Meat Science 80 (2008) 66–74

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Meat Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/meatsc i

Review

Post-slaughter traceability

G.C. Smith *, D.L. Pendell, J.D. Tatum, K.E. Belk, J.N. SofosCenter for Meat Safety and Quality, 1171 Campus Delivery, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1171, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history:Received 29 February 2008Received in revised form 20 May 2008Accepted 21 May 2008

Keywords:Meat identification and traceabilityPost-slaughter traceability

0309-1740/$ - see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd. Adoi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.05.024

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 970 491 5226; faxE-mail address: Gary.Smith@colostate.edu (G.C. Sm

Traceability programs can cover the whole of life, or parts of it, for individual animals or groups/lots ofanimals. Of 13 country or community traceability programs for cattle/beef, 11 are mandatory (4 encom-pass, or are scheduled to encompass, birth to retail; 7 cover birth to slaughter) while 2 are voluntary andencompass birth to slaughter. Of 10 country or community traceability programs for swine/pork, 2 aremandatory (1 covers birth to retail; 1 covers birth to slaughter) while 8 are voluntary. Of 6 country orcommunity traceability programs for sheep/sheep-meat, 3 are mandatory (1 encompasses birth to retail;2 encompass birth to slaughter) while 3 are voluntary. Mandatory birth to retail programs that include‘‘post-slaughter individual animal identification (IAID) traceability” have been implemented for cattle/beef, swine/pork and sheep/sheep-meat by the European Union and for cattle/beef by Japan. Many ofthe voluntary as well as mandatory, birth to slaughter traceability programs for all three species are pre-sumed (though that is not specified) to include ‘‘post-slaughter group/lot identification (GLID) traceabil-ity” – e.g., those qualifying products for shipment to the European Union. ‘‘Post-slaughter IAIDtraceability” can be accomplished in very-small, small, medium, large and very-large packing plants usingsingle-carcass processing units, tagging and separation/segregation, and/or deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)fingerprinting technology but all of these approaches are time-consuming and costly; and, to-date, inmost countries, there has been no reason compelling enough to cause industry to adopt such protocolsor technology.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 662. Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673. Traceability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684. Examples of traceability in specific plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 715. Summary and conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

1. Introduction

Animal identification (ID) by means of marking animals’ bodieswas first recorded 3800 years ago in the Code of Hammurabi (King,1910); during the human plague epidemics of the 14th century,animal products were monitored, and many products could notbe traded internationally without certificates guaranteeing theorigin and safety of the product (Blancou, 2001). Domesticallyand internationally, it will likely become imperative that produc-ers, packers, processors, wholesalers, exporters and retailers assure

ll rights reserved.

: +1 970 491 0278.ith).

that livestock and meat are identified, that record-keepingguarantees traceability through all or parts of the life-cycle, andthat such information is authentic, visible and can be verified.Smith et al. (2005) characterized ten reasons identification andtraceability can, could or will eventually be used by the live-stock/meat industries.

As countries develop identification and traceability capabilities,at issue will be: (a) how and when (not if) animals and meat will beidentified, because the entire concept hinges on keeping identity-based origin/movements/practices/processes/destination records;(b) the depth (i.e., how far back and/or forward the relevant infor-mation is tracked), breadth (i.e., the amount of information col-lected) and precision (i.e., the degree of assurance with which

G.C. Smith et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 66–74 67

the tracing system can pinpoint a particular food product’s move-ment or characteristics) of the traceability records (Golan, Krissoff,& Kuchler, 2005); and (c) the authenticity (others call this ‘‘pre-cision,” ‘‘accuracy” or ‘‘assurance”) and ‘‘visibility” (i.e., access bystakeholders, customers and consumers) of identification andtraceability records and data. As is chronicled in this paper, life-cycle individual animal identification (IAID) traceability – globally– is in its infancy, with several countries having developed IAIDtraceability capabilities from birth to slaughter but very few coun-tries having developed such capabilities from slaughter throughfabrication (i.e., ‘‘cutting” of the carcass into its parts – primals,subprimals and trimmings).

2. Identification

The World Organization for Animal Health (i.e., the OIE) definesanimal identification as ‘‘the combination and linking of the iden-tification and registration of an animal individually, with a uniqueidentifier, or collectively by its epidemiological unit or group, witha unique group identifier” (OIE, 2006). Means of identifying indi-viduals or groups/lots of live cattle, swine and sheep include(Smith et al., 2005): (a) paper records – e.g., passports, diaries,data-logs, (b) electronic records, (c) brands – on the hide or horns,(d) tattoos – on the ear, shoulder or lip, (e) tags – in the ear oraround the tail; plastic or metal; button or dangle, plain or radio-frequency identification devices (RFID), (f) transponders – danglingin neck chains, implanted under the skin or bolused into the ru-men, and (g) biometrics – deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) fingerprint-ing, autoimmune antibody matching, iris scanning, retinal imaging,nose-print matching, facial recognition technology. Although anyor all of these may be acceptable to United States (US) livestockproducers, Bass et al. (2007) reported that only paper records, elec-tronic records (swine only), shoulder tattoos (swine only), human-readable tags and electronic (RFID) tags are acceptable to operatorsof US cattle, swine and sheep packing plants. Nevertheless, any orall of these means of live animal identification will accomplish thepurpose under specific circumstances in other countries/communi-ties – provided that they are efficient, economical and can be ver-ified. Accuracy, precision, repeatability, cost (and who bears thatcost) and read-rate at the speed of commerce are but a few ofthe things that must be considered in deciding which of the meth-ods of identifying live animals is used in a specific political entity(i.e., country or community).

Means of maintaining, within the packing plant, the identity ofa carcass (as having been derived from a specific live animal) in-clude: (a) tagging or (b) trolley-tracking. Such ‘‘identity preserva-tion” is only meaningful if each animal is uniquely identifiedupon entering the packing plant, if that IAID number is transferredthrough termination of the slaughtering/dressing/chilling process,and if the IAID number on the carcass at the termination of chillingallows traceback of the carcass to the live animal that entered thepacking plant and backward – through all premises involved inintermediary animal movements – to the premises of the animal’sbirth.

Means of uniquely identifying primal/subprimal cuts and trim-mings from a specific animal (via correlation of IAID numbersthrough forward and backward tracing of a specific carcass) duringfabrication and through final in-plant packaging (e.g., in vacuumpackages) or accumulation of trimmings (e.g., in boxes, cartonsor containers) for transfer/transport to grinding or processing facil-ities, differ – depending on the volume of product handled in a des-ignated time period. In very-small-volume plants, completeseparation/segregation of all individual animal parts can be accom-plished via fabrication in single-carcass processing units (SCPUs)through packaging, boxing or direct transfer to retail stores (Steins-

träter & Jensen, 2001). In small- and medium-volume plants, it canbe accomplished by tagging (i.e., via correlated tagging of car-casses, sides, quarters and primal/subprimal cuts) plus completeseparation/segregation of the trimmings from a single-carcass(Smith, Belk, Scanga, Sofos, & Tatum, 2000). In plants as large assome of those in the US, identification of primal/subprimal cutsfrom a specific animal is very difficult, but possible, by use ofDNA-fingerprinting technology (Smith et al., 2000) while identifi-cation of trimmings from a specific animal is theoretically possiblebut implausible.

In large-volume plants in US, according to Robb, Lawrence, andRosa (2006): (1) IAID of cattle/carcasses is accomplished from birththrough carcass grading by use of ear tags and carcass tags or trol-ley-tracking but then lot-integrity is broken because carcasses aresorted, according to quality grade, yield grade, weight, sex-classand program (e.g., branded beef, Non-Hormone Treated Cattle Beef,beef requiring Export Verification) for fabrication. (2) Fabrication isa ‘‘disassembly” process, not performed in a linear process, inwhich 500 or more components and products are prepared froma given carcass and exit the fabrication room at different times.(3) From 1000 to 6000 carcasses are fabricated each day in a singleplant. (4) The nonlinearity in the fabrication production stage, therapid reduction of carcasses into many beef products in differentparts of the fabrication room and the commingling of like cutsand trimmings from different carcasses to create boxes and com-bo-bins of beef, make direct tracking of trimmings to an individualanimal/carcass virtually impossible, while it is possible to useDNA-fingerprinting technology to track primal/subprimal cuts.

