See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43289633

Opinions of Those in Cattle, Swine, and Sheep

Slaughtering and Rendering Sectors Regarding
Aspects of the National Animal...

Article in The Professional Animal Scientist · December 2009

DOI: 10.15232/S1080-7446(15)30773-7 · Source: OAI

CITATION READS

1 16

6 authors, including:

Dustin L. Pendell Keith E Belk

Kansas State University Colorado State University
53 PUBLICATIONS 392 CITATIONS 353 PUBLICATIONS 5,200 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Daryl Tatum John N. Sofos

Colorado State University Colorado State University
165 PUBLICATIONS 4,951 CITATIONS 460 PUBLICATIONS 9,864 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ICoMST 2014 View project

Shelf life View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Keith E Belk on 21 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Professional Animal Scientist 25 (2009):641–653
©2009 American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists

Opinions of Those in Cattle,

Swine, and Sheep Slaughtering
and Rendering Sectors
Regarding Aspects of the
National Animal Identification
System1
G. C. Smith,* D. L. Pendell,†2 K. E. Belk,* J. D. Tatum,* J. N. Sofos,* and D. L. Morris‡
*Center for Meat Safety and Quality, Department of Animal Sciences, and †Department of
Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins 80523; and ‡USDA,
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, National Center for Animal Health
Programs, Surveillance and Identification Program, National Animal Identification System, Fort
Collins, CO 80526-8117

ABSTRACT
Opinions of those in the cattle, swine,
and sheep slaughtering and rendering
sectors were characterized regarding
aspects of the National Animal Identifi-
cation System. Across plants of all size
categories, operators of 51, 46, 65, and
22% of cattle, swine, and sheep slaugh-
tering and rendering plants, respectively,
said they would now, voluntarily, submit
animal termination records (ATR). By
size category, however, too few operators
of large cattle and swine slaughtering
and rendering plants are willing to do so.
There are preconditions that might make
1
The views expressed herein are those
of the authors alone and should not be
attributed to the Colorado Department of
Agriculture or USDA-Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
2
Corresponding author: Dustin.Pendell@
ColoState.edu
slaughtering and rendering plant opera-
tors more willing to voluntarily submit
ATR; 79 to 88% would do so if radio fre-
quency identification devices (cattle and
sheep) and slap-tattoo or premises identi-
fication numbers (swine) were made
mandatory. Only 22, 29, 29, and 14% of
cattle, swine, and sheep slaughtering and
rendering plant operators, respectively,
would voluntarily pay a private database
provider a fee to protect ATR data from
the Freedom of Information Act, and 53,
25, 31, and 57%, respectively, of plant
operators would—if ATR submission
were made mandatory—send their ATR
data through a private database provider
if the fees were paid by the government.
Support for mandatory animal identifi-
cation (which would include submission
of ATR) across small-, medium-, and
large-sized plant categories was 47 to
80, 25 to 43, 25 to 100, and 100% for
cattle, swine, and sheep slaughtering and
rendering plant operators, respectively, if
industry had to pay for it, but increased
to 65 to 90, 64 to 75, 50 to 100, and
100% if the government would pay for it.
Key words: animal termination
record, National Animal Identification
System, rendering plant, slaughtering
plant, traceability
INTRODUCTION
The National Animal Identifica-
tion System (NAIS) consists of 3
components—premises registration,
animal identification, and animal
tracing; it was originally mandatory,
is presently voluntary, but may again
become mandatory (Berlier, 2009).
Under mandatory NAIS, producers,
market operators, abattoirs, and other
establishments where animals are
held would be required to collect the
animal identification numbers (AIN),
group or lot identification numbers
642
(GLIN), or both as the animals ar-
rive at their premises, and submit
the data to the appropriate animal
tracking database (USDA, 2004). Us-
ing the “bookends analogy,” a com-
plete individual animal or group or
lot traceability scenario would consist
of a “left bookend” (birth record),
“books on the shelf” (animal move-
ment records), and a “right bookend”
(death record, or animal termination
record; ATR).
Of the 13, 10, and 6 country or
community traceability programs
worldwide for cattle, swine, and
sheep, respectively, 11, 2, and 3 are
mandatory (Smith et al., 2008). In
North America, mandated animal
identification (AID) programs exist
for Canadian cattle, swine, and sheep,
and for Mexican cattle (Murphy et
al., 2008). Countries with manda-
tory swine traceability programs have
systems in place that can document
animal movement (premises changes
as well as animal birth and termi-
nation; Meisinger et al., 2008). To
ensure a closed-ended system, coun-
tries with mandatory sheep identifica-
tion require recording of the death
(i.e., termination) of a sheep (either
for slaughter or rendering) to ensure
complete traceability of that animal
throughout the production chain
(Bass et al., 2008). A key feature of
the cattle traceability systems de-
scribed by Bowling et al. (2008) is the
ATR, which documents the location
and cause of death of each animal.
The final component of the Cana-
dian Cattle Identification program is
the “retirement” of individual AID
(IAID) tag numbers within 30 d after
an animal dies; tag number retirement
is the Canadian equivalent to ATR
in the United States (Murphy et al.,
2008).
In this research study, we character-
ized the opinions of those in the cat-
tle, swine, and sheep slaughtering and
rendering sectors regarding aspects
of the NAIS and identified the most
efficacious and economical systems to
collect and to archive (store) AIN and
GLIN, and to transfer (submit) ATR
to the appropriate state and federal
animal health officials.
Smith et al.
EXPERIMENTAL
PROCEDURES
The project protocol consisted of
2 working seminars (an initial and a
final multiday meeting of more than
50 people), site visitations to slaugh-
tering or rendering plants as well
as to database-provider offices, and
analyses of data.
The initial seminar occurred before
the first site visitation on March 14
to 15, 2007. Four “cluster groups”
(one each for cattle, swine, sheep,
and rendering facility) were composed
of representatives of the American
Association of Meat Processors,
American Meat Institute, National
Meat Association, National Renderers
Association, and Southwest Meat As-
sociation. Those in the cluster groups
heard technical presentations from
representatives of the USDA-Agricul-
tural Marketing Service-Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service; Food
Safety and Inspection Service; Grain
Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration; National Institute
of Animal Agriculture; and National
Livestock Producers Association, as
well as 19 company or university ex-
perts in identification, traceability, or
current identification or traceability
technology. Included were presenta-
tions of reviews of literature that
since have been published (Bass et al.,
2008; Bowling et al., 2008; Meisinger
et al., 2008; Murphy et al., 2008).
Participants in the cluster groups
then discussed the objectives of the
study, which were 1) to determine
the impact of the use of specific
AID technologies to obtain ATR at
cattle, swine, and sheep slaughter-
ing and rendering facilities; 2) to
estimate costs associated with col-
lection, archiving, and transfer of
ATR—under different data-collection
scenarios (including AIN vs. GLIN
data transfer)—as a component of
the NAIS, for cattle, swine, or sheep
slaughtering or rendering facilities;
and 3) to arrive at a consensus among
cluster groups (representing opera-
tors of US slaughtering and render-
ing facilities) regarding how best to
accomplish collection, archiving, and
transfer of ATR to a database that
would be expeditiously accessible to
state and federal animal health of-
ficials.
Site visitations were made between
May and August 2007 by study teams
to 1) 56 slaughtering or rendering
plants in 17 states; 2) 6 slaughtering
or rendering plants and 1 feedlot in
Alberta, Canada; and 3) 6 database
providers in 5 states and Alberta,
Canada. The final seminar occurred
on August 15 to 16, 2007, following
analyses of results of all site visita-
tions and determination of annual
cost estimates for cattle, swine, and
sheep slaughtering and rendering
plant sites. After hearing presenta-
tions from representatives of USDA-
Animal and Plant Health Inspec-
tion Service and the Colorado State
University study team, participants
in the 4 cluster groups discussed the
3 objectives of the study and reached
final conclusions.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Characterization of the
Slaughtering and Rendering
Plants
Of the 56 US slaughtering and
rendering plants that were visited by
study teams, 47 were packing plants
and 9 were rendering plants. Of the
47 packing plants, 30 slaughtered only
one species (cattle, swine, or sheep),
2 slaughtered 2 species, and 15
slaughtered all 3 species. If the plant
slaughtered animals of 2 or 3 species,
data collected from that plant, after
amalgamation, appear in 2 or 3 of
Tables 1 through 4. The size (actual
size, speed, and volume) categories
used in this discussion were created
after the site visitations had been
conducted.
Small-, medium-, and large-sized
cattle slaughtering plants (data not
presented in tabular form) pro-
cessed on average <1 to 116, 117 to
1,149, and 1,150 to >4,000 head/d,
respectively. Small-, medium- and
large-sized swine slaughtering plants
processed on average <1 to 15, 16 to
4,499, and 4,500 to >12,000 head/d,
Table 1. Source of cattle, swine, or sheep slaughtered; source of cattle and swine rendered; and source of the protocol for handling dead or
downer cattle, for sites visited by study teams

