Meat traceability - It is not the same as tracing eggs in a carton! Solution Providers required - A recent red meat analysis study [Part 4]

Theme Articles: Part 1(Innovation Challenge and Background), Part 2 (development plan), Part 3 (draft funding application), and Part 4 (recent traceability market study).

For providers consideration (and already) responding to AMPC's Innovation Challenge and wanting to understand more about, (1) the perception and, (2) the needs of Australian domestic and international red meat supply chains when it comes to the needs, drivers, and opportunities for continuing to target select areas of increasing supply chain traceability cogs, please refer to this recent, comprehensive and extensive report developed by McKINNA et al (David McKinna and Catherine Wall). The study was commissioned by Meat and Livestock Australia (Ian Jenson).

Report: Commerical application of supply chain integrity and shelf life systems.

Some key extracts (taken verbatim) from the report that is guiding AMPC's discussions in this Innovation Challenge with responding providers:

• The industry views on the need for investment in enhanced supply chain integrity systems are at odds with those of researchers and technology/service providers, whose five core propositions in support of investment can be questioned.
• Supply chain integrity technologies are highly complex and constantly evolving with implementation challenges for both meat businesses and providers.
• Despite these challenges, there are justifications beyond just product integrity and traceability for investment.
• There are justifications beyond just traceability for investment in product integrity systems including improved supply chain management, reduced risk of fraud, extended shelf life, reduced operating and wastage costs, accommodating rising retailer expectations, and access to immediate market feedback.
• The message that comes through clearly in a number of the case studies appended to the report is that investment in product integrity technologies comes at a cost to the business and as a consequence, they need to gain benefits other than product integrity to justify an investment.
• Meat businesses have found the search for technology solutions challenging and frustrating with many very expensive lessons being incurred because of the difficulty of finding a solution that meets the unique needs and priorities for their particular business. The common experience is that there no ‘off the shelf’ solutions making it necessary to patch together a range of technologies. Navigating the labyrinth of technologies is extremely challenging given the technical complexity.

Note: Readers of this LinkedIn article are advised to undertake their own interpretation of the above extracts from the surrounding content within the report, from where these extracts have been lifted.

About AMPC

AMPC is an industry body that facilitates industry and researchers/providers in undertaking/adopting innovation and R&D for the Australian red meat processing sector. We do this by having access to an industry levy (aka an industry tax) and matching Aust. Fed. Govt. R&D funds (50% from the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment - The Hon. David Littleproud MP & Andrew Metcalfe AO). We invest in others undertaking R&D. Note we do not undertake any of the R&D ourselves. 

Think of AMPC as innovation investment managers (without taking equity).

AMPC: Stuart Shaw & Matt O'Bryan (Ian Jenson @ MLA)

AMPC Executive & Board: Chris Taylor, John Berry, Melissa Fletcher, Dean Goode, James Hardwick (c/o Luke Hardwick), Leanne Heywood, Noel Kelson, Tom Maguire, Bruce Rathie & Brad Teys

AMIC: Patrick Hutchison, Terry Nolan, Jamie Ralph (c/o James Ralph) & Claire House

Australia's and CSIRO's Lead Scientists: Cathey Foley & Larry Marshall