada. Thus why are we overdoing its inoculation on our pets like it was widespread and ubiquitous?

"There is no evidence to suggest that companion animals implanted with a microchip are at a higher risk for developing a tumor. The mice used in the studies where an association between a microchip and development of a tumor occurred were genetically predisposed to cancer and do not represent the genetic diversity we see in our dogs and cats. " https://wsava.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Microchip-Safety-and-Efficacy.pdf

Worldwide area
France - no longer accepts the AvidEuro Chip only a 15digit chip - Source USDA commercial movement form

Canada - no longer accepts the Avid or homeagain just their 24hourpet Canadachip which maybe the same as the 15digit crystal chip ?

I believe several countries are leaving the AvidEuro Chip and only going to allow the 15digit - the CKC (Canadian Kennel Club) will not allow registration of a dog without the Canadian chip now - perhaps a section about the various country regulations to help the article ??? could be a table or list of countries ? Every country besides the US mandates microchipping of dogs - the USDA does have some regulation for some animals but not imports ?Lisa.Cinciripini (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Netherlands "If your pet will be identified through a microchip, please be aware that the microchip meets the ISO standard (International Organization for Standardization) Annex A, 2.1, ISO # 11785 (website: www.iso.ch). For your information, the HomeAgain microchip from AKC Companion Animal Recovery and the AVID-Eurochip, are manufactured in compliance with Annex A, 2.1, ISO # 11785 and meet the requirements. If your pet will be identified through a microchip which is not in compliance with Anex A, 2.1, ISO # 1785, you can bring your own reader or transponder. This will enable the Custom Authorities in the Netherlands to identify the microchip number of your pet." source http://www.netherlands-embassy.org/article.asp?articleref=AR00001142EN Lisa.Cinciripini (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I will add various country requirements w/sources here as I come across them Lisa.Cinciripini (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

External link
I have removed a link to A1 ID Systems which has now been added twice to the article. I don't think it is an appropriate link. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Microchip or PIT tag?
Seems to me that the pet industry has adopted the use of "microchip" here which is tremendously ambiguous as it applies to chips used in thousands of unrelated applications. For wildlife work, most researchers refer to these tags as PIT tags, or Passive Integrated Transponder for a RFID microchip that is implanted into the body of an animal (cf. http://www.biomark.com/). PIT tag as a name has the benefit of describing exactly what this is and differentiates it from most other applications (although adding the word "implanted" would have been even more specific - iPIT anyone? ;-). In any case, at the very least, it would seem reasonable to acknowledge on this page that a lot of people using and manufacturing these devices do not refer to them vaguely as "microchips" but rather as PIT tags. I'm afraid I don't know Wiki language and culture, or I would do so myself. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.179.139 (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Pictures?
Besides the x-ray picture of someone's pet cat with an implant are there any photos of an actual implant itself? I'm curious what it looks like and how small/large it is. Any takers? Henry123ifa (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added an image. enjoy! --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Encryption

 * Cryptographic features are not necessarily unwelcome; few pet rescuers or humane societies would object to a design that outputs an ID number "in the clear" for anyone to read,

This appears to contradict itself. Are they welcome, or not? Marnanel (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

"Cross-compatibility and standards issues" reads like an essay
The section Microchip_implant_(animal) seems overly detailed, inappropriate in tone, and possibly commercial in nature, e.g. the type of article found in Consumer Reports magazine, not an encyclopedia. Many of the footnotes are clearly personal musings, and the Scanner Compatibility table appears to give advice, rather than facts. See WP:NOTMANUAL. --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Montanabw (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Functional distance
I came to this article looking for an answer to a criticism I have encountered regarding the chipping of livestock and humans. The criticism (which, I suspect, is firmly rooted in paranoid conspiracy theory) is that the government will use the chips to track people and animals via satellites. My response has been that, regardless of scanning equipment, the very limited transmission range of RFID transponders makes it impossible to read the implants even from just outside the paddock, much less from a satellite. (I imagine that the energy required to generate the EM field needed to power a passive transponder at that distance would be enormous, and likely very dangerous.)

Thus, I was looking for some discussion of just what the effective range is for the various forms of these implants. Is is near-contact? 15cm? A meter? I believe the larger passive ear tags can be read as the animal passes through a chute (similar to the operating distance for anti-theft tags employed by libraries and retailers), but I don't know about the tiny, subcutaneous models. Also, I suspect that the range for finding a chip on an animal is different from the proximity required for reading it. Starling2001 (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


 * LOL! That's an interesting question and one new to me.  From my experience with a kitten we had with a chip, the vet had to touch the scanner to her, though perhaps a few inches would have worked too, I don't know.  Maybe do a little research and see what you can discover?  If you can find some useful links (perhaps from manufacturers or something), feel free to post them here and maybe we can find a way to add them.   Montanabw (talk)  19:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * These passive 125kHz devices are really induction transceivers. The tag and the reader essentially create a transformer. Since the near-field power falls off as the inverse *cube* of distance, it is essentially impossible to activate any passive proximity technology from more than a couple of meters away. Having worked in R&D on proximity technology in the 90's, I'd be astonished at anything more than “near contact” for a passive device small enough to be implantable; 15cm would really surprise me. As to any difference between finding and reading a tag, I would very much doubt it. There really is nothing measurable at the reader until the tag starts modulating the field. The limitation is coupling sufficient power to the tag to power up the electronics rather than readability of the signal. Once it powers up and starts modulating the field, it's easy to read, and this happens rather abrubtly. In principle, you could measure the presence of the tag's tuned circuit on the reader side, but by the time this becomes unambiguously discernable on the reader side, the tag starts up and it becomes readable.EmmetCaulfield (talk) 23:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This sort of thing is why I love wikipedia. I wonder, {[u|EmmetCaulfield}}, if you could slap on a WP:RS to that and we could add it to the article? I already know of some folks in tinfoil helmet land who believe the CIA is tracking them via a microchip secretly implanted in their buttock (how this occurred, they don't say, but given there they live, I can well imagine that long isolated winters and access to alcohol must have been involved in the development of this hypothesis.)  Montanabw (talk)  23:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no mention of ISO 11785 / 84 or FDX in this article
Many on-line vendors (perhaps or specifically in Asia) will include terms like ISO11785/84 and FDX-B or FDXB when describing a pet RFID reader that they offer for sale. This article needs to incorporate those terms in the technical descriptions of the RFID technology that is and has been available to the veterinary industry so the reader can understand the significance or applicability of those terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.2.107.38 (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We have articles on ISO 11784 and ISO 11785, so ISO11784 and ISO 11785 should be found if search for. FDX-B also links there. I've added some links between the ISO 11784 and ISO 11785 page and this one. Klbrain (talk) 09:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

France - Identification and Registration link is broken
"France - Identification and Registration" (PDF). EU Dog & Cat Alliance. Retrieved 8 June 2020.

The link goes to a XML error. We should consider a revision. Leslynfernandes (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)