Microchip Reader Instruction Manuals
Downloadable versions of instruction manuals for the Identipet microchip readers... More

Recommended Implant Sites
Special recommendations have been made for the implant sites to be used in particular applications… More

The Advertising Standards Authority rules in favour of Identipet™ 
The Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa has ruled FOUR times in under a year, in favour of Identipet (Pty) Ltd against Virbac RSA (Pty) Ltd for Virbac's dishonest, unsubstantiated and misleading advertising in contravention of the ASA codes of practice…  More


Readability of Identipet™ (Destron) FDX-A microchips with different scanners
Refers to the poor performance of the Virbac “Back Home” scanner in reading the various series of microchips implanted into hundreds of thousands of South African animals…  More

BioBond Anti-Migration Cap
The patented BioBond anti-migration cap is a porous polypropylene polymer sheath attached to RFID microchip implants to impede migration of the device within animal tissue… More

	MPR Reader Manual
	Pocket Reader and Pocket Reader EX Manual
	Pocket Reader EX with Memory
	DT Reader

(prepared by Dr.F.Nind for ISO WG3)

Mammals | Reptiles | Avians | Fish

Special recommendations have been made for the implantation sites to be used in particular applications. It is recommended that primates kept in cages should be implanted intramuscularly in the back of the right forearm so that the microchips can be read conveniently while the animal grips the bars of its cage.

Similarly, the recommendation is that big cats should be implanted in the shoulder region so that they can be read as they as they pace the cage while brushing against the bars of their cage.

Such sites are different from implantation sites used by other operators. These sites should only be used in animals which, after implantation, will stay in one facility where the site of the microchip is known to all operators and there is no risk of the microchip being missed by an operator failing to scan the usual location

Canine and Feline
To comply with international standards, the microchip is implanted subcutaneously between the shoulder blades.  All vets, SPCAs and Welfare Societies are requested to adhere to this.  Scanning however should still be done on the left hand side of the neck as well as between the shoulder blades.
Implant Procedure and Example of Completed Registration Form 

Equine
There are two recognized implantation sites currently in use.

The microchip is implanted within the nuchal ligament in its middle third or at the halfway point between the ears and the withers. This is the recommended implant site in all countries except Australia.

The microchip is implanted in the musculature of the left neck or the anterior injection triangle. Clipping of the hair, local anaesthetic and aseptic technique is required. This is the recommended implantation site in Australia.
Implant Procedure and Example of Completed Registration Form 

Agricultural Animals
The implantation site for bovine, ovine, porcine, caprine and/or other species used for meat production is subcutaneously at the base of the left ear on the scutiform cartilage or alternatively under the tail.

Elephants
Subcutaneously on the left side of the tail in the main caudal fold.

Hyrax and Loris
Subcutaneously on the left side of the intra-lumbar area.

Alpacas (as per Australia)
Subcutaneously midway on the left neck or top of the head behind the left ear.

Other mammals
If the adult distance is >17 cm from the backbone (spine) to the shoulder blade, then the implant site is subcutaneously at the base of the left ear. If <17 cm - subcutaneously between the shoulder blades.

Amphibians
The microchip is to be implanted into the lymphatic cavity. The implantation site should be sealed with tissue glue.

Chelonia
Left hind limb socket. Use a subcutaneous site in small Chelonia and an intramuscular technique in large species as well as small species with thin skin. The implant site should be sealed with tissue glue. Hibernating species should be implanted several weeks before the end of their active season in order to allow healing before hibernation.

Crocidilians
Subcutaneously anterior to the nuchal cluster.

Lizards
>12.5 cm snout to vent length: subcutaneously in the left inguinal region.
< 12.5 cm snout to vent length: intracoelomic.
Snakes
Subcutaneously on the left side of the neck, twice the length of the head from the tip of the nose.

> 1.5 kg adult weight and/or long-legged: subcutaneously at the base of the neck.
< 1.5 kg adult weight: intramuscularly in the left pectoral muscle. Direct the implanter in the caudal (downward) direction. Use tissue glue and digital pressure or suture to seal the implantation site.

