Foster T P, Schweihofer J P, Grooms D L, Clarke R H, Buskirk D D
Department of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
Michigan State University Extension, East Lansing, MI.
Transl Anim Sci. 2018 Feb 24;2(1):101-110. doi: 10.1093/tas/txx007. eCollection 2018 Feb.
Traceability of beef attributes from small- and mid-sized farms through supply chains is a market barrier. The objective of this trial was to determine the influence of fabrication method on beef traceability system requirements. Individual identities of 54 animals were maintained through harvest, processing, packaging, and distribution. At harvest, each animal's unique radio frequency identification () animal identification number was transferred to a harvest label on each carcass quarter. Following transportation to a processor, nine carcasses were processed on alternating days by one of the two methods. Carcasses were fabricated, using a serial fabrication method (), into wholesale cuts one at a time or fabricated using a parallel fabrication method (), by processing multiple hindquarters or forequarters simultaneously into wholesale cuts. In-process labels were generated by scanning the two-dimensional () barcode on the harvest label with a handheld mobile computer and printed from a wireless mobile printer. Tracking of SFM and PFM carcass quarters was accomplished by creating in-process labels for lugs and individual wholesale cuts, respectively. The process was recorded and the data was captured from video analysis. The mean number of in-process labels generated per carcass for SFM was 3.7 and for PFM was 30.9 ( < 0.01). The amount of time required for generating in-process labels for SFM (2 min 16 s) was less than PFM (8 min 45 s) ( = 0.01). The amount of time required to label each carcass was less ( < 0.01) for SFM (18 s) than for PFM (3 min 10 s) with in-process labels. Total cost of traceability, including fixed and consumable cost per carcass, was nearly twice as much for PFM ($17.98) than SFM ($9.02). Traceability, within both processing methods, was found to have 100% fidelity, as verified using DNA marker genotyping. Overall, the number of labels generated for traceability was less for SFM than that for PFM. The overall time spent on generating, applying, and removing labels was less for SFM than that for PFM. The total cost of traceability was approximately half for SFM compared with that for PFM; however both methods were able to track product accurately. Tracking of beef from individual animals, using RFID ear tags and 2D barcodes, appears to be feasible for the fabrication methods used in this study.
中小型农场牛肉属性通过供应链的可追溯性是一个市场障碍。本试验的目的是确定加工方法对牛肉可追溯系统要求的影响。在屠宰、加工、包装和分销过程中，54头牛的个体身份得以保留。屠宰时，每头牛独特的射频识别（RFID）动物识别号码被转移到每个胴体四分体上的屠宰标签上。运输到加工厂后，两种方法之一每隔一天对9具胴体进行加工。胴体采用串行加工方法（SFM）一次加工成批发切块，或采用并行加工方法（PFM），同时将多个后躯或前躯加工成批发切块。通过使用手持式移动计算机扫描屠宰标签上的二维（2D）条形码生成过程标签，并从无线移动打印机打印出来。分别为挂肉和单个批发切块创建过程标签，从而实现对SFM和PFM胴体四分体的追踪。记录该过程，并从视频分析中获取数据。SFM每具胴体生成的过程标签平均数为3.7个，PFM为30.9个（P<0.01）。SFM生成过程标签所需时间（2分16秒）少于PFM（8分45秒）（P = 0.01）。有过程标签时，SFM给每具胴体贴标签所需时间（18秒）少于PFM（3分10秒）（P<0.01）。可追溯性的总成本，包括每具胴体的固定成本和耗材成本，PFM（17.98美元）几乎是SFM（9.02美元）的两倍。经DNA标记基因分型验证，在两种加工方法中，可追溯性的准确率均为100%。总体而言，SFM用于可追溯性的标签数量少于PFM。SFM在生成、粘贴和去除标签上花费的总时间少于PFM。与PFM相比，SFM的可追溯性总成本约为其一半；然而，两种方法都能够准确追踪产品。使用RFID耳标和2D条形码对个体动物的牛肉进行追踪，对于本研究中使用的加工方法似乎是可行的。