Topel and Eilert (2002) reported that a single pork carcass, inUS, is fabricated into as many as 150 components, and the speedof the cutting process is very fast – making traceability (on an IAIDbasis) from fabrication to retail a formidable task. Use of DNA fin-gerprinting as a means for tracing swine/pork and cattle/beefthrough supply-chains from farm-to-fork was considered in thelate 1990s by pork companies in US and by beef companies in Aus-tralia (AU) but, as of 6 years ago, there was no reason compellingenough to cause industry to adopt such technology (Topel & Eilert,2002).

Robb et al. (2006) described use of DNA-fingerprinting technol-ogy for traceback – from a specific retail cut, to a carcass and backto the animal that produced it – as follows: (1) A sample of muscleis archived (identified by calendar date, time of day, carcass IDnumber) from each individual carcass as it enters the fabricationroom. (2) As each box of fabricated product moves past the boxscale, it is time-stamped and recorded in the packer’s computersystem. (3) At the retailer’s site, the box serial number can be usedto identify each retail package generated from primals/subprimalsin that box. (4) If there is need for traceback, a sample of musclefrom the retail cut in question, plus the serial number of the boxfrom which it came, are sent back to the packer and the packerlocates the box serial number in the computer database. (5) Know-ing the average length of time required for that cut of beef to beproduced, boxed and scaled on the fabrication floor from the timethe carcass entered the fabrication room, the packer can identify arange of potential carcasses from which the primal cut originated.(6) The packer then sends the sample of the retail cut, along withthe samples from that range of potential carcasses to a DNA testinglaboratory, to be analyzed until a DNA fingerprint match isachieved.

Nortje (2002) indicated: (1) The problems in following cutsthrough fabrication can be solved – at a cost – lower line-speeds,additional equipment, development of reliable and economicaldata-capturing devices or DNA fingerprinting. (2) The ‘‘full-trace-ability paddock-to-plate system” employed in New Zealand (NZ)uses DNA-fingerprinting technology but it is ‘‘batch-based” (i.e.,at least a ‘‘batch” size of approximately 50 samples needs to be

68 G.C. Smith et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 66–74

DNA fingerprinted to facilitate traceability from an individual retailcut back to an individual carcass). (3) It cost $0.70 to save and storea carcass-muscle sample, $37.00 times 50 (i.e., $1850.00) to DNAfingerprint the ‘‘batch” and seven days to complete the match –which is a ‘‘limited value” proposition. Meghen (2000) believesDNA identification technology will play an increasingly importantrole in refining existing traceability systems because it ensures thatmeat products can be traced to the animal-of-origin, but does notrequire that they be traced.

IdentiGENTM (2004) explained that DNA traceback technologyachieves traceability by using an animal’s own DNA code to iden-tify it, enabling animals and meat to be traced with 100% precision.Lewis (2008) interviewed two representatives from IdentiGENTM

(Lawrence, KS) and reported that they said: (1) Slaughterhousesclaim to track the disassembly of an animal and all its parts by hav-ing labels; they start with a label on a carcass, but by the time itgets to the retail end, the labels mean nothing. (2) A DNA test isthe only way to know – i.e., to guarantee, traceability; it forces fulltransparency on the supply-chain. (3) DNA does not lie; it is irre-futable. ProSamplerTM has promoted its technology as: (1) Ear-tis-sue sampling of every animal on the slaughter floor, matchedwith the trolley bar-code or RFID number, establishes absolutetraceback control. (2) With every carcass sampled, cataloguedand temporarily stored, DNA traceback confirmation is possible –but only when necessary: (a) for auditing traceback in UnitedStates Department of Agriculture (USDA) Auditing, Review andCompliance programs (e.g., Process Verified Programs or QualitySystem Assessments; Smith et al., 2005); (b) to help identify spe-cific process control problems; (c) for rapid response to a foodsafety event; and/or (d) for marketing-claim validation (Stromberg,2007). A system like the ProSamplerTM is of no value, however, un-less complete birth to slaughter history for the animal whose ear-tissue was sampled is available and correlated in a data-set.

In AU and NZ, systems that are in commercial use take blood ormuscle samples from beef or lamb carcasses, respectively, whichcan, if needed, be used for DNA fingerprinting to provide matcheswith meat demonstrated later to have contained harmful chemicalresidues or to have been unsatisfactory in palatability (Smith,2004). No such system will suffice for tracing-back meat withmicrobiological problems (e.g., presence of Escherichia coliO157:H7) to individual animals because too many opportunitiesexist for commingling and cross-contamination (Smith et al.,2005). Contrary to opinions expressed by Lewis (2008), DNA-fin-gerprinting technology cannot ascertain whether a meat sampleof unknown history originated from an animal produced to be‘‘organic,” ‘‘natural,” ‘‘grass-fed” or hormone-and-antibiotic-freeor that had been mutilated on a remote ranch by aliens or thathad been cloned by scientists. And, DNA fingerprinting would notbe useful for identifying sources of Bovine Spongiform Encephalop-athy (BSE) or variant Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease (vCJD) infectionsbecause the incubation times (from consumption of BSE-infectedfeed or food, to development of BSE in cattle or vCJD in humans,respectively), is much too long (Smith et al., 2005). Following thelargest meat recall in US history (143 million pounds of groundbeef), Cunningham (2008) opined that DNA identification technol-ogy could have been used to test meat received by school lunchprograms or restaurants against a DNA database to determinewhether or not it came from the specific packing plant; it couldhave, but the number of such tests that would have been involved– and the cost – is unimaginable. And, because all of the groundbeef that had not yet been eaten was still labeled as originatingfrom that packing plant, what purpose would be served?

For many applications in US, beef/pork/lamb carcasses from asingle source (e.g., a farm, a feedlot or a production unit), managedcomparably, and slaughtered together, are fabricated as a group/lot. Animal group/lot identification (GLID) can be used for trace-

back from farm-to-fork for livestock which are handled contempo-raneously (with no animals or carcasses added to the group/lot atany point in the life-cycle or at the packing plant) using the samemeans of identification as are used for IAID with the exception (andadvantage) being that all animals, carcasses, cuts and meat trim-mings could have a single (and the same) identification number(Smith et al., 2000). Fabrication of groups/lots for which traceabil-ity is required is performed in US plants in ‘‘production runs.” Robbet al. (2006) indicate that: (a) before a production run is allowedonto the fabrication floor, all product and labels from the previousproduction run are removed; (b) after the production run, all un-boxed cuts are counted; (c) this count, along with a count of cutsin boxes, is reconciled against the number of carcasses in the pro-duction run; and (d) only after a successful reconciliation is pro-duction allowed to continue.

3. Traceability

Traceability programs can be designed to encompass some,most, or all of the life-cycle, from the birth of the animal to humanconsumption of the animal’s body parts (Smith et al., 2005). In thispaper, our discussion includes life-cycle (i.e., birth to retail) trace-ability, which has been defined by Jensen and Hayes (2006) as theability to maintain the identity of an individual animal from thefarm, through slaughter and distribution, to the consumer. Of spe-cific interest is the global status of ‘‘post-slaughter traceability” ofwhich there are two kinds, slaughter to retail traceability basedupon IAID (i.e., ‘‘post-slaughter IAID traceability”) and slaughterto retail traceability based upon GLID (i.e., ‘‘post-slaughter GLIDtraceability”).

Souza-Monteiro and Caswell (2004) characterized then-existingbeef supply-chain traceability programs in major producing andtrading countries and concluded that: (1) The ‘‘completely manda-tory” systems in European Union (EU) and Japan (JN) were thedeepest because they encompassed birth to retail, among thebroadest because of the large amounts of data collected, andamong the most precise because they relied on verification by pub-lic or private auditors. (2) The then ‘‘mandatory only for export”systems in AU and Brazil (BR) were somewhat shallow (coveringonly birth to export), but among the broadest and among the mostprecise. (3) Argentina (AR) and Canada (CN) had simpler traceabil-ity systems in terms of breadth and were much less precise –depending on information provided by farmers and processors,with no public or private verification.

Souza-Monteiro and Caswell (2004) identified only the trace-ability programs of EU and JN as including ‘‘post-slaughter IAIDtraceability” and characterized the EU traceability system asfollows: (1) It leads the introduction of traceability systemsworldwide and is a main driver in establishing world standards.(2) Its use of a passport for each animal enables authorities andproducers to track diseases easily and quickly because the passportincludes records of every place the animal has been. (3) Its animalidentification plus movement records are combined withcompulsory labeling; so, human health hazards are quickly identi-fied and more easily controlled. (4) It establishes sanctions for non-compliance.

Schwagele (2005) reported that: (1) Effective January 1, 2005,new EU regulations (Article 18) mandated that all food businessoperators shall adequately label and identify food marketed inthe Community to facilitate its traceability through relevant docu-mentation (including identification of any person from whom theypurchased a food-producing animal or carcass, meat cut or meatproduct). (2) Article 18 covers the entire supply-chain; in orderto be able to trace products and retrieve related information, pro-ducers must collect information and keep track of products during

G.C. Smith et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 66–74 69

all stages of production (primary production, processing, distribu-tion, retailing and consumer).

Jensen and Hayes (2006) reported that in EU: (1) To maintainindividual animal birth to retail traceability, the animal is traceablefrom the farm through processing with all of the cuts of a carcasskept in a container that is tracked with the animal’s ID numberwhen the carcass is fabricated; when those cuts are packaged, theyare marked with the animal’s ID number and can be linked to thefarm of origin. (2) To maintain animal group (i.e., ‘‘batch”) birth toretail traceability, each individual animal is traceable from thefarm to the carcass, but the individual animal ID numbers are lostduring fabrication of carcasses, so a batch number or lot ID numberis used; when batch identification is used, the fabrication-day isstructured so that batches contain as few carcasses as is feasible.(3) While most Europeans assume that animals and meat in theCommunity are followed via ‘‘birth to retail” traceability (including‘‘post-slaughter IAID traceability”), it is rarely utilized in EU; themost commonly used form of traceability in EU is ‘‘birth to slaugh-ter IAID traceability.” In Denmark, meat cuts must be identifiedwith a lot number, and retail-packed meat must be labeled withthe name of the distributor or the packager (Lauristen, 2006); so,post-slaughter traceability – to the level of retail cuts – does notconsist of either IAID or GLID. Brook (2008) stated that, in theEU, ‘‘Currently, information on the animal and farm-of-origin iscarried all the way to the point of sale. A bar-code placed on thepackage after the animal is packed and processed identifies theproduct to the batch in which it was made. Tracing to this batch,in turn, traces it back to the specific group of animals and thefarm-of-origin to allow full-traceability from the meat case to thefarm within a few hours.” Reports by Jensen and Hayes (2006),Lauristen (2006) and Brook (2008) suggest that EU does not alwaysuse ‘‘post-slaughter IAID traceability.”

Meatnews.com (2007) announced that: (1) RFID technology forbeef traceability has been launched in China (CH) and is expectedto be applied throughout the country in the near future. (2) Thefirst batch of beef products under this system has been availablein Lotus (a supermarket chain in Beijing). (3) Buyers can checkinformation related to the product’s quality and safety, such asthe specific source of the beef, the animal’s breed and age, as wellas the feed the animal was fed and its disease history, at the mar-ket, by mobile phone, or by logging onto www.safebeef.com.

Since 2004, Nippon Meat Packers has produced traceable beefand pork in JN; consumers are able to trace meat from the retailpackage to the farm-of-origin using the Internet (Nippon Ham,2004). At present in JN, according to Sugiura (2008): (1) Cattleslaughterers have to display – on the beef – the ID number of theanimal from which the beef is derived. (2) Beef distributors haveto display – on the container, packaging, invoice or in the shop –the ID number of the animal from which the beef is derived. (3)Caterers of Yakiniku, Sukiyaki, Shabushabu or beef steaks have todisplay the ID number of the animal from which the beef was de-rived. (4) Cattle slaughterers, beef distributors and specified dishcaterers have to keep a record of the beef that they have delivered,sold or served, respectively. (5) Government officials conduct on-site inspections of farmers, distributors and caterers to ensure thatcattle/beef are correctly identified and that the information isproperly relayed to retailers and caterers. (6) A meat sample is ta-ken from every carcass and kept in a Japan Livestock ImprovementAssociation storage facility so that a sample collected from retailersor caterers can be DNA tested to ensure that it originated from theanimal with the same identification number.

South Korea (SK) has enacted a law to establish a beef traceabil-ity system that will be fully implemented in 2008 (Herd On TheHill, 2007); in the new system: (1) Cattle owners must notify theMinistry of Agriculture & Forestry (MAF) when cattle are born,die, imported, exported, sold and/or purchased. (2) MAF will pro-

vide, to cattle owners, IAID numbers which must correspond withthe number on the animal’s ear tag. (3) Packing plants must in-clude the IAID number on product labels – so consumers can checkthe cattle records. Smith (2005) described the Han Naeng (KoreaCold Storage Company, Ltd.) ‘‘Transparent Traceability Assurance”as a joint venture with the National Agricultural Cooperative Fed-eration in which kiosks with computers are provided so that super-market customers can study the traceability records for a beef cut(breeder’s name, farm location, feeding regimen, dates of weaning/castration/harvest, harvest plant location, etc.) before making apurchase.

Clayton (2008) described beef supply-chain tracing systemdepths and defined objectives, by country/community saying: (1)EU, JN and SK use IAID covering birth to slaughter, slaughter to fab-rication and fabrication to consumer. (2) AR, AU, BR, CN, WestIndies (WI) and US (only for Non-Hormone Treated Cattle Beef –NHTCB – to be exported to EU) use IAID covering birth to slaughterbut GLID covering slaughter to fabrication and fabrication to con-sumer. (3) The National Animal Identification System (NAIS – in-tended for control of important domestic and foreign animaldiseases) in US uses IAID for all cattle, mature hogs and maturesheep, but GLID for market pigs and market lambs and covers onlybirth to slaughter (or death). (4) Countries with traceability sys-tems designed to manage food safety are AU, CN, JN and SK, to en-hance consumer confidence are AU, CN, EU, JN, SK and WI, and tomeet export requirements are AR, AU, BR, CN, WI and US (NHTCBbut not NAIS).

Stitt (2008) characterized global identification and traceabilitysystems saying: (1) AR, AU, BR, EU, JN and CN have mandatory ormandatory-for-export traceability systems for cattle and/or swineand/or sheep, while US has a voluntary traceability system foranimals of all three species. (2) IAID is required by all countrieswith mandatory traceability systems, while US uses both IAIDplus GLID depending on the age and species of animals. (3) USis ‘‘technology neutral” (producers can use any ID device ap-proved by the NAIS), while AR, AU, BR, EU, JN and CN use eartags (visual, button or RFID types) alone, or in combination witha rumen bolus, electronic device, tattoo, hot-iron brand or pass-port. (4) The AR, AU, BR and US systems cover farm (or premises)of origin to slaughter, the CN system covers farm of origin to car-cass inspection or export, and the EU and JN traceability systemscover farm of origin to retail.

Results of the most recent comprehensive analyses of countryor community cattle/beef traceability programs are presented inTable 1. Both EU and JN have mandatory birth to retail programsthat include ‘‘post-slaughter IAID traceability” while SK and CHwill have comparable programs ‘‘by late 2008 or early 2009” or‘‘in the near future,” respectively. Cunha (2008) described the vol-untary cattle traceability program of BR as consisting of use ofnumbered ear tags to track individual animals from the rural hold-ing to the slaughter plant followed by post-slaughter GLID trace-ability for export of beef to EU. AU, Namibia (NA), Botswana (BT),Uruguay (UY) and CN have mandatory birth (or pre-weaning) toslaughter programs that are presumed to include ‘‘post-slaughterGLID traceability” for export. Bowling et al. (in press) concludedthat key features of the cattle/beef traceability systems outsideNorth America (either now, or soon to be, in place) were: (a) IAIDfrom birth to slaughter (and, in a few cases, to purchase by end-users); (b) animal movement records that trace animals as theyare transported and identify both the location of origin and desti-nation; (c) animal termination records that document the locationand cause of each animal’s death; and (d) a central database that isable to quickly trace animals, identify cohorts in the case of diseaseand, possibly, provide valuable management tools for producers.