Cattle slaughtering plants1 Swine slaughtering plants2 Sheep slaughtering plants3 Rendering plants4

Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Small Large
Item (n = 18)5 (n = 9) (n = 10) (n = 15) (n = 4) (n = 3) (n = 10) (n = 4) (n = 3) (n = 5) (n = 4)
At least some animals
  As custom exempt, % 89 0 0 93 50 0 90 100 0 NA6 NA
  As contract slaughter, % 44 0 30 20 25 0 20 25 100 NA NA
  From farmers or ranchers, % 83 78 60 73 75 100 50 100 67 NA NA
  From auction markets, % 56 67 60 20 25 0 30 25 33 NA NA
  From dealers, % 0 56 40 0 25 0 NA NA NA NA NA
  From feedlot operators, % 61 44 90 NA NA NA 20 25 100 NA NA
  As on-farm pick-ups, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 80 100
  From locker or packing NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 80 100
  plants, %
  From pick-up contractors, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 20 25
  From transfer stations, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 0 25
  As producer drop-offs, % NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 80 75
Of all slaughtered
  From a single state, % 33 33 10 33 25 0 40 25 0 60 25
  From multiple states, % 67 67 40 67 25 33 60 75 100 40 75
  From multiple states and 0 0 50 0 50 67 0 0 100 0 0
  Canada, %
Of all plants in category
  Allow dead or downer 11 44 50 13 50 100 10 25 100 NA NA
Opinions of National Animal Identification System

