livestock traceability situation analysis...2005/09/02 · situation analysis 2-sep-2005 page 8 of...
TRANSCRIPT
Livestock Traceability
Situation Analysis
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Edited By
Bridgit Hawkins, MediaLab Limited
Andrew Cooke, Rezare Systems Limited
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 2 of 82
Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by Innovation Waikato Limited and Medialab Limited.
It was funded by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, with contributions from:
♦ Telecom New Zealand Limited
♦ Livestock Improvement Corporation
♦ AgResearch Limited
Copyright
This report is copyright New Zealand Trade and Enterprise.
No part of this report may be distributed or copied for any commercial purpose and you are
not permitted to incorporate the material or any part of it in any other work or publication
(whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form) without the prior written consent of
NZTE. No part of this report may be reproduced, transmitted or stored (including in any
other website or other electronic form) except that you may print or download to your hard
drive only for your own personal or internal business use.
Disclaimer
This report makes certain information and material available to you as a service, either
through NZTE, its suppliers or otherwise. You acknowledge that NZTE does not offer any
opinion with respect to the nature, potential value or suitability of any particular transaction
or strategy. Use of information contained in this report is at your own risk and NZTE is not
responsible for any adverse consequences arising out of such use. The material provided in
this report has not been prepared by taking into account the particular objectives, situation
or needs of any individual users.
Although reasonable care has been taken to ensure the facts stated in the report are accurate
and the opinions given are fair and reasonable, NZTE does not give any warranty of
accuracy, reliability or fitness for any purpose of the information contained in the report to
you or any other person. To the fullest extent permitted by law, NZTE excludes all
responsibility and liability in relation to the report and NZTE will not be responsible for
errors or misstatements or be liable, whether in contract, tort (including negligence) or
otherwise, for any loss or damage however caused (including direct, indirect, consequential,
special, or loss of profits). You will take all necessary action to defend and indemnify NZTE,
its officers and employees against all costs, expenses and damages incurred in connection
with any claim brought by a third party against NZTE arising from a breach by you of any of
these terms and conditions.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 3 of 82
Contents
1 Executive Summary................................................................................................. 5
2 Introduction............................................................................................................. 6
2.1 World beef and veal trade ...........................................................................8
2.2 The Precautionary Principle ..................................................................... 10
2.3 Why implement traceability?.....................................................................11
2.4 New Zealand Working Group ....................................................................11
2.5 Report structure ........................................................................................ 12
2.6 Contributors .............................................................................................. 12
2.7 Definitions ................................................................................................. 13
2.8 References ................................................................................................. 14
3 Biosecurity Comparisons .......................................................................................15
3.1 What is required from traceability?.......................................................... 15
3.2 Comparing traceability systems................................................................ 15
3.3 Components of tracking and tracing systems ...........................................17
3.4 Process and information ............................................................................17
3.5 Country Comparisons ...............................................................................20
3.6 References .................................................................................................42
4 Market Perceptions ............................................................................................... 45
4.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................45
4.2 Legislative Requirements..........................................................................45
4.3 Market Perceptions ................................................................................... 47
4.4 Consumer role in traceability ...................................................................50
4.5 NZ Customers Study .................................................................................54
4.6 References .................................................................................................56
5 ICT Opportunities.................................................................................................. 59
5.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................59
5.2 Identification Methods..............................................................................59
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 4 of 82
5.3 Radio Frequency Identification ................................................................ 61
5.4 Biometric Procedures................................................................................66
5.5 Smart Devices............................................................................................ 67
5.6 Telecommunications .................................................................................69
5.7 Software solutions .....................................................................................70
5.8 Centralised databases................................................................................ 72
5.9 References ................................................................................................. 73
6 Biopharming Implications .................................................................................... 74
6.1 Biopharming and Compliance .................................................................. 74
6.2 TechniFarming – broader than Biopharming.......................................... 76
Appendix A Market Research Traceability Questionnaire, May 2005 ..................... 78
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 5 of 82
1 Executive Summary
In 2004, Innovation Waikato and the Farmgate group proposed a programme of
research and collaborative development activities around traceability and integrated
farm management systems. Established in 2003, the Farmgate group includes
MediaLab Limited, Fonterra, Wool Equities, Massey University, and Telecom New
Zealand. The programme of work has been funded by New Zealand Trade and
Enterprise, with matching funding from industry.
In April 2005, 38 representatives of government, regulatory, industry and
commercial entities operating across New Zealand in the agricultural sector met in
Hamilton to refine and extend our vision for the project. It became apparent that
there were a number of different understandings of both terminology, and the
specific drivers and implications of traceability for the New Zealand farming
industry.
This analysis of current state in New Zealand and overseas addresses the need for a
common understanding of both terminology and drivers.
In July 2005 the Animal Identification and Traceability Working Group proposed a
livestock tracking framework for New Zealand. This report complements that work,
providing further detail and comparison with overseas nations.
Our authors also explore the difference between the biosecurity drivers of
traceability and the perceptions of quality and safety in different markets.
Traceability systems may provide competitive advantage in some markets, although
this needs to be balanced against the cost of implementation. In comparison, the
potential for a disease outbreak to close access to all markets is a different order of
magnitude. Providing sufficient breadth, depth, and response times to mitigate this
biosecurity risk is an important role for a traceability system.
Finally, this report explores the technologies involved in traceability systems and in
more specialist uses such as Biopharming.
Our conclusion is that New Zealand has been well placed in the past as a leader in
food safety and biosecurity. In recent years our international competitors and
customers have begun to put in place significantly more comprehensive systems,
and this process is accelerating.
While there are now many technologies available to assist with identification and
traceability, it is important to define an architecture that supports more than just
the technologies available today. At the same time we need to leverage today’s
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 6 of 82
technologies effectively in order to put in place an efficient system that will continue
to deliver advantage to New Zealand.
2 Introduction
Traceability, as a term, is loosely used to cover many aspects of food safety
assurance and in New Zealand is often enmeshed in issues of individual animal
identification. Animal identification is but one component of meat and milk
traceability.
Traceability is the more comprehensive concept of tracking the movement of
identifiable products through the production, processing and marketing chain.
Animal identification and traceability are not in themselves food safety, animal
disease prevention, quality assurance or country of origin labelling programmes.
However, they may be important components of such programmes.
In its broadest sense comprehensive traceability requires knowledge of the
immediate production and processing environment the product was exposed to, the
status and integrity of the wider environment, the ‘events’ the product underwent
and any inputs into the environment or the ultimate product. The diagram below
schematically describes the relationship between these factors in the New Zealand
food production business.
Figure 1 New Zealand food production context
Inputs Inputs
Retail Consumer Farm Processing
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 7 of 82
In the mid-1990s Britain (and, indirectly, the European Union) suffered a massive
breakdown in consumer confidence in their food system as a result of the bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) crisis. This breakdown was attributable to the
fact that governments and scientists had assured consumers that no connection
existed between BSE and human disease. When the probable connection between
BSE and variant Creutzfeldt - Jakob disease (vCJD) became apparent, literally
thousands of BSE-infected animals had already passed through the food chain for
human consumption. In addition to BSE, there have been other widely publicised
food safety scares:
♦ The Escherichia coli 0157 outbreak in Lanarkshire, Scotland which killed 21
people (BMJ, 1996)1.
♦ Ongoing concerns regarding salmonellosis from poultry. On 3 December
1988 the British junior Minister for Health conceded that ‘most [of the] egg
production in this country, sadly, is now affected with salmonella’ (BBC)2.
♦ In 1999 hundreds of farms in Belgium received supplies of animal feed
contaminated with dioxin, a carcinogenic by-product from the manufacture
of herbicides (Channel 4.com)3.
Traditional food safety systems that were geared to identifying bacterial pathogens
were inadequate for dealing with the BSE and dioxin crises partly because these
problems originated from contaminants that originated off-farm.
In their submission to the Livestock and Animal Product Traceability System
(LAPTYS) AgriQuality succinctly summarised the international trends in traceability
from a New Zealand perspective (Moore, 2004)4:
1. The government and industries of our major trading partners (UK, Europe,
USA, Canada, Australia, and Japan) are investing significant resources into
animal tracing systems. Although current motives for this investment differ
from country to country (biosecurity risks, food safety assurance, prevention
of subsidy fraud, and productivity gains) this trend cannot be ignored given
New Zealand’s reliance on agricultural and food exports. For cattle, the trend
has gained impetus through the occurrence of BSE and has had flow-on
effects to countries other than our major trading partners (examples include
the South American beef producing states). Once a trading partner has
adopted an animal tracing system, the risk for exporting countries such as
New Zealand, is that there will be demands to have equivalent systems in
place.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 8 of 82
2. Market access for some New Zealand meat products at the commercial level
is increasingly reliant on product difference. For example: beef exported into
North America competes with a cheaper South American product; this price
differential is overcome when the exporter is able to support claims for pre-
slaughter traceability (e.g. Greenlea Meats Ltd).
3. Consumers are exercising or are being encouraged to exercise their right to
have access to more information about the food they purchase. Although
difficult to apply to all animal-derived products, information about a product
and where it has been sourced over its lifetime is a clear trend. This trend is
reflected in the multitude of farm assurance programmes that operate and
are beginning to be adopted within New Zealand (see, for example, EuroGap
and BRC).
2.1 World beef and veal trade
Details of world beef and trade values, by exporting country, are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: World beef and veal trade, FAO figures fro m 2003.
Country Exports (million USD) Imports (million USD)
European Union a 350 1039
Argentina 462 7
Australia 2350 6
Brazil 1155 60
Canada 979 506
Chile 17 217
China 15 260
Japan 3 2137
New Zealand 946 16
Russian Federation - 621
United States of America 3069 2461
Uruguay 359 0 a Excluding internal trade.
New Zealand is a smaller player in the global marketplace and therefore cannot
dominate or dictate the standards and protocols that are associated with the trade.
2.1.1 Traceability
The European Union definition for traceability is found in paragraph 15 of Article 3
of EU General Food Law Reg. EC No 178/2002:
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 9 of 82
The ability to trace and follow a food, feed, food-producing animal or
substance intended to be incorporated into a food or feed, through all
stages of production, processing and distribution.
Opara (2003)5 defines traceability in an agricultural context as:
The collection, documentation, maintenance, and application of
information related to all processes in the supply chain in a manner
that provides guarantee to the consumer and other stakeholders on the
origin, location and life history of a product as well as assisting in
crises management in the event of a safety and quality breach. With
respect to a food product, traceability represents the ability to identify
the farm where it was grown and sources of input materials, as well as
the ability to conduct full backward and forward tracking to determine
the specific location and life history in the supply chain by means of
records.
Opara (2003)5 recommends that for agriculture and food businesses, an integrated
supply chain traceability system must encompass the following elements:
1. Product traceability to determine the physical location of items at any stage
in the supply chain to facilitate recall and/or dissemination of information to
customers and consumers.
2. Process traceability to determine the type and sequence of events that have
occurred during the production and handling of the product: what, where,
when. These include: (a) physical/mechanical, chemical, environmental and
atmospheric factors, treatments and formulations which could result in
transformation of the raw material into value-added products, and (b)
presence or absence of contaminants.
3. Input traceability to determine: (a) type and origin (source, supplier) of
ingredients used to create the raw product (seeds, stem cuttings and other
planting materials, fertiliser, chemical sprays, irrigation water, livestock,
feed), and (b) materials (additives, chemicals) used for the post harvest
handling, preservation and/or transformation of the basic raw food material
into processed (reconstituted or new) food products. Input traceability
includes the analysis of genetic constituents of products.
4. Disease traceability to determine the outbreak and monitor the epidemiology
of biotic hazards such as bacteria, virus and other emerging pathogens which
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 10 of 82
are potential risks to the humans through contamination of foods and other
ingested products derived from biological and agricultural raw materials.
5. Genetic traceability to determine the genetic constitution of the product,
including variety, type, origin and alterations in the basic DNA structure.
6. Measurement traceability to relate individual measurement results (such as
product quality and safety attributes) through an unbroken chain of
calibrations to accepted reference standards.
Production
Processing
Wholesaling
Retailing
Consumption
Traders (Domestic/Export)
Information
Raw material supply
Figure 2: Schematic diagram of the food chain.
2.2 The Precautionary Principle
Another consequence of the BSE scare has been the adoption of the Precautionary
Principle into Article 7 of EU General Food Law Reg. EC No 178/2002:
In specific circumstances where, following an assessment of available
information, the possibility of harmful effects on health is identified but
scientific uncertainty persists, provisional risk management measures
necessary to ensure the high level of health protection chosen in the
Community may be adopted, pending further scientific information for
a more comprehensive risk assessment.
Measures adopted on the basis of paragraph 1 shall be proportionate
and no more restrictive of trade than is required to achieve the high
level of health protection chosen in the Community, regard being had to
technical and economic feasibility and other factors regarded as
legitimate in the matter under consideration. The measures shall be
reviewed within a reasonable period of time, depending on the nature
of the risk to life or health identified and the type of scientific
information needed to clarify the scientific uncertainty and to conduct
a more comprehensive risk assessment.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 11 of 82
The precautionary principle has long been associated with environmental protection
policy where it has been applied in the face of scientific uncertainty about an
outcome. For example the impact of oil spills on wildlife and the environment. The
precautionary principle allows policy to be made in the absence of conclusive
scientific proof and in the case of food products shifts the burden of proof of no
harm to the food product’s producer.
2.3 Why implement traceability?
For New Zealand, a country that exports 85% of its beef and a similar proportion of
other primary products, the overriding reason to adopt traceability is to ensure
market access and to remain competitive.
When a major beef importer decides to impose a mandatory
traceability system, it will require traceability on imported beef.
Assuming such systems are not successfully challenged at the WTO,
those countries adopting equivalent traceability systems will have
better access to the markets of such importing countries. Producers or
countries refusing to adopt equivalent traceability systems will lose
markets (Souza-Monteiro and Caswell, 2004).
At present the two most important red meat markets for New Zealand are the
European Union and Japan; these countries have some of the most rigorous
traceability systems in place anywhere in the world.
2.4 New Zealand Working Group
In May 2004, the New Zealand LAPTYS committee6 convened an Animal
Identification and Traceability Working Group to consider traceability and
identification needs within New Zealand7. The Working Group brief was to consider
systems for cattle and deer, but also to take into account other species such as sheep,
pigs, horses, and goats8.
The Working Group included appointees from Federated Farmers, Meat New
Zealand, the Meat Industry Association, DCANZ (dairy companies), Dairy Insight,
Livestock Improvement Corporation, Deer Industry New Zealand, the Pork Industry
Board, New Zealand Stock and Station Agents Association, the Animal Health
Board, MAF Biosecurity, and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority.
This Situation Analysis report was predominantly undertaken in parallel with the
considerations of the Working Group, which delivered its own recommendations in
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 12 of 82
July 2005. The Working Group’s initial proposal is that each animal be assigned a
unique number (including bobby calves), and each property or site be identified by a
Property Location Number (PLN). These numbers would be issued by a single body
with a central database, to which other industry databases could be linked. The
database would track tags issued, movements, and slaughter or death, and possibly
other optional data.
While the Working Group recommends standardisation of identification methods, it
refrains from specifying any technologies at this stage.
2.5 Report structure
This report discusses the two main drivers on New Zealand that will shape the
development of New Zealand’s traceability response. The first of these, competitors,
is covered in Chapter 3 Biosecurity Comparisons. This chapter discusses the
components integral to traceability and then reviews how New Zealand and other
beef exporting countries are progressing towards achieving “traceability”.
The second major driver, customers, is covered in Chapter 4 Market Perceptions.
This chapter reviews the perception of traceability and product safety in customers
of New Zealand’s food products and highlights incidents of food safety concerns that
have caused barriers to trade.
Chapter 5 describes the current and possible role of ICT in traceability systems,
particularly technologies that could be applied behind the farm gate.
Chapter 6 reviews the specific traceability requirements for applications of
Biopharming in New Zealand such as containment monitoring, biosecurity and
product integrity.
2.6 Contributors
This report has been compiled from contributions from four separate sources,
drawing on their various expertises. The Biosecurity Comparisons chapter was
authored by Kevin Lawrence and Dr Mark Stevenson, Massey University. Leith
Pemberton of Leith Pemberton Associates, contributed Chapter 3 Market
Perceptions. Chapter 4 ICT Opportunities was authored by Jeremy White and
Louise Hanlon, Rezare Systems. The final chapter, Biopharming and containment,
was contributed by Tim Hale and Shane Leath, AgResearch.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 13 of 82
Our thanks go to these individuals and organisations for the work in preparing the
material to enable such a comprehensive report to be drawn together for New
Zealand.
2.7 Definitions
The following definitions have been used consistently through this report.
Traceability: The ability to track and/or trace product flows in both fresh
production and an industrial distribution chain. Traceability implies that products
are uniquely identifiable, that at critical points in the production and distribution
processes, the identity of product flows are logged, and that the information is
systematically collected, processed and stored.