Exceptions to the above
Ostrich: up to four days old- implanted in the piping muscle behind the head on the left. Older birds - subcutaneously at back of head (not subcutaneously in left thigh, as Ostrich are commonly used as food animals)
Emu: Implanted in the dorsal midline in the s/c lump.
Ratites: up to four days old, in the piping muscle.
Penguins and Vultures: Subcutaneously at the base of the neck.

>30 cm in length: on the left side at the anterior base of the dorsal fin.
<30 cm in length: on the left side into the coelomic cavity

Click here for a printable version of the above article

(prepared by Dr. David Gerber)

Introduction / Background

Different generations of Identipet™ microchips have different serial numbers. The first few numbers of the unique number of the microchip indicate the series. Identipet™ (Destron) FDX?A microchips with the series identifications "7F", "200", "400" and "500" have been implanted into animals in South Africa since the introduction of Identipet™ microchips in 1990.

It is essential that a scanner can read all different series of a microchip brand; e.g. if Idntipet's (Destron) FDX-A microchips should be read, then a scanner must be able to read all microchips of the series "7F", "200", "400" and "500". Failing to read all series will prevent the identification of animals that were microchiped some years ago; and this would defeat the objective of animal identification by implanting microchips.

Aim

The aim of the present study was to determine the readability of implanted Identipet™ FDX?A microchip of different series by different Identipet™ Scanners and by the Virbac BackHome Scanner.

Materials and Methods

Microchips and Scanners
The 10 microchip scanners of four different types, which were used in the present study, are listed in Table 3.1. The serial numbers of the 10 scanners were recorded.

Table 3.1: Microchip scanners used in the present trial.

Number of scanner	Distributor	Scanner type
1	Identipet™	Identipet™ (Destron) MPR Reader
2	Identipet™	Identipet™ (Destron) MPR Reader
3	Identipet™	Identipet™ (Destron) Pocket Reader
4	Identipet™	Identipet™ (Destron) Pocket Reader
5	Identipet™	Identipet™ (Destron) IDI Reader
6	Virbac	Virbac BackHome Scanner
7	Virbac	Virbac BackHome Scanner
8	Virbac	Virbac BackHome Scanner
9	Virbac	Virbac BackHome Scanner
10	Virbac	Virbac BackHome Scanner

All scanners were fully charged or fitted with new batteries according to the specifications of the distributor before the onset of the trial.

Microchips used were Identipet™ (produced in USA by Destron) 11 mm implantable glass microchips fitted with Destron's patented polypropylene anti-migration cap. The different series of microchips used in the trial are listed in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2: Identipet™ microchips used in the present trial.

Microchip series	Number of microchips implanted		Total
	Boergoat does	Castrated merino rams
200	5	10	15
400	5	10	15
500	5	10	15
7F	0	2	2
Total	15	32	47

The serial numbers of all microchips used in the study were recorded before the onset of the trial.

Animals

Fifteen boergoat does and 32 castrated merino rams were used in the trial. The boergoats were all none pregnant, 10-11 months old and had a body condition score of 2.5-3. The rams were 8-9 months old and had a body condition score of 3-3.5. The rams were shorn some 3 months ago; the average hair length, measured on the back between the two shoulder blades was 29 ± 2.8 mm (mean ± standard deviation) with a range of 24 to 33 mm.

Procedures

Boergoats and merino sheep were treated as two separate groups. One microchip was implanted in each animal according to Table 2 above. Microchips were implanted subcutaneous between the two shoulder blades with an Identipet™ multidose implanting gun. The ear tag of each animal was recorded together with the microchip number.

After implanting all microchips the animals were brought into a small holding pen. From there they were removed one by one and it was attempted to read the microchip with one of the ten scanners used. After reading the microchip each animal was released into a paddock. After reading the microchip number of all the animals they were brought back from the paddock into the holding pen and the procedures were repeated with the second scanner. The reading was repeated until all ten scanners were used on all animals.

