proceedings of the 13th members’ meeting - club ......68 expertsfrom 35 countriesand representa-...

PROCEEDINGS OF THE

13th MEMBERS’ MEETING

General Conclusions and RecommendationsConclusioni e Raccomandazioni generali

13th MEMBERS’ MEETING (Part 1)Chicago (USA), 27th – 28th July, 2002

13th MEMBERS’ MEETING (Part 2)Bologna (Italy), 16th – 17th November, 2002

Table of contents

Edizioni UNACOMA Service srl

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

68 experts from 35 countries and representa-tives from FAO, CIGR, AIT and UNIDO tookpart in the 13th Club of Bologna meeting, subdi-vided into two separate sessions held respec-tively on 27 – 28 July 2002 in Chicago, in con-junction with the ASAE Annual InternationalMeeting and the 15th World CIGR Congress,and on 16 – 17 November 2002 in Bologna onthe occasion of the 33rd EIMA show.

The general subject – common to both sessions– was: Mechanisation and traceability ofagricultural productions: a challenge for thefuture. The topics covered during the Chicagosession were:

1.1 The quality of productions. Market needs.Institutional and prescriptive aspects.

1.2 The role of mechatronics in the traceabilityof crop and livestock productions.

During the Bologna session, the topics coveredwere:

2.1 Sensors and data collection systems onagricultural equipment.

2.2 System integration and certification: themarket demand for clarity and transparen-cy.

2.3 Traceability: the role of mechanisation forthe control of processes and the quality ofproductions.

1.1 The quality of productions. Marketneeds. Institutional and prescriptive aspects

The subject was discussed on the basis of intro-ductory presentations by: P. De Castro (Italy),F. Pierce and R. Cavalieri (USA).

P. De Castro started discussing the changes inthe consumer patterns and food markets of theEuropean Union, where demand has now be-come explicitly tied to the process and produc-tion systems, as a result of new requirementsarising from consumer purchasing decisions.These changes have also prompted the Euro-pean Union to amend the CAP, to take into ac-count the fact that over 90% of European citi-zens have explicitly stated that they expect theCAP to guarantee safe, healthful and compati-ble with the environment food products. This

led to the enactment of the “Food Law” in July2001, which among other things provides forthe establishment of a food safety Authority.This measure was also made necessary by dif-ferences between the rules of the various na-tional legislations, which could disrupt the func-tioning of the internal market. Hence the pushtoward traceability and the emergence of newroles for agricultural mechanisation. These in-volve reducing production costs and developingthe functional characteristics of the various ma-chines so that they are able to fulfil the require-ments of traceability at all times, and hence toprovide the assurances demanded by con-sumers. But the most important point of interestfor mechanisation is, without question, theproblem of independently managing the differ-ent machines within complete productionchains. What is more, there is a need to evaluatethe “indirect” effects of the anticipated demandfor technical solutions equired by the new agri-cultural and food industry scenarios.

F. Pierce and R. Cavalieri underlined first ofall that the future of agriculture in the US andbeyond and the effects of traceability are diffi-cult to assess alone. US agriculture producesthe highest quality food at affordable prices.Traceability, whether mandatory or voluntary,appears to be inevitable because consumers de-mand it and because it is possible to achieve.The appropriate response to these challenges istechnological innovation that improves cropquality and reduces the cost of production. Toachieve this, machinery of the future must beincreasingly automated, capable of detectingcrop quality at various points in the productionand processing system. Current efforts in agri-cultural automation - robotics, guidance, andmechanical harvest – are on the right track butare inadequate; they need more investmentfrom government and private industry to makeneeded advancement. The public agriculturalresearch programs in the US, consisting prima-rily of the USDA and Land-grant universities,no longer have the cadre of scientists and pro-grams it once had working on mechanisation.Crop quality detection will benefit greatly fromemerging nanotechnologies and biosensors but

5

efforts to adapt current and future sensors tomachines at affordable costs are critical.Equipping machines with tracking capabilitiesneeded for traceability should be technological-ly feasible but efforts to make tracking systemsaffordable and interoperable will be the chal-lenge. Smart machines with these capabilitieswill be increasingly important for US agricul-ture to compete globally and to meet the needsof consumers for a safe and high quality foodsupply. However, to reach this goal requiresnew public and private sector investments inresearch and development that are not current-ly available.

