Talk:Microchip implant (animal)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Worldwide area 

message: 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)
thread_title: External link

message: 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)
thread_title:  Microchip or PIT tag? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've added an image. enjoy! --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures? 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Encryption 

message: The section Microchip_implant_(animal)#Cross-compatibility_and_standards_issues 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)
thread_title:  "Cross-compatibility and standards issues" reads like an essay 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Functional distance 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  There is no mention of ISO 11785 / 84 or FDX in this article 

message: "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)
thread_title:  France - Identification and Registration link is broken