Tracking: The ability to follow products in real time. In monitoring a distribution
process, one may want to know the current location of a product (for example online
parcel tracking capabilities are now routinely used by most major courier
companies).
Tracing: Reconstructing the historical flow of a product from stored records.
Typically, when a consumer encounters a defective product, one may want to know
the history of that product. This requires the analysis of registration and production
records in a traceability database. There are two types of tracing activities:
Upstream tracing: The history of a product is reconstructed from the ‘final
destination of a product’ back to its origin. The important question here is: ‘what are
the origins of my product, and can I identify which circumstance in that history is
responsible for the defect at hand?’
Downstream tracing: ‘Raw material’ is taken as starting point and the products
that contain that raw material are identified. If a batch of flour is polluted with
dioxin, which products are affected?
Animal identification: The marking of individual farm animals, or a group or lot
of animals, so that they can be tracked from place of birth to slaughter.
Consumer: The end user of a product, service or technology.
Customer: The party purchasing a product for distribution to consumers.
Biopharming: The use of Genetic Engineering (GE) or other novel techniques on
plants or animals to produce pharmaceuticals, or other products.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 14 of 82
2.8 References
Each chapter of this document concludes with any references from the text as end
notes.
1 Christie, B (1996) E coli 0157 kills five people in Scotland. British Medical Journal
313:1424 http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1424/a. Last accessed 28
June 2005.
2 BBC on this day 1988: Egg industry fury over salmonella claim:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/3/newsid_2519000/2519451.stm.
Last accessed 28 June 2005.
3 Channel 4 Bad taste: food scares:
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/B/bodystory/bad_food.html#dioxin. Last
accessed 28 June 2005.
4 Moore, D., 2004. Support information services for animal tracing, Review of
position post submissions. http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests-diseases/animals/animal-
tracing-system-submissions.pdf. Last accessed 28 June 2005.
5 Opara LU (2003) Traceability in agriculture and food supply chain: a review of
basic concepts, technological implications, and future prospects Food, Agriculture
and Environment 1(1): 10 – 106. http://www.world-
food.net/scientficjournal/2003/issue1/pdf/Agriculture/V1N1A101-106traceability.pdf. Last
accessed 29 June 2005.
6 The Livestock and Animal Products Tracing and Information System (LAPTYS)
Programme, Ryan T, Proceedings of the Food Safety & Biosecurity Branch NZVA, 2004
7 Support Information Systems for Animal Tracing, Hellstrom J & Moore D, April 2004
(discussion document available at http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/pests-
diseases/animals/animal-tracing-system.pdf, and submissions at
http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/animalproducts/publications/consultation/submissions/analysis
/laptys-review-post-submissions.pdf).
8 Terms of Reference for the Animal Identification and Traceability Working Group, 21 May
2004.
3 Biosecurity Comparisons
Kevin Lawrence and Dr Mark Stevenson, Massey University
3.1 What is required from traceability?
In most countries that have mandatory livestock and traceability systems the system
is designed for tracing back in the event of a problem and usually do not provide any
information on product attributes. However, as Dickinson and Bailey1 showed
traceability needs to be linked to quality assurance to gain consumer approval.
Australia appears to be adopting the approach of integrating assurance information
into their traceability system. This pre-emptive approach to traceability would be
similar to New Zealand’s abattoirs adopting Halal slaughtering techniques to assure
access to Islamic markets.
3.2 Comparing traceability systems
In 2004 Golan2 proposed a method of categorising traceability systems by
considering the breadth, depth and precision of each system. It is proposed in this
document to compare national traceability systems using the Golan system, an
approach first used by Souza-Monteiro and Caswell (2004)3.
Breadth is often described as the quantity of information that is maintained in the
traceability system. For example breadth might include issues such as what farms
the animal has resided on, how long the animal was on each farm, what other
animals the animal has been in contact with, what pastures the animal has grazed
and for how long, to what forages were contained in those pastures, the age of the
animal, etc.
Depth refers to the distance traceability is ensured either backwards or forwards
within the supply chain of the industry or firm utilizing the traceability system.
Depth may include questions regarding whether a particular meat product on the
retail shelf can be traced back through each location is has been from the
distributor, back to wholesaler, back to processor, back to all feedlots and auctions
the animal ever resided on, or even all the way back to its cow herd of origin and
parental animals.
Precision of a traceability scheme is the extent to which the tracing system can
isolate product flow through a particular transaction within the supply chain.
Precision refers to the detail with which any particular transaction can be traced to
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 16 of 82
every individual activity that a particular product has undergone; this may include
tracking a particular primal of a particular carcass half from a particular kill time
and slaughter chain slot (e.g. individual animal and product as opposed to lot
identification or the accuracy of the traceability system in precisely estimating when
the animal was at various locations in the production process).
The unique breadth, depth, and precision mix of a given traceability system is
chosen to be the arrangement that confidently provides the desired ‘tracing
capabilities’ at the lowest possible expense.
Table 2: Scoring system for breadth of traceability
Levels of information Breadth score
1 2 3 4 5
Farm identification
Individual animal identification: (tag or RFID)
Individual animal information: (breed, sex, sales history, age etc)
Farm management information: (feed, welfare, organic status etc)
DNA sample
Table 3: Scoring system for depth of traceability.
Levels of information Breadth score
1 2 3 4 5
From farm of origin
To auction
To slaughterhouse
To home consumer
To port of export
Table 4: Scoring system for precision of traceabili ty.
Levels of information Breadth score
1 2 3
Cannot trace processed product
Can traced processed product to herd, group, or farm
Can trace processed product to individual animal
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 17 of 82
3.3 Components of tracking and tracing
systems
Introducing tracking and tracing systems in food processing companies or chains is
sometimes regarded as just a matter of technology. The reality is more complex. It
appears to be crucial to embed tracking and tracing into the whole business chain to
realise its respective goals. A complete tracking and tracing system consists of the
following components: technology, process and information and organisation. The
design of these components connects with an analysis of the strategic objectives of
tracking and tracing, so that the ultimate implementation matches the relevant
business goals.
Tracking and tracing systems can employ different technologies. Major tracking and
tracing modules are: (1) identification, (2) registration and administration, and (3)
data processing. Infrastructure refers to topics like the harmonisation of bar-coding,
network- and web-interfaces and arrangements on data- and product-ownership,
transparency and liability between chain partners. The required technology and
data-processing depend on the requirements and goals of the stakeholders.
Chapter 4 ICT Opportunities describes in more detail the components of tracking
and tracing systems.
3.4 Process and information
Food processing chains deploy various types of processes. Three types of
information play a central role in food processing (Moe, 1998)4: information on
products (type, identity, product descriptors), information on product flows (weight,
volume, number), and information on processes (type, process data).
For traceability purposes, it makes a large difference whether product flow has the
character of a discrete, identifiable product (e.g. apples, boxes of rice) the character
of a (semi-) continuous product flow (e.g. commodities such as corn, tapioca or flour
and liquids such as milk or vegetable oil). Products can be identified with a tag, and
followed through the process with scanners.
Another focus point in process and information for traceability lies in processes.
Processes can, amongst other, be characterised by their product flow. Divergent
processes (where product flows diverge into a larger number of product flows, e.g.
butchering a carcass, or the subdivision of grain into bran and granules) and
convergent processes (where several product flows are combined in a compound
product, e.g. a pizza is comprised of dough, tomatoes and mozzarella cheese) play a
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 18 of 82
special role from a traceability point of view; in these processes, product identities
are created and deleted.
In order to keep proper track of product flows the notion of registration points is
helpful. In order to follow products in a production chain, it is necessary to establish
the presence of a product (time, location and product identity). This requires the
product to pass a scanner. The point in the process where a product identity is
registered is called the registration point. To realise traceability as accurately as
possible, it is necessary to include a registration point after every process. The
information that needs to be registered in a specific process depends on the
requirements of the (chain) organisation. The need to register a product is especially
required before and after convergent and divergent processes.
In the food processing industry, the main focus is on realising elementary product
traceability. A study conducted by the Food Standards Agency (2002) signalled that
specific sectors in the EU are under way in realising traceability based on a proper
process and information configuration. Examples are the meat sector and the large
multinational food industries. Legislation helps to push a sector towards
traceability; however recent food crises indicate that both the internal organisation
and the interface between organisations still falter.
3.4.1 Organisation
Notwithstanding the importance of a proper technology and process configuration, a
major aspect in traceability is control and organisation. With control, we refer to the
processes that direct the various traceability processes in a chain.
An important issue is how to configure the chain and interconnections of
organisations, and how to ensure final and correct information exchange. An issue
that is often encountered in practice is the desired co-operation in a chain where
enterprises with conflicting control mechanisms are forced to cooperate. Examples
are an auction, where a push market is transformed into a pull market, and a
slaughterhouse, where an animal is subdivided into meat products.
Apart from the mismatch in control strategies, there is also the risk of a mismatch
between a control strategy and the feasibility of traceability. A chain that is currently
unable to trace raw materials to the grower (e.g. because an intermediate trade link
is not able to provide the necessary information) will be confronted with serious
limitations in guaranteeing downstream traceability of compound products
containing that raw material. To be able to control a logistic chain, it is important to
configure the internal and external organisation such that efficient co-operation is
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 19 of 82
facilitated. Often, the most powerful actor (seldom a retail organisation) will impose
the traceability requirements as a chain director onto the rest of the chain.
Important organisational issues that arise in a chain are:
1. Which actor is responsible for a product in which part of the chain? The
same applies for process, activity, and registration points.
2. Which functions fall within each chain organisation? How are these
functions linked?
3. Which certificates suffice to meet the major requirements of my clients?
Table 5: Traceability Scores for Individual Countri es.
Country System type Total Traceability Score
Argentina Mandatory 8
Australia Mandatory 12 to 13
Brazil Voluntary 5
Canada Mandatory 9 to 10
Chile Mandatory 7 to 10
EU Mandatory 7 to 10
Japan Mandatory 11
New Zealand Mandatory 8 to 10
Uruguay Mandatory for export 10 to 13
USA Voluntary 8 to 9
Table 5 shows that, on the basis of this review, the traceability system currently in
place in New Zealand traceability is comparable to many of her trading partners.
However, not shown in Table 5 is that many countries are in the process of
implementing more advanced systems (or have systems which can be expanded if
necessary) whereas, at present, the New Zealand system is more or less static.
Of real concern to New Zealand should be the speed of change in South America:
Uruguay in particular, is well on the way to having a full traceability system.
It is important that what ever system is adopted by New Zealand, the question of
through abattoir traceability has to be resolved; the proposed Scanvaegt system for
Uruguayan abattoirs may require closer examination.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 20 of 82
3.5 Country Comparisons
3.5.1 Argentina
Argentina has always been a net beef exporter, although in recent years an economic
recession and a large foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak have had major
impacts on export volume. The EU is an important buyer of Argentinean beef,
especially high quality fresh beef cuts imported under the Hilton Quota.1
Argentina is considered to be BSE free.
Animal diseases such as brucellosis and tuberculosis have yet to be totally
eradicated in Argentina (SENASA 2003). Due to the persistence of these diseases in
the north western provinces, Regulation 345/98 issued on 4 April 1998, modified
the requirements for beef and other ruminants exported to the EU. Every animal
destined for export is required to carry a document, signed by an official
veterinarian certifying that it is free of disease and did not originate from a foreign
country or province where disease persists. Resolution 625/2002, issued on 24 July
2002, requires that all animals exported to the EU must have remained in Argentina
for at least three months before slaughter and must have originated from a limited
number of countries. This resolution also requires that all facilities producing cattle
destined for export must have an approved sanitary status and all animals within
each facility must have an individual sanitary certificate assuring that it is free of
animal diseases.
In January 2003, Resolutions 001/2003 and 002/2003 were published to assure
traceability by creating procedures to register slaughterhouses, processing facilities,
and feedlots authorised to export beef. The central traceability regulation followed
in February 2003 through Resolution 15/2003 creating the Export Cattle
Identification System. This system requires that all animals for export must be
identified. All animals have to wear a tag bearing a unique animal identifier and an
identifier of the premises on which the animal was born. The animal must also be
branded with the National Sanitary Register of Livestock Producers insignia. Every
facility authorised to export must register the existence and all movements of
animals in a table of registries approved by the regional branch of the Argentine
National Service of Agro-Food Safety and Quality. The EU resolutions on
traceability took effect in May 2003.
1 The Hilton quota is an agreement with the European Union which allows for the importation of high value cuts of meat into the EU free of the €3.043/kg tariff. The current Hilton import quota for Argentina is 28,000 tonnes per year.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 21 of 82
Argentina has established a limited mandatory system of traceability directed at
export markets. The depth of the Argentinean system is from the farm to the port of
export where carcasses or beef cuts leave the country. The system does not have the
same depth as systems in Japan, the EU, or Australia because it does not reach
retailers or import ports. The characteristics recorded are not as broad as those in
Japan, the EU, or Australia. The system is able to trace back to individual animals
and their respective farms of origin, but it lacks precision and accuracy since it relies
on information provided by operators and does not employ an integrated database.
Another issue with Argentina’s system is that it is of limited scope as it only applies
to export cattle.
Argentina is an example of how traceability is limited by economic conditions. The
economic crisis of 2002 limited the capacity for introducing systems equivalent to
those in Australia or Brazil, which are direct competitors of Argentina in
international beef markets. Legislation was only introduced in early 2003 and it
seems to have been a reaction to pressures from the EU. Hence in the Argentinean
case traceability is mainly motivated by trade, as only beef destined for export
markets must be identified.
Argentine beef producers and exporters have successfully completed what they
describe as the European Union’s most demanding inspection of Argentina’s
traceability system to date5 (Lewis 2005).
The livestock/meat traceability system in Argentina has progressed further than
those of other South American nations, largely because of pressure exerted by EU
sanitation officials and European supermarket chains. The need for traceability was
underscored two years ago when EU inspectors discovered irregularities in
Argentina’s system for supplying beef under the Hilton Quota. At that point
European sanitation officials threatened to cut off the lucrative program unless
Argentine suppliers clearly documented their compliance with quota requirements
throughout the production chain. EU sanitation officials have expressed misgivings
over the inability of Argentina and its neighbours to eliminate livestock smuggling
across international borders. The illegal movement of livestock over Argentina’s
remote borders with Bolivia and Paraguay is of particular concern. By implementing
a nationwide cattle/beef traceability system, sanitation officials hope to eliminate
any disease-related threat to Hilton Quota sales. The EU inspection in April 2005
revealed that there is still room for improvement in tracking Argentine meat
products after they depart for foreign markets. Blame was not directly pointed at
Argentine exporters, yet the inspection team discovered that meat products destined
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 22 of 82
for Russia and other outside destinations were being diverted into the EU at the port
of Amsterdam. As a result, Argentine trade officials are taking steps to trace meat
shipments more carefully to ensure that they arrive at the proper foreign
destination. Argentina’s progress is putting pressure on other Hilton Quota nations
such as Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay to expand their traceability systems more
quickly.
Component Details
System type Mandatory
Date of full implementation In force
Depth 3
Breadth 2
Precision 3 (in theory)
Total score 8
3.5.2 Australia
Australia is the world’s second largest red meat exporter, with total beef exports
exceeding USD $2.34 billion in 2003 – 2004 (Meat and Livestock Australia, 2005)6.
Because the Australian livestock sector is so highly dependant on red meat exports,
the country has been proactive in developing traceability systems.
Australia has used a tail tag system for over 30 years to identify the most recent
property of origin for cattle. These tail tags cost producers about 1 US cent each,
have an estimated retention time of approximately 30 days and are required by law
to be applied to cattle prior to movement. This system, in its original form, was
limited in its traceability capabilities as the tail tag itself only indicates the Property
Identification Code (PIC) of the property from which the cattle were most recently
residing on. Furthermore, the tail tag is unique to pens or lots of cattle, and not to
individuals.
In 1996 25 farms in New South Wales were placed under quarantine following
detection of excessive residue levels of endosulfan (a chemical used to treat
Helicoverpa in cotton) in export stock (Spence et al. 19987, Global Pesticide
Campaigner 19998). This event prompted extension of the tail tag system with an
additional paper-based system referred to as the National Vendor Declaration
(NVD) program, now called the National Vendor Declaration and Waybill. Among
other things this declaration includes assurance by the cattle owner that:
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 23 of 82
Cattle that have been treated with a hormonal growth promotant were produced at
that location abiding to rules consistent with an independently audited quality
assurance program.
Cattle were born and raised on the vendor’s property and if not, it is known how
long they were resident on the vendor’s property.
Details of any by-product feeds offered in the last 60 days are recorded.
Cattle grazed on a property placed under grazing restrictions because of chemical
residue or cattle still within a withholding period for any drug or chemical treatment
in the last six months are declared.
This resulted in a NVD completed by the seller for each group of cattle being sold.
The form is not mandated by Australian legislation, but is demanded commercially
and is therefore widely used. The NVD is required for all animals destined for export
markets and because it is a legally binding document, it can be used for liability
recourse in the event of a legal claim by future owners of the cattle or beef for which
the NVD was completed. The NVD program is conducted using paper copies and to
date has not been integrated into an electronic system to facilitate transmission of
information.
