![]() | The contents of the Microchip implant privacy in animals page were merged into Microchip implant (animal) on 29 February 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
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)
"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
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)
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)
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)
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)
This appears to contradict itself. Are they welcome, or not? Marnanel ( talk) 22:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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 edit this page 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)
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)
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)
"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)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Microchip implant privacy in animals page were merged into Microchip implant (animal) on 29 February 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
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)
"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
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)
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)
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)
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)
This appears to contradict itself. Are they welcome, or not? Marnanel ( talk) 22:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
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)
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 edit this page 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)
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)
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)
"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)