Murphy et al. (in press) reported that CN and Mexico (MX) havemandated cattle ID programs while the US has a voluntary cattle ID

Table 1Comparison of country or community cattle/beef traceability programs

Country orcommunity

Status of traceability program Reference Cattlepopulation 1000head 2006a

Cattle meat exportvalue 1000 $US2005b

EuropeanUnion

Mandatory, birth to retail Regulation (EC) No. 178 (2002) 90,355 3,424,361

Australia Mandatory, birth to slaughter DAFF (2006), Meat and Livestock Australia (2007),SAFEMEAT (2007)

28,560 167,922

NewZealand

Two systems: one voluntary, on-farm only, for dairy farmers andone mandatory, farm to termination for control of tuberculosis

MAF (2005), AITWG (2005) 9652 115,672

Namibia Mandatory, birth to slaughter for export to EU Meat Board of Namibia (2002) 2384 NABotswana Mandatory, birth to slaughter for export to EU DAHP (2005) 3100 NAJapan Mandatory, birth to retail MAFF (2003), Clemens (2003), Sugiura (submitted

for publication)4391 24

SouthKorea

Will be mandatory, birth to retail by late 2008 or early 2009 BTS (2006), MAFRoK (2006), Herd On The Hill(2007)

2484 1

Brazil Voluntary, birth to slaughter for export to EU Stroade et al. (2007), Cunha (2008) 207,157 2049Uruguay Mandatory, from 6 mos of age (or leave farm) to slaughter NLIS (2007) 11,956 NACanada Mandatory, birth to slaughter; there is also a mandatory, birth to

slaughter system in the province of Quebec (Agri-TracabilitéQuebec)

Canadian Livestock Identification Agency (2005),Canadian Cattle Identification Agency (2007), Stitt(2007)

14,830 2049

Mexico Mandatory, birth to slaughter but not implemented andmandatory, birth to export of live cattle

Luna-Martínez (2007), Davis (2007) 28,649 30,204

China Will be mandatory, birth to retail in the near future Meatnews.com (2007) 117,767 2234United

StatesVoluntary, many cattle are identified for health-control, branded-beef or Non-Hormone Treated Cattle Beef programs

USDA-APHIS (2006) 96,702 43,446

Source: Bowling et al. (in press), Murphy et al. (in press), Sugiura (submitted for publication), Meatnews.com (2007), Cunha (2008).a FAOSTAT (2008a).b FAOSTAT (2008b).

70 G.C. Smith et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 66–74

program – all of which are designed to control and eradicate trade-limiting diseases and/or to maintain, or gain, access to interna-tional markets. A number of plants in CN have their own internalsystems of tracking product through fabrication and now areensuring that the CCIA unique number is incorporated in the track-ing system to enable full traceback capabilities (Stitt, 2008). USuses voluntary birth to slaughter IAID traceability followed by‘‘post-slaughter GLID traceability” and verification by the USDAfor exports of NHTCB to EU. MacKay (2008) reported that the trace-ability program in Australia: (a) utilizes an electronic button, put inat the farm, recorded in a central database; (b) all movements arerecorded in that database; (c) individual details are recorded formanagement and the system is combined with Meat StandardsAustralia grading of carcasses; (d) post-slaughter GLID traceabilityis used for export purposes but DNA sampling provides fulfillmentof the full-traceability system.

Clayton (2008) concluded that: (1) EU, JN and SK will have man-datory life-cycle traceability of cattle/beef in 2008; at that point,those countries can require the same of importing countries. (2)CN, Taiwan (TA), some South American countries and most Gulfof Arabia countries may want imported beef to have life-cycletraceability but cannot require it of importing countries. (3) In nei-ther case will it be necessary for the entire exporting country tohave life-cycle traceability; supply-chains of producers, feedersand packers (with third-party certification) can generate it. Corre-spondingly, countries like NZ, BR, MX, CN and US (in addition to allothers listed in Table 1) can generate some beef that has life-cycletraceability.

Results of the most recent comprehensive analyses of countryor community swine/pork traceability programs are presented inTable 2. EU and JN have mandatory birth to retail programs thatinclude ‘‘post-slaughter IAID traceability” and NZ has a mandatorybirth to slaughter program. Pork slaughter plants in EU are usuallysmall in size and usually sell half-sides or primal cuts for furtherprocessing in a butcher shop rather than processing the carcassesinto retail cuts in the packing plant (Hayes & Meyer, 2003); this al-lows packers and retailers to meet EU traceability requirements byusing IAID labels on the carcass, side, half-side, primal cut or box of

trimmings or by keeping all sections/pieces in IAID-labeled con-tainers (Jensen & Hayes, 2006).

Meisinger, Pendell, Morris, Belk, and Smith (in press) concludedthat: (a) no countries outside EU mandate ‘‘farm to retail” trace-ability for swine/pork, but AR and Bolivia (BO) are progressingtoward mandatory systems; (b) Chile (CL) has a voluntary butEU-compliant traceability program for export purposes; (c) BRhas a voluntary traceability program for export purposes; and (d)AU will bring the entire swine/pork industry under compliancewith the National Livestock Identification Scheme within 3 years.Murphy et al. (in press) reported that: (a) the US pork industryhas independently targeted a mandatory swine ID program withfull compliance by December 31, 2008; and (b) the CanadianNational Hog Traceability and Identification System will becomea mandatory program in 2008.

Results of the most recent comprehensive analyses of countryor community sheep/sheep-meat traceability programs are pre-sented in Table 3. According to Bass et al. (in press): (1) EUmandates birth to retail traceability for ovine animals and sheep-meat. (2) Recent AU regulations do not require an approvedNational Livestock Identification Scheme (NLIS) tag for sheep soldto abattoirs prior to January 1, 2006; however, by January 1,2009 all sheep sent to slaughter must be identified by an NLIStag. (3) NA has adopted EU standards for traceability as a way tocontinue to market products to the European marketplace. (4) NZdoes not have a mandatory sheep identification system; an analy-sis of enhancing the ID system, conducted in 2005 demonstrated‘‘no dire need” for enforcing a mandatory sheep identificationscheme.

Murphy et al. (in press) reported that: (a) the NAIS Sheep Work-ing Group in US has recommended that the sheep ID program com-ply with the existing mandatory National Scrapie EradicationProgram and permit the use of GLID for sheep that travel in groups,and (b) the Canadian Sheep Identification Program does not recog-nize GLID, mandating IAID instead. Stitt (2008) says, in CN, sheephave their own unique tagging system, all sheep are uniquely iden-tified, and all traceback information is stored within the CanadianLivestock Traceability System; all sheep producers are registered

Table 2Comparison of country or community swine/pork traceability programs

Country or community Status of traceability program Reference Swine population1000 head 2006a

Swine meat exportvalue 1000 $US 2005b

European Union Mandatory, birth to retail Regulation (EC) No. 178 (2002) 159,331 7,814,573United Kingdom Mandatory; same as EU but there is also a

mandatory UK program plus a voluntaryprogram (BQAP)

DEFRA (2004), British MeatProcessors Association (2006)

4933 98,220

Denmark Mandatory; same as EU but there is also amandatory Danish program

Lauristen (2006), Smith et al. (2002) 12,604 3,093,818

New Zealand Mandatory, birth to slaughter NZFSA (2006a, 2006b) 341 148Japan Voluntary, birth to retail Nippon Ham (2004) 9620 50Argentina Voluntary; progressing toward a national

mandatory traceability programLewis (2004) 1490 NA

Bolivia Voluntary; progressing toward a nationalmandatory traceability program

Lewis (2004) 2488 NA

Chile Voluntary; but there is a EU-compliantcomponent for export purposes

USDA-FAS (2006) 3450 20,646

Brazil Voluntary; administered by the BrazilianExport Pork Meat Chain

Talamini and Malafaia (2006),Stroade et al. (2007)

34,064 286,959

Australia Voluntary; more complete program is underdevelopment

Thornton (2006) 2470 100,603

Canada Voluntary; mandatory program status to beattained in 2008; there is also a mandatory,birth to slaughter system in the province ofQuebec (Agri-Tracabilité Quebec)

Canadian Pork Council (2005a,2005b), Canadian LivestockIdentification Agency (2005)

14,690 242,935

United States Voluntary; swine producers want a mandatoryprogram by December 2008

National Pork Producers Council(2007)

61,449 2,063,282

Source: Meisinger et al. (in press), Murphy et al. (in press), Smith et al. (2002).a FAOSTAT (2008a).b FAOSTAT (2008b).