  cattle to be off-loaded for

  subsequent rendering, %
1
Small-, medium-, and large-sized cattle slaughtering plants processed on average <1 to 116, 117 to 1,149, and 1,150 to >4,000 head/d, respectively.
2
Small-, medium-, and large-sized swine slaughtering plants processed on average <1 to 15, 16 to 4,499, and 4,500 to >12,000 head/d, respectively.
3
Small-, medium-, and large-sized sheep slaughtering plants processed on average <1 to 3, 4 to 555, and >555 head/d, respectively.
4
Small and large rendering plants processed on average 0 to 110 cattle plus 2 to 55 swine, and 80 to 1,420 cattle plus 120 to 7,143 swine/d, respectively.
5
n is the number of slaughtering or rendering plants visited by the study teams.
6
NA = not applicable.
643
644
respectively. Small-, medium-, and
large-sized sheep slaughtering plants
processed on average <1 to 3, 4 to
555, and >555 head/d, respectively.
Small and large rendering plants
processed on average 0 to 110 cattle
plus 2 to 87 swine, and 111 to 1,420
cattle plus 88 to 7,143 swine/d,
respectively. It should be emphasized
that the entirety of the site visitations
represented a random sample of US
slaughtering and rendering plants and
is not intended to be representative of
the size distribution of the plants in
the nation.
Small cattle slaughtering plants
processed both youthful steers and
heifers and mature cows and bulls
(data not presented in tabular form);
most of these were locker plants
that obtained cattle from farmers
or ranchers, and auction markets or
feedlots, and that slaughtered sub-
stantial numbers of custom-exempt
cattle (generating beef that was not
for sale to the public) or performed
contract slaughter (generating beef
for subsequent private-treaty sales by
the producer or owner, for farmer or
rancher branded-beef programs, local
grocery stores, farmer’s markets, or
restaurants; Table 1). Medium-sized
cattle slaughtering plants processed
veal, youthful steers and heifers, and
mature cows and bulls; most of these
plants obtained cattle from farm-
ers or ranchers, auction markets, or
feedlot operators or dealers, and did
not process either custom-exempt or
contract-slaughter cattle (Table 1).
The large cattle slaughtering plants
processed youthful steers and heif-
ers and mature cows and bulls; most
of these plants obtained cattle from
farmers or ranchers, auction markets,
feedlot operators or dealers, and pro-
cessed some contract-slaughter, but
no custom-exempt, cattle. Most of the
large plants slaughtered some cattle
from Canada, whereas small- and
medium-sized plants did not. More of
the medium- and large-sized plants
allowed dead or downer cattle to be
off-loaded for subsequent rendering—
probably because many of these com-
panies have their own rendering facili-
ties on site—than did small plants
Smith et al.
because most small companies would
have to pay independent (nonpacker)
renderers that handle mortalities to
pick up such animals for subsequent
disposal.
Swine slaughtering plants in all 3
size categories obtained most (73 to
100%; Table 1) of their swine from
farmers or producers; small plants ob-
tained some swine from auction mar-
kets, and medium-sized plants sourced
some slaughter animals from auction
markets and dealers. Both small- and
medium-sized plants processed some
custom-exempt and contract-slaughter
swine, but the large plants did not.
During the final seminar, the swine
cluster group concluded that because
of the site visitation sampling, sourc-
ing of swine from buying stations
and dealers or consolidators by large
plants is underrepresented in these
data. Both medium- and large-sized
plants reported sourcing some swine
from Canada, but small plants did
not. Many more of the medium- and
large-sized swine slaughtering plants
allowed dead and downer cattle to be
off-loaded for subsequent rendering
than did small plants because many
plants of medium and large sizes have
rendering facilities, whereas small
plants do not.
Sheep slaughtering plants in all 3
size categories obtained some slaugh-
ter animals from farmers and ranch-
ers, auction markets, or feedlots
(Table 1). Small- and medium-sized
plants slaughtered some sheep that
were custom exempt, but large plants
did not; plants in all 3 size categories
reported some contract slaughter of
sheep. Neither small- nor medium-
sized plants sourced sheep from
Canada, but 100% of large plants did.
As was the case for plants slaughter-
ing cattle or swine, as the size of the
sheep slaughtering plant increased,
so did the likelihood that they would
allow dead and downer cattle to be
off-loaded for subsequent rendering.
Some of the large sheep slaughtering
plants had rendering facilities on site,
probably because so few independent
(nonpacker) renderers that handle
mortalities will pick up ovine dead-
stock (because of the original premise
that bovine spongiform encephalopa-
thy had originated from sheep that
had scrapie).
For both small and large inde-
pendent (nonpacker) renderers that
handle mortalities, 75% or more
received some cattle and swine from
on-farm pick-ups, from locker and
packing plants, and as producer
drop-offs (Table 1). Pick-up contrac-
tors delivered 20 to 25% of deadstock
raw material to renderers of both size
categories; 25% of large rendering
plants used transfer stations to gather
raw material. As would be expected,
small rendering plants received more
of their deadstock from a single state
than from multiple states, whereas
the opposite was the case for large
rendering plants. Neither small nor
large rendering plants reported receiv-
ing mortalities from Canada. Dur-
ing the final seminar, the rendering
cluster group remarked that the size
of rendering plant has very little effect
on the source of materials.
Receiving records and names and
addresses of owners were kept by
100% of the cattle, swine, and sheep
slaughtering plants visited by study
teams (Table 2). Physical descriptors,
ear-tag numbers, or back-tag numbers
were recorded by 56% or more of all
cattle slaughtering plants. Trucker
invoices or information was collected
by 11, 22, and 70%, hot-iron brand
descriptors were recorded by 78, 44,
and 10%, and group or lot number
was collected by 0, 100, and 100%
of small-, medium-, and large-sized
cattle slaughtering plants, respective-
ly. During the final seminar, the cattle
cluster group reviewed these data
and concluded that 1) collection of
premises identification (PID) number
or state or province IAID tag number
is region specific, depending on the
geographic location of the specific
plant and whether there are manda-
tory PID or IAID regulations; and 2)
slaughtering plants of all sizes encoun-
ter multiple forms of identification of
cattle, and they record all information
they believe is important to conduct-
ing business.
Some physical descriptors were re-
corded by 80 to 100% of swine slaugh-
Table 2. Records collected at receiving by cattle, swine, and sheep slaughtering plants and by rendering plants for sites visited by study teams

Cattle slaughtering plants1 Swine slaughtering plants2 Sheep slaughtering plants3 Rendering plants4

Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Small Medium (n Large Small Large
Item in receiving log (n = 18)5 (n = 9) (n = 10) (n = 15) (n = 4) (n = 3) (n = 10) = 4) (n = 3) (n = 5) (n = 4)
Name or address of owner, % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 NA6 NA
Trucker invoices or 11 22 70 0 100 100 0 0 100 NA NA
  information, %
Physical descriptors, % 100 78 100 80 100 100 70 75 33 100 100
Ear-tag number, % 61 67 100 47 0 0 50 100 0 NA NA
Back-tag number, % 67 56 60 0 25 0 NA NA NA NA NA
Group or lot number, % 0 100 100 0 100 100 0 50 100 NA NA
Premises identification 0 11 30 0 0 33 NA NA NA NA NA
  number, %
Hot-iron brand descriptor, % 78 44 10 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
State or province IAID7 tag 0 0 50 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
  number, %
Ear-notch number, % NA NA NA 27 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA
Ear-tattoo number, % NA NA NA 7 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA
Name or address of pick-up NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 100 100
  site, %
Number of animals in groups, NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
  at pick-up site, but not IAID
  number, %
1
Opinions of National Animal Identification System

Small-, medium-, and large-sized cattle slaughtering plants processed on average <1 to 116, 117 to 1,149, and 1,150 to >4,000 head/d, respectively.
2
Small-, medium-, and large-sized swine slaughtering plants processed on average <1 to 15, 16 to 4,499, and 4,500 to >12,000 head/d, respectively.
3
Small-, medium-, and large-sized sheep slaughtering plants processed on average <1 to 3, 4 to 555, and >555 head/d, respectively.
4
Small and large rendering plants processed on average 0 to 110 cattle plus 2 to 55 swine, and 80 to 1,420 cattle plus 120 to 7,143 swine/d, respectively.
5
n is the number of slaughtering or rendering plants visited by the study teams.
6
NA = not applicable.
7
IAID = individual animal identification.
645
646
tering plants; medium- and large-sized
plants collected trucker invoices or in-
formation, but small plants collected
no information (Table 2). Small swine
slaughtering plants (most of which
were locker plants) reported collection
of ear-tag, ear-notch, or ear-tattoo
numbers, but neither medium- nor
large-sized plants reported doing so,
probably because the collection is so
time consuming. A back-tag number
was recorded at only one medium-
sized swine slaughtering plant, which
slaughtered cull sows purchased at
auction markets. Premises identifica-
tion numbers were recorded at 0, 0,
and 33%, and GLIN were recorded at
0, 100, and 100% of small-, medium-,
and large-sized swine slaughtering
plants, respectively. During the final
seminar, the swine cluster group
concluded that swine slaughterers
who contract slaughter or buy directly
from the producers know the suppliers
and can easily trace back via GLIN,
PID numbers, or both, whereas those
who buy from auction markets, from
dealers (consolidators), through buy-
ing stations, or from fairs or exposi-
tions would need IAID.
Only large sheep slaughtering
plants collected trucker invoices or
information, and physical descriptors
were collected by 70, 75, and 33%,
respectively, of small-, medium-, and
large-sized sheep slaughterers (Table
2). Ear-tag numbers were recorded
at 50, 100, and 0%, and GLIN were
recorded at 0, 50, and 100%, of the
small-, medium-, and large-sized
sheep slaughtering plants, respec-
tively. During the final seminar, the
sheep cluster group concluded that 1)
the slaughterer should report ATR for
all custom-exempt, contract-slaughter,
and commercial animals processed
plus all dead and downer cattle off-
loaded at the plant, and 2) because
slaughter sheep are from multiple
sources, consensus is needed on the
means for identifying sheep and on
the information collected at receiving
to standardize data collection.
At 100% of rendering plants, receiv-
ing records included the name and
address of the pick-up site, physi-
cal descriptors, and the number of
Smith et al.
animals in groups (but not IAID
numbers; Table 2). During the final
seminar, the rendering cluster group
concluded that, under NAIS, render-
ers need an AIN for each bovine ani-
mal, but for swine and sheep render-
ers could choose a GLIN that would
be assigned in sequence, prefaced by
the PID number at the pick-up site
plus the date.
All (100%) cattle, swine, and sheep
slaughtering plants used slaughter-or-
der sequence numbers (killing sheets,
drive cards, knocking sheets, etc.) to
correlate the identity of live animals,
carcasses, and offal within the plant,
but not all live animals were individu-
ally identified (Table 3). Tags that are
on cattle at receiving were removed,
bagged, and attached to carcasses
after dressing in 22, 67, and 50%
of small-, medium-, and large-sized
cattle slaughtering plants, respec-
tively; in some plants of all sizes,
written or printed tags with the name
of the owner or an ear-tag, back-tag,
or paint-brand number were used for
correlation purposes. Trolley-tracking
was in place in 11% of medium-sized
plants and in 40% of large plants, but
such technology does not require that
trolley-tracking begins with a live-
animal IAID number and it may only
track the carcass and its offal. Eighty
percent of large plants had radio fre-
quency identification (RFID) device
panel readers, which would facilitate
live animal-to-carcass identification.
During the final seminar, the cattle
cluster group determined that 1)
because none of the small-sized plants
and only one of the medium-sized
plants had an RFID panel reader,
the impact of making use of such
technology mandatory for such plants
must be considered, and 2) the NAIS
needs to accommodate handwritten
documentation, given the methods of
correlation presently used by small
processors.
In some small- and medium-sized
swine slaughtering plants, but not in
large plants, written or printed tags
with the name of the owner, the slap-
tattoo number or ear-tag, chalk-mark,
or paint-brand number are used to
correlate live animal, carcass, and
offal identification (Table 3). Back-
tags, chalk-marks, or paint-brands
were applied at receiving by 66% of
small plants, but none was applied at
medium- or large-sized plants. Small-,
medium-, and large-sized plants, re-
spectively, reported that slap-tattoos
were applied to 0, 0, and 33% of pigs
at the farm; 13, 25, and 67% upon
receiving; and 0, 0, and 33% on the
slaughter floor. During the final semi-
nar, the swine cluster group said that
in large plants, each pig has a plant
number (for correlation of carcass and
offal identity), but identity backward
from the carcass would not be unique
because all pigs from the same group
or lot have the same GLIN.
Similar to swine, in some of the
small- and medium-sized sheep
slaughtering plants, but not in large
plants, written or printed tags with
the name of the owner or an ear-
tag, back-tag, chalk-mark, or paint
brand number are used to correlate
live animal, carcass, and offal iden-
tification. Of the small-, medium-,
and large-sized plants, 70, 25, and
0%, respectively, reported applying
back-tag, chalk-mark, or paint-brand
numbers at receiving. During the final
seminar, the sheep cluster group con-
cluded that 1) there are no source or
size issues relative to tracking animals
inside the slaughtering plants; data
are kept differently among plants,
and information-system capabilities
are greater in large plants, and 2) the
government should consider use of an
operating system that would provide
a GLIN system for sheep slaughterers.
Opinions of Those Interviewed
Among cattle slaughtering plant op-
erators, 35% or fewer of small slaugh-
terers would pay a private database
provider a fee to protect ATR data
from the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), and 56 and 89% of medium-
and large-sized slaughterers, respec-
tively, would send it through a data-
base provider if the government made
it mandatory to submit ATR data
and paid that fee (Table 4). Almost
all (93% or more) of cattle slaugh-
tering plant operators would fax or
 Opinions of National Animal Identification System 647

e-mail ATR data to animal health

officials. One-third or more of cattle

(n = 3)
Large
plant operators would voluntarily

NA

NA
NA
0
0

0
0
submit ATR now, but three-fourths or
Sheep slaughtering plants3 more would want mandatory prem-
Table 3. Means by which carcass and offal identification numbers are correlated with individual animal or animal group or lot identification

ises identification if ATR were made

Medium
(n = 4)
mandatory, and seven-eighths or more

NA

NA
NA
25
50

25
0
of operators would voluntarily submit
ATR if RFID tags were made man-
datory. Two-thirds or more of cattle