1.2 The role of mechatronics in the traceabil-ity of crop and livestock productions

This important topic was covered in twokeynote papers by: H. Auernhammer (Ger-many) and I. De Alencar Nääs (Brazil).

H. Auernhammer began by noting that: thenew food production models arising from theevolution of the market and growing concernsabout the healthfulness of agricultural prod-ucts require continual monitoring of the pro-ductions and full knowledge of their history(traceability) from field to distribution. To ac-complish these objectives it will be necessaryto achieve wide adoption of innovative cropproduction technologies, such as precisionagriculture, and the ensuing generalised appli-cation of mechatronics and hydraulics to agri-cultural machinery. Recent applications ofmechatronics, in particular, have provided use-ful solutions to the technical and managementproblems of individual machines as well as ofcomplete agricultural machinery chains, mak-ing it possible to continually monitor perform-ance and optimise utilisation through remoteservice systems. A fundamental role, in thisconnection, will be played by field robotics.The continual evolution of sensor technologyand other electronic systems makes it possibleto achieve traceability of productions, includ-ing the acquisition of crop and environmentaldata, as well as the integration of different

types of information. The same can be said ofsensor technology employed in the post-har-vest phase for the non-destructive measure-ment of specific characteristics of the variousproducts before they are placed on the market.There is therefore a need to: make agriculturalmachines increasingly intelligent; further de-velop precision agriculture methods; assure thecollection of information at every stage of theproduction chain up until the point of sale, de-veloping appropriate sensors and automation.Because the scope of traceability normallygoes beyond the capabilities of individual re-search institutions or industries, it will be nec-essary to set up integrated projects that can en-able to quickly develop applicable technicalstandards.

I. De Alencar Nääs started by noting that:biosensors in livestock farming, based essen-tially on the miniaturisation of electro-mechanical devices, have been employedsince the mid 70s in various stages of produc-tion, from the monitoring of feeding to themonitoring of animal behaviour. Their appli-cation has considerably expanded over thepast ten years. These are important and inter-esting developments with a view to applyingthe principles of traceability to the processesand events of the protein production chain.The latest generation of these technologiesoffers a true capability for storing data aboutthe animals and their life, making it possibleto authenticate specific protocols. Managingspecific events, rather than a general sce-nario, as is the case of the crop productionsector, will enable livestock farmers to evalu-ate losses and detect incorrect diagnoses,thereby increasing the efficiency and accura-cy with which precision methods are de-ployed. The application of mechatronics tolivestock production, through the use ofbiosensors and the electromechanical de-vices, makes it possible to improve data col-lection and hence to take more effective ac-tions accordingly. In this connection, the Au-thor supplies some interesting examples ofthe use of these technologies in specific sec-tors of livestock production.

6

2.1 Sensors and data collection systems onagricultural equipment

This interesting subject has been dealt with inthe key note paper by J. F. Reid (USA).