To read the microchips, the operator started with the scanner at the base of the neck and moved backwards over the midline until about 10 cm caudal of the shoulder blades. If the microchip number was not yet recognised the scanner was shifted slightly to the one side and moved forward until the base of the neck was reached again, from there it was moved to the other side of the midline and moved backwards again. If the microchip was recognised while moving the scanner for the first three times over the area of implantation it was recorded as an easy reading (Table 3.3). In cases where the microchip was not yet recognised the reading attempt was continued over the area of implantation for a total time of 30 seconds. While searching for 30 seconds without success, the scanner's reading cycle, ending with the message "Tag not found" in the case of the Virbac BackHome Scanners or "No ID found" in the case of the Identipet™ Scanners, was repeated three times.

Table 3.3: Classification of microchip scanning results.

Description of microchip reading	Reading score
Recognition of microchip number within the first three movements of the scanner over the area of implantation.	Easy
Recognition of microchip number within 30 seconds of moving the scanner over the area of implantation.	Poor
Microchip number not recognised within 30 seconds of moving the scanner over the area of implantation.	Negative

The searching pattern during the attempted reading is shown in Figure 3.1. First the scanner was moved from front to back, then from left to right and finally again from front to back until the 30 seconds were over.

Figure 3.1: Pattern of moving the scanner over the site of implantation in an attempt to read the microchips. Left diagram: movements from front to back; right diagram: movements from left to right.

Because of the way the Virbac BackHome Scanners are held in the hand during scanning and because of the relative small scanning head the wool of the sheep was slightly compressed when scanning with these scanners. The reduction of the distance to the skin due to the compression of the wool was estimated to be between 25 and 30%. With the larger scanners from Identipet™ that are held away from the comparatively large scanning head it was not possible to compress the wool during scanning.

Results

The scanning results are summarised in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

Table 4.1: Scanning results of microchips implanted in boergoat does. Five scanners from Identipet™ and five scanners from Virbac were used to scan a total of 15 microchips.

Reading score	Identipet™ Scanners				Virbac Scanners
	Microchip series				Microchip series
	200	400	500	Over All	200	400	500	Over All
Easy	25	25	25	75	2	24	21	47
Poor	0	0	0	0	7	1	3	11
Negative	0	0	0	0	16	0	1	17
Total	25	25	25	75	25	25	25	75

Table 4.2: Scanning results of microchips implanted in merino rams. Five scanners from Identipet™ and five scanners from Virbac were used to scan a total of 32 microchips.

Reading score	Identipet™ Scanners					Virbac Scanners
	Microchip series					Microchip series
	200	400	500	7F	Over All	200	400	500	7F	Over All
Easy	49	49	50	9	157	3	30	34	0	67
Poor	1	1	0	1	3	4	12	7	0	23
Negative	0	0	0	0	0	43	8	9	10	70
Total	50	50	50	10	160	50	50	50	10	160

Across all microchip series implanted in boergoats the Identipet™ Scanners could recognise 100% (75 of 75) easily. Across all microchip series implanted in boergoats the Virbac Scanners recognised 63% (47 of 75) easily, 15% (11 of 75) poorly and 23% (17 of 75) not at all. The most difficult to read were the microchips of the "200"-series where 8% (2 of 25) were recognised easily, 28% (7 of 25) were recognised poorly and 64% (16 of 25) were not recognised at all.

Across all microchip series implanted in merino rams the Identipet™ Scanners could recognise 98% (157 of 160) easily and 2% (3 of 160) poorly. Across all microchip series implanted in merino rams the Virbac Scanners recognised 42% (67 of 160) easily, 14% (23 of 160) poorly and 44% (70 of 160) not at all. Non of the microchips of the "7F"-series were recognised. Apart of the "7F" series the most difficult to read were again the microchips of the "200" series where 6% (3 of 50) were recognised easily, 8% (4 of 50) were recognised poorly and 86% (43 of 50) were not recognised at all.

Over all the Identipet™ Scanners could recognise 99% (232 of 235) of the microchips easily and 1% (3 of 235) poorly. Over all the Virbac Scanners recognised 49% (114 of 235) easily, 14% (34 of 235) poorly and 37% (87 of 235) not at all. Non of the microchips of the "7F"-series were recognised. Of the "200", "400" and "500"-series respectively 7% (5 of 75), 72% (54 of 75) and 73% (55 of 75) were recognised easily, 15% (11 of 75), 17% (13 of 75) and 13% (10 of 75) were recognised poorly and 79% (59 of 75), 11% (8 of 75) and 13% (10 of 75) were not recognised at all.