Table 3Comparison of country or community sheep/sheep-meat traceability programs

Country or community Status of traceability program Reference Sheep population1000 head 2006a

Sheep meat export value1000 $US 2005b

European Union Mandatory, birth to retail EC (2004, 2006) 109,942 1,107,484United Kingdom Mandatory; same as EU but there is also a

mandatory UK programEngland Order (2007), DEFRA (2005) 34,722 391,751

Ireland Mandatory; same as EU but there is also amandatory Irish program

Ireland Department of Agriculture and Food(2001a, 2001b)

5970 235,892

Australia Voluntary; will become mandatory – birth toslaughter – for all sheep in January 2009

Meat and Livestock Australia (2003, 2006),AAA Tags (2006)

100,100 924,269

Namibia Mandatory; birth to slaughter for export to EU Meat Board of Namibia (2002) 2660 NANew Zealand Voluntary AITWG (2005) 40,107 1,670,781Canada Mandatory, birth to slaughter; there is also a

mandatory, birth to slaughter system in theprovince of Quebec (Agri-Tracabilité Quebec)

Canadian Sheep Federation (2006a, 2006b),Canadian Livestock Identification Agency(2005)

919 1236

United States Voluntary; many sheep are identified as part ofNational Scrapie Identification Program

American Sheep Industry Association (2006a,2006b)

6230 22,134

Source: Bass et al. (in press), Murphy et al. (in press).a FAOSTAT (2008a).b FAOSTAT (2008b).

G.C. Smith et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 66–74 71

within the System and the sheep industry continues to enhance itstraceability requirements.

4. Examples of traceability in specific plants

Steinsträter and Jensen (2001), in Germany, developed a meth-od for complete traceability in the cutting-up of beef; the systemconsists of fabricating one carcass at a time, putting all pieces insingle containers, and then transporting and distributing it in sin-gle-carcass lots to retailers where bar-coded tags are applied toeach retail cut. Their system ‘‘closes gaps and enables completetraceability from birth through rearing, slaughtering and cutting-up, right to packaging, so that consumers can taste beef withoutrestrictions and with confidence” (Steinsträter & Jensen, 2001).Maverick Ranch Beef (Denver, CO) uses retinal scanning to identifycalves at birth and at weaning, feeder cattle upon entry to the feed-

lot, and slaughter cattle at the packing plant, combined with trol-ley-tracking of carcasses and bar-code tagging of cuts throughfabrication to maintain IAID in its ‘‘Natural Beef” program (Smithet al., 2005). Brandt Beef (Brawley, CA) uses RFID ear tags to main-tain IAID for cattle from birth – through feedlot – to slaughter,combined with bar-code tagging of carcasses and of cuts throughfabrication (at Manning Beef, Pico Rivera, CA) to assure IAID trace-back in its ‘‘Natural Beef” Program (Hall, 2008). Neither MaverickRanch Beef nor Brandt Beef maintain the IAID origin of beeftrimmings.

The Meat Inventory and Tracking System (MITS 3.0) developedby AgInfoLink (Longmont, CO) has been installed in six small-volume cattle, swine and/or sheep packing plants in CN (Saskatch-ewan, Alberta) and US (Oklahoma, Tennessee; Connecticut,California). According to Armentrout (2008), the MITS 3.0 consistsof: (1) Step 1 – When an animal enters the harvest floor, the unique

72 G.C. Smith et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 66–74

animal identifier (usually an RFID or a bar-coded ear tag) isscanned, it is assigned to a ‘‘production lot” and two carcass IDbar-coded labels are generated; these labels are applied to thetwo carcass sides following slaughter. (2) Step 2 – When a side en-ters the fabrication room, a bar-code scanner reads the side ID labeland verifies the production lot (comprised of one side to severalcarcasses) and creates customized labels with unique bar-coded la-bels for each primal/subprimal cut and batch of trimmings. (3) Step3 – Each side is fabricated separately and its trimmings are groundseparately; one of the bar-coded labels is applied to each packageof whole-muscle or ground meat. (4) Step 4 – Bar-coded labels aregenerated for each box, carton or basket into which packages areplaced; a bar-code scanner reads the box/carton/basket label andenters the number into the computer for use in invoicing, shippingor sale to the customer or consumer, allowing both full-traceabilityand inventory management.

Paiola (2002) described the traceability program of a beef pack-ing plant in Italy as follows: (1) The plant uses Mettler Toledo PC ID20 technology and a Marco Colombo data management program.(2) In the various production processes (butchery/input–outputof merchandise/processing/vacuum packaging), the program runson an instrumentation system which includes weighing terminals,equipped with printer/labelers and bar-code readers, connected tooverhead rail scales, weighing platforms, and terminals connectedto F type weighing platforms. (3) Live animal data transmitted bythe suppliers (generally by Email) is automatically imported tothe business site, allowing an easy check-in operation during thetruck-unloading phase. (4) The identification documents for eachanimal (also sent by Email) are recorded and tracked using bar-code scanning throughout the entire process. (5) Cutting the car-cass automatically generates labels for each side or quarter withthe weight and traceability information ‘‘inherited” from the origi-nal piece cut. This enables the production of the company certifica-tion system and shipping documents. (6) The merchandise input/output process is able to receive orders from the central unit byreferring to all the preceding butchery phases of the piece in ques-tion, and to retrieve and dispatch them as orders for a specific cus-tomer. (7) This system enables customers to be sent files with allthe details of each particular consignment, containing the identifi-cation number (earmark) of the source animal for each carcass orpiece. Using the IAID number, the following information can be ac-cessed: supplier; breed; country and date of birth; country wherefattened; identification of the rearing farm; date of start of wean-ing; average weight at weaning; feeding regime; country of slaugh-ter and EU stamp of slaughter establishment; date of slaughter;classification; country of butchery and EU stamp of butcheryestablishment.

At Rancher’s Beef (an ‘‘EU-compliant” harvesting facility) inBalzac, Alberta, Canada, it was observed (Bass et al., 2007) that:(1) The CCIA RFID ear tag was used for IAID as each animal passedby a tag-reader, after stunning/exsanguination, on the harvest floorand that IAID number was correlated with the two unique RFIDnumbers from devices embedded in the two trolleys used to sus-pend the carcass. (2) On exit from the chill cooler, the RFID numberfor each side was correlated with the two unique RFID numbersfrom devices embedded in hooks (on a chain) on which the fore-quarter and hindquarter were suspended. (3) As primal/subprimalswere generated (during fabrication) each individual cut was placedon an individualized pedestal-type cutting board (on a conveyorbelt) in which an RFID device was embedded; the unique numberfrom the cutting board was reconciled backward through the sys-tem allowing the IAID number from the live animal to be printedon a plasticized-paper tag that was inserted inside the package justbefore vacuum was drawn. (4) Complete separation/segregation ofthe trimmings from a single-carcass could be accomplished via thesynchrony of cutting boards and conveyor belts.