J. F. Reid starts by underlining that current sen-sors and data collection systems on agriculturalequipment are fundamental elements requiredfor the development of traceability. The currentprecision agriculture technologies, whereadopted by producers, provide basic capabilitiesin data collection within the limited availabilityof sensors. However, despite the capabilitiesprovided by these systems, agricultural trace-ability is clearly in the early phases of develop-ment. Agriculture will not have to independent-ly develop all of the core elements for traceabil-ity. For example, data collection needs for trace-ability can benefit from the technology devel-opments that are contributing to the continuedinformation richness we have in society fromadvances in computer and electronic systems.Data processing and data mining tools are alsobecoming available for general use and can beadapted to agricultural needs. On the otherhand, sensors are a limiting factor for traceabil-ity. One reason is that many crop and soil char-acteristics are difficult to measure and sensorsthat exist suffer from interferences to their re-sponse. Additionally, several important sensorsfor traceability have not been developed. Thisis especially true for sensors required for themeasurement of the characteristics of individualfruit and vegetables. Unfortunately, during thistime of increasing needs for sensors, researchsupporting the development of suitable sensorsin clearly lagging. In addition: data collectionsystems will need to expand to match the levelof data needed for the traceability systems; au-tomated data transfer between elements of thesystems will increase the effectiveness of trace-ability; permanent storage methods are neededto provide a record of the responses measuredby traceability. Additional sensors will be need-ed to facilitate the measurement of responsesand to provide automated data transfer. In-creased funding will be required to lead to thedevelopment of these innovative technologies.

2.2 System integration and certification. Themarket demand for clarity and traparency

This topic has been considered in the key notereports by Y. Zaske (Germany) and L. Bodria(Italy).

Y. Zaske starts by reminding that: all parties in-volved in the food chain increasingly demandfrom the preceding supplier the proof of qualityand safety of the products. The basis for this isan uninterrupted documentation of the productflow and of all process steps via the entirechain, from primary production, via transport,storage, processing, distribution, up to the con-sumer. Accordingly, the product safety has to bemonitored by public or private inspections onthe basis of national and/or EU regulations. Be-cause of high risks, due to the complexity ofproduction and large volumes of produce, thefood industry was the first to establish compre-hensive Quality and Safety (QS) ManagementSystems including Hazard Analysis and CriticalControl Points (HACCP) Systems, generally inaccordance with ISO 9000 ff. Industry and tradenot only demand from primary producers thatthey supply large quantities of safe products ofdefined and constant quality. Increasingly theyforce farms or farm groups to prove this, e.g. byhaving their products certified (QS-seals, Bio-seals etc.), or by establishing their own QS-management systems, usually according to ISO9000 ff., too.

L. Bodria underlines that: food productionchains are becoming increasingly complex sothat an appropriate standard for food safety isnow of the highest priority for the consumers.Traceability - that can be defined as: “identifi-cation of the organisations and materials flowsinvolved in the formation of a product unit thatis individually and physically identifiable” - isan essential tool in order to provide the neces-sary level of information and to identify respon-sibilities in case of unsafe food products on themarket. A better appeal of traceability is associ-ated to a voluntary application of internationalstandards within a national certification systemmonitoring the compliance of the required doc-

7

umentation. A voluntary traceability system willbe an added value element contributing to en-hance the competitiveness of the various prod-ucts and a guarantee of a free and consciouscommitment on the part of the organisationmanagement. Club of Bologna, concludes theAuthor, should then stimulate and encourage anappropriate development of automation inmechanisation in order to allow suitable infor-mation collection storage, and transfer able to“track” the origin of agricultural products.

2.3 Traceability: the role of mechanizationfor the control of processes and the quality ofproductions

This last, interesting topic was covered in a jointpaper by R. Guidotti and A. Pagani (Italy).

R. Guidotti and A. Pagani began with a histor-ical overview of these past 50 years of develop-ment of mechanization. This only in the ‘90shas had to confront the need for traceability byleveraging the enormous potential of electronicsapplied to agricultural machinery, as amply dis-cussed in the preceding reports. This concepthas not, however, been seized upon by farmswhich in most cases continue to operate withoutan awareness of traceability or an appreciationof its importance in human technical, financialand environmental terms. And this continues tobe true despite the many great steps forwardwhich have been taken toward increasingfarmer awareness. Nearly all nevertheless re-quire at present some form of support for broad-based training in this respect, so as to be able tomeet the demands of consumers. At present andfor a few years to come, however – especially inlight of the fragmentation of farms – the authorsbelieve that a concrete aid toward traceabilitymight be found in the broad geographical distri-bution of contracting associations or companiesthat are particularly sensitive to these new is-sues and capable of addressing them.