Small-, medium-, and large-sized cattle slaughtering plants processed on average <1 to 116, 117 to 1,149, and 1,150 to >4,000 head/d, respectively.
Small-, medium-, and large-sized swine slaughtering plants processed on average <1 to 15, 16 to 4,499, and 4,500 to >12,000 head/d, respectively.
slaughtering plant operators support
(n = 10)
Small

NA

NA
NA
60
20

0
10
mandatory AID if the government
would pay for it. During the final
seminar, the cattle cluster group con-
cluded that 1) the cost for database

Small-, medium-, and large-sized sheep slaughtering plants processed on average <1 to 3, 4 to 555, and >555 head/d, respectively.
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
management becomes more critical as
(n = 3)
Large

volume increases, and 2) small cattle

NA

NA
NA
0
0

0
0

slaughterers seem willing to use RFID

Swine slaughtering plants2

technology even though they do not

now have the capability to read RFID
tags, and are more likely to support
Medium
(n = 4)
NA

NA
NA
0
25

25
25

mandatory AID if the government

would pay for it.
Among swine slaughtering plant
numbers in cattle, swine, and sheep slaughtering plants for sites visited by study teams

operators, 36% or fewer would pay

a private database provider a fee to
(n = 15)
Small

NA5
47
40

7
7

NA
NA

protect ATR data from the FOIA

and were not moved by a scenario in
which the government would pay the
fee to a database provider (Table 4).
(n = 10)

Almost all (92% or more) of swine

Large

50
0
0

0
70

40
80
Cattle slaughtering plants1

slaughtering plant operators would

n is the number of slaughtering or rendering plants visited by the study teams.

fax or e-mail ATR data to animal

health officials. None of large plant
Medium
(n = 9)

operators and one-half or more of

67
0
11

0
67

11
11

operators of small- or medium-sized

plants would voluntarily submit ATR
now, but one-third of large-sized plant
(n = 18)4

operators and three-fourths or more

Small

22
22
39

6
6

0
0

of operators of small- or medium-sized

plants would voluntarily submit ATR
if slap-tattoos were made mandatory.
Printed tag with ear-tag, back-tag, chalk-mark,
Written tag with ear-tag, back-tag, chalk-mark,

Support for mandatory AID increased

to approximately two-thirds of swine
  slap-tattoo, or paint-brand number, %

  slap-tattoo, or paint-brand number, %

plant operators if the government

RFID = radio frequency identification.

would pay for it. During the final

Printed tag with owner’s name, %
Written tag with owner’s name, %

seminar, the swine cluster group said

that 1) cull sows should be identified
by using a PID tag; 2) cost is not
the major focus of the swine industry
RFID6 panel reader, %

NA = not applicable.
Live tags in bags, %

in considering the need for NAIS;

Trolley tracking, %

3) swine slaughtering plants prefer

to archive their own data but would
report ATR if it were mandatory; 4)
to engage those in the swine industry,
Item

AID must be mandatory, and packers

1

6
 648

Table 4. Opinions of operators of cattle, swine, and sheep slaughtering and rendering plants regarding payments to private database providers,
preferences for submitting animal termination record (ATR) data to animal health officials, premises identification, voluntary submission of ATR,
and mandatory animal identification for sites visited by study teams

Cattle slaughtering plants1 Swine slaughtering plants2 Sheep slaughtering plants3 Rendering plants4

Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Small Medium Large Small Large
Item (n = 18)5 (n = 9) (n = 10) (n = 15) (n = 4) (n = 3) (n = 10) (n = 4) (n = 3) (n = 5) (n = 4)
We would pay a private database 35 0 20 36 25 0 30 25 33 33 0
  provider a fee to protect ATR data
  from FOIA,6 %
If the government made it mandatory 31 56 89 38 0 0 33 25 33 67 50
  to submit ATR, we would send it
  through a private database
  provider if the government paid
  that fee, %
We prefer to submit ATR data by
  Mail, % 6 0 0 8 0 0 12 0 0 0 0
  Phone, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
  Facsimile, % 47 0 0 50 33 0 63 75 0 0 0
  E-mail, % 47 100 100 42 67 100 25 25 100 100 100
Premises identification should be 77 100 100 80 100 100 83 50 100 100 100
  made mandatory if ATR are made
Smith et al.