Discussion

The "7F"-series is the oldest series of microchips and it was therefore not possible to trace more than two new microchips to be implanted for the trial. Since the sample size is so small, the results of the readability of this series must be interpreted with caution. However, when Identipet™ was introduced in South Africa in 1990, there were many microchips of this series implanted into animals of which many are likely to still be alive.

The animals used should allow extrapolating the results on dogs and cats. The fine skin and short hair of young boergoats can be compared with the skin and hair coat of a shorthaired dog. The longer dense hair of sheep increases the reading distance from the microchip to the scanner. The reading distance used in the merino rams is comparable to the necessary reading distance in obese dogs or in dogs with long hair.

The Virbac BackHome Scanner fits nicely into one hand and is easy to manipulate. The relative small LCD display is, however, designed for usage in a well-illuminated practice environment. During part of the trial, when the light was not very good (cloudy weather, standing under a roof) it was difficult to read the numbers. In this respect the larger LCD display of the Identipet™ Scanners was superior. The readability is further increased by an active illumination of the panel during reading in the case of the Identipet™ Pocket Reader.

All Identipet™ Scanners used could read all microchip with ease. The 1% of microchips that read poorly in the trial were still much easier to locate than most of the microchips that read poorly with the Virbac Scanners. In the 3 cases where a microchip read poorly with an Identipet™ Scanner the scanner had to be moved over the implantation area for 4 or 5 times, and per definition of the trial, all microchips not read within 3 movements over the area were classified as poorly readable. With the Virbac Scanners some of the microchips classified as poorly readable could only be recognised if the exact spot where the microchip was implanted was massaged with the reading head.

The Virbac Scanner appears to be very handy in a clinic scenario (and is probably designed for this) where the location of a microchip is exactly known. In any situation where the microchip location is not known and in any situation where large areas of skin have to be scanned to search for a possible microchip the larger reading head of Identipet™ Scanners used would be superior to search for a microchip. A further advantage is the longer reading distance at which the microchips used can be recognised with Identipet™ Scanners.

Should the same scanners be used to read the same type of microchips in large animals like horses (implantation usually in the ligament of the neck) or in wildlife (implantation e.g. in the horn of a rhino, under the skin of an elephant, …) the difference between the two scanners would likely to be even more outspoken.

All results and most conclusions drawn from this trial can only be applied on the readability of Identipet™ FDX-A (Destron) microchips. It is not possible from the trial to determine which type of scanner that would be superior to read other types of microchips. It might well be that completely different results would be obtained if an attempt was made to read different brands of microchips available on the market.

Since the Virbac Scanner also failed to read microchips from the newer generations (11% and 13% for the "400" and the "500"-series respectively) it can be concluded that Virbac BackHome Scanners are not suitable to reliably read Identipet™'s FDX-A (Destron) microchips.

Click here for a printable version of the above article

 

The patented BioBond anti-migration cap is a porous polypropylene polymer sheath attached to RFID microchip implants to impede migration of the device within animal tissue. The use of the patented BioBond cap results in increased retention by promoting the development of fibrocytes and collagen fibers around the implant, thus inhibiting movement of the implant within the animal.
Migration occurs when the RFID implant moves away from the original implant site. Once a microchip has migrated, it may become difficult to detect and be easily missed when the animal is scanned for the presence of a microchip. The BioBond anti-migration cap inhibits the movement of the microchip so it will be easily and quickly located and read at the original implant site.

Please see the study, "Summary of Field Studies Evaluating the Efficacy of Bio-Bond®, a Porous Polymer Sheath, on Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) Transponders to Prevent Migration from a Known Implant Site", which investigates the effect of placing Bio-Bond®, a porous polymer sheath, on Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) transponder implants to reduce migration from a known implant site. Two-year studies demonstrate that implanted Bio-Bond® transponders remain at a known implant site.

Click here for a printable version of the above article