At the end of the various presentations, heldboth in Chicago and Bologna, the participantsengaged in productive and in-depth discussions,after which they agreed upon the following:

Conclusions and Recommendations– considering the growing importance of

traceability as a tool for assuring the health-fulness of plant and animal food products bytracking their history, utilisation andsources, for the protection of consumers;

– recalling that the widespread adoption oftraceability will require the involvement ofthe various governments and countries, toidentify and define specific directives aimedat safeguarding the health of citizens;

– reasserting the consequent need to: developspecific informational processes on a largescale to: identify the crucial links within thevarious agri-food chains; promote draftingof international standards for the variousproductions, as well as techniques for track-ing and recording the material and energyflows which characterise each productionand distribution system;

– reaffirming the need for traceability to bedefined within the wider context of the cer-tification of farms;

– identifying in mechanisation the key ele-ment for documenting the history of the in-dividual productions that leave the farm, en-ter the agri-food chain and ultimately reachthe consumer’s table;

the participants unanimously recommendthat:the Club of Bologna should:

– undertake to further examine, in specialworking groups, the various procedures forimplementing traceability, defining the newtechnologies–based on appropriate sensorsand electronic instruments as well as target-ed information programs–necessary for col-lecting, storing and transferring the informa-tion acquired about the different agri-foodproductions, so as to offer the various coun-tries useful models for drafting the pertinentlegislation;

– collaborate closely with the industrial actorsto define the necessary technologies, takinginto account the specific technical and eco-nomic needs of the different countries with aparticular eye to the emerging nations in

8

which agriculture is, even today, the princi-pal component of the economy;

– promote wide-ranging educational andtraining initiatives aimed at farmers, to en-able them to comprehensively and efficient-ly implement traceability;

agricultural machinery manufacturers should:

– urgently complete lines of commercial ma-chinery equipped with appropriate instru-ments for tracking and acquiring informa-tion during the operations carried out onagricultural and livestock farms;

– act as complete and qualified partners in thenegotiations with the other industries in-volved in the agri-food chain, in order toprecisely define the level at which informa-tion about traceability is needed;

– ensure that the technology for traceability isappropriate to the needs and working condi-tions of farms, and does not entail increasedworkload but, on the contrary, encouragesits use;

– guarantee that the cost of the new additionaltechnologies can be borne by farmers andagricultural contractors, particularly with re-gard to the economic needs of the develop-ing countries;

– complete their knowledge and expertise inthe design, production, marketing and main-tenance of the sensors, software and hard-ware necessary for managing the data, thecommunications, etc.;

the agricultural sector should:

– elevate its level of knowledge in order to beprepared to operate with these technolo-gies, acquiring a good command of theiruse;

research institutions should:

– undertake activities aimed at addressing theimportant and recurring technical challengesentailed by the objectives of traceability,working in close collaboration with the in-dustrial and agricultural sectors.

9

CONCLUSIONI ERACCOMANDAZIONI GENERALI

68 esperti provenienti da 35 paesi, oltre ai rap-presentanti di FAO, CIGR, AIT, UNIDO, han-no partecipato al XIII meeting del Club of Bo-logna articolato in due differenti sessioni svolte-si, rispettivamente, il 27-28 luglio 2002 a Chi-cago in occasione dell’ASAE annual internatio-nal meeting e del XV Congresso mondiale delCIGR ed il 16-17 novembre 2002 a Bologna inoccasione della XXXIII EIMA.