The most recent update to Australia’s animal identification efforts has occurred with
the implementation of the National Livestock Identification System (NLIS). The
NLIS is a permanent whole-of-life identification system allowing individual animals
to be traced from their property of birth to their slaughter destination. The NLIS has
been designed to improve traceability, enhance food safety, ensure beef product
integrity, to allow and sustain international market access, and to provide
progressive livestock producers with enhanced managerial opportunities. The NLIS
is an enhancement of the tail tag and NVD systems and it moves Australia’s
traceability systems from primarily herd-based identification to electronic,
individual animal systems. The NLIS is managed by Meat and Livestock Australia
on behalf of industry and government.
The NLIS requires all calves to have a NLIS compliant, RFID device applied before
leaving the property on which they were born. RFID devices can be either ear tags or
rumen bolus/ear tag combinations. Each RFID device contains a microchip encoded
with a unique code that identifies the property on which the animal was born. RFID
devices are electronically read as the cattle move throughout the production system;
in particular, readings are mandated at each transaction of cattle. Over time, these
readings create a history of each animal’s movement, developing a very
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 24 of 82
comprehensive, electronically-based database to facilitate individual animal
traceability. Hence, the system is precise to both the individual animal and
geographical location. A single centralised database, maintained by Meat and
Livestock Australia (an industry-funded private service organisation funded by
levies obtained from livestock producers) contains all individual animal trace back
records for the entire country.
To comply with the NLIS, producers are required to identify each animal with an
approved NLIS device. The NLIS system also offers numerous management
opportunities to livestock producers who choose to take advantage of them. These
benefits can include the facility to record medical treatments, animal growth
performance data, and carcass details. These benefits are realised by those who
invest in information technology and purchase appropriate computer software,
RFID reading equipment, weight scales, Internet connectivity, and by utilising web-
access provided by MLA to an array of information pertaining to individual herds.
These additional benefits make the NLIS system comparable to Japan in breadth.
The NLIS system is being implemented on a state-by-state basis. Each of Australia’s
seven states are required to meet national guidelines as set in the NLIS program, but
each state is free to choose when the program will be implemented, with 1 July 2005
being the nationally mandated deadline for implementation. The precedent set by
those states currently using the NLIS system is to choose a date from which all
calves born on or after that date must be identified with NLIS approved devices.
Then, one year after this selected date, all cattle leaving any property in that state
must be identified with NLIS approved devices. Furthermore, on this date, all
saleyards, feedlots, and processing plants will be required to read all NLIS devices
and to transfer this information to the NLIS database. This implementation
procedure allows for firms in the livestock sector to transition into the national
identification program and thus provides these entities time to budget and plan for
the adjustments that need to be made for NLIS compliance.
The program is designed to track the animal from birth to the plant, but, like the
Canadian system, it does not provide a mechanism for tracking animals through the
processing system. Information available to producers includes the date of
slaughter; the NLIS tag number, the vendor’s property identification code, and the
hot standard carcass weight, or weight at slaughter. In other words, the system
provides a means by which the producer is able to identify when, where, and in what
condition an animal reached a processing plant. The system does not provide
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 25 of 82
information about the way the animal was processed, post-processing quality
characteristics, and similar information.
In September 2004 ISO granted Meat and Livestock Australia ISO 9000:2001
certification for the NLIS system (Food Traceability Report 2004)9.
Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania, New South Wales and Western Australia are
committed to full implementation of the NLIS system by 1 July 2005. Queensland is
about two years behind Victoria and should have full implementation by 1 July
2007.
It should be noted that questions have been raised by producers about the benefits
offered by this system in relation to its costs. The tags cost approximately USD
$2.70 and cannot be recycled or recovered by the producer. This aspect of the
system is proving to be a source of controversy within the industry. The implications
of this for New Zealand producers are:
♦ A mandated RFID tracking system will be a cost carried by producers.
♦ The benefits of a system that only provides tracking to the abattoir will offer
limited benefits to producers.
♦ Involvement and leadership by producers and other industry stakeholders in
such a system will be crucial for complete industry uptake.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 26 of 82
Component Details
System type Mandatory
Date of full implementation In force (with exceptions)
Depth 5
Breadth 4 to 5
Precision 3
Total score 12 to 13
3.5.3 Brazil
Brazil’s ambitious plans to become the second largest beef exporter in the world by
2010 and eradicate FMD by 2006 were stalled recently when Brazil’s Ministry of
Agriculture Roberto Rodrigues announced that the System for Identification and
Certification of Origin for Bovine and Buffalo (Sisbov) will be handled on a
voluntary basis. SISBOV proponents had underestimated the economic and physical
resources needed to trace the world’s largest commercial cattle population,
estimated at 195 million head of stock.
The agriculture ministry is planning to merge the Sisbov system with the long-
standing Animal Transit Registry System. This would streamline the tracking of
animal movements and avoid duplication of paperwork. Agricultural officials in the
state of Parana have asked to host a pilot program for the joint programs. However,
they are demanding that the program be based on herd-level traceability,
undermining the original concept of Sisbov, which was to handle the tracing of
individual cattle.
Brazil’s strongest South American competitors – Argentina and Chile – have not
wavered from their ambitious programs for nationwide cattle traceability. Exporters
in Argentina and Chile anticipate that their traceability systems will be functioning
in 2005. Argentina has opted for a system that traces individual animals. If Brazil’s
agriculture ministry concedes to traceability at the herd level, Brazilian meat
exporters could find themselves at a competitive disadvantage (Lewis 2005a,
2005b)10.
Only producers and processors registered in Sisbov are permitted to supply the
European Union; it is estimated that Sisbov has about 45 million animals on
108,000 farms registered. At present Sisbov does not provide specific information
on the source and nature of feed used on farms.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 27 of 82
In a meeting with Brazilian Agricultural secretary in June 2005, EU officials
restated their demand that animal feed data be included in the system and that
Brazilian products destined for Europe must meet the same traceability standards as
those produced in the EU (Lewis 2005c)11.
Component Details
System type Voluntary
Date of full implementation In force
Depth 2
Breadth 1
Precision 2 (possibly)
Total score 5
3.5.4 Canada
Canada is the fourth biggest exporter of beef in the world, with beef exports worth
USD $1.36 billion in 2002 (Canada’s Beef Industry Fast Facts)12.
The current Canadian approach to beef safety is at a midpoint between the EU and
the US systems. Full traceability from farm to fork is not mandatory but since 1
September 2003 cattle must be identified when they are moved from the farm where
they were born to another farm, slaughterhouse, or for export. In the past
mandatory animal identification was used to assist in the eradication of diseases
such as brucellosis and tuberculosis but the system was relaxed after 1985 when
these diseases were eradicated. In the late 1990s it was estimated that only 10% of
the Canadian cattle herd was identified.
In December 2000, Part XV of the Canadian Federal Health of Animals Act of 1991
was amended to include animal identification, to take force in July 2001. The
industry led Canadian Cattle Identification Agency (CCIA), established in 1998 as a
non-profit corporation, was mandated to administer the Canadian Identification
System. Section 175 of the Amendment requires that ‘every person who owns an
animal or has the possession, care, or control of it shall ensure that it is identified by
an approved tag applied to it before it is moved from its farm of origin.’ Section 186
specifies procedures for slaughterhouses. The operator of the facility is allowed to
remove the tags from animals to be slaughtered but must notify authorities of the
deaths of each animal and their corresponding tag numbers within 30 days.
Identification is also required for imported cattle, which must be given a Canadian
approved tag as they enter the country. In addition, Section 189 requires that all
existing information on imported animals must be referred to the administrator to
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 28 of 82
allow trace back to origin. Cattle exported from Canada must also bear an approved
tag; importing authorities may remove the tag as the animal enters the new country.
Ear tags contain a visible unique identification number, a bar code, and the CCIA
logo. The unique identification numbers are given to tag manufacturers by the CCIA.
Producers obtain tags through authorised service centres and other distribution
channels. The service centres maintain records about the numbers assigned to each
producer and submit this information to the central CCIA database. Once the tags
are applied to an animal, the identification number stays with the animal until it is
processed. Processing plants are required to maintain information about the carcass
to the inspection point.
The CCIA initially made use of bar code technology; however, as of January 2005,
the program began replacing bar code tags with RFID ear tags. RFID tags have the
numeric identification number imprinted on the surface of the tag and the
embedded RFID chip.
The Canadian Animal Identification System is not as complex as those in operation
in the EU or Japan. Only animals that leave the original farm must be identified and
it is only the system’s administrators that keep records. The system is not as deep as
those in the EU and Japan as it does not extend to retail. The system does allow back
tracing from points of export to farms of origin. For the domestic market only
linkage between slaughterhouses and farms of origin is mandatory. The database
maintained by CCIA was instrumental in the first Canadian case of BSE in May
2003 for identification of the offspring of the infected cow. Experts argue that the
system could be improved and officials say that if more information was recorded
1000 of the 2,700 animals slaughtered in response to the BSE case could have been
spared (Binkley 2003)13.
In terms of economic impact, the Canadian Animal Identification System proved
useful but by no means totally effective in preventing losses when a major crisis
arose (Caswell and Sparling 2004)14. Between May and June 2002, at the peak of
the BSE crisis, cattle prices dropped by over 50% and exports were totally banned
(Lawrence et al. 2003)15. This case helps explain why countries where exports are
important (such as Canada, Australia, Brazil, and Argentina) are determined to
introduce traceability and further quality assurance, as this is becoming a condition
for access to premium export markets. As in the EU and Australia, public authorities
have contributed to the introduction of traceability in Canada but the producers still
have to bear the cost of purchasing the tags and providing information to the CCIA.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 29 of 82
Since traceability is not extended to retail in Canada, the impact on the supply chain
is smaller than that already visible in the EU and Japan. Since the system is
mandatory there are not the opportunities for beef supply chain competition for
domestic markets that exist in the cases of Australia and Brazil. However there is
international competition with supply chains of these former countries for high
quality beef markets. Finally, the design of the Canadian system enables authorities
to capture all the animal health benefits described above. However it falls below the
systems of the EU or Japan in terms of potential human health benefits as it does
not record information beyond slaughterhouses.
Component Details
System type Mandatory
Date of full implementation In force
Depth 3 to 4
Breadth 3
Precision 3
Total score 9 to 10
3.5.5 Chile
Since Chile’s first EU approved export abattoir Carnes Ñuble opened there has been
a steady increase in Chile’s beef exports from USD $0.3 million in 2002 to USD $15
million in 2004. Overall, Chile is a net importer of beef but they have a considerable
export infrastructure for fish, wine and fruit.
A livestock traceability program has been proposed and designed by the Chilean
ministry of agriculture, the Servicio Agricola y Ganadero (SAG, 2005)16. The
projected date for full implementation of the program is 31 December 2008 but it is
likely that this will be accelerated to take advantage of Brazil’s delay in
implementing traceability systems and the Japanese import ban on North American
beef. The potential for competition from Chile in export markets over the next
decade cannot be underestimated. It is widely believed that Chile and Argentina will
be the first Latin American countries to implement national cattle traceability
systems that meet Japanese standards.
SAG is about to combine the nation’s livestock/meat traceability system with its
three-tier Livestock Ranch Official Certification Program (PABCO), which ranks
producers according to the foreign markets they are permitted to supply. Producers
participating in the program are rated Level A, B, or C. In order to be certified at
Level A, producers must demonstrate that they have fully engaged in the national
traceability system for individual animals. They must also use official individual
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 30 of 82
identification devices that meet PABCO standards and are compatible with the
agriculture ministry’s traceability data base. Level A producers will be allowed to
supply foreign markets with the most demanding sanitation standards, and they
alone will be allowed to supply the EU. Traceability data recorded at these
establishments covers animal movement, production practices, and medications
used. In order to maintain an A rating producers must maintain uninterrupted
traceability records from farm to fork.
Level B producers are allowed to supply most foreign markets, with the exception of
those that call for uninterrupted traceability of individual animals. Most producers
at this level are in the process of implementing a comprehensive traceability system
but lack-isolated components. When Level B suppliers get their traceability systems
fully up and running, they can petition PABCO for a rating upgrade.
Most Level C producers are PABCO newcomers. They either have no traceability
system in place or are in the earliest stages of establishing a system. Their products
can be exported but are limited to foreign markets that require nothing more than a
certificate of origin. By joining PABCO, these establishments gain access to
technology and expertise that will eventually allow them to supply more demanding
foreign markets.
SAG is actively encouraging all of Chile’s livestock producers to join PABCO,
because certification requirements are viewed as effective weapons in combating
contagious livestock diseases that could put Chile’s livestock and meat exports at
risk. Chilean suppliers that lack PABCO certification are limited to serving the
national market.
Component Details
System type Mandatory
Date of full implementation 31 December 2008
Depth 2 to 3
Breadth 2 (PABCO A producers 4)
Precision 3
Total score 7 to 10
3.5.6 European Union
The European Union’s response to the BSE crisis was premised by the Single
European Act of 1986 (the first profound and wide-ranging constitutional reform of
the EU since the 1950s) that allowed the European Commission to propose
measures giving consumers of food from animal origin a ‘high level of protection.’
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 31 of 82
The January 2000 White Paper on Food Safety contained the road map for the
approach to food safety and new European legislation which specified deadlines for
the most important components of this legislation. This document considered the
sharing of information in a transparent, global, integrated, and harmonised way
along the food chain and between different Member States to be a primary means to
regain consumer confidence. Following White Paper proposals, legislation on the
safety of beef was issued in the summer of 2000: Regulation (EC) 1760/2000 of the
European Parliament and of the Council on 17 July and Commission Regulation
(EC) 1825/2000 on 25 August. Both regulations became effective on 1 September
2000.
Regulation (EC) 1760/2000 establishes a system to identify, register, and label
cattle and beef products. The objectives of this regulation are: 1) to establish an
efficient system of identification and registration of cattle at the production stage,
and 2) to define a common European labelling scheme for the beef sector based on
objective criteria at the marketing stage of the food chain.
Under Title I, a mandatory system of animal identification is detailed using two
individual ear tags, animal passports, and computerised databases in each Member
State to establish links between farms and slaughterhouses. All records must be kept
for at least three years, with records that are kept being verified by designated
national authorities. The system allows for a high level of precision in tracing any
problem identified in post-mortem inspections.
Under Title II, two labelling schemes are defined to assure traceability from
slaughterhouse to retail outlet. Section I defines the ‘Compulsory Community Beef
Labelling System’ and Section II defines the general rules of the ‘Voluntary Labelling
System’ which allows producers to extend the amount of information that is
provided to consumers. The compulsory system requires that each beef label must
include a reference number or code, to ensure a clear link between meat and animal
or groups of animals. Labels must also show the approval number and nationality of
the slaughterhouse where the animal (or animals) were slaughtered. If the carcass or
group(s) of carcasses is/are further processed, labels must indicate where those
operations occurred. The regulation includes specific details on the labelling for a
variety of situations.
All producers or groups of producers who wish to extend label information under
the Voluntary Labelling System, must send a specification for approval to the
competent authority of the Member State in which production or sale of beef in
question takes place. This specification must include all information placed on the
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 32 of 82
label, measures taken to assure those indications are accurate, a control system to
verify the truthfulness of the indication along the food chain, and the name of an
independent body complying with European Standard EN/45011. Through a
procedure described in Article 17, producers in third countries may use a voluntary
label system to export beef to the EU.
Commission Regulation 1825/2000 specified detailed rules for the application of
Regulation 1760/2000 in regard to compulsory and voluntary labelling schemes for
beef and beef products. This regulation defines traceability as an identification
system held by all groups of operators in the same or different parts of the beef
supply chain, such that it allows for the establishment of links between meat and an
animal or animals. This identification system must at least record information on
any arrivals and departures of livestock, carcasses, and/or meat cuts between
operators so that correlations are guaranteed. The regulation also defines the
required reliability of information contained on labels and in all types of registers.
Finally it establishes sanctions for non-compliance, which may include removal of
beef from the market.
Overall, the mandatory EU traceability system for beef is precise and deep through
its mandatory animal identification and compulsory labelling schemes. A possible
pitfall of this system occurs in cutting plants where links are established with groups
of animals rather than individuals. The system’s breadth is narrow, though a
supplementary voluntary scheme may further extend the breadth, depth, and even
precision of traceability to include information demanded by consumers or retail
chains on production practices, feed, cattle breeds, and other attributes. System
precision may be further enhanced if DNA testing to confirm the information in
databases is implemented as is being considered.
In its present state the EU traceability system generates most of the economic
impacts discussed in this document. The system of animal identification through
passports enables authorities and producers to track animal diseases easily and
quickly because the passport records every place the animal has been. Since the
animal identification system is combined with compulsory labelling, human health
hazards are also quickly identified and (in theory) more easily controlled. The EU is
leading the introduction of traceability systems worldwide and is a main driver in
establishing world standards. Mandatory traceability is likely to have significant
impacts on beef supply chains within the EU, although this effect may differ based
on the sophistication of existing systems that operate in individual sectors of the
industry.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 33 of 82
European Community legislation requires identification and registration of cattle,
pigs, sheep and goats. For within-community trade animals must be accompanied
by a health certificate providing identification and health status details. Cattle must
also be accompanied by a passport. The required identification is harmonised on a
community-wide basis with the aim of ensuring traceability for veterinary purposes.
