weight is added to gambrel’s RFID chip and general information system. Gambrel RFID
system works till the point of separating primal parts. After this point, animal is off the
hook and bin-based RFID systems might be useful. In latter, primals are moved to bins
and all information accumulated up to date point is passed to RFID chip in the bin. The
shortcoming of bin-based systems is that it can track individual animal but in case the
cutting board is contaminated, it still requires recall of the entire lot. To avoid this,
another method is developed in Australia, which enables individual tracking and
individual recall. It is based on moving RFID-embedded cutting boards with information
on primal cuts. Boards are sterilized between animals. The value cuts and scrap of
individual animal are moved to individual cutters for later separation and packaging.
More complex cuts are handled by maintaining the part sequences, which are correlated
with the original animal. Information in bins and boards are transferred to general
information system and if this information is correlated with the position of packaging
conveyor, it may suffice to establish traceability at the individual animal level. Once the
product is packaged, a bar code or RFID label is assigned. This is the starting point for
the traceability in next segment in the beef chain.
Tracking unit examples can be found in other industries, as well. Pharmaceutical industry
experimented to implant RFID technology at item (folder box or bottle) level or container
level (bundles, boxes, pallets, cases, etc.) to prevent counterfeit drugs, better call-back
control, and better inventory control. In fresh produce industry, container as a tracking
unit is critical in case of recall. Grower’s container may contain information on the field,
day and sometimes even the hour it is harvested (Food Traceability Report, 2001).
Depending on the information on the container, the product can be traceable at the level
of day, shift or hour of production. In seafood industry, the tracking unit could be pallets,
cartons, and units within the cartons (Lupin, 2006).
The objective of this study is to quantify the relationship between the level of traceability
adoption and the plants’ characteristics, quality and safety practices, and the food safety
regulation. Although U.S. slaughter and meat processor plants are surveyed for their
adoption of HACCP plans and food safety investments (Ollinger, Moore, and Chandran,
2004; Muth, et al., 2005a; Cates, et al. 2006), their traceability activities are not studied in
a straightforward and coherent manner. To this end, a survey including 43 questions
which characterize meat plants’ traceability level, production process, products, and plant
type is prepared. The survey was recently sent to the licensee plants of Iowa Department
of Agriculture and Land Stewardship,2 which covers 192 meat plants including those
with national brands and many small or very small plants. Based on the survey responses,
an indirect (categorical) measure of traceability and appropriate explanatory variables
will be constructed (see Table 3). An ordered logit model along the lines of Hassan,
Green and Herath (2006) and Souza-Monteiro and Caswell (2006) will be estimated. The
estimated model, then, will be used to test the hypotheses (discussed in Econometric
Modeling section) that can convey answers to the questions of interest.
2 See the website at http://www.agriculture.state.ia.us/meat&poultry.htm for more
information.