Frederick, Warren-Serna, Detwiler, Bellinger, and Smith (2004a)described the traceability system used by ScotBeef, Ltd. in Bridge ofAllan, Scotland as follows: (1) The age and source of each individ-ual animal are confirmed using cattle passports, dentition checksand the national cattle database of the British Cattle MovementService; the ear tag numbers are reconciled with the passport atthe point of stunning by the Official Veterinary Surgeon of the MeatHygiene Service. (2) IAID is maintained by tagging each carcass(and side) through slaughtering/dressing/chilling. (3) A ‘‘luggagetag” (i.e., a band of plasticized paper bearing the IAID number) isplaced around the shank of each of the four quarters of the carcassas it enters the fabrication room. (4) As each primal/subprimal cutis generated, a plasticized-paper tag bearing the IAID number is at-tached; following trimming and final preparation of each cut, thattag is placed inside the bag before vacuum is drawn. (5) Completeseparation/segregation of the trimmings from a single-carcass canbe accomplished. (6) At the retail store, the IAID number for eachprimal/subprimal cut or batch of trimmings can be transferred toretail packages by use of tagging or bar-coding. Very similar trace-ability procedures were followed in beef packing plants visited inEngland, France, Italy, Germany and Switzerland during that samevisit to Europe (Frederick et al., 2004a, 2004b).

Swift & Company (now JBS-Swift) in Greeley, CO has experi-mented with a patented process (SwiftTraceTM) that (Smith et al.,2005): (1) Uses retinal scanning to identify feeder cattle at thefeedlot and slaughter cattle at the packing plant plus trolley-track-ing to maintain IAID of carcasses. (2) Collects and archives a musclesample from each animal, at the time of carcass fabrication, andthen, based on individual-subprimal-cut, fabrication-to-packaging,‘‘time-windows” (e.g., 22.17 min for an oven-ready rib roast),stamps a code number on each box of cuts. (3) Uses the ‘‘time win-dow” to narrow the number of muscle samples that would need tobe DNA-fingerprinted in order to find a match with the DNA finger-print of an individual primal/subprimal/retail cut should the needfor traceback – from a cut to the animal-of-origin – ever arise. (4)Makes no attempt to maintain IAID origin of beef trimmings. (5)Will, over time, be extended backward to the farm/ranch of originby retinal scanning of each calf at birth.

OptibrandTM partnered with Swift & Company (using Swift-TraceTM) to provide a beef traceability program – Secure Asian Ex-port SolutionTM (SAES) – to meet the rigorous demands of theJapanese market (Optibrand, 2006, 2007). The SAES system: (1)Helps meet the demands of export customers by linking IAID toage, source and process verification information. (2) Allows theprocessor to trace product from individual age-verified andsource-verified cattle to finished boxed product. (3) Makes it pos-sible for Japanese distributors and retailers to offer US beef withcomplete traceability information available via a bar-code on theretail package. (4) Allows Japanese consumers to retrieve the prod-uct’s supply-chain history, from birth to retail, by scanning thebar-code at a kiosk in the supermarket, with a cell phone or byaccessing the information online (Optibrand, 2007). In the SAESsystem: (1) A retinal scan for an animal is obtained on the farmor ranch, at or near the time of birth, a visual or RFID ear tag isplaced in the ear, and the ear tag number is immediately uplinkedto a Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) to record time, date and loca-tion (by longitude and latitude). (2) As the animal increases in age,and moves from place to place, the number on the ear tag is re-corded but the retina is scanned only if there is need to verify thatthe ear tag number and retinal-scan configuration coincide. (3) Atthe time of slaughter, the ear tag ID number is correlated with theID numbers in the trolleys (two per carcass); at Swift & Company,the hand-held OptibrandTM camera takes pictures of the retina, theear tag, the cattle’s face and the meat-inspection tag (which has aunique number). (4) The remainder of the traceability system isthat of SwiftTraceTM, which was described earlier. A pilot test of

G.C. Smith et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 66–74 73

the SAES system was conducted in 2007 using a feedlot andpacking plant in Colorado and a supermarket chain in Japan andwas successful; future tests will incorporate COCODATESTM

(COrrect COordinates and DATES) collected by Advanced Value &SolutionsTM and Mitsubishi Electric� with OptibrandTM technologyand SwiftTraceTM protocols (Optibrand, 2006). In truth, the use ofretinal scanning and COCODATES is actually for purposes ofverification rather than as means of identification or elementsof traceability.

5. Summary and conclusions

Traceability programs can be designed to encompass some,most, or all of the life-cycle, from birth of the animal to humanconsumption of the animal’s body parts. Of specific interest inthis paper is the global status of ‘‘post-slaughter IAID and/or GLIDtraceability” and how it is accomplished in representative packingplants. EU and JN have fully implemented, while SK and CH planto implement, mandatory birth to retail programs that include‘‘post-slaughter IAID traceability” for cattle/beef; seven countrieshave mandatory, while two countries have voluntary, birth toslaughter, but no requirements for ‘‘post-slaughter IAID traceabil-ity,” programs for cattle/beef. EU has a fully implemented manda-tory birth to retail program that includes ‘‘post-slaughter IAIDtraceability” for swine/pork while NZ has a mandatory birth toslaughter swine/pork traceability program with no requirementfor ‘‘post-slaughter IAID traceability”; eight countries have volun-tary birth to slaughter, but no requirements for ‘‘post-slaughterIAID traceability,” programs for swine/pork. EU has a fully imple-mented mandatory birth to retail program that includes ‘‘post-slaughter IAID traceability” for sheep/sheep-meat; two countrieshave mandatory birth to slaughter, and three countries have vol-untary, traceability programs for sheep/sheep-meat but none ofthe five programs includes ‘‘post-slaughter IAID traceability.”Many of the voluntary as well as mandatory, birth to slaughtertraceability programs for all three species are presumed to in-clude ‘‘post-slaughter GLID traceability” (e.g., those qualifyingproducts for shipment to EU). In very-small-volume packingplants, ‘‘post-slaughter IAID traceability” can be accomplishedby fabrication in single-carcass processing units; in small- andmedium-volume plants, it can be accomplished by tagging of car-casses, sides, quarters and primal/subprimal cuts plus completeseparation/segregation of the trimmings from a single carcass.In large- and very-large packing plants, identification of primal/subprimal cuts from a specific animal is very difficult, but possi-ble, by use of DNA-fingerprinting technology while identificationof trimmings from a specific animal is theoretically possible butimplausible. Of huge present concern to the global red-meat com-plex should be that – with essentially zero risk of humans con-tracting vCJD from eating contaminated beef, and with limitedto no advantage in improving microbiological safety or verifyingage, source or other compliance issues – how can it justify the ex-pense of performing post-slaughter traceability of beef (and espe-cially of pork and sheep-meat) on an IAID, as opposed to GLID,basis.

References

AAA Tags (2006). NLIS sheep and goat requirements. Available from http://www.aaatags.com/servlet/Web?s=1466641&p=AAAT_SheepGoatRequirements.

AITWG (2005). Proposal for an enhanced national animal identification andtraceability system (with an initial focus on cattle and deer) – Analysis ofsubmissions and pathway forward. Available from http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/summary-and-analysisof-submissions-dec2005.pdf.

American Sheep Industry Association (2006a). The National Animal IdentificationSystem. Sheep Working Group Report. Authored by Cindy Wolf, DVM, Chair.Available from http://www.sheepusa.org/?page=site/get_file&print=1&file_id=0a45d2c666d08beec70c89f568dca8dd.

American Sheep Industry Association (2006b). Sheep Working Group Update. 2006ID INFO/ EXPO. Available from http://www.sheepusa.org/?page=site/get_file&print=1&file_id=98a45ebbb65c84ffac5c7c880fd3055b.

Armentrout, M. (2008). Introduction to AgInfoLink’s Meat Inventory and TrackingSystem MITS 3.0 (pp. 1–4). Available from AgInfoLink, Longmont, CO.

Bass, P. D., Belk, K. E., Bowling, M. B., Field, T. G., Geleta, S. H., LeValley, S. B., et al.(2007). Assessing The Impact of The National Animal Identification System (NAIS)With Regard to Beef, Pork And Lamb Harvesting And Rendering Facilities In The US(pp. 1–90). Final Report to USDA-APHIS-VS, Washington DC. Available fromColorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Bass, P. D., Pendell, D. L., Morris, D. L., Scanga, J. A., Belk, K. E., Sofos, J. N., et al. (inpress). Review of sheep traceability systems in countries outside of NorthAmerica. The Professional Animal Scientist.

Blancou, J. (2001). A history of traceability of animals and animal products. Rev. Sci.Tech. Office des International Epizooties, 20, 420–425.

Bowling, M. B., Pendell, D. L., Morris, D. L., Yoon, Y., Katoh, K., et al. (in press).Identification and traceability of cattle in countries outside North America: Areview. The Prof. Anim. Scientist.

British Meat Processors Association (2006). Module: British quality assured pork.Available from http://www.bmpa.uk.com/_Attachments/Resources/864_S4.pdf.

Brook, J. (2008). Global consumer demand panel – Europe/Middle East. In Proc.2008 International Livestock Congress (pp. 9–10). Denver, CO: ILC-USA.

BTS (2006) (Beef Traceability System). Traceability from farm to table provides afoundation stone for Hanwoo 1. Available from http://www.mtrace.net/board/News/hm06_board_inc_view.aspx?seq_no=339.

Canadian Cattle Identification Agency (2007). Canadian Cattle IdentificationAgency: A report to the Community 2006/2007. About CCIA, 2006/2007 CCIAAnnual Report (pdf). Available from http://www.canadaid.ca/About/#Imports_and_Exports.

Canadian Livestock Identification Agency (2005). Canadian Livestock TraceabilityBackgrounder. Available from http://www.canadianlivestockid.ca/eng/docs/20050201_Canadian%20Livestock%20Traceabililty%20Backgrounder_eng.pdf.

Canadian Pork Council (2005a). National Identification and Traceability System forthe Canadian Hog Sector. Consultation Session. Available from http://www.cpc-ccp.com/Traceability/Consultation.pdf.

Canadian Pork Council (2005b). National ID and Traceability System for theCanadian Hog Sector. Business plan – Summary. Available from http://www.cpc-ccp.com/Traceabililty/Microsoft%20Word%20-%204-summary%20busi-ness%20plan%20Oct05.pdf.

Canadian Sheep Federation (2006a). Characterisation of costs and benefits to theCanadian sheep industry of the Canadian sheep identification program.Available from http://www.cansheep.ca/english/PDFs/CSFCSIPprojectfinal.pdf.

Canadian Sheep Federation (2006b). The Canadian Sheep Identification Program.Available from http://www.cansheep.ca/english/id_e.htm.

Clayton, P. (2008). Personal Communication. Mr. Clayton is Senior Vice President –Export Services of US Meat Export Federation, Denver, CO.

Clemens, R. (2003). Meat traceability and consumer assurance in Japan. MidwestAgribusiness Trade Research and Information Center Briefing Paper 03-MBP 5.Ames, IA: Iowa State University.

Cunha, B. C. N. (2008). Personal Communication. Mr. Cunha is Exports Manager ofMinerva SA, Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Cunningham, P. (2008). Using DNA traceability to track meat and ensure safety.Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News, 28(8), 6–8.

DAFF (2006) (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Forestry, Canberra,Australia). Report of findings from a review of the operation of the nationallivestock identification system. Available from http://www.daff.gov/au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0019/117325/nlis-report.pdf.

DAHP (2005) (Department of Animal Health and Production, Gaborone, Botswana).Available from http://www.witfor.org.bw/themes/documents/Livestock_Identification_and_Trace-back_System.pdf.

Davis, J. (2007). Personal Communication. Dr. Davis is Senior Staff Veterinarian,United States Department of Agriculture – Animal and Plant Health InspectionService–Veterinary Services – National Center for Import and Export,Washington, DC.

DEFRA (2004). A guide for new keepers pigs. Available from http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/id-move/pigs/pdf/new_owner_guide.pdf.

DEFRA (2005). Livestock identification and tracing: Registering yourlivestock. Available from http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/id-move/registering.htm.

EC (2004). Council regulation (EC) No. 21/2004 of 17 December 2003 establishing asystem for the identification and registration of ovine and caprine animals andamending Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003 and Directives 92/102/EEC and 64/432/EEC. Official Journal of the European Union, L5, 8–17.

EC (2006). Commission Regulation EC No. 1505/2006 of 11 October 2006implementing Council Regulation (EC) No. 21/2004 as regards the minimumlevel of checks to be carried out in relation to the identification and registrationof ovine and caprine animals. Official Journal of the European Union, L280, 3–6.

England Order (2007). Sheep and goats (records, identification and movement).Available from http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/double-tagging/draft-statutory-instrument.pdf.

FAOSTAT (2008a). ResourcesSTAT. Available from http://faostat.fao.org/site/573/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=573.

FAOSTAT (2008b). TradeSTAT. Available from http://faostat.fao.org/site/535/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=535.

Frederick, T., Warren-Serna, W., Bellinger, G., Wood, S., Bellinger, J. & Smith, G. C.(2004b). Practices useful for removal and handling of BSE Specified Risk Material as

74 G.C. Smith et al. / Meat Science 80 (2008) 66–74

measures for protection of public health (pp. 1–67). San Antonio, TX: Food SafetyNet Services Ltd. and Fort Collins, CO: Colorado State University.

Frederick, T., Warren-Serna, W., Detwiler, L., Bellinger, J., & Smith, G. C. (2004a).Final Report from the Food Safety Net Services, European BSE Study Tour (March2004). San Antonio, TX: Food Safety Net Services Ltd. (pp. 1–20).

Golan, E., Krissoff, B., & Kuchler, F. (2005). Food traceability: One ingredient in a safeand efficient food supply. Prepared Foods, 59–70.

Hall, T. 2008. Ms. Hall worked previously for Brandt Beef (Brawley, CA) and ispresently Vice President of Food Safety and Quality, FPL Food, Augusta, GA.

Hayes, D. J., & Meyer, S. R. (2003). Impact of mandatory country of origin labeling onUS pork exports. White paper prepared for the National Pork Producers Council.Des Moines, IA. Available from http://www.nppc.org/news/stories/2003/COOLReport.pdf.

Herd On The Hill (2007). South Korea passes beef traceability system bill (p. 5).National Meat Association Newsletter (December ed.). Oakland, CA.

IdentiGEN (2004). Farm to fork traceability through DNA traceback. MimeographReport. IdentiGEN, Ltd., Dublin, Ireland (pp. 1–3).

Ireland Department of Agriculture and Food (2001a). S.I. No. 281 of 2001: Diseasesof animals act, 1966 (National sheep identification system) order, 2001.Available from http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/legislation/SI2001/SI281-01.pdf.

Ireland Department of Agriculture and Food (2001b). S.I. No. 314 of 2001: Diseasesof animals act, 1966 (control on movement of sheep) order, 2001. Availablefrom http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/legislation/SI2001/SI281-01.pdf.

Jensen, H. H., & Hayes, D. J. (2006). Private sector approaches to secure traceability,transparency, and quality assurance in food chains (pp. 1–14). Paper prepared forthe IATRC Summer Symposium, Bonn, Germany.

King, L.W. (1910). The Code of Hammurabi (translation). Available from http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM.

Lauristen, H. (2006). Danish quality guarantee. Danish Meat Processors Association.Available from http://www.danskeslagterier.dk/smcms/Danish_English/Danish_Quality/Index.htm?ID=1968.

Lewis, S. (2004). Argentina bows to pressure for expanded traceability. FoodTraceabilityReport,Vol.4.Availablefromhttp://www.foodtraceabilityreport.com.

Lewis, A. (2008). Getting to the meat of labeling. Denver Post (February 10, 2008).Available from alewis@denverpost.com.

Luna-Martínez, E. (2007). Personal Communication. Mr. Luna-Martinez is Directorof Cattle, Sheep, and Goat Promotion. Secretary of Agriculture, Ranching, RuralDevelopment, Fisheries, and Food supply (SAGARPA), Mexico.

MacKay, D. (2008). Global consumer demand panel – Australia. In Proc. 2008International Livestock Congress (pp. 13–14). Denver, CO: ILC-USA.

MAF (2005) (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington, New Zealand). Aproposal for an enhanced national animal identification and traceability system.Available from http://www.deernz.org.nz/upload/notion/sectionimages/2221_Animalid.PDF.

MAFF (2003) (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Tokyo, Japan). Beeftraceability law. Available from http://www.maff.go.jp/trace/beef_trace18.pdf.

MAFRoK (2006) (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry). Instruction Manual for aModel Beef Traceability System. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry,Gwacheon, Republic of Korea.

Meat and Livestock Australia (2003). Australian sheepmeat: Naturally safe.Available from http://www.safemeat.com.au/English/Overview/Overview+of+Australian+sheepmeat+safety+systems.htm.

Meat and Livestock Australia (2006). Fast facts: Australia’s sheepmeat industry.Available from http://www.mla.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/51787F9C-9D3E-4FB2-A610-8CB5D17E0CC6/0/FastfactsSheepmeat2006.pdf.

Meat and Livestock Australia (2007). National livestock identification system.Available from http://www.mla.com.au/TopicHierarchy/IndustryPrograms/NationalLivestockIdentificationSystem/Producers+and+Feedlots.htm.

Meat Board of Namibia (2002). Farm assured Namibian meat scheme. Availablefrom http://www.nammic.com.na/fan.php.

Meatnews.com (2007). China develops traceability system on beef. (March 7, 2007).Meghen, C. (2000). DNA traceability of meat (pp. 1–8). Presented at a Meat and

Livestock Commission Meeting, London, UK.Meisinger, J. L., Pendell, D. L., Morris, D. L., Belk, K. E. & Smith, G. C. (in press). Review

of swine traceability systems in countries outside of North America. The Prof.Anim. Scientist.

Murphy, R. G. L., Pendell, D. L., Morris, D. L., Scanga, J. A., Belk, K. E., & Smith, G. C. (inpress). Evaluation of animal identification systems in the United States ofAmerica, Canada and Mexico. The Prof. Anim. Scientist.

National Pork Producers Council (2007). Pork Industry Announces Push On PremisesRegistration. Available from http://www.nppc.org/wm/show.php?id=638&c=1.

Nippon Ham. (2004). Fresh meats. Available from http://www.nipponham.co.jp/en/en.pdf/annual2004_e4.pdf.

NLIS (2007) (National Livestock Information System). Identification and RegisterAnimal System. Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries. OrientalRepublic of Uruguay.

Nortje, G. (2002). Animal identification – the best way forward – animal ID is part ofa traceability system. Mimeograph Report (pp. 1–37). Presented at the Food

Safety Summit and National Meat Association Annual Convention, Washington,DC/Las Vegas, NV.

NZFSA (2006a). Animal status declaration form. Available from http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/animalproducts/publications/forms/statements-declarations/asd/pigsasdjan06.pdf.

NZFSA (2006b). Animal status declaration for pigs. Available from http://www.pork.co.nz/nzpork/NZPorkPigFORM%20final%202A4s.pdf.

OIE (2006). General definitions. Terrestrial animal health code. Article 1.1.1.1.World Organization for Animal Health. Available from http://www.oie.int/eng/Normes/mcode/en_sommaire.htm.

Optibrand (2006). Swift & Company, AVS, Mitsubishi & Optibrand Traceability System(pp. 1–15). Optibrand Ltd., LLC, Fort Collins, CO.

Optibrand (2007). OptibrandTM partners with Swift & Company to deliver US beeftraceability information to Japanese consumers via cellphone (pp. 1–11). Pressrelease of 05/03/2007 developed by and available from Optibrand Ltd., LLC, FortCollins, CO.

Paiola, A. (2002). Traceability: A problem solved. Meat International, 12, 39–40.Regulation (EC) No. 178 (2002). Laying down the general principles and

requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authorityand laying down procedures in matters of food safety. Official Journal of theEuropean Communities. L31/1–L31/24.

Robb, J. G., Lawrence, A. E., & Rosa, E. L. (2006). Issues related to beef traceability: Adiscussion of transforming cattle into products. Fact Sheet WEMC FS#7-06,Livestock Marketing Information Center, Denver, CO.

SAFEMEAT (2007). Traceability. Available from http://www.safemeat.com.au/English/Traceability/.

Schwagele, F. (2005). Traceability from a European perspective. Meat Science, 71,164–173.

Smith, G. C. (2004). Tracing US progress on individual ID. Mimeograph Report (pp.1–16). Feedback, Meat & Livestock Journal (November/December 2004 Issue, p.11). Meat & Livestock Australia, Sydney, Australia.

Smith, G. C. (2005). Beef Traceability in South Korea (pp. 3–7). Trip Report to the USMeat Export Federation (Denver, CO) Regarding US Embassy Seminars in Japan,Taiwan, South Korea and China. Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado StateUniversity, Fort Collins, CO.

Smith, G. C., Belk, K. E., Scanga, J. A., Sofos, J. N., & Tatum, J. D. (2000). Traceback,traceability and source verification in the US beef industry (pp. 1–12). Presentedat the XXI World Buiatrics Congress, Punta del Este, Uruguay.

Smith, K. R., Belk, K. E., Scanga, J. A., Neel, S. W., Wise, J. W. & Smith, G. C. (2002).Competitive disparities for US pork in export markets (pp. 1–132). Final report tothe National Pork Board, Des Moines, IA. Available from Colorado StateUniversity, Fort Collins, CO.

Smith, G. C., Tatum, J. D., Belk, K. E., Scanga, J. A., Grandin, T., & Sofos, J. N. (2005).Review. Traceability from a US perspective. Meat Science, 71, 174–193.

Souza-Monteiro, D. M., & Caswell, J. A. (2004). The economics of implementingtraceability in beef supply chains: Trends in major producing and trading countries.Amherst: Department of Resource Economics, University of Massachusetts.Available from http://www.umass.edu/resec/workingpapers.htm.

Steinsträter, M., & Jensen, A. (2001). Complete traceability in the cutting-up of beef.Fleischwirtschaft International, 2, 52–54.

Stitt, J. (2007). Personal Communication. Ms. Stitt is General Manager, CanadianCattle Identification Agency, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Stitt, J. (2008). The Canadian livestock traceability system. Presented at theInternational Livestock Congress, Denver, CO. Available from Canadian CattleIdentification Agency, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Stroade, J., Pendell, D. L., & Schroeder, T. C. (2007). Brazilian beef industry. Workingpaper. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.

Stromberg, S. R. (2007). ProSampler livestock biological sampling system (pp. 1–7).Presented at the Initial NAIS Seminar, Colorado State University, APHIS-USDAand Colorado Department of Agriculture. (Denver, CO). Available from ColoradoState University, Fort Collins, CO.

Sugiura, K. (2008). Personal Communication. Dr. Sugiura is an official of Food andAgricultural Materials Inspection Center, Tokyo, Japan.

Talamini, E., & Malafaia, G. C. (2006). Traceability, transparency, and assurancesystems implementation for the Brazilian exporter pork meat chain. Presented atthe International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, World Foodand Agribusiness Symposium, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Thornton, M. (2006). Australia’s pork industry gets $1.2 million for traceability.Available from http://www.foodtraceabilityreport.com.

Topel, D. G. & Eilert, S. (2002). Traceability for the pork industry; challenges andopportunities. Pork Facts. Des Moines, IA: National Pork Board.

USDA-APHIS (2006). National Animal Identification System (NAIS). A User Guideand Additional Information Resources. Draft Version. United States Departmentof Agriculture – Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Available fromhttp://animalid.aphis.usda.gov/nais/naislibrary/documents/guidelines/NAIS-UserGuide.pdf.

USDA-FAS (2006). Chile livestock and products pork annual 2006. GAIN Report.Available fromhttp://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200608/146208792.pdf.