Cees E. van 't Klooster
Chairman ISO/TC23/SC19/WG3 Animal Identification
________________________________________
Mrs. P.A. Barnard
Minist. of Agric., Fish. And Food Anim. Ident. and Intern. Trade Division
Zone 1011A Page Street
LONDON SW1P 4PQ
Dear Mrs. Barnard,
Thank you for your letter to Mr. F. Abrams of the central ISO secretariat. He asked me last week to answer your letter. Your letter was discussed at the recent meeting of ISO/TC23/SC19/WG3 Animal Identification on May 4 in Spain.
The ISO 11784 leaves the possibility to leave the responsibility for the uniqueness of tag numbers at national level. As Archie Sains was informed during the last WG3 meeting ISO 11784 not only applies to cattle but to all farm livestock, as well as to companion animals. This implies that when the UK registers animals under the national code, the UK (if MAFF is also responsible for companion animals, in this case MAFF) is responsible for leaving space for other species, where the UK is to identify these other species (e.g. dogs, cats, horses, sheep and pigs) as well. It is up to the UK to decide whether a single competent authority is to manage the ISO with your country code, or whether the UK would allocate certain number ranges to various authorities, e.g. for specific species, as long as uniqueness is ensured.
ISO11784 is designed to provide individual number (274 billion) and not to translate animal code structures that may also contain farm numbers, herd book names, etc.
The Scottish wish to link present systems with ISO numbers can be achieved within the current code, would the UK wish to reduce the national potential number range drastically. A solution in which the 11 digits of the UK code is put in the ISO 11784 national ID code and the twelfth (check) digit is put in the trailer bit field could be possible. The UK country code must be used in this case and not the manufacturer’s code. The ISO WG3 could provide further advice on this issue if desired by MAFF. It could also be achieved in either a conversion table, that as software, can be included in databases or readers or alternatively in the form of an algorithm that converts one code to another. If one would do this in readers, these readers would be able to display the official animal number, which could be convenient, but these more or less customised readers may have a price tag and the conversion table might be big or the algorithm complicated. An ideal solution would be to use an advanced transponder. ISO is working on a standard for an advanced transponder (ISO14223), where part I, the air interface, has already been accepted and part II, the command structure, will be submitted for voting in the last quarter of 2001.
These advanced transponders with multiple pages could have the unique ISO on page one, the Scottish can read their traditional code on page 2 etc.
In your letter you ask whether the first bit that is currently set to either 1 (animal application) or 0 (non-animal application) could have values of 2 to 9. Since this is a bit and not a digit it can only have 2 values (0 or 1). I am afraid that here there would not be space to include your suggestion. The trailer bits might offer possibilities, but careful consideration of all interests must be given.
As far as retagging is concerned the current ISO standards aim at unique identification of animals. There is no infringement on ISO11784 when a national authority wishes to retag or reuse ISO 11784/11785 transponders as long as note 3 of ISO 11784 is respected. This means that tags with identical identification codes can be used for retagging provided that the tags carry the country code and that the national authority accepts and maintains the responsibility of uniqueness of animal identification. Additional information will be formulated to put a flag to reflect that a duplicate is used for retagging.
Alternatively retagging can be done with a new tag with a new unique tag number. This requires the database to couple the animal number with the tag number and the possibility to add additional tag numbers to the animal number.
Reprinting current manual tags with identical numbers requires a logistics that combines low cost of making small series (one) with rapid delivery. For electronic tags this would mean the same requirements. Some tag producers have made changes in their production process. They can now make individual chip numbers at acceptable costs and once the need arises the worldwide distribution will also improve in speed.
Douglas Batchelor and Archie Sains are the official British representatives in WG3. Fred Nind has an active liaison through UEVP.
The current standards ISO 11784 and ISO 11785 are up for revision at the end of this year.
In principle there are no differences in ensuring security of number allocation by device or transponder manufacturer. The company that has applied for a manufacturer code to ICAR (International Committee on Animal Recording) accepts the responsibility to ensure uniqueness for tags sold under the manufacturer code.
I hope to have answered your questions, would you need more information, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Cees E. van 't Klooster
Chairman ISO/TC23/SC19/WG3 Animal Identification
C.c.: F. Abrams, ISO
