The mean number of in-process labels generated per carcass for SFM was 3.7 and for PFM was 30.9 ( P < 0.01). The process was recorded and the data was captured from video analysis. Tracking of SFM and PFM carcass quarters was accomplished by creating in-process labels for lugs and individual wholesale cuts, respectively. In-process labels were generated by scanning the two-dimensional ( 2D) barcode on the harvest label with a handheld mobile computer and printed from a wireless mobile printer. Carcasses were fabricated, using a serial fabrication method ( SFM), into wholesale cuts one at a time or fabricated using a parallel fabrication method ( PFM), by processing multiple hindquarters or forequarters simultaneously into wholesale cuts. Following transportation to a processor, nine carcasses were processed on alternating days by one of the two methods. At harvest, each animal’s unique radio frequency identification ( RFID) animal identification number was transferred to a harvest label on each carcass quarter. Individual identities of 54 animals were maintained through harvest, processing, packaging, and distribution. The objective of this trial was to determine the influence of fabrication method on beef traceability system requirements. Traceability of beef attributes from small- and mid-sized farms through supply chains is a market barrier.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |