Walking On Volume 6, Issue 1, January 2019 | Page 14

Back to Basics
Traceability of Equine Microchips
Reprinted with permission from the January 2018 Issue of Equine Disease Quarterly
For years, equine owners have been implant- ing
microchips into horses for unique and unalterable
identification. While the safety and
practicality of this practice is well-established, there
is little information available about trace- ability of mi-
crochips. Given the long lifespan of horses, the ability
to trace microchips over many years is necessary.
Reasons to trace microchips are few, but vital when
encountered. Regulatory officials use the microchip
of a horse involved in a disease investigation to trace
back to additional exposed horses or premises. First
responders to natural disasters have significant chal-
lenges in identifying owner- ship of displaced horses.
Individuals searching for a lost or stolen horse have
a critical reliance on the traceability of microchips.
Equine rescue groups encounter horses that have lost
their identity and endeavor to trace any permanent
identification available to uncover their history.
Current methods available for tracing micro- chips
are limited. Each trace begins with scanning a horse
with a microchip-reading device and obtaining a
microchip number. But what next? If the phenotype or
history of the horse presents clues to a breed or disci-
pline group that might have the horse’s information,
this is often the best place start. If there is no obvious
place to begin the inquiry, then one contacts the man-
ufacturer of the microchip. e rst three digits of the mi-
crochip number indicate the manufacturer or country
code, which can be looked up online. e manufacturer
provides contact information for the distributor to
which the microchip was sold. Contacting the distribu-
tor yields information for the next entity that acquired
the microchip until an entity is reached that maintains
data connecting the microchip to the horse. It can be a
grueling process.
Attempts to trace microchips have highlighted some
significant challenges. ere are multiple parties involved
in and expectedly responsible for keeping records
associated with a microchip. Failure to keep or transfer
records at any step in the pathway yields a permanent
dead end, rendering the microchip essentially useless.
e best outcomes in tracing have been achieved when
the end information is maintained by breed registries
14 • Walking On
or other equine industry groups with a vested interest
in connecting the horse to its unique identification.
Contact with the manufacturer has reliably been suc-
cessful in obtaining the distributor information, but
this approach is time consuming and not practical in
urgent situations, such as a contagious disease out-
break.
Some microchip manufacturers do not require dis-
tributors to maintain records on each microchip sold,
which results in a dead-end trace. Finally, a publicly
accessible online lookup tool for equine microchips
is needed to streamline the trace-back process. Such
a lookup tool could provide quick identification and
contact information of the main entity (breed registry,
discipline group, registration system) holding infor-
mation on that particular microchip number while
maintaining the security and confidentiality of the data
until a specific request is made for information dis-
closure. Above all it must be recognized by the equine
industry that simply implanting microchips in horses
is not enough. ere must be maintenance of data and
structure of traceability built in behind the micro-
chips for their intended purposes to be fulfilled.
CONTACT:
Angela Pelzel-McCluskey, DVM, MS
Angela M Pelzel@aphis usda gov [phone] US-
DA-APHIS-Veterinary Services Fort Collins, CO