In the UK the British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) an Agency of Defra, runs the
mandatory cattle identification and registration scheme. All cattle must be
registered and those born after 1 January 1998 have their movements traced from
birth to death.
Cattle must be identified with two ear tags bearing a unique identification code.
Pigs, sheep, and goats must be identified with a single ear tag or tattoo identifying
the farm of origin. A reinforced system for sheep and goats based on individual
identification with two tags will apply from 9 July 2005.
EU funded projects in traceability
Three projects have been carried out within the EU framework to investigate the
feasibility of replacing the current conventional methods of cattle identification with
electronic identification. These projects are the FEOGA, AIR3 2304 and IDEA.
The FEOGA project
The FEOGA project was carried out between 1993 and 1994 to establish whether or
not existing technologies were able to support the implementation of an electronic
identification system in livestock species that receive subsidies from the EC. In the
FEOGA project, commercially available electronic identification devices were
compared under laboratory conditions, and those with the best performance chosen
for a series of field experiments. Different body sites for subcutaneous injection with
glass-encapsulated injectable transponders were studied, and devices were
evaluated in terms of resistance to breakage, losses, tendency to migrate through the
body, ease of injection and animal welfare.
The AIR3 2304 project
The AIR3 2304 project was carried out between 1995 and 1998 and aimed to
complete and validate the results on passive transponder technology obtained in the
FEOGA project. The project explored the viability of rumen bolus and electronic ear
tags as well as injectable transponders. Results from the project showed that the
electronic identification systems used had higher retention rates and readability
values than conventional livestock identification systems (ear tags, tattoos, brands).
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 34 of 82
The IDEA17 project
The IDEA (Identification Electronique des Animaux) project was carried out in 1998
and evaluated the performance of electronic identification systems in livestock and
the required organisational structure for the future implementation of such system
for livestock industries. Throughout the project, one million animals from six EU
Member States (France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain) were
tagged with electronic ear tag, bolus and injectable transponders. The recovery of
these devices in slaughterhouses was given extra attention due to the popularity of
bolus over other types of transponders. The project revealed that bolus losses were
low and the possibility of boluses entering the food chain was low as they were easily
recovered from the carcass. Results from IDEA project yield information about the
usefulness of the various electronic devices to combat fraudulent applications for
subsidies and to identify and administer livestock throughout the course of their
lives with precision.
Results of EU studies
On the basis of the three projects outlined above the EU has concluded that
electronic identification using passive RFID transponders is a reliable method for
the control and automatic registration of cattle. The IDEA project demonstrated that
substantial improvements in livestock identification can be achieved through the use
of electronic identification methods.
Component Details
System type Mandatory
Date of full implementation In force
Depth 3 to 4
Breadth 2 to 3
Precision 2 to 3
Total score 7 to 10
3.5.7 New Zealand
New Zealand beef exports in 2004 were worth USD $1.13 billion (Meat Industry
Association of New Zealand, 2004)18.
The compulsory national animal identification system (introduced on 1 July 1999) is
operated by the New Zealand Animal Health Board (AHB) as part of the National
Pest Management Strategy for tuberculosis. Under this scheme only ISO-approved
bar-coded ear tags are permitted and all cattle and deer over 1 month of age are
required to be identified with an identifier and herd number. All movements of
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 35 of 82
cattle and deer over 1 month of age are recorded on Animal Status Declaration
forms.
Details of New Zealand farms and livestock are held in two databases: details of
farm locations are held in AgriBase (Sanson and Pearson 1997)19 whereas details of
stock numbers present at each farm location are held in the National Livestock
Database (NLDB). AgriQuality (a state-owned enterprise) are contracted by the
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to maintain both Agribase and the NLDB.
Active management of bovine tuberculosis by the AHB has meant that the data in
both AgriBase and in NLDB is both used and actively updated.
The NLDB maintains a tag registry identifying all tag numbers created for beef cattle
and deer herds. Dairy herds that participate in herd recording schemes provided by
Livestock Improvement Corporation identify and tag animals using a unique
identifier system specific to that system. Details of dairy animals are recorded in the
MINDA database, maintained by Livestock Improvement Corporation.
Traceability from slaughter plant to export is carried out using Electronic
Certification (E-cert). Electronic certification is a tool used by the New Zealand Food
Safety Authority to provide assurances that products received by an importing
country comply with their standards. This is achieved by tracking the market
eligibility and product status from the time of production until export and the
approving of an Export certificate.
The Hon. Jim Sutton speaking at Retail Meat Conference on 11 March 2005 stated
the following:
International trends have been for increasing use of animal identification systems,
many incorporating radio frequency devices, and the maintenance of electronic
databases to enable fast trace back of value for biosecurity, food safety and other
commercial purposes. In New Zealand, we have no national animal identification
system for livestock. We do have several ad hoc animal identification and
traceability systems in place, but they are often manual, or, if electronic, the
information cannot be readily shared. Internal demand for identification systems
has been growing. One concern has been that, while New Zealand can provide
adequate information on animals, the international demand for more stringent
systems is growing, based on a concept of ‘farm to fork’. Major trading partners,
including Australia, the United States, Japan, Canada and countries in the European
Union have, or are in the process of implementing, animal identification systems,
with the requirements for these to become mandatory across livestock sectors. An
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 36 of 82
animal identification working group, chaired by Jeff Grant of Meat and Wool New
Zealand, has been set up with representatives of the cattle, deer and meat processing
sectors, Federated Farmers, MAF and NZFSA. Currently, most government
traceability system requirements are on a grouped animal basis with individual farm
registration. New Zealand has the technologies for identification at an individual
animal level, not just an individual farm location. PPCS, a local export meat
processing and marketing company, is currently using DNA animal signature
identification. Technologies NZ Ltd is supporting this identification system. The
DNA signature is taken while the animal is complete, before cutting and boning
occurs. It is evident that a DNA signature linked to a database with country, farm,
feed, individual animal ID and animal health data will be the minimum
requirements in the near future for post-boning meat ‘production trays.’ A tray can
hold the same cut of meat but from different animal sources. The current New
Zealand AHB animal ID (barcode) method does not provide for absolute tray
traceability in situations where there are cuts from different animals included on the
one tray. EID will enable DNA signatures to be electronically linked to a database
with absolute accuracy and this is vital for food chain traceability. The electronic
linkage can then extend back from the consumer purchasing the product to the
marketer, to the processing factory to the farm and to the individual animal. Such a
system would meet the consumer requirement for ‘farm to fork’ identification. IFMS
could provide the foundation to satisfy consumer traceability requirements totally,
now and in the future.
An industry-led working group, chaired by Jeff Grant of Meat and Wool New
Zealand, began in 2004. It includes representatives of the cattle, deer and meat
processing sectors, Federated Farmers, MAF and NZFSA. The working group is now
ready to consult with its wider membership and to draw in the other animal
livestock sectors. It has been developing a set of guiding principles on animal
identification and traceability.
Worldwide New Zealand is perceived as having a good track record in traceability,
FSA (2002)20 reported “New Zealand and Switzerland are world leaders in the
tracking of animals with the link between individual animal identification and a
spatial GIS database of holdings resulting in a spatial as well as informational trace
of an animal from birth to slaughterhouse”.
RFID tags are available in New Zealand and there has been some voluntary uptake
(e.g. Smart-Track)21.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 37 of 82
Component Details
System type Mandatory
Date of full implementation In force
Depth 3 to 4
Breadth 2 to 3 (if combine databases)
Precision 3
Total score 8 to10
3.5.8 United States of America
The USA is both the largest exporter and importer of beef and veal products in the
world. Before 23 December 2003, when the first case of BSE was confirmed in
Washington State, federal authorities did not have a mandatory policy for using
traceability to prevent or diminish the impact of animal health or food safety
hazards.
In 2004 Golan et al.22 reported the existence of several beef traceability systems in
the USA. Though state authorities have promoted some, they have been mainly
private and market driven. Traceability has also been mentioned in connection with
requirements for Country of Origin Labelling (COOL) for beef, other meats, fruit,
and vegetables that are a part of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of
2002. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has proposed guidelines but final
regulations have not been issued and recently the US congress approved a 2-year
moratorium on this legislation. Furthermore, while the proposed COOL system
would track country of origin, enabling retailers to adequately label products it
would not provide traceability that could link a particular animal or product through
the supply chain. In fact, Section 282, (f), (1) of the COOL legislation states that
mandatory identification systems are prohibited.
The cases of BSE in North America have changed the US government’s perspective
on traceability. On 30 December 2003 Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman
announced that the USDA will begin immediate implementation of a verifiable
system of national animal identification that will be uniform and consistent across
the country. A team of experts representing industry and state and federal
authorities worked on a proposal for the creation of the United States Animal
Identification Plan (USAIP). This effort was initially led by the National Institute for
Animal Agriculture and is now led by the National Identification Development
Team. The USAIP defines the standards and framework for implementing and
maintaining a phased-in National Animal Identification System (NAIS)23 for the
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 38 of 82
USA. It is not clear whether the system will be voluntary or mandatory (Clapp
2003)24.
There are currently no mandatory beef traceability systems in the USA. However,
private, voluntary traceability systems are widespread throughout industry (Golan
et al. 2003)25. In August 2003, the USDA launched the voluntary Beef Export
Verification (BEV) program that assures Asian buyers that products shipped
overseas come from animals that were slaughtered in the United States. Under this
program the Agricultural Marketing Service of the USDA conducts process
verification audits for operators eligible to export to Japan under the program.
Before the ban on US beef to Japan (December 2003) beef exports to Japan from
the USA were estimated to be worth USD $1.7 billion in 2003. Talks are currently
underway to resume exports to Japan (see the Embassy of the United States of
America in Japan web site for further details)26. Overall interest in traceability
systems is growing throughout the supply chain, particularly for the export market
and for serving specific consumer segments within the USA.
The goal of the NAIS is to be able to identify all animals and premises that have had
contact with a foreign or domestic animal disease of concern within 48 hours
following discovery. As an information system that provides for rapid tracing of
infected and exposed animals during an outbreak situation, the NAIS will help limit
the scope of such outbreaks and ensure that they are contained and eradicated as
quickly as possible. In May 2005 the USDA published a strategy paper on the
National Animal Identification System web site. The paper proposes a four-year
timeline for NAIS implementation, as follows:
Table 6: Proposed timeline for the implementation o f the NAIS in the USA, 2005 – 2009.
Year Objective
2005 Premises registration operational in all states by July 2005. Initiate animal identification number (AIN) system with tag manufacturers and managers by August 2005. Test animal tracking and automated data collection technologies throughout the year.
2006 25% of all premises to be registered by April 2006. AIN management system fully operational. Interstate Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (ICVI) operational in all states by July 2006. Focus on integration of management systems to forward animal locations/sightings.
2007 Premises registration ‘alert’ in April 2007 to create awareness of 2008 deadline. Animal identification alert in April 2007 to create awareness of 2008 deadline. Incentives instituted in April 2007 to report interstate movements of animals using ICVI or electronic movement permit system. Infrastructure established in October to collect animal termination records at high capacity slaughterhouses.
2008 All premises registered with enforcement by January 2008. Animal
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 39 of 82
identification required with enforcement by January 2008. Collect high percentage of animal termination records at processing plants by July 2008. Collection and reporting of all defined animal movements by July 2008.
2009 Enforcement for reporting of animal movements by January 2009. NAIS fully implemented; all components mandatory.
Component Details
System type Voluntary at present
Date of full implementation Mandatory by 2009
Depth 3
Breadth 2 to 3
Precision 3
Total score 8 to 9
3.5.9 Uruguay
Uruguay’s beef exports continue to rise from 318,000 tons in 2003 (worth USD
$379 million) to 404,000 tons (worth USD $625 million) in 2004 (INAC)27.
Uruguay has had an individual traceability system for exports to the EU since 2001.
The Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries (MGAP) has the primary
responsibility of administering animal and plant health programs in Uruguay. The
General Directorate of Livestock Services (DGSG) regulates and administers animal
health programs. The department consists of four divisions: Division of Animal
Health (DSA), Control of Stocks and Animal Movement (DICOSE), Veterinary
Laboratories (DILAVE), and Animal Industry (DIA). The mission of the DGSG is to
prevent, control, and eradicate animal diseases, protect public health and food
safety, and to provide expert advice and support to international trade of livestock
products.
The Uruguayan system of traceability related to meat and meat products is handled
by DGSG through two of its divisions, DICOSE and DIA. DICOSE was formed in
1973 and its duties were established by Law No 14, 165 of 1974. The main duties of
DICOSE are:
♦ To control the stocks and movement of cattle, sheep, pigs, and horses
throughout the country.
♦ To control the system of brands and marks.
♦ To control stocks of hides and wool and their movement throughout the
country.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 40 of 82
Through DICOSE, farmers are given a code consisting of a region number, a police
station number, and a farm number. Every time an animal is moved, bought, or
sold, the movement must be recorded and the animal accompanied by its
paperwork. The system is similar to having a passport. Police sign all sales
documentation, with copies, going to the seller, the buyer, the Ministry, and the
police. Ministry inspectors check all trucks and documentation at each slaughter
plant before unloading, and farmers are audited at random every year.
With DICOSE Uruguay was one of the first countries in the world to be able to trace
animals back to their origins, and the Ministry could use the system to ensure that
farmers and slaughter plants were complying with sanitary requirements. Once
animals reach the carcass disassembly stage, however, it is virtually impossible to
track each cut because of multiple cutting lines in most plants. Thus, while an
individual cut cannot be traced back to an individual animal, it can be traced to a
specific lot number. On 28 June 2004 Scanvaegt (Denmark)28 signed a multi-
million Euro agreement with the government of Uruguay to supply the country’s 38
cattle slaughterhouses with state-of-the-art traceability equipment. This project was
due to be concluded in June 2005 (www.scanvaegt.com). The Scanvaegt system
should enable all 38 slaughterhouses to be online with the National Meat Institute
(INAC), which will be able to register not only all in-going cattle but also every cut of
meat from each.
Product differentiation is recognised as a key factor in enhancing demand for
Uruguayan beef in export markets. In 2001, the National Meat Institute (INAC)
developed the ‘Certified Natural Meat Program of Uruguay’, with the objective of
differentiating and increasing consumer confidence in Uruguayan meat products.
The program involves international certification of compliance with various
protocols in both the animal production and industrial phases of meat production.
In August 2004, the USDA announced that Uruguay’s Certified Natural Meat
Program’ was ‘process verified.’ The main components of the Certified Natural Meat
Program of Uruguay are food safety, traceability, animal welfare and environmental
sustainability. These are expressed in the following claims made for animals
marketed under the program:
♦ Source verification of animals and products. All cattle can be fully traced
from farm to harvest, fabrication and packaging. Identification of animals is
by means of individual plastic ear tags.
♦ No growth hormones of any kind have ever been administered. Growth
hormones have been prohibited in Uruguay since 1984.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 41 of 82
♦ Not in-feed antibiotics. No sub-therapeutic antibiotics have been fed or
administered as a supplement in feed or water for the purpose of growth
promotion.
♦ No in-feed animal proteins. Animals have never been fed proteins of animal
origin except maternal milk. The use of animal proteins in feed has been
prohibited in Uruguay since 1996.
♦ Grass fed. All animals in the program have been grown, raised and fattened
on pasture. Restricted supplementation is accepted to support grazing.
♦ Animals never confined. Animals have never been confined to yards or
feedlots at any time in their lives, and are raised grazing open pastures year
round.
The Certified Natural Meat Program is voluntary: members (producers and
slaughterhouses) join with the objective of adding value to their product.
Independent certification firms verify that members are in compliance with protocol
claims and thus certification involves the entire production chain from animal
production to meat cutting, packing and labeling. The country brand is “Uruguay
Certified Natural Beef” and the label is the intellectual property of INAC and its use
is granted subject to endorsement of the accredited certifying firm.
Certification under this program links the product with its country of origin and
essentially attempts to establish Uruguayan beef as a brand identity (similar to that
of New Zealand lamb). Ultimately, the intent is to certify that the whole country
conforms to a process of producing high quality grass-fed beef.
In March 2005 researchers at the Technological Laboratory of Uruguay announced
that they had developed a DNA testing technique that can determine the tenderness
of meat by measuring the bovine calpain gene (Lewis 2005)29. In order to justify the
cost, DNA testing will be limited at first to producers that supply premium export
markets, and particularly to meat destined for the EU under the Hilton Quota
system.