L’argomento generale – comune ad entrambe lesessioni – ha riguardato: Meccanizzazione etracciabilità della produzione agricola: unasfida per il futuro. Nella sessione di Chicagosono stati svolti i temi:

1.1 La qualità delle produzioni. Esigenze delmercato. Aspetti istituzionali e prescrittivi.

1.2 Il ruolo della meccatronica nella tracciabi-lità delle produzioni vegetali e animali.

Nella sessione di Bologna, invece, sono stati af-frontati i seguenti argomenti:

2.1 Sistemi di rilevazione e raccolta di dati sul-l’equipaggiamento agricolo.

2.2 Integrazione e certificazione del sistema: lerichieste del mercato per la chiarezza e latrasparenza.

2.3 Tracciabilità: il ruolo della meccanizzazio-ne per il controllo dei processi e la qualitàdelle produzioni.

1.1 La qualità delle produzioni. Esigenze delmercato. Aspetti istituzionali e prescrittivi

L’argomento è stato discusso sulla base delle re-lazioni introduttive presentate da: P. De Castro(Italia), F. Pierce e R. Cavalieri (USA).

P. De Castro ha articolato il proprio rapporto inquattro capitoli principali. Il primo ha riguarda-to i cambiamenti dei consumatori e del mercatoalimentare nell’Unione Europea, ove la doman-da legata al processo e al sistema di produzioneha ormai assunto dimensioni esplicite attraversol’assunzione di nuovi requisiti legati alle scelted’acquisto. Queste modifiche hanno indottol’Unione Europea a dover ritoccare anche laPAC in conseguenza del fatto che almeno il90% dei cittadini europei ha esplicitamente ri-

conosciuto di attendersi, appunto attraverso laPAC, prodotti sicuri e sani e il pieno rispettodell’ambiente. Ciò ha portato a emanare nel lu-glio 2001 la cosiddetta “Food Law”, preveden-te, tra l’altro, la costituzione di un Authority perla sicurezza alimentare. Ciò si è reso necessarioanche per il fatto che i provvedimenti nazionalipresentano differenze nei metodi e dettagli chepossono perturbare il funzionamento del merca-to interno. Da qui la spinta verso la tracciabilitàe i nuovi ruoli per la meccanizzazione agricola.Questi riguardano il contenimento dei costi diproduzione e lo sviluppo delle caratteristichefunzionali delle varie macchine così da poter ri-spondere in ogni momento agli aspetti propridella tracciabilità e, quindi, alle garanzie richie-ste dai consumatori. Ma indubbiamente il prin-cipale elemento di interesse per la meccanizza-zione, si lega al problema della gestione auto-noma delle varie macchine nell’ambito di interefiliere di produzione. Si impongono, poi, valu-tazioni sugli effetti “indiretti” che derivano dal-la prospettiva della domanda di mezzi tecnici inrelazione ai nuovi scenari agricoli e alimentari.

F. Pierce e R. Cavalieri sottolineano, anzitutto,che molti fattori influenzano il futuro dell’agri-coltura sì che il problema della tracciabilità co-me tale è difficile da considerare individual-mente. L’agricoltura USA produce alimenti del-la più alta qualità a prezzi abbordabili. La trac-ciabilità – sia essa obbligatoria o volontaria – ri-sulta inevitabile in quanto i consumatori lo ri-chiedono sapendo che essa è raggiungibile. Unarisposta appropriata a questa sfida è ottenutadall’innovazione tecnologica mirata a migliora-re qualitativamente le colture e a ridurre i costidi produzione. A tal fine le macchine in futurodevono essere sempre più automatizzate, capacidi registrare la qualità delle colture nei vari mo-menti del loro sviluppo e della loro trasforma-zione. Gli sforzi correnti nell’automazione ro-botica avvengono nella giusta direzione, ma ri-chiedono maggiori investimenti governativi edei gruppi industriali. I programmi pubblici diricerca agricola in USA vengono svolti princi-palmente nell’ambiente USDA e delle facoltàagrarie. L’andamento della qualità delle colturebeneficerà grandemente dell’introduzione della

13

“nanotecnologia” e dei biosensori. Gli sforzi peradattare i biosensori alle macchine sono critici.Così si dica per quanto attiene tutte le altre tec-nologie avvenieristiche che, applicate alle mac-chine agricole, consentiranno all’agricoltura USdi competere globalmente incontrando le esi-genze dei consumatori per prodotti alimentarisicuri e di alta qualità.

1.2 Il ruolo della meccatronica nella traccia-bilