Based on complexity and variety of traceability systems, Hobbs, et al. (2005) suggest that
traceability is not simply a binary variable; present or absent but rather there are degrees
of traceability. These degrees or levels can be characterized by referring to the breadth,
depth and precision of the maintained information (Golan, et al. 2004). Breadth is the
amount of information maintained in the traceability system. It may include contact
information (such as mailing address, phone number, fax number, e-mail address) along
with production information (such as health records, organic or natural production, etc).
Depth refers to how far back or forward in the production chain the traceability is
ensured. The product could be traceable to the immediate previous source to the
subsequent recipient (one-step backward and one-step forward) as in Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) requirements, traceable to processing plant only or traceable
further to the feedlot, or traceable all the way to the birth farm. The precision refers to the
degree of assurance at which a traceability system can pinpoint the particular item’s
movement. Precision is determined by the tracking unit such as lot or code with a unique
identifier. The smaller is the lot, the more precise is the traceability system.
The tracking unit can be chosen at various levels. For example, Jensen and Hayes (2006)
consider three levels: genetic, farm to retail, and batch traceability. Genetic traceability
refers to a complete traceability level based on matching particular deoxyribonucleic acid
(DNA) in meat to maintained DNA samples from animals and thereby locating the
records of the animal. Even though DNA tracing is considered as a hypothetical
benchmark in Jensen and Hayes (2006), some of its applications in New Zealand and
Australia are reported elsewhere (Tonsor and Schroeder, 2004). Nevertheless,
Cunningham and Meghen (2001) argue that DNA identification will not be the primary
means for live animal identification in the foreseeable future, yet it can aid the visual or
electronic ID systems. Farm to retail traceability is the system which can track the
identity of all cuts from a farm through the processing and distribution channels. Jensen
and Hayes (2006) argue that this system is very expensive and requires reconfiguration of
production, additional capital, and data infrastructure investment. For a typical large scale
U.S. plant, the cost of such reconfiguration is reported as eight cents per pound of meat
produced. Finally, batch traceability is the traceability from farm up to carcasses without
further tracking in the cutting floor. The identities of the source are maintained at the
batch level. Jensen and Hayes (2006) argue that this system is relatively inexpensive as it
does not require reconfiguring the production line. Within the batch traceability, the more
stringent traceability can be obtained by stopping the production and breaking the full
day of work into segments (intra-day batches) or by sorting or segregating the inputs and
processing the resulting batches.
Furthermore, tracking unit can be chosen by using radio frequency identification (RFID)
technology. Mennecke and Townsend (2005) provide case studies for various RFID
applications. According to these authors, RFID could be applied at gambrel or further at
bin or board level in the fabrication floor. At gambrel identification, the information in
live animal’s tag is carried through the process of packing plant. Once carcass is hooked,
the information in animal’s ear tag (RFID or visual tag) along with date and lot number
information are read into RFID chip embedded in gambrel. Then, the post-slaughter