  mandatory, %
We would voluntarily submit ATR, % 67 33 40 67 50 0 60 50 100 40 0
We would voluntarily submit ATR 87 89 89 92 75 33 88 75 100 100 75
  if RFID,7 slap-tattoos, or premises
  identifications (at pick-up sites)
  were made mandatory, %
We support mandatory animal 47 44 80 43 25 33 40 25 100 100 100
  identification if industry pays
  for it, %
We support mandatory animal 65 67 90   64 75 67   60 50 100   100 100
  identification if government pays
  for it, %
1
Small-, medium-, and large-sized cattle slaughtering plants processed on average <1 to 116, 117 to 1,149, and 1,150 to >4,000 head/d, respectively.
2
Small-, medium-, and large-sized swine slaughtering plants processed on average <1 to 15, 16 to 4,499, and 4,500 to >12,000 head/d, respectively.
3
Small-, medium-, and large-sized sheep slaughtering plants processed on average <1 to 3, 4 to 555, and >555 head/d, respectively.
4
Small and large rendering plants processed on average 0 to 110 cattle plus 2 to 55 swine, and 80 to 1,420 cattle plus 120 to 7,143 swine/d, respectively.
5
n is the number of slaughtering or rendering plants visited by the study teams.
6
FOIA = Freedom of Information Act.
7
RFID = radio frequency identification.
 Opinions of National Animal Identification System
were more interested if the govern-
ment would pay for it.
Among sheep slaughtering plant
operators, 25 to 33% would pay a
private database provider a fee to pro-
tect ATR data from the FOIA, and
they did not change their minds if the
government would pay the database
provider fee (Table 4). Almost all
(88% or more) the sheep slaughtering
plant operators would fax or e-mail
ATR data to animal health officials.
One-half or more of sheep slaughter-
ing plant operators would voluntarily
submit ATR now and three-fourths or
more would voluntarily submit ATR if
RFID tags were made mandatory. All
operators of large plants supported
mandatory AID irrespective of who
paid for it, whereas one-half or more
of operators of small- or medium-sized
plants supported mandatory AID
if the government would pay for it.
During the final seminar, the sheep
cluster group concluded that 1) there
is little support for the use of private
database providers regardless of who
would pay for it; 2) no one would
report ATR data to animal health of-
ficials unless it were made mandatory;
3) operators of large sheep slaughter-
ing plants would accept voluntary
ATR but only if they were sent
directly to the government; and 4)
individual animal RFID tags were not
practical in group or lot situations.
Among rendering plant operators,
one-third of the small renderers and
none of the large renderers would pay
a private database provider a fee to
protect ATR data from the FOIA,
but two-thirds and one-half of the
small and large renderers, respective-
ly, would send it through a database
provider if the government made it
mandatory to submit ATR data and
paid that fee (Table 4). All the ren-
dering plant operators would e-mail
ATR data to animal health officials.
Forty percent of small operators but
no operators of large rendering plants
would voluntarily submit ATR now,
but three-fourths or more would
voluntarily submit ATR if RFID were
made mandatory for cattle and PID
were made mandatory for swine pick-
up sites. All rendering plant operators
supported mandatory AID regardless
of whether industry or government
would pay for it. During the final
seminar, the rendering cluster group
determined that 1) confidentiality was
not a concern for deadstock pick-up;
2) there was essentially no willingness
by renderers to pay a fee to private
database providers; 3) to facilitate the
use of electronic procedures to col-
lect, archive, and transfer ATR data,
the government would need to make
the identification system compatible
with electronic technology; 4) pick-
up contractors, rather than destina-
tion rendering plants, should report
ATR because they are closer to the
premises of origin; 5) renderers would
not search through piles of deadstock
looking for means of identification
in a voluntary ATR data submission
program, and many preferred not to
do so if the submission were made
mandatory; and 6) renderers felt they
had a place in the process of “clos-
ing records” for AID and believed the
government should made ATR data
submission mandatory.
Individual cluster groups were
asked to characterize certain means
of identifying cattle, swine, and sheep
by determining which of them were
acceptable (Table 5), which of the ac-
ceptable means were most expensive
(data not reported in tabular form),
and how efficacious or economical
the acceptable means of identification
would be (Table 6). Cluster groups
were allowed to perform the last of
these tasks (Table 6) for whichever
of the 5 plant size categories they
deemed appropriate. For such pur-
pose, the cattle and rendering cluster
groups chose 5 size categories (very
small, small, medium, large, and
very large), and the swine and sheep
cluster groups chose 3 categories (very
small, small, and large).
In deciding that certain means of
identifying cattle, swine, and sheep
would be unacceptable for use in the
production, processing, or rendering
sectors or for archiving and transfer-
ring of ATR records, the cattle, swine,
and sheep slaughtering cluster groups
identified the following as reasons for
exclusion: too expensive, risk of adul-
649
terated product, method would be a
physical hazard, better for secondary
identification, group or lot identifica-
tion was not acceptable for species,
only breeding ewes received such tags,
labor-intensive, too hard to read,
not feasible for species, not durable
enough, not feasible for the majority
of operations, and too technology in-
tensive (Table 5). Comparable reasons
for exclusion by the rendering cluster
group were as follows: technology not
available at pick-up sites, too difficult
to read under circumstances, not a
reliable or effective method, risk and
potential cost of making adulterated
product, device might migrate, might
not be detected, would be a physical
hazard, and too expensive.
Of the acceptable means for identi-
fying cattle, the cattle cluster group
decided that electronic (RFID) tags
would be the most expensive identifi-
cation option for very small and small
cattle slaughtering plants but would
be the least expensive option for
medium-, large-, and very large-sized
plants (Table 6). Related observations
by the cattle cluster group included
the following: 1) RFID technology
was the most expensive for very small
and small plants because of equip-
ment costs; 2) human-readable tags
became more expensive as the size of
cattle slaughtering plant increased be-
cause of the time and effort required
to read them; 3) the cost of RFID
tags became manageable as the size of
the cattle slaughtering plant increased
because of the large number of head
slaughtered per day and the fact that
automated data recording was easier
and more affordable; and 4) AIN
paper records were no longer manage-
able in large and very large plants.
Of the acceptable means for identi-
fying swine, the swine cluster group
decided that electronic (RFID) tags
would be the most, or one of most,
expensive means for identifying swine,
and that shoulder tattoos would be
the least, or one of the least, expen-
sive methods for identifying swine.
Related observations by the swine
cluster group included the following:
1) a GLIN could be assigned to one
animal or to any number of animals;
650 Smith et al.

Table 5. Means of identifying cattle, swine, and sheep, archiving of animal termination records, and transfer of
such records that would be acceptable versus unacceptable for slaughtering or rendering plants of all sizes,
speeds, and volumes as determined by cluster groups

Item Acceptable Unacceptable

Cattle slaughtering Human-readable tags Electronic documentation (e-records)
plants
Electronic (RFID1) tags Ear, shoulder, lip tattoos
AIN2 paper records Hot-iron, freeze, horn, paint brands
Neck-chain, under-skin, rumen-bolus transponders
Visual biometrics (iris, retina, nose print, facial recognition)
Biochemical biometrics (DNA fingerprints, autoimmune
antibodies)
Paper records for groups or lots of animals

Swine slaughtering Electronic documentation (e-records) Ear, lip tattoos

plants
AIN paper records Hot-iron, freeze, horn, paint brands
GLIN3 paper records Neck-chain, under-skin, intraperitoneal transponders
Shoulder tattoos Visual biometrics (iris, retina, nose print, facial recognition)
Human-readable tags Biochemical biometrics (DNA fingerprints, autoimmune
antibodies)
Electronic (RFID) tags

Sheep slaughtering AIN paper records for cull ewes and
plants commingled finished lambs
GLIN paper records for finished lambs
Scrapie certification tags for breeding ewes
Electronic (RFID) tags
Human-readable tags
Scrapie certification tags for fed lambs
Electronic documentation (e-records)
Ear, shoulder, lip tattoos
Hot-iron, freeze, horn, paint brands
Visual biometrics (iris, retina, nose print, facial recognition)
Biochemical biometrics (DNA fingerprints, autoimmune
antibodies)
Neck-chain, under-skin, rumen-bolus transponders

Rendering plants AIN paper records Electronic documentation (e-records)

GLIN paper records Ear, shoulder, lip tattoos
Human-readable tags Hot-iron, freeze, horn, paint brands
Electronic (RFID) tags Neck-chain, under-skin, rumen-bolus transponders
Visual biometrics (iris, retina, nose print, facial recognition)
Biochemical biometrics (DNA fingerprints, autoimmune
antibodies)
1
RFID = radio frequency identification.
2
AIN = animal identification number.
3
GLIN = group or lot identification number.

