Test procedures ISO 11784/11785 transponders

Draft minutes of meeting on June 11th 1999 at IMAG-DLO in Wageningen, the Netherlands

Present:

Person: Representing:

K. Aslanidis Texas Instruments

L. Bataillard Sokymat

J. Bolscher Texas Instruments

M. Buchet FECAVA/UEVP/WSAVA

E. Haave Alfa Laval Agri AB

H. Haintlmaier Allflex

M.B. Jansen IMAG-DLO

C.E. van ’t Klooster Chairman (as chairman ISO/TC19/SC19/WG3 Animal identification

H.T. Massink Gesimpex (Dynamic Med. & Vet. Products bv)

R. Pauw ICAR

E. Postma Nedap

H. Ruppert Hotraco Micro ID

P. Stegmaier Datamars

W. Wismans AMSO

1. Opening

The chairman welcomes everybody and explains the purpose of the meeting: To assist ICAR in the establishment of a test protocol for RFID transponders and readers. ICAR, manufacturers and test houses have been invited. An apology from Dr. Korn was received and distributed explaining that Dr. Korn awaits official recognition by ICAR as a test centre, before he can participate in meetings. Dr. Pauw explains that ICAR has no policy of appointing test centres on beforehand. He will contact Dr. Korn in an attempt to resolve this issue.

2. Role of ICAR

Dr. Pauw explains the role of ICAR.

• Icar is willing to provide a platform to the industry not only as agency for granting the manufacturer code but also as neutral, internationally recognised authority for testing and approval of electronic animal identification devices.

• ICAR wants integration of and discussion with the participating industry during the development and use of protocols/guidelines/standards.

• ICAR wants to organise tests and distribute testing labour to approved test centres: IMAG and JRC are potential test houses and ICAR would like to see a potential test house in North America as well.

• ICAR wants to establish a test protocol for extended laboratory test on RFID transponders and –readers with high priority.

ICAR has a subcommittee on identification that has met seven times since the meeting in June 1997 in Barcelona where the testing of electronic tags was on the agenda for the first time. Emphasis has been on conventional ear tags so far, this job is virtually completed, and priority will be given to electronic devices from now on. The subcommittee is chaired by Dr. Pauw and the other members are N. Hammerschmidt (USA), B. Frappat (France), O.K. Hansen (Denmark), G. Caja (Spain), H. Pirkelmann (Germany), P. Bailey (Australia), R. Bracchiaferri (Italy). Two representatives from test centres and one guest complete the subcommittee: M. Jansen (Netherlands), C. Korn (Italy) and M. Buchet (FECAVA, Belgium). Prof. Caja and Dr. Korn have not attended recent meetings. The chairman of the subcommittee is member of the general board of ICAR.

The manufacturer code document is ready and ICAR has so far granted 19 manufacturers a manufacturer’s code for ISO transponders. A photo of the tested item would be a welcome addition in the test results.

Apart from Insert, Tags and Bolus ICAR also classifies tested devices as Attachments, if indicated so by the supplier. In the current situation inserts that are included in a new type of housing are tested once again. It is questioned whether additional testing serves any purpose when the properties regarding compliance with ISO11784 and ISO11785 do not change. It increases the cost of testing. A classification according to purpose (e.g. official recording or on-farm management tool) also raises the question whether a sharp distinction between such classes can be made. Dr. Pauw will utilize the remarks made on this issue in the next update of the document on the manufacturer code.

3. Test Procedure

The initial draft document that was discussed in June 1997 in Barcelona attempted to be a comprehensive test document combining the elements of conformity testing, laboratory testing and field testing. The developments over the last few years with an urgent need for conformity testing and granting of manufacturer’s codes have resulted in a separate document.

The manufacturers would like to see additional testing that consider the following points:

• Technical developments go fast: Testing procedures should therefore be relatively short.

• Field testing gives information on a certain application in a certain environment, the use of the results is therefore limited, while long and extensive field test can be needed to obtain statistically reliable results. A cost benefit analysis does probably not warrant a field test.
• Technical characteristics that require testing should be included in a lab test.

The users express their concern when no objective field test data are available: Issues related to animal welfare, losses during use or recovery may negatively affect the image among users or the general public. A short field test can be beneficial for the users.

It is concluded that a lab test is an urgent need and the priority is to get an official lab test in place. Once we have achieved that we can rethink the issue of a field test that can be completed in a short time frame and measures universally relevant elements.

4. Development of lab test

During the meeting some considerations for a lab test have been discussed and a further procedure for the development was discussed and agreed upon.

Considerations are:

• Lab tests for readers and for transponders are needed. One point of attention is the fact that objective technical parameters should be measured, e.g. the minimum activation flux, the Q-factor, the phase shift of transponders, whereas the test results should be presented to users in parameters that are of direct relevance to the users, e.g. reading range, etc. With differences in acceptable field strenghts etc, this translation requires careful consideration.

• A reader will be needed to read a transponder. Should a reference reader be build for the test houses (expensive), should a transponder be tested against all available readers (with an expanding market an unpractical approach or is an alternative possible? Is there a single commercially available reader that can be agreed upon as a test reader? Can a limited number of readers be used for this purpose? The test reader does not need to be the ‘best’ reader on the market but must be useable for relative performance measurements of both HDX and PDX-B transponders. The same discussion applies for the testing of readers.

• From the users perspective a test with only the best orientation in the field is of limited use and testing under a wider range of orientations is suggested to get a better appreciation of performance under field conditions.

• Noise levels in the field vary. The testing should be done in an environment that is relevant for field applications. A relevant noise level has to be agreed upon, suggestions for 60 to 70 dB m V were made.
• For different applications of readers and transponders the use of classes is a possibility. Where there is a gradual scale in performance the use of classes also involves establishment of border values. A performance value without subdivision in classes is an alternative.

Currently ISPRA carries out lab tests for devices and readers. Elements of these tests will be useful and the tests can be used as a starting point for discussion. Manufacturers have reports available.

Future steps:

A technical group will work out a draft proposal that takes into account the considerations mentioned above, including necessary choices. The draft proposal will be ready by September 1, 1999. The group will be moderated by Dr. Pauw, and include Hainzlmaier, Stegmaier, Postma, Aslanidis and Jansen who all have volunteered to participate. Dr. Korn will also be asked by Dr. Pauw to participate. The proposal will be discussed in the ISO/TC23/SC19/WG3 meeting of September 13th as well as within ICAR subcommittee Animal Identification and based on the results of the discussions a proposal will be submitted to the ICAR board.

C.E. van ‘t Klooster, June 15th 1999