The National System of Livestock Identification, which is the prime sponsor of
individual traceability, estimates that one million Uruguayan cattle will be included
in the individual traceability system by the end 2005 (Lewis 2005)30.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 42 of 82
Component Details
System type Mandatory (for export)
Date of full implementation In force
Depth 4 to 5 (for export)
Breadth 4 to 5 (Uruguay Certified Natural Beef)
Precision 2 to 3
Total score 10 to 13
3.6 References
1 Dickinson DL, Bailey DV (2002) Meat Traceability: Are U.S. Consumers Willing To Pay For
It? Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 27(2): 348-364.
2 Golan E, Krissoff B, Kuchler F, Calvin L, Nelson K, Price G (2004) Traceability in the U.S.
food supply: Econmoic theory and industry studies. Agricultural Econmic Report Number
830, Econmoic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AER830/ . Last accessed 27 July 2005
3 Souza-Monteiro DM, Caswell JA (2004) The Economics of Implementing Traceability in
Beef Supply Chains: Trends in Major Producing and Trading Countries. Department of
resource Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
http://www.umass.edu/resec/workingpapers/resecworkingpaper2004-6.pdf . Last accessed
27 July 2005
4 Moe T (1998) Perspectives on traceability in food manufacture. Trends in Food Science &
Technology 9: 211-214.
5 Lewis S (2005) EU Inspectors scrutinise Argentine meat traceability. Food Traceability
Report 5:6
6 Meat and Livestock Australia (2005) Fast Facts: Australia’s Beef Industry.
http://www.mla.com.au/uploads/templates/publicationspdf/Beef_fastfacts_04.pdf. Last
accessed 17 June 2005.
7 Spence S, Murison R, Harden S (1998) Rate of decline of chlorfluazuron concentration in
the fat of cattle. Australian Veterinary Journal 76(1), 54 – 56.
8 Anon (1999) News Note: Endosulfan Residues in Australian Beef. Global Pesticide
Campaigner 9(1), 28 http://panna.org/resources/gpc/gpc_199904.09.1.pdf Last accessed 26
July 2005.
9 Food Traceability Report (11 October 2004) Australia’s livestock traceability scheme gets
ISO certification. 4:41
http://www.foodtraceabilityreport.com/ejournals/issues/view_issue.asp?asection=1066&vo
l=4&issue=41. Last accessed 21 June 2005.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 43 of 82
10 Lewis S (2005a) Brazil backs away from mandatory livestock traceability Food Traceability
Report 5:1.
Lewis S (2005b) Brazilian officials propose new cattle ID system Food Traceability Report
5:6.
11 Lewis S (2005c) EU cools toward Brazilian livestock traceability Food Traceability Report
5:7
12 Canada’s Beef Industry Fast Facts: http://www.beefinfo.org/pdf/CBIFF_P.pdf. Last
accessed 17 June 2005.
13 Binkley A (2003) Canadian BSE Incident Highlights Trace Back Importance. Food
Traceability Report 3: 6 – 7.
http://www.foodtraceabilityreport.com/ejournals/issues/issue_km.asp?cf=periodicals/1065
/V3.I9.20030901.A99FB239-B5D4-4331-8812-C3D6E48F9E2E.pdf. Last accessed 21 June
2005.
14 Caswell JA, Sparling D (2004) Risk Management in the Integrated NAFTA Market:
Lessons from the Case of BSE: http://naamic.tamu.edu/cancun/caswell.pdf. Last accessed 7
July 2005.
15 Lawrence JD, Strohbehn D, Loy DD, Clause RJ (2003) Lessons Learned from the
Canadian Cattle Industry: National Animal Identification and the Mad Cow. MATRIC
Research Paper 03 -MRP 7 October 2003:
http://www.card.iastate.edu/publications/DBS/PDFFiles/03mrp7.pdf. Last accessed 17
June 2005.
16 Servicio Agricola y Ganadero (2005)
http://www.trazabilidad.sag.gob.cl/Bovina/Menu/Normativa/Documentos/Doc_Ingles/ma
nual_traza_ingles2enero.pdf. Last accessed 30 June 2005.
17 IDEA project final report:
http://idea.jrc.it/pages%20idea/index%20of%20final%20report.htm. Last accessed 7 July
2005.
18 Meat Industry Association of New Zealand Annual Report 2004.
http://www.mia.co.nz/pdf_files/2004/MIA%20Annual%20Report%202004%20-
%201MB.pdf. Last accessed 22 June 2005.
19 Sanson R, Pearson A (1997) AgriBase – A national spatial farm database. In: Proceedings
of the 8th International Symposium on Veterinary Epidemiology and Economics, Paris, pp.
12.16.11 – 12.16.13.
20 Traceability in the Food Chain A preliminary study (2002) FSA
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/traceabilityinthefoodchain.pdf
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 44 of 82
Last accessed on 26 July 2005
21 Smart-Track: http://www.smart-track.co.nz/animal_tracking.html#. Last accessed 21
June 2005.
22 Golan E, Krissoff B, Kuchler F, Calvin L, Nelson K, Price G (2004) Traceability in the US
Food Supply: Economic Theory and Industry Studies. Economic Research Service, US
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Economic Report No. 830.
23 National Animal Identification System web site: www.usda.gov/nais. Last accessed 21
June 2005.
24 Clapp S (2003b) USDA Launches Beef Export Verification Program. Food Traceability
Report:
http://www.foodtraceabilityreport.com/ejournals/issues/issue_km.asp?cf=periodicals/1065
/V3.I9.20030901.A99FB239-B5D4-4331-8812-C3D6E48F9E2E.pdf. Last accessed 21 June
2005.
25 Golan E, Krissoff B, Kuchler F, Nelson K, Price G, Calvin L (2003) Traceability in the US
Food Supply: Dead End or Superhighway. Choices 17 – 20.
26 Embassy of the United States of America, Japan. What is the Beef Export Verification
Program (BEV)? http://japan.usembassy.gov/e/p/tp-20041112-80.html. Last accessed 21
June 2005.
27 National Meat Institute INAC: http://www.inac.gub.uy/inacingles/exportacionf.htm. Last
accessed 8 July 2005.
28 Scanvaegt: http://www.scanvaegt.com/default.asp?ID=3694 Last accessed 26 July 2005
29 Lewis S (2005) Livestock traceability gains momentum in Paraguay, Uruguay. Food
Traceability Report 5:4.
30 Lewis S (2005) Chile links meat traceability and quality certification Food Traceability
Report 5:5.
4 Market Perceptions
Leith Pemberton, Leith Pemberton & Associates Limited
4.1 Introduction
Safety has become one of the highest priorities in the food market globally. This
follows recent health scares such as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
(“mad cow disease”) and avian influenza (“bird flu”), the spread of foot and mouth
disease and grave concerns about dioxin contamination.
Food related health risks will continue to rise and are compounded by the issues of
food borne illness, genetically modified foods and threats of bio-terrorism in the
food chain. Due to the supply chain’s global nature, security and traceability have
become prominent international food chain issues.
In response to the greater perceived risks associated with food there are growing
lists of both legislative and consumer requirements with which suppliers to the food
chain must comply; the first list relates to market access, the second to market
acceptance.
4.2 Legislative Requirements
Legislative requirements are driven by both biosecurity, and by a desire to ensure
that products meet consumers perceived needs of safety and quality.
4.2.1 European Union (EU) Regulation
The dioxin contamination of poultry feed in Belgium in 2004, finally spurred the EU
into implementing the General Food Law, effective January 1st 2005. This meant
that all stakeholders within the food supply chain must now comply with the EU
general product safety directive (2001/95/EC1) and the regulation (EC 178/20022).
Within the EU groups have formed to respond to the challenges of meeting the
requirements of these new regulations.
EUfoodtrace
EUfoodtrace3 is the European Commission ‘action project organisation whose
primary objective is to develop a practical framework for traceability of food within
the EU organization’. The organisation is charged to develop this practical
framework for traceability of food and develop a framework to plan, model, validate
and implement the traceability system. As from January 1st 2005, regulation
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 46 of 82
178/2002/EC2 on General Food Law will require food and drink manufacturers to
trace products ‘one step up and one step down’.
ECR Europe
ECR Europe, consisting of retailers and manufacturers, has worked on a best
practice book, entitled “Using traceability in the supply chain to meet consumer
safety expectations.”4
“The booklet offers best practices and key business rules – the do’s and don’ts – of
tracking and tracing. With the emergence of international trade, it is important to
use one language to identify unique production locations, products, series, lots,
pallets. The same accounts for the language to communicate this downstream, to
clients.”5
Despite having guidelines for best practice, there is a widely held view that
manufacturers could be underestimating the scope of the legislation implemented
for the complexity of the traceability processes required. During production,
ingredients go through a transformation, pass through different vessels in the
factory and come into contact with different people. It’s not just a case of tracking
raw ingredients being delivered and products going out; it is tracking the complete
“genealogy” of created products.
There is a perception – yet to be tested – that if companies already meet high level
BRC or EFSIS standards, they automatically comply with the law. The new
legislation stipulates that companies should be able to access traceability evidence
‘on demand’.
4.2.2 USA Regulation
The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) meets the concerns of reliability, security
and accountability for the USA. The requirements of 21 CFR part 11 deal with
security, e-signatures, and records management.
The Meat and Poultry Products Traceability and Safety Act of 2003 (108 congress
US1202 and US3546) are the relevant traceability jurisdiction documents currently
administered by the CFR.
4.2.3 Impact of Regulation on NZ Exporters Costs
New Zealand exporters are currently getting to grips with New Zealand legislation in
progress – the new Border Security Bill6 – that specifically deals with the
introduction of more stringent security measures by the US authorities in December
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 47 of 82
2003. This will directly add an estimated $600 to each shipment in New Zealand
Customs and other charges.
Through the Meat Industry Association, the meat industry is coordinating efforts to
avoid duplication and to ensure business compliance costs are minimised. These are
core attributes required for an industry traceability system.
4.3 Market Perceptions
4.3.1 Overview
Approximately one-third of global meat exports, or 6 million tonnes, is affected by
animal disease outbreaks as reported by Meat International 20047.
With the value of global meat and live animal trade estimated at US$33b (excluding
EU intra-trade), this could amount to world trade-losses of up to US$10b, if import
bans extend throughout 2004. Trade losses will likely accrue for the 12 countries
that are facing export bans or market constraints as a result of animal disease
concerns related to avian influenza and BSE.
4.3.2 BSE and Avian flu
The US and Canada account for more than one-quarter of global beef exports
(around 1.6 million tonnes, valued at approximately US$4b). US beef exports, after
reaching 1.2 million tonnes in 2003, are expected to drop to 100,000 tonnes in 2004
if bans remain for the entire year, according to USDA estimates.
As a result of poultry and beef import bans, FAO expects the demand for substitutes
such as pork to increase significantly. This is already visible in Japan, where
shortages of beef and chicken have led to pig meat prices surging 40% in February
following import bans on US beef and Asian poultry.
There are flow-on effects of these bans affecting consumption patterns in other
countries that are not directly affected by the bird flu. For example, chicken prices in
India dropped by one-third, fuelled by the Asia-wide concern over the disease. The
poultry industry was reportedly losing more than US$22m daily due to a crash in
demand for chicken and eggs.
US BSE Discovery
History was made when US secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman announced on
December 2003 that a possible case of BSE had been discovered on US soil. The
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 48 of 82
announcement of the first case of BSE in the United States caused disarray in the
international beef trade.
The immediate effect of the announcement caused most of its trading partners to
ban the import of all bovine products from the USA. With these measures the US
effectively lost 90% of its beef export market. Most of these loses came from Japan,
South Korea and Mexico, who in 2002 received 32%, 24% and 26% of America’s
beef exports respectively7.
Beef exporting companies suffered immediate losses as shipments already en-route
to trading countries were turned back without payment. The US Meat Export
Federation estimated this meat to be valued at around US$200 million.
Market Reactions to US BSE
In contrast to what happened in Europe, where demand fell by some 40% after the
discovery of mad cow disease, beef consumption in the US stayed stable.
Japan, South Korea and Mexico who relied heavily on the US for its beef imports,
now looked to other possible sources. Japan sent delegations to New Zealand and
Australia, who as recognised disease free status countries, increased trade directly as
a result of the USA BSE discovery.
Statistics from The New Zealand Meat Producer Jan-Mar 2004 indicate that US
consumers spend over US$879 billion a year on food and the market is worth
US$2.7 billion FOB to New Zealand’s food and beverage exporting sector8. New
Zealand meat and meat products are one of the main exports – worth NZ$1.1 billion
FOB in the year ending June 2003.
Even before the BSE case, enhanced security arrangements, mandatory country-of-
origin labelling (MCOOL), Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and obesity were four
major issues lying ahead for New Zealand’s meat producers and exporters servicing
the US market.
Canada BSE Impacts
On May 20, 2003, BSE disease was reported in one cow in Alberta. Canada. On
December 23, 2003 another BSE case was reported in the state of Washington in the
United States (Meat International, 20059).
These developments had major repercussions for the North American beef markets.
Specifically, lost export opportunities impacted trade, slaughter, consumption,
prices and production of cattle and beef in the Canadian markets.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 49 of 82
Reduced access to foreign markets – particularly to the US from Canada – led to a
large drop in Canadian exports. The recovery has been limited to beef as the
continuing US import ban has meant that live cattle exports remain virtually non-
existent. This is an opportunity that NZ and Australia have both capitalised on in the
Chinese market particularly, where Canada has a significant animal genetics and
dairy technology presence. Developing effective animal traceability would help
ensure NZ maintains this current short term serendipity opportunity, where other
attributes of NZ cattle are permanently valued.
Canadian BSE Outcomes
Beef consumption in Canada increased by close to 6% in 2003. The large gain was
aided by low beef prices and various promotions mounted by the industry to rid the
market of excess supplies
Cattle prices plunged following BSE discovery. Prices were roughly 50% below
average levels in the first four months of 2003. In light of the reduction in access to
foreign markets and declining prices, the production of cattle and calves also fell
markedly. Farm cash receipts for the third quarter of 2003 were 60% lower than a
year earlier.
Receipts might have been lower had it not been for government support programs
that helped to underpin cattle prices and output. NZ abolished agricultural support
programmes in the 1980’s, unlike the USA and Canada who still have significant
farm subsidy programs.
The discovery of BSE has had a devastating impact upon the cattle sector in Canada.
Cattle producers have been hit by lower output, weaker prices, and narrowing
margins.
An integrated traceability system would reduce the financial risk to NZ Agricultural
produce (NZ$15.2 billion exports) whereby any international trading stand down
period due to animal disease notification would be minimised by a fully integrated,
computer based traceability system.
The longer term viability of the sector will also be dependent on the degree to which
international consumers remain confident in the beef supply. This will be impacted
by a greater public awareness about the disease along with the perception that
Canadian and US risk mitigation systems are reliable.
The ability for NZ to learn from the Canadian and USA experiences and then
collaborate with an appropriate solution would seem an appropriate activity for any
NZ traceability initiative to further investigate.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 50 of 82
4.4 Consumer role in traceability
4.4.1 Overview
In response to growing consumer concerns about food safety in recent years, both
industry and the public authorities have developed quality and safety assurance
systems (Bredahl et al., 200110). Meat safety crises of recent years led consumers to
rethink their attitudes and behaviour with regard to meat consumption (Burton and
Young, 199611; Buzby, 200112). The emerging issues related problems pertain to
different stages of livestock production and the meat supply chain. Such a changing
environment offers opportunities for producers, who manage to add value to their
products through adapted competitive strategies.
The results from the NZ meat processors involved in this study confirm this concept,
however these added values require a platform of information to interface with the
consumer who ultimately determines “the value”, otherwise the new feature can
become a cost only to the producer in the value chain.
UK retail giant Sainsbury, for example, has introduced and promoted greater
transparency across its organic food chain supply, enabling customers to trace the
origin of all its domestic and worldwide organic produce back to the farm on which
it was grown. New Zealand lamb suppliers who have developed direct relationships
with these retail chains are worthy of farm review, to determine the level of
information these proactive food chain retailers require. The retail power that these
food suppliers hold by effective “safe food branding” cannot be overemphasized
within the food chain.
In the US, clean green organic is now an approximately $8bn industry with a large
and devoted consumer base supported by powerful food supply distribution agents
such as Whole Food Supermarkets in New York (Leith Pemberton & Associates visit
Oct 2004).
Shoppers (devotees) of the Whole Food Supermarket network have allowed their
food safety consumer concerns to be “left at the door “As they enter a store these
devotees have unconsciously moved their trust to the supermarket produce buyers.
There is an expectation of complete food safety satisfaction (branding) by the
supermarket for their consumer clients. This is achieved by the supermarket buyers
only having contracts with suppliers, whose food meets or exceeds the supermarkets
supply side standards. Whole Food Supermarkets control and deliver products
within a fully accountable food chain.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 51 of 82
Food safety perception differs between countries (Patterson, 199013; Henson and
Traill, 200014; Buzby, 200112). Consequently, consumer concerns and acceptance of
measures to monitor food safety can be expected to differ.
Although safety issues and safety-related research are strongly intertwined with
traceability, for the most part they have not focused specifically on tracking meat
from the producer to consumer.
Wilson and Clarke (1998)15 and Jack et al. (1998)16 define traceability as the
information necessary to describe the production history of a food crop and any
subsequent transformation or process the crop might undergo on its journey from
the grower to the consumer’s plate.
The development of traceability systems have gained momentum largely as a result
of changes at the consumer level (Downey 199617), and received further impetus
through the rapid development of hardware, software and information technology
since then.
Still the greatest single driving force is considered to be consumers’ increasing
health and safety consciousness. This dates back to work done by (Downey, 199617;
Palmer, 199618; Meulenberg, 199719; Viaene et al. 199820; Northen, 200021; Bredahl
et al., 200110).
In the decade since these consumer traceability characteristics were first researched,
there continues to be a growing need for high integrity food data information. This
process is necessary to allow food trace back, to support a growing food safety
conscious consumer, who are now so well informed in other facets of their life that
they also expect food safety assurance with these consumable products.
Today’s traceability systems (e.g. Sanitel in Belgium) are still basically concerned
with animal health, disease and food safety control. However, they are gradually
extending into proactive management and marketing tools, either through the
feedback of information upstream or the labelling schemes with the traceability
system as backbone. In this way Sanitel enabled producers to comply with the
earlier compulsory EU beef and veal labelling regulations (EC 1760/2000 and EC
1825/2000).
Although the key issues of traceability are reasonably straightforward, their
implementation is complicated, primarily by the number of levels within the chain
and the numbers of producers supplying the chain (Timon and O’Reilly, 199822). A
further obstacle to installing traceability systems is the low degree of vertical
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 52 of 82
integration in certain livestock and meat chains in specific countries or regions
(Porin and Mainsant, 199823).
There is potential for traceability to delivery benefits at several levels in the supply
chain. Improved product traceability is considered an asset by the food industry,
since it provides opportunities through adding value by raising entry barriers to
restore consumer confidence in food safety (Fearne, 199824). It should also help
reduce production and transaction costs.
Economic benefits of the system include increased efficiencies and savings in several
areas: reduced disease levels, reduced compensation payments, and more efficient
allocation of testing resources. While the fact that traceability involves costs is
generally acknowledged (Calder and Marr, 199825; Hobbs and Young, 200026), there
is no mention of the level, quantification or distribution of these costs among chain
participants.
Such quantification is being developed in the case of genetically modified (GM)
foods. Huffman et al. (2001)27 have estimated that consumers are willing to pay
about a 14% premium for food they perceive as non-GM. This perception could
change with increasing development of GM foods with reduced susceptibility to air
borne diseases and increased shelf life due to genetic bacteria fighting capability or
processing improvements.
4.4.2 The Belgium Study
Meat traceability systems are being established and expanded in many European
countries, with the aim of restoring consumer confidence in meat quality and safety.
A study published in 200428 performed an analysis of cross-sectional consumer data
collected from a sample of 170 meat consumers in Belgium in June 2001. There was
a gender distribution of 60% female, 40% male respondents in the sample, as the
respondents were the main person responsible for buying meat in the household. A
structured questionnaire was used to collect subjective information on personal
health, safety, healthiness, animal and environmental friendliness, price and
traceability.
Hierarchical cluster analysis was used to segment consumers into groups using
behavioural and personal characteristics, and then evaluate perception about
various quality characteristics.
The cluster analysis yielded a three-cluster solution, with segments denoted
enthusiasts, cautious and pessimists.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 53 of 82
Cautious consumers were the largest segment, 47.1% of the respondents. These
consumers consider the current quality of fresh meat to be safer and healthier than
the total sample mean.
The enthusiasts and the pessimists are similar in size, each constituting between
25% and 30% of the respondents. Enthusiasts score above average for all fresh meat
quality attributes except price, while pessimists score below average for all attributes
and give an extremely low score for the healthiness of meat compared to five years
earlier.
The following statements were evaluated:
Process Attributes:
♦ I have access to information regarding the medical treatment of the animal;
♦ I can check the animal production method;
♦ I can check the origin of the product (region, farmer, and slaughterhouse);
♦ I can check the meat packaging date;
♦ I have access to information regarding the health record of the animal.
Functional Attributes:
♦ Organisations responsible for monitoring public health can intervene in the
event of a problem in the meat chain (e.g. dioxin scare: only contaminated
products are removed from the shelves, not all products);
♦ In the case of abuses, individuals responsible can be clearly identified and
held accountable;
♦ The meat chain (from animal feed to the consumer’s plate) can be organised
more efficiently to further reduce costs.
The functional attributes of meat products are all, (bar one characteristic – supply
chain cost efficiency), more important to consumers than meat process attributes.
Extensions with respect to process attributes, such as production methods, are less
relevant to the broad public and only interest specific market segments. The
introduction of traceability is regarded as the most urgent in the case of meat
mixtures.
Despite the fact that the pessimists consume meat the least frequently, they regard
the introduction of traceability in the meat chain as the most urgent, meaning that
traceability could be an answer to their concerns. Traceability might contribute to
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 54 of 82
increased meat consumption (and hence an expanded market selling opportunity)
within this segment.
4.4.3 Consumer requirements
The consumer is not able to find out enough about the quality of food by looking at
it, smelling, and feeling it.
The consumer must trust the authorities to have a set of regulations and controls
that can provide sufficient safety and security. For the consumer, it is assumed that
there is confidence in the experts’ evaluation of risk, which is the basis for quality.
There are strong indications that consumers also place great emphasis on factors
other than price when they choose their food products. For example, they may
consider their own health, nature and the environment, or the health and welfare of
animals. What may appear to be irrational from a purely economic point of view
may be quite rational in relation to these other factors. A traceability system must be
able to deliver these currently known and future unknown consumer requirements.
Economic theories of rationality do not lend themselves to explaining and
understanding consumers’ choices of food. Interpretation of the concept of
consumer interest must include environmental and ethical dimensions in addition
to more individually oriented interests such as price, quality and healthier to the
consumer’s plate.
4.5 NZ Customers Study
A NZ Customer study was carried out by Leith Pemberton & Associates Limited
during the preparation of this report.
4.5.1 Methodology
Nine New Zealand food product companies, were solicited by telephone, then
delivered a follow up market research questionnaire, to provide information on
traceability within their sphere of the industry. The questionnaire provided was then
returned by e mail. The companies included meat processors, wholesalers and
retailers in the supply chain.
The questionnaire topics included:
Section Topic Questionnaire Page
Section One Company Profile Page 2
Section Two: Quality Control / Assurance Page 6
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 55 of 82
Section Three Business Competencies Page 7
Section Four Manufacturing Competencies Page 10
Section Five: Impediments to Industry Growth Page 12
The following New Zealand based companies were approached:
♦ Progressive Enterprises (Foodtown, Countdown),
♦ Foodstuffs (New World, Pak N Save),
♦ Resuaurant Brands (KFC),
♦ ANZCO Canterbury Meat Packers,
♦ Huttons,
♦ Hullabys,
♦ Mainland Products,
♦ PPCS,
♦ Verkerks
4.5.2 Responses
While the number of companies targeted was relatively small statistically, the
information received was of fundamental market value.
There was a concern at the initial telephone interaction component of the research
to disclose any traceability information to a Government / industry investigation.
This was born out with the lack of fully completed responses and their unwillingness
to supply traceability information that the companies generally regarded as
“confidential company marketing information”.
While the scope of this investigation did not allow personal 1:1 interviews to be
developed ( time and cost) this personal interview approach will be required to
substantiate traceability procedures and project recommendations within the NZ
meat industry participants in the future.
4.5.3 Results of the NZ Survey
1. Product diversification was noted as a high future business requirement by
80% of the responses. This was anticipated to be achieved by generating new
meat products with new technologies including a traceability capability
within their own businesses.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 56 of 82
2. Food traceability was regarded by 90% of the responses as an “opportunity
to develop new markets” and currently regarded as a differentiated
marketing position from other NZ meat exporting competitors.
3. An appropriately written RMP (risk management programme) was the
primary local quality assurance control for incoming and outgoing meat
goods.
4. The USDA was regarded as the key international regulatory body of the meat
export businesses surveyed.
The major impediment identified to food traceability in the NZ meat processing or
marketing industry was there was no perceived value proposition for New Zealand
farmers to currently implement an on farm system, which is fundamental for an
integrated traceability system.
4.6 References
1 Directive 2001/95/EC of The European Parliament And Of The Council of 3 December
2001, published in the Official Jounal of the European Communities 15.1.2002.
2 Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of The European Parliament And of The Council of 28
January 2002, published in the Official Journal of the European Communities 1.2.2002.
3 Website: www.eufoodtrace.org
4 ECR DACH, ECR France, ECR Spain, (2004): ECR Bluebook - Using Traceability in the
Supply Chain to meet Consumer Safety Expectations, (available at www.ecrnet.org).
5 Dariaius Battiwall :Are you on track (and trace)? November 2004
6 Border Security Bill (10 March 2004 No. 53-2), New Zealand Government (available at
www.knowledge-basket.co.nz)
7 MEAT International (2004), “Outbreaks hit global meat exports”.
8 The New Zealand Meat Producer , January-March 2004.
9 Meat International (2005)
10 Bredahl M E, Northen J R, Boecker A, Normille M A (2001): Consumer demand sparks the
growth of quality assurance schemes in the European food sector. In: Regmi A (Ed.):
Changing Structure of the Global Food Consumption and Trade. Market and Trade
Economics Division, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture and Trade
Report, WRS-01-1, May, pp90-102.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 57 of 82
11 Burton M, Young T (1996): The impact of BSE on the demand for beef and other meats in
Great Britain. Applied Economics 28, pp687-693.
12 Buzby J C (2001): Effects of Food Safety Perceptions on Food Demand and Global Trade: .
In: Regmi A (Ed.): Changing Structure of the Global Food Consumption and Trade. Market
and Trade Economics Division, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture
and Trade Report, WRS-01-1, May, pp55-66.
13 Patterson E (1990) International efforts to minimize the adverse effects of national
sanitary and phytosanitary regulations. Journal of World Trade 24 (2) 93-102.
14 Henson S J, Traill W B (2000): Measuring perceived performance of the food-system and
food-related welfare. Journal of Agricultural Economics 51 (3) pp388-404.
15 Wilson N, Clarke S (1998): Food safety and traceability in the agricultural supply chain:
Using the Internet to deliver traceabilty. Supply Chain Management 3, pp127-133.
16 Jack D, Pardoe T, Ritchie C (1998): Scottish quality cereals and coastal grains: Combinable
crop assurance in action. Supply Chain Management 3, pp134-138.
17 Downey W (1996): The challenge of food and agri products supply chains. In: Trienekens
J, Zuurbier P (Eds.): Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Chain
Management in Agri- and Food Business. Agricultural University Wageningen, pp 3-13.
18 Palmer C (1996): Practical problems in building effective supply chain alliances. In:
Trienekens J, Zuurbier P (Eds.): Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Chain Management in Agri- and Food Business. Agricultural University Wageningen, pp
223-235.
19 Meulenberg M (1997): Evolution of agricultural marketing institutions: A channel
approach. In: Wierenga B, van Tilburg A, Grunert K, Steenkamp J-B, Wedel M (Eds.):
Agricultural marketing and consumer behavior in a changing world, Kluwer Academic,
Dordrecht, pp95-108.
20 Viaene J, Verbeke W, Gellynck X (1998): Chain behavior and chain reversal of the
processed vegetable chain. In: Ziggers G W, Trienekens J H, Zuurbier P J P (Eds.):
Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Chain Management in the
Agribusiness and Food Industry. Management Studies Group, Wageningen Agricultural
University, 28-29 May 1998, Ede, The Netherlands, pp159-168.
21 Northen J R (2000): Quality attributes and quality cues: Effective communication in the
UK meat supply chain. British Food Journal 102(3), pp230-245.
22 Timon D, O’Reilly S (1998): An evaluation of traceability systems along the Irish beef
chain. In: Viau C (Ed.): Long-term prospects for the beef industry, INRA, Ivry-sur-Seine, pp
219-225.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 58 of 82
23 Porin F, Mainsant P. (1998): Quelles stratégics pour les concurrents de la filière bovine
dans le contexte de l’après ESB? In: Viay, C (Ed.): Long-term prospects for the beef industry,
INRA, Ivry-sur-Seine, pp 125-135.
24 Fearne A (1998): Editorial. Supply Chain Management 3, 112-114.
25 Calder R, Marr P (1998): A beef producer initiative in traceability: Scottish Borders TAG.
Supply Chain Management 3, 123-126.
26 Hobbs J E, Young L M (2000): Closer vertical co-ordination in agri-food supply chains: A
conceptual framework and some preliminary evidence. Supply Chain Management 5 (3),
131-143.
27 Huffman W E, Shogren J F, Rousu M, Tegene A (2001): The value to consumers of GM
food labels in a market with asymmetric information: Evidence from experimental design.
Paper presented at the 5th International Conference of the International Consortium on
Agricultural Biotechnology Research (ICABR) on “Biotechnology, Science, and Modern
Agriculture: a New Industry at the Dawn of the Century”, Ravello, Italy, 15-18 June,
published at http://www.economia.uniroma2.it/conferenze/icabr/papers/.
28 Gellynck X, Verbeke W, and Vindarn J (2004), “Consumer Value of Traceability:
Opportunities for Market Orientation
5 ICT Opportunities
Jeremy White & Louise Hanlon, Rezare Systems Limited
5.1 Introduction
Any traceability system implemented by New Zealand is likely to need to be
compatible with our major importing countries’ domestic systems. The volume of
information required to be tracked and the level of its availability both in the sense
of time and in geography requires a technological solution.
When discussing a technology solution for improved traceability we are in fact
referring to an intersection of a variety of technologies in order to provide a suitable
solution. These technologies might be loosely divided into these different areas:
Identification methods (for example, tags), handheld and smart devices, software
and telecommunications. Each of these areas has specific limitations and benefits
for rural use.
Any specific mention of devices or brands in this section is intended to be
representative of what is currently available rather than a definitive list.
5.2 Identification Methods
The foundation of any traceability system is the ability to uniquely identify specific
animals. Historically this has been achieved through devices such as branding or
tattoos, and plastic or metal tags. More recent approaches include barcodes and
radio frequency identification (RFID). A number of biometric methods can also be
used for unique identification including retinal imaging and DNA fingerprinting.
A trial by Stanford et al in 20011 compared a number of different identification
methods. The results are shown in Table 7.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 60 of 82
Table 7 Comparison of identification methods for ca ttle and small ruminants
a) Failure to read due to loss or breakage
b) Reduced speed due to the requirements for cleaning prior to reading
Number of stars indicates superiority of method for that trait, as follows: **** high, *** intermediate, ** moderate, * low
Traditional ear tags are cost effective, but are prone to loss, are susceptible to fraud
and data is labour intensive to load into an electronic system. Biometric methods
offer certainty of identification, but are expensive and slow to process. Biometric
methods or tamper-proof boluses will be necessary for high-value animals, but are
unlikely to be used more widely at present.
RFID tags of various sorts are more expensive than traditional tags, but far quicker
and less laborious to load into an electronic system. Once there is a requirement to
enter data into an electronic system then the higher cost of RFID is justified due to
the savings in labour.
The following sections describe identification methods in more detail.
5.2.1 Brands and tattoos
Brands are not commonly used in New Zealand and are only practical in small
numbers of animals (e.g. thoroughbred horses) due to the time consuming nature of
their application. Hot-iron branding has been prohibited in the UK due to animal
welfare concerns, and less stressful identification alternatives such as de-pigmenting
compounds and freeze branding have been investigated.
Method Ease of application
Ease of reading
Success of reading (a)
Afford-ability
Data transfer speed
Protects from fraud
Protects from entry to food chain
Lack of pain/stress to animal
Ear tags
Plastic dangle **** *** ** **** * * **** ****
Plastic bar code **** * ** *** **(b) * **** ****
Metal ear clip **** ** *** **** * * **** ***
RFID **** **** *** ** **** * **** ****
Injectable transponder
Base of ear *** **** *** ** **** *** ** ***
Axilla ** **** *** ** **** *** * ***
Biometric
DNA fingerprinting *** * **** * * **** N/A ****
Retinal scanning ** *** **** * **** **** N/A ****
Other methods
Rumen bolus ** **** **** ** **** *** ** ***
Hot-iron brand ** ** **** **** * *** N/A **
Freeze brand ** ** ** *** * *** N/A **
Tattoo * ** ** **** * *** N/A **
Ear notch ** *** *** **** * *** N/A **
Photograph/sketch * * *** ** ** *** N/A ****
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 61 of 82
Tattoos (usually in the ear) are commonly used as permanent identification of pure-
bred cattle, sheep and goats. It is typically restricted to small herds and flocks due to
the laborious application process and difficulty in reading on darkly pigmented
ears1.
5.2.2 Plastic or metal tags
Plastic and metal tags are currently the most commonly used method of
identification in New Zealand. Plastic tags are cheap and easy to read, but are
susceptible to loss or fraud and are labour intensive in a situation where electronic
records need to be kept.
Metal ear clips have been widely used in cattle and small ruminants as a back up to
plastic tags, as these tags are less costly and resistant to loss from tearing than a
plastic tag. However, care must be taken during application, as excessive crimping of
the tag or a failure to allow room for ear growth has resulted in infections which
necessitated the removal of more than 10% of metal ear clips in a study involving
500 sheep in Scotland1.
If these remained the major methods of identification, the high labour cost of
manual data collection and retrieval would limit trace back to a single management
or marketing decision instead of addressing multiple issues such as growth
performance, animal health, genetic improvement and carcass quality.
5.2.3 Barcodes
Barcode style tags are currently required by the Animal Health Board as part of the
national tuberculoses control program. The ability to read the barcodes is affect by:
♦ quality of readers/scanners (ruggedness);
♦ direct sunlight;
♦ environmental conditions (i.e. cold, rain, etc.);
♦ dirt/manure contamination of tags;
♦ quality and size of bar codes;
♦ contrast between the bar code and the colour of the tag.
5.3 Radio Frequency Identification
A radio-frequency identification (RFID, also termed Electronic ID) system consists
primarily of the tag (or transponder) itself, which houses a unique ID number and
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 62 of 82
potentially other data; and the transceiver (or reader) that reads it. The reader then
sends the unique ID on to a data accumulator (e.g. laptop, handheld) or smart
device. These components are illustrated in Figure 3.
Advantages
♦ Reduced labour needed for recording through automation of tag reading;
♦ Reduction or elimination of human errors in reading tags; and
♦ A reduced need to physically handle the animals.
Disadvantages
♦ Most stock handling facilities will need to be adjusted to take advantage of
the technology;
♦ Tags can fall out, or be removed (as for all ear tag technologies);
♦ Readers must be within the recommended range and orientation in order to
read reliably;
♦ Despite Standards, not all tags, readers, and software are compatible, unless
they have been purchased from the same supplier (trials are necessary); and
♦ RFID tags are more expensive than standard ear tags.
Potential actions:•Screen id/alert•Automatic drafting of stock (e.g. on weight)
Computeriseddata
management
Transceivercontrol box
Antenna
Transponder
1. Antenna emits a signalwhich energises transponder
2. Energised transponder emits identifying signal
Potential actions:•Screen id/alert•Automatic drafting of stock (e.g. on weight)
Computeriseddata
management
Transceivercontrol box
Antenna
Transponder
1. Antenna emits a signalwhich energises transponder
2. Energised transponder emits identifying signal
Figure 3 Sample RFID system
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 63 of 82
Transponder — the tag or device containing the electronic ID. Transponders for
radio-frequency identification (RFID) can either be active (requiring a battery) or
passive. The Australian beef industry uses passive responders, which possess no
power source of their own. Instead, the energy provided by the transceiver (reader)
enables the transponder to emit a signal back to the transceiver. This means the tag
can last the lifetime of the animal.
Each transponder contains an integrated electronic circuit (the chip) and a
capacitor, which captures and uses energy from the transceiver in order to send a
signal back. Electronic circuits in the transponder can be programmed as read only
meaning that information contained in the chip can only be read. Chips can also be
programmed as read/write, which enables information to be added, warehoused
and transferred to them. Some circuits support a read only part and a read/write
part.
Transceiver — Also known as the reader or the interrogator, transceivers send an
energising radio signal to the transponder, and also act as a radio receiver to listen
for signals from transponders. Transceivers can be powered by batteries or plugged
into a traditional power supply.
The transceiver is either physically attached to a data accumulator such as laptop or
scale head (tethered) or may transmit data to the accumulator wirelessly.
Transceiver units usually comprise a transmitter/receiver, antennae, control unit,
power unit, coupling element and the interface to the data accumulator.
Transceiver antennae can be incorporated into hand-held units such as wands, or
within stationery units such as panel readers that read tags as livestock flow past.
Data Accumulator — any device such as a laptop computer, an electronic scale
head or a hand-held computer, that is capable of communicating with a transceiver
and accepting the information from it.
Software and Databases —link RFID codes to items or animals, store that
information, and enable decision making and data sharing. Data may be managed
locally, or transferred to third party databases to add value and avoid the costs of
local database maintenance.
RFID tags can be used in a number of forms: as an ear tag, necklace, or leg band; as
an injectable implant; or as a bolus. Each of these methods has its own advantages
or disadvantages.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 64 of 82
5.3.1 RFID Ear Tags
RFID ear tags may be a small button such as that shown in Figure 3, or they may
comprise part of a visual tag. RFID ear tags are attached to an animal’s ear in a
similar manner to visual tags. Sensible positioning of the tag can minimise ear
damage and tag loss.
5.3.2 Implants
Transponders have been injected into cattle, veal calves, sheep and goats in a variety
of body locations. Miniaturisation precludes battery use so injectable transponders
are generally passive. They are usually implanted in one of three areas: the lip, the
base of the ear, or the anal region, and are not susceptible to tampering or removal
after application.
Implantation at the base of the ear results in a high incidence of transponder failure
and migration from the point of injection. However, recovery of transponders at this
location after slaughter is relatively rapid and successful. Injection of transponders
into the lip of cattle is unsuitable for aesthetic and animal welfare reasons.
Furthermore, in a six-month study of 343 calves, the occurrence of lost and broken
transponders was found to be higher in the upper lip (14.0% lost, 1.3% broken) than
in the base of the ear (5.2% lost, 0% broken). Transponders in the anal region were
protected from failure, although retrieval of transponders from this location at
slaughter can be difficult1.
5.3.3 Boluses
Another method of electronic identification is the use of transponders in an intra-
ruminal bolus. Similar to injectable transponders, ruminal boluses are free from
tampering or removal after insertion. Rumen boluses also avoid physical damage or
pain to the animal which can occur after injection of transponders and avoid the loss
of saleable meat arising from migration of injected transponders.
Loss of rumen boluses through regurgitation is a concern, as regurgitation losses
have reached 46% in calves. However, modifications in bolus shape or weight have
resulted in a reduction in losses, resulting in retention rates of 100%, 98.8% and
99.7% for sheep, goats and cattle, respectively. Failure rates for intra-ruminal bolus
identification have ranged from 0% to 7%, which equal, and in some cases surpass,
the performance of injected transponders1.
Recovery of the boluses post slaughter is of concern to processors. Boluses are
generally recovered in the reticulum, as hanging the animals at slaughter causes
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 65 of 82
heavier components in the rumen or reticulum to gravitate to the reticulum.
Introduction of automated devices to strain ruminal contents at the abattoir would
probably increase the speed and success of bolus recovery1.
Digital Angel Corp produces implants and boluses which monitor an animal’s body
temperature. This would help managers identify and treat animals before they show
visible signs of disease.
5.3.4 Operating Frequencies
Transponders and transceivers can operate at a range of frequencies. Higher
frequencies may have better transmission ranges and read rates in some
applications. All operate in unlicensed radio spectra, but care is necessary when
selecting frequencies to reduce issues of signal interference with other devices.
Transponders can operate at low, high, ultra high and super high frequency,
although the only transponders proposed for livestock to date have been in the low
and high frequency ranges.
Low Frequency (LF) tags energise at 134.2 kHz and transmit at between 129 and
139 kHz. They are defined by the ISO 11785 standard (ISO 11784 defines a unique ID
format that is used with these tags). A read distance of 80 to 100 cm is appropriate
for livestock applications. Low frequency transmission does not suffer overly from
signal loss caused by body tissue and other materials containing water.
These tags are assembled from a separate chip and a compact wound copper
antenna, which means the tags are suitable for implanting. As the first standardised
RFID tags for livestock, low frequency tags are proven, robust, and a range of
readers are available at reasonable cost.
The ISO 11785 standard allows for both full-duplex (FDX-B) and half duplex (HDX)
tags, and requires that transponders support both variants. Half-duplex
transponders will reply to the transceiver when the transceiver stops broadcasting
the energising signal for a set time. In contrast, FDX-B transponders will reply to
the transceiver at any time. European trials have shown difficulties with mixing both
types of tag, and the Australian beef industry standardised on HDX tags.
High Frequency (HF) tags have been trialled on livestock at 13.56 MHz. These
have a similar read range to the low frequency tags but transmit data 200 times
faster so should in theory have a higher read reliability and more tolerance for
“collisions” (multiple tags within the reader range at once).
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 66 of 82
A significant amount of Standards definition work has been done in this area, as
13.56 MHz tags are used in other applications than livestock. There have been some
suggestions that HF tag signals are attenuated by body tissue, leading to reduced
performance and missed tag reads, and that metal can interfere with the signal.
Although this is more likely to occur at UHF frequencies, it would make rumen
bolus tags infeasible if this were the case.
Ultra High Frequency tags (UHF: 850 MHz to 950 MHz) are widely used in non-
livestock applications. The tags have high reading speeds and typically also have
long read ranges (greater than 27m). In part, the longer read ranges are achieved by
the use of active or semi-active tags (containing their own battery), which increases
cost and limits tag life.
Super High Frequency (SHF: 2.4 GHz to 2.5 GHz) are being trialled in non-
livestock applications. They are typically 200 times faster than HF, and may support
diversity antennas to reduce read interference. Tags in this space must use complex
“spread spectrum” technologies, splitting data packets across lots of narrow
frequencies. There is potential for competing traffic from wireless networks.
5.4 Biometric Procedures
5.4.1 DNA fingerprinting
DNA fingerprinting has been proposed as a future component of international
animal identification programmes and is presently used to validate the parentage of
highly valuable animals such as household pets, stud livestock and zoo specimens,
or to validate other identification techniques such as tattoos or tags. In New Zealand
Landcorp Farming uses DNA analyses in its elite sheep flocks.
While DNA typing is permanent and tamper-proof, it is still too costly and slow for
routine use in livestock identification. Automation of techniques is currently in
progress and DNA fingerprinting may become a viable option for large-scale
identification of cattle and small ruminants in the future.
DNA fingerprinting is provided in New Zealand by Genomnz (www.genomnz.co.nz)
and Ovita (sheep – www.ovita.co.nz).
5.4.2 Retinal imaging
A retinal image is a photograph of the pattern of blood vessels on the retina at the
back of the eye. Each eye’s blood vessel pattern is unique and does not change
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 67 of 82
throughout an animal’s life. A special digital camera uses near-infrared light to
photograph the retina while the animal is restrained in a crush.
Figure 4 Unique retinal vascular patterns of 9 indi vidual cows
OptibrandTM provides this service, encoding image data with date, time, and GPS
location into bar code. Some expertise is required to carry out this operation
efficiently, although Optibrand™ states that a trained operator can capture an image
in less than 15 seconds.
Advantages
♦ The identification can’t be lost (unlike tags);
♦ Identification is guaranteed to be unique.
Disadvantages
♦ Reader needs to be within 8 cm of eye to take the image;
♦ Expensive to set up – reader and software is approximately $3785USD;
♦ Skill is needed to take the images; and
♦ Labour intensive for large numbers of animals.
5.5 Smart Devices
Smart devices can be used in conjunction with animal identification to aid in data
collection and animal management.
5.5.1 Hand-held Devices
Handheld devices are a portable means by which to accumulate or access data.
Handheld RFID readers can collect information from transponders and transmit
them via a cable or wireless link to other systems. One Japanese company is already
marketing a cell phone with an inbuilt RFID reader. With adequate coverage a
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 68 of 82
farmer or inspector could transmit an ID code to a centralised database and receive
back information specific to that animal.
Some software vendors have released products which allow a PDA (personal digital
assistant) to work in conjunction with the main farm management system. One
advantage to using a PDA rather than a regular cell phone is in the larger screen
sizes enabling clearer presentation of any information. However, these devices can
be fragile, so they may not cope with wear and tear out on the farm.
5.5.2 Drafting Gates
Automatic drafting gates can check the RFID tags of stock as they move through
them. This can be used to draw off specific animals requiring attention, or for sale.
For example, animals can be drafted by weight or animal health treatment.
5.5.3 Automatic Milking Machines
RFID allows automated “robotic” milking systems to
accept animals for milking or to divert those not due
for milking (or within milk withholding periods). The
system collects data about the performance of each
cow. This type of milking is spread over the whole 24
hour period with cattle voluntarily choosing to be
milked. Dexcel operates a fully automated milking
shed at its Greenfield site. It has performed above
expectations, but issues such as pasture layout and optimal herd size are still being
researched.
5.5.4 Automatic Markers
These devices can visually mark an animal if it meets specific criteria. For instance,
if the machine is unable to get a reading it can mark the animal so that further
investigation for lost or broken tags can be carried out.
5.5.5 Electronic Weighing Scales
Modern weigh-scales have a number of sophisticated features. Walk over weighing
allows animals to walk across a platform at their normal pace while capturing their
weights. Such systems can also be connected to computers, printers, or other devices
such as drafting gates.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 69 of 82
5.6 Telecommunications
While the collection of information on-farm is useful, there is far greater value in
utilising this across the entire farm, or collating certain pieces of information in
industry databases. In order to achieve this, robust communications networks are
required. Rural communities face specific issues in this area mainly related to cost,
coverage and connection speed.
Rural users have typically behaved as “home users”, and traditionally connected to
the internet with a dial-up modem and standard phone line. While theoretically
capable of up to 56kbps (thousand bits per second), rural connections typically
deliver between 30 and 40 kbps, and are only required by law to deliver a minimum
of 9,600 bits per second. Electric fences have been shown to dramatically reduce the
efficiency of dial-up connections, sometimes generating damagingly high voltages
within the telephone circuit.
ADSL (asymmetric digital subscriber line) is a broadband technology that utilises
the standard copper wire phone lines to provide higher connection speeds more
appropriate to business use (up to several million bits per second – Mbps or M-bit).
ADSL is only effective within three to five kilometres of an enabled exchange.
Wireless broadband is achieved using a receiving dish pointed at a local receiver
station. Providing clear line of sight is available, these links have a longer reach than
ADSL, and still achieve broadband speeds. A satellite version of this technology is
also available for very remote locations, utilising a larger dish to communicate
directly with a satellite that transfers information back to a New Zealand earth
station.
For some applications, the lower bandwidth provided by current cellular networks
(typically 40 to 60kbps) is quite sufficient. While coverage can be patchy with a
regular cellular phone, the addition of a short whip aerial will often ensure sufficient
reception for a permanently installed connection. The higher speed “3G” services
advertised by cellular network providers are not yet available in rural areas.
Finally, networks can be extended on farm by using low-power wireless links. With
directional antennas, these can extend hundreds of metres or more. Electric fences,
the enemy of dial-up modems, may even provide low cost, low speed transmission of
data in future.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 70 of 82
5.7 Software solutions
Computer software has replaced paper records for most animal management
information, and is the most practical solution for the large amounts of data
involved in tracking and traceability. A number of farm management software
products have been available in New Zealand, although uptake has been limited. The
dairy sector has typically been better placed to justify investment in individual
animal recording software.
5.7.1 Dairy software
Protrack
Protrack farm automation software has been introduced by Livestock Improvement
Corporation (LIC). The Protrack system operates in rotary dairy sheds, and uses
RFID to identify cows as they enter bail. Monitors and keyboards at entry and exit
positions in the dairy provide feedback for staff. In combination with an RFID
enabled drafting gate, the system allows farmers to draft out cows during or prior to
milking (www.lic.co.nz).
MINDA-link
Is focussed on allowing farmers to upload data to the MINDA database managed by
LIC. MINDA-link provides limited feed back and analysis of data (cow
identification, calving dates, and dry off dates) (www.lic.co.nz)..
MINDA-pro
Provides the same uploading facility as MINDA-link, but also has far more
comprehensive reporting features, allowing the farmer to analyse calving dates,
mating, productivity, animal health and genetic worth (www.lic.co.nz).
DairyWIN
DairyWIN is a dairy herd health software package produced by Massey University,
that enables dairy farmers to record and report on all areas of dairy farming activity,
including individual animals (calvings, matings, treatments), herd (bulk milk
production), and physical farm events (soil tests and fertiliser applications)
(www.dairywin.co.nz).
M-NOTE
M-NOTE is a hand-held (palm) software tool that links with MINDA-link and
MINDA-pro to allow the user to view and record individual animal data in the field.
It checks data as you record it in the field. (www.lic.co.nz)
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 71 of 82
CowPAD
CowPAD allows the export of data contained in a DairyWIN database to a Palm
hand-held computer for review and recording. Events added or edited in CowPAD
can be uploaded into DairyWIN. CowPAD will also indicate which cows in the herd
are listed on the DairyWIN Guide reports (due to calve, due to cycle, not cycled, not
mated, due to dry off, and due to cull).(www.dairywin.co.nz)
5.7.2 Other industries (beef, sheep, deer)
The majority of New Zealand animal recording packages are either aimed at stud
breeding, or are a small part of a wider set of tools (financial, mapping, and crop
records), which adds complexity.
FarmWorks PPlus
This package replaces FarmTracker, which has been around a number of years. It
contains mapping, paddock/crop records and feed budget modules. In addition it
allows recording of stock at a mob level with an individual animal module due out at
the end of 2005. Currently at the mob level it allows recording of livestock feeding,
animal health, treatments, mating, pregnancy testing, births, production, costs and
revenues, and inventory. (www.farmworkspfs.co.nz).
Landmark
This package contains: a cashbook, farm map, paddock diary, financial budgeting,
feed budgeting, invoice, wagebook, and a stock diary. The stock diary is of interest in
terms of traceability, recording information about mobs, groups, or individual
animals. You can record production details for milk, meat, fibre and other stock
related tasks, and import data from electronic devices e.g. weighing scales, ear tags
and pasture measuring equipment (www.lm.co.nz).
Concepts Rural Suite
The livestock module includes livestock histories, importing RFID files, inventory,
animal health treatments, mapping, and planning future events
(www.computerconcepts.co.nz). This software replaces the Endeavour2 software
previously distributed by Computer Concepts.
5.7.3 Australian software
There are a number of packages on the Australian market which will allow recording
of both groups and individual animals. As the farming systems are similar these
could work in New Zealand with some adaptation.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 72 of 82
PAM (Fairport)
PAM has not been widely used in New Zealand until its recent selection by Landcorp
Farming. PAM contains mapping, cropping and planning components as well as
features aimed at livestock farmers. Mobs can optionally be nominated as having
individually identified animals. RFID codes can be imported from files, and trait and
mating data can be imported or entered in a customisable way. There are formulae
for trait calculation. Mob records include birth, supplements, sale and purchases,
and milk/wool records (www.fairport.com.au).
Phoenix
Phoenix (Ag-Data) was originally a financial package and now has a livestock
component, Phoenix Farms, aimed at fulfilling NLIS requirements. It supports
reconciliation with MLA records, and integration with a range of RFID devices, as
well as lifetime history and movement reporting (www.agdata.com.au).
Stock Recorder
This product from Saltbush Software gives the ability to record animal details such
as tag number, RFID, breed, weights, daily weight gain, and other traits and health
events. Stock Recorder is compatible with electronic data collectors for scales and
supports recording of mob movements both on and off farm (saltbush.une.edu.au).
Stockbook (replaces Cattle Plus) (Practical Systems)
Practical Systems Stockbook is a recording and analysis program for commercial or
stud livestock producers, and replaces their previous Cattle Plus product. It is
designed to performance record multiple species, and groups animals by mob,
paddock, and property, with many filtering and search criteria.
The stud version of Stockbook provides electronic links to breed societies and
Australian performance recording systems like Breedplan, Lambplan, and Kidplan
(www.psystems.com.au).
5.8 Centralised databases
The crux of a traceability system is the database where all of the farm and individual
animal data is stored. There are a number of databases used in different industries.
There are always issues of data access and privacy in centralised databases. Farmers
need to be sure that their information is secure before they will buy in to a
traceability system – however, this is balanced by the need for quick and easy
access, and interchange with other systems.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 73 of 82
5.8.1 MINDA (LIC)
Introduced in 1985, the MINDA database stores information on both individual
animals and whole herds by farm. Farmers can use it to track the genetics,
productivity and health of their animals. The majority of the dairy industry (90%)
uses it.
5.8.2 Agribase (AgriQuality)
Agribase is a textual and geo-spatial database of farm positions, including legal
boundaries, and farm owners and managers. The database farm enterprise details
(livestock numbers and types) for about 110 000 farm units. The information is
collected for the specific purpose of a biosecurity response, rural emergencies and
disease and pest management.
5.8.3 NLDB (AgriQuality)
NLDB was created in 1995, and stores information on the Tb testing and histories of
approximately 75 000 herds of dairy and beef cattle and deer, as well as information
about other species. The primary uses of NLDB are: as a disease management tool
(particularly for the management of Tb and Enzootic Bovine Leucosis); as an animal
treatments information system and as the Pork Industry Board herd register.
5.8.4 SIL (Meat and Wool Innovation Ltd)
Sheep Improvement Limited, was set up in June 1998 by the Meat and Wool
Boards, to operate the SIL genetic database and provide breeding values and other
genetic information through registered Service Providers. With a growing
membership of over 700 flocks and over half of all rams used by the commercial
sheep flock, SIL has become the most important ram breeding tool in New Zealand.
5.9 References
1 Stanford K, Stitt J A, McAllister T A, Traceability in cattle and small ruminants in Canada.
Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz. 2001, 20(2), 510-522
6 Biopharming Implications
Tim Hale & Shane Leath, AgResearch Limited
Biopharming is just one part of the growing Biotechnology industry which is
exploring and experimenting with different uses for both modified and natural
products worldwide.
TechniFarming is the process of integrating a variety of measuring and sensing
devices into the farm environment in order to provide better information for
decisions, and a more robust and precise view of the processes happening on farm.
6.1 Biopharming and Compliance
Because the process of Biopharming is designed to produce pharmaceutical
products it is generally carried out in specifically designed facilities that meet the
regulatory requirements for the location and in most cases also the regulatory
requirements of the intended market of the product produced. These requirements
are designed to minimize the potential risks through the process to the environment
and too both intended and non-intended end users.
In New Zealand Biopharming and other areas of Genetic Engineering are controlled
under the HSNO act which is monitored and enforced by the Environmental Risk
Management Authority (ERMA).
There is a strict process which has to be followed prior to gaining approval to work
in this area, and with an approval; controls will be confirmed which are currently
monitored by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) for ERMA.
Controls are designed to ensure the provision, the monitoring, and the operation of
the Facility housing the genetically modified organism (GMO) is sufficient to
prevent the GMO being able to escape or be accidentally released out of its current
environment. Controls also specify the records that are required and the reports that
are to be submitted. They will also stipulate the Regulatory Standard to which the
Facility must operate (different organisms will require different types of facility and
a different standard of containment).
Approval also has to be gained before a GMO can be released from the housing
Facility to a different or the external environment.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 75 of 82
While the above briefly describes the regulatory requirements in New Zealand for
Genetic Engineering, Biopharming will generally add extra requirements above
these specifically related to the product being produced. Farm Animals are likely to
be required to be managed in a Good Laboratory Practise (GLP) or similar
environment, and there is a possibility that animals will require specific diets, have
feed available analyzed, intakes monitored or be housed in controlled environments.
Raw material collection (such as milk) will likely need to take place in Good
Manufacturing Practise (GMP) compliant facilities, as will further processing.
Adhering to these approved standards will be requirements to gain compliance with
the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or other pharmaceutical
approving authorities.
Key areas of concern are the ability to avoid contamination of the product at all
stages, and so satisfy the necessary levels of purity or quality, and to be able to
provide traceability via audit trails. Accurate records for all individual Animal
treatments are critical for this to be achievable.
The potential for the ability of products derived from clone animals and eventually
the products from genetically engineered animals (if approval to release is gained) to
be available for consumption by consumers will require compliance with the New
Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA), FDA and other similar regulatory
authorities. While most of these products will be further processed prior to sale,
traceability will again be critical to maintain consumer confidence and clearly
provide the opportunity for choice.
If you add Nutraceuticals and other differentiated or specialty products to this area,
the potential requirements for sound systems of traceability and the ability to clearly
identify the source of a product become more complex all the time, and the ability to
meet these with current technology becomes questionable.
Holding genetically engineered (GE) animals in New Zealand requires that they are
kept in a Facility that meets the ‘MAF Containment Standard for the Field testing of
Animals’. For the physical containment of cattle this requires a double fenced
perimeter at least 2 metres high of specific sized netting. This perimeter is required
to be alarmed on the interior fence to detect attempted escapes and gates are
required to be hung a specific way and kept locked.
All animals are currently required to be double tagged and also identified with a
micro chip, animal locations must be recorded (within the Facility) and numbers
verified regularly. Animal Treatments and manipulations are required to be
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 76 of 82
recorded for all animals, along with genetic records, births, deaths and the
quantities of products produced.
While some of the requirements are extra and specific to this type of operation many
are also similar if not the same as those that are required to meet processor supply
requirements or recording requirements under the Animal Welfare Act which are
now required of all Farmers. As a Research, Training, and Testing Institute,
AgResearch also has record requirements around the ethics committee approved
animal programs.
Most of the current methods of recording require manual entry of some kind. This
may be entering an animal’s number into scales or milking plant interface, or
transposing paper records into computer software.
GLP and GMP records are mainly paper based as they require signatures of
personnel to verify events or validation of computer based functions.
For a number of years AgResearch has had in place a unique visual market
restriction tag system to identify animals that have a restriction on their use in the
Food Industry because of science programs. These tags are also used as part of the
identity for GE and Clone animals.
RFID and automated systems have the potential to improve the accuracy of records
and simplify compliance by automatically recording animal presence and linking
this to events taking place. There may be additional benefits such as dispensing
individual rations or recording the time of drinking or entry into covered areas for
shade.
If RFID identities are linked to DNA records it will be possible to verify the identity
of animals even if the physical tags or devices are lost or fail.
Savings in labour, improved efficiencies, less stress on animals, and accurate
traceability are all benefits in an industry with high compliance requirements.
6.2 TechniFarming – broader than Biopharming
Radio-frequency Identification is seen as a powerful enabling technology for
TechniFarming. TechniFarming involves integrating many measuring and/or
sensing devices into an integrated information system. Applications range in
complexity from single items such as scales/drafting gates through to integrated
farm management systems through to integrated supply logistics.
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 77 of 82
TechniFarming concepts offer potential for regular farms, and especially for
controlled farming environments. In this context, livestock identification must be
robust and reliable, and there must be absolute security over the identification (tags
where the ID can be modified are unlikely to be acceptable).
An internationally accepted information transfer protocol will be required for
reading the ID and transferring the data to other devices. A “one reader fits all”
solution is preferable, so compatibility with other radio-frequency identification
(e.g. drench pack, truck or tanker ID) and GPS, wireless networks, and PDAs should
be considered.
We note that RFID is only an enabling technology for traceability and tracking. Like
all technologies it should be expected to become obsolete (similar to RFID taking
over barcodes), therefore care needs to be taken to ensure that the “New Zealand
solution” can be split at the point of reading. Planning for obsolescence is important.
An acceptable secondary system needs to be in place to ensure certainty over animal
ID if a tag is lost. This is particularly true of Biopharming involving GE or clones.
DNA markers offer opportunities in this area. Absolute assurance over the
uniqueness and integrity of the animal identification is paramount – without this,
nothing else matters.
Appendix A Market Research
Traceability Questionnaire, May 2005
TRACEABILITY AND INTEGRATED FARM MANAGEMENT PROJECT: Market Research
Your company is being invited to participate in the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise Integrated Farm Management and Traceability business survey. This survey is designed to explore current Industry understanding, Industry initiatives and future sector growth opportunities relating to the traceability of NZ food products. Company/Organizations Name: Postal Address: Representative’s Name: Company Position: Contact Details: Ph: E-mail Contents
Section One Company Profile Page 2
Section Two: Quality Control / Assurance Page 6
Section Three Business Competencies Page 7
Section Four Manufacturing Competencies Page 10
Section Five: Impediments to Industry Growth Page 12
Section One: Company Profile Tick ONE of the following that apply best to your company √√√√
• Where in the Food Supply Chain is your major company activity
Research and Development �
Farming operation � Freight service � Processing � Food Supply/Distribution � Food Marketing � Other �
Describe other: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
• List Three Primary Company Competencies.
R & D Food technology / food safety � Market Research of consumer needs � Quality Assurance standards � Purchase of products for processing or resale � Manufacturer of product for Market � National Supplier � International Supplier � National Marketer � International Marketer � National Marketer � Other �
Describe other: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 79 of 82
Tick any of the following that apply best to your company √√√√ • Product Quality Indicate the use group(s) where the majority of product quality standards are generated from for your products to comply to.
Suppliers of raw materials � Sales/Marketing � Contract Manufacturers � Distribution network � R&D (company) � R&D (outsource) � Competitive companies � Synergistic companies � Industry publications � University/ Institutions � Crown Research Institute � Government Agencies � Ultimate consumers of your products � Other �
Describe other: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
• Products and Technologies. The target audience for your company’s products is best described as consumers of products from:
Pharmaceutical Companies � Nutraceutical Companies � Cosmetics Companies � The Health Care Industry � Medicines Distributors � Food Producers � Food Manufacturer � Food Distributor � Food Retailers � Other �
Describe other: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
What if any, product diversifications are currently included in your business plan: Move upward through the current Product Value Chain � Diversify Through Product Variation � Generate new products with New Technologies � Generate additional consumers for a current product through diversified marketing � Other �
Describe other: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
• Future Technologies:
Is your company currently: Researching or Developing or Introducing Food Traceability as a core sales or differentiated marketing competency ?
No � Yes � if Yes, new technology for Pharmaceuticals � Nutraceuticals � Meat products � Vegetable products � Transportation of foods � New food products � Other �
Describe Other and or Technology being researched/developed or introduced ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 80 of 82
Section Two: Business Quality Control and Quality Assurance
What Legislative Quality Control standards do INCOMING GOODS have to adhere to for your business ?
Please list as appropriate: a)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………b)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………c)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Describe ANY issues or problems with compliance of these incoming goods quality control standards ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
What Legislative Quality Assurance Standards do OUTGOING GOODS have to adhere to for your business ? Please list as appropriate: a)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………b)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………c)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Describe ANY issues or problems with compliance of these outgoing goods quality control standards ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
What Business support departments are contained within your company?
Information Technology Department � Manufacturing Director/Manager � Financial Director/Accounting Administrator � Business Development Director/Manager � Quality Control / Assurance Manager �
Human Resources Manager � Marketing Director/Manager � Product/Project Manager/s � Other �
Describe other: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Section Three: Business Competencies Tick any of the following that apply best to your company √√√√
• Marketing Research
No � Yes � if Yes, what structure
National: Self desk, i.e. Internet � Self direct contact � Outsourced � Other �
If outsourced: explain who: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....
International Self desk i.e. Internet � Self direct contact � Offshore employee � Outsourced: �
Other �
If outsourced: explain who: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Describe other: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………....
• Sales Department
No � Yes � if Yes, what type of sales structure: NZ sales �
Export sales –future plan �
Export sales �
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 81 of 82
Section Three: Business Competencies Tick any of the following that apply best to your company √√√√ EXPORTERS ONLY TO COMPLETE: CONFIDENTIAL
Annual Export $$ 1 50 K � 51 → 100 K � 101 → 250 K � 251 → 500 K �
501 → 1 M � 1 → 2 M �
2 → 10 M � 11 → 25 M � 26 → 50 M �
51 → 100 M � > 100 M �
Export Regions:
Australasia � Africa � Europe � North America � South America �
Asia �
Why have these √√√√ export regions been selected? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Section Three: Business Competencies Tick any of the following that apply best to your company √√√√
What opportunities will an increase in FOOD TRACEABILITY capability have for your company ? None � Additional sales in current markets � New product(s) �
New product range(s) � Complimentary sales � New market opportunities � Other: �
Describe other: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Section Four: Manufacturing Competencies
Within your company what manufacturing regulatory bodies does your company adhere to?
European Pharmacopoeia (EP) � United State Pharmacopoeia (USP) � United Kingdom Pharmacopoeia (UKP) � United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) � United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) � European Medicines and Health Regulatory Authority (MHRA) � International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) � Researched Medicines Industry Code of Practice (RMI) � Therapeutic Goods Association (TGA) � Medsafe � Other �
Describe other: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Section Four: Manufacturing Competencies Tick any of the following that apply best to your company √√√√ Within your company which of the following Government regulatory departments does your company have legislation policy to adhere to?
Regulation on Genetically Modified Organisms, Australia � Australian Government Department of Health Ageing And Therapeutic goods administration � NZ Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (HSNO) � Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) � New Zealand Standards (NZS) � Ministry of Agriculture and Finance (MAF) �
What internal quality assurance regime does your company use, if any?
Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) � current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) � Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) � Good Engineering Practice (GEP) � Other �
Describe other: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Prepared for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise
Situation Analysis 2-Sep-2005 Page 82 of 82
Section Five: Impediments to Industry Growth Tick any of the following that apply best to your company √√√√ What do you feel are the major impediments to implement food traceability into the NZ meat processing or marketing industry?
Lack of market knowledge �
No value proposition currently for farmers to implement �
High Industry $ investment required � Company tax regulations on R&D � Lack of industry communication � ERMA regulations � Large Competitive International market � No complete industry traceability system has been developed � Difficult resource Consents � Lack of skilled Personnel � Other �
Describe Other:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
What do you feel the major impediments to International sales growth for the NZ meat industry are currently ?
Tariff and free trade barriers � International food traceability requirements � Poor understanding of different market, product requirements � Lack of foreign investment � Business operating laws : ERMA , RMA � R&D taxation structure for companies � Other �
Describe Other:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
THANK YOU for your time and valuable information supplying data for this New Zealand Trade and Enterprise initiated Survey (NZTE). This is very much appreciated. If you have any additional comments that you wish to share, please note these below. Additional Comments: Meat Market Traceability: Market Research
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Additional Industry Contacts: Meat Market Traceability
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………