2) producers should be responsible
for termination of a group or lot; 3)
slaughtering and rendering plants
should be responsible for providing
supporting data to allow producers
to terminate groups or lots in the
producer databases; 4) the state-
ments above apply to market hogs
only; RFID tags might have value for
sows, boars, and exhibition pigs; and
5) paper or electronic records should
include PID and GLIN and should be
delivered with the group or lot to the
slaughtering plant.
Of acceptable means for identify-
ing sheep (Table 5), the sheep cluster
group decided that electronic (RFID)
tags would be the most expensive
identification technology for very
small and small sheep slaughtering
plants, and human-readable tags
would be the most expensive for large
plants (Table 6). The least expensive
identification alternatives would be
AIN paper records for cull ewes and
commingled finished lambs, GLIN
paper records for finished lambs,
scrapie certification tags for breeding
ewes, and human-readable tags for
very small and small sheep slaughter-
ing plants, and GLIN paper records
for finished lambs for large plants.
Related observations by the sheep
cluster group included the following:
1) human-readable tags must be read
up close and may possibly require
 Opinions of National Animal Identification System 651

rendering plants and RFID tags for

Table 6. Ranks of acceptable means of identifying cattle, swine, or medium-, large-, and very large-sized
sheep from most to least efficacious or economical as determined by rendering plants. Related observations
the cattle, swine, sheep slaughtering and rendering cluster groups1 by the rendering cluster group in-
cluded the following: 1) for very small
Plant size category2 and small rendering plants, start-up
Very Very costs of electronics were of concern;
Item small Small Medium Large large notebooks or ledgers work well; 2) for
medium-, large-, and very large-sized
Cattle
rendering plants, the labor to read,
  Human-readable tags 1 tie 1 tie 2 tie 2 2
  Electronic (RFID3) tags 1 tie 1 tie 1 1 1
record, and key in data were of con-
  AIN4 paper records 1 tie 1 tie 2 tie NVO5 NVO cern; 3) RFID tags, human-readable
Swine6 tags, and paper records of individual
  Electronic documentation (e-records) 1 tie 1 — 3 — animals and groups or lots of animals
  AIN paper records 4 3 tie — NVO — were acceptable to renderers; no other
  GLIN7 paper records 5 tie 5 — 1 — means of identifying animals were
  Shoulder tattoos 5 tie 4 — 4 — deemed acceptable; 4) it was not that
  Human-readable tags 3 3 tie — NVO — renderers love paper and plastic, but
  Electronic (RFID) tags 1 tie 2 — 2 —
deterioration starts at death; 5) RFID
Sheep
  AIN paper records for cull ewes and 3 tie 3 tie — 3 —
was considered the best identifica-
  commingled finished lambs tion technology, but must be read at
  GLIN paper records for finished lambs 3 tie 3 tie — 1 — pick-up sites; equipping truck drivers
  Scrapie certification tags for breeding ewes 2 2 — NVO — with a wand reader would incur some
  Electronic (RFID) tags 5 5 — 2 — initial expense; 6) human-readable
  Human-readable tags 1 1 — 4 — tags were second best but must also
Cattle and swine for rendering be read at the pick-up site, and this
  AIN paper records 3 3 3 3 3 involves time and labor expense; and
  GLIN paper records 1 1 2 2 2
7) paper records of individual animals
  Human-readable tags 2 2 4 4 4
  Electronic (RFID) tags 4 4 1 1 1
and groups or lots of animals would
work, but would require the most
1 = most efficacious or economical; 5 = least efficacious or economical.
1
time and labor expense of the accept-
2
Cluster groups were allowed to rank the identification methods for whichever of 5 able alternatives.
plant size categories they deemed appropriate. For such purpose, 1) the cattle and The cattle cluster group decided
rendering cluster groups chose 5 size categories (very small, small, medium, large, that use of human-readable tags,
and very large), and 2) the swine and sheep cluster groups chose 3 size categories RFID tags, and AIN paper records
(very small, small, and large). were equally efficacious or economi-
3
RFID = radio frequency identification. cal for very small and small cattle
4
AIN = animal identification number. slaughtering plants, whereas RFID
5
NVO = not a viable option. tags would be the most efficacious or
6
For market hogs only (not cull swine). economical alternative for medium-,
7
GLIN = group or lot identification number.
large-, and very large-sized cattle
slaughtering plants. The AIN paper
records would be an efficacious or
economical means of identification
cleaning before reading; 2) paper re- Of acceptable means for identifying for very small-, small-, and medium-
cords for individual animals or groups cattle or swine for subsequent render- sized plants but not for large and very
or lots of animals, bills of lading, and ing (Table 5), the rendering cluster large plants. Related observations by
movement documents must have a group determined that RFID tags the cattle cluster group included the
PID number to identify the origin of would be the most expensive iden- following: 1) the cost effectiveness
the sheep; and 3) RFID tag consid- tification technology for very small of implementing electronic systems
erations are the cost of equipment, and small rendering plants, whereas would increase as the number of head
software, maintenance and technical human-readable tags would be the slaughtered per day increased but was
support, recovery, and disposal cost, most expensive for medium-, large-, not limited to large and very large
and when an RFID tag is used in and very large-sized plants (Table slaughterers, and 2) costs of identi-
animals that are to be marketed at 6). The least expensive identification fication and database management
young ages, there is less likelihood of alternative would be GLIN paper would be put back on producers as a
RFID failure. records for very small and small “cost of doing business.”
652
The swine cluster group determined
that electronic documentation (e-
records) and RFID tags would be the
most efficacious or economical iden-
tification technologies for very small
swine slaughtering plants, and that
GLIN paper records would be most
efficacious or economical for large
plants. Two identification alterna-
tives—AIN paper records and human-
readable tags—that were considered
efficacious or economical for very
small and small plants were not con-
sidered as such for large swine slaugh-
tering plants. Related observations
by the swine cluster group included
the following: 1) cull sows and boars
should be given an individual PID
tag before arriving at the termination
location and then should be given an
official human-readable tag; 2) show
or exhibition swine should have an
IAID number tying the number back
to the premises of origin; and 3) the
best means for swine identification
was human-readable or RFID tags
and slap tattoos, but tags placed in
the ear would devalue the ear as a
food product.
The sheep cluster group decided
that use of human-readable tags
would be the most efficacious or
economical identification alterna-
tive for very small and small sheep
slaughtering plants and that GLIN
paper records would be the most
efficacious or economical for use by
large plants. Related observations by
the sheep cluster group included the
following: 1) scrapie certification tags
were acceptable and reasonably effica-
cious or economical for use with cull
or salvage sheep, but not for weth-
ers or ewe lambs because they did
not have scrapie certification tags; 2)
paper records for individual ewes and
individual commingled market lambs
could be used by very small and small
slaughterers, but the time and labor
requirements would preclude their use
in large plants; 3) GLIN paper records
work efficaciously or economically for
feedlot lambs and groups of cull or
salvage mature sheep from a single
farm or ranch; 4) in very small and
small sheep slaughtering plants, essen-
tially any identification method could
Smith et al.
work for youthful and mature sheep;
5) the PID needs to be mandated for
all sheep operations; and 6) RFID
tags were acceptable for use in very
small, small, and large sheep slaugh-
tering plants, but were not generally
acceptable to sheep producers.
The rendering cluster group de-
termined that GLIN paper records
would be the most efficacious or
economical identification alternative
for very small and small rendering
plants, whereas RFID tags would be
the most efficacious or economical for
medium-, large-, and very large-sized
plants. Related observations by the
rendering cluster group included the
following: 1) ATR make tracking of
diseased animals more efficient, and
renderers could add value to AID by
providing information on dead ani-
mals that could indicate emerging or
increasing diseases; 2) although RFID
technology provides the information
needed, renderers did not need the
devices themselves and many would
need to be removed before rendering;
electronic ID devices were considered
adulterants (because they can contain
copper, glass, and toxic materials) by
the US Food and Drug Administra-
tion; and 3) developers of ID devices
should communicate with the US
Food and Drug Administration and
Food Safety and Inspection Service
regarding potential problems with
adulteration, feed safety, and food
safety.
At the final seminar, cluster group
participants agreed that 1) implanted
identification devices (e.g., injectable
transponders, rumen boluses) were
unacceptable because they consti-
tuted a physical hazard and created
a foreign material problem for all
slaughterers and renderers; 2) the
most valuable information that could
be collected at slaughtering and ren-
dering plants to assist animal health
officials in identifying animals that
arrived at the plant with no identi-
fication was PID of last location; 3)
cattle slaughtering, sheep slaughter-
ing, and rendering plants should sub-
mit ATR to animal health officials on
a daily basis, whereas swine slaugh-
tering plants should not send them
routinely, but only when a search for
specific animals was initiated; and 4)
recommendations for the length of
time ATR data should be archived
before they could be discarded were
“no opinion” (cattle slaughtering
plants), “around 2 yr” (swine slaugh-
tering plants), “3 yr for lambs, 8 yr
for mature sheep” (sheep slaughtering
plants), and “no opinion” (rendering
plants).
IMPLICATIONS
Animal identification and traceabil-
ity have received considerable atten-
tion in the past few years. This study
presents the opinions of those in the
cattle, swine, and sheep slaughter-
ing and rendering sectors regarding
aspects of the NAIS. Awareness of
the opinions of these sectors regarding
animal identification should be con-
sidered because slaughterers and ren-
derers play a vital role in the livestock
industry. Reasonable alternatives for
terminating animal records should be
considered for the slaughtering and
rendering industries by species and by
the size of the plant.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors acknowledge the coop-
eration of the American Association
of Meat Processors, American Meat
Institute, National Meat Associa-
tion, National Renderers Association,
and Southwest Meat Association and
their slaughtering and rendering plant
operators. We also are thankful to P.
D. Bass, M. B. Bowling, T. G. Field,
S. H. Geleta, S. B. LeValley, J. M.
Meisinger, R. G. L. Murphy, J. A.
Scanga, and W. R. Wailes for their
assistance. In addition, the authors
gratefully acknowledge the funding
provided by the Colorado Department
of Agriculture Interagency Agreement
07BAA00140 and USDA-Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service.
LITERATURE CITED
Bass, P. D., D. L. Pendell, D. L. Morris, J. A.
Scanga, K. E. Belk, T. G. Field, J. N. Sofos,
J. D. Tatum, and G. C. Smith. 2008. Review:
 Opinions of National Animal Identification System
Sheep traceability systems in selected coun-
tries outside of North America. Prof. Anim.
Sci. 24:302.
Berlier, T. 2009. Congress intent on NAIS
ignores producers. Western Livest. J. 88:1.
Bowling, M. B., D. L. Pendell, D. L. Morris,
Y. Yoon, K. Katoh, K. E. Belk, and G. C.
Smith. 2008. Review: Identification and trace-
ability of cattle in selected countries outside
of North America. Prof. Anim. Sci. 24:287.
View publication stats
Meisinger, J. L., D. L. Pendell, D. L. Morris,
K. E. Belk, and G. C. Smith. 2008. Review:
Swine traceability systems in selected coun-
tries outside of North America. Prof. Anim.
Sci. 24:295.
Murphy, R. G. L., D. L. Pendell, D. L.
Morris, J. A. Scanga, K. E. Belk, and G. C.
Smith. 2008. Review: Animal identification
systems in North America. Prof. Anim. Sci.
24:277.
653
Smith, G. C., D. L. Pendell, J. D. Tatum, K.
E. Belk, and J. N. Sofos. 2008. Post-slaughter
traceability. Meat Sci. 80:66.
USDA. 2004. The National Animal Identifica-
tion System (NAIS): Why animal identifica-
tion? Why now? What first? Program Aid
No. 1797:1. USDA-Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, Washington, DC.