Meat Slaughter and Processing Plants’ Traceability Levels Evidence From Iowa

Table 1: Meat and Poultry Slaughter and Processing Plants’ Backward Traceability Practices (Identifies and tracks its products, by
production lot, backward to specific animal/bird growers) ^{1, 2}

Number of Plants____________________	All Meat 598	All Poultry 219	Very Small Meat 391	Very Small Poultry 27	Small Meat 154	Small Poultry 64	Large Meat 53	Large Poultry 128
Use the practice now	52.5 %	78.7 %	52.1 %	55.6 %	51.3 %	79.7 %	62.3 %	85.9 %
Expect to begin using the practice	11.6 %	4.3 %
within 1 to 3 years Does not use and does not expect to use	32.4 %	13.5 %
the practice within 1 to 3 years No response/multiple responses/not	3.5 %	3.6 %

applicable (write in)__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Source: Cates. et al. 2006

¹ “...” indicates no data availability.

² Chi-square tests are applied to verify if size is statistically significant factor in adopting the backward traceability practice. The
conventional levels of significance are used. For meat plants, size is not found as a factor for both overall and pair-wise bases. For
poultry plants, size is found as a factor at the 1% overall, large versus very small plants at the 1%, small versus very small plants at the
5% (with p-value of 0.019), but not for large versus small plants.

More intriguing information

1. Education Responses to Climate Change and Quality: Two Parts of the Same Agenda?
2. Private tutoring at transition points in the English education system: its nature, extent and purpose
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. Tourism in Rural Areas and Regional Development Planning
6. Spatial patterns in intermunicipal Danish commuting
7. The name is absent
8. Better policy analysis with better data. Constructing a Social Accounting Matrix from the European System of National Accounts.
9. The name is absent
10. Om Økonomi, matematik og videnskabelighed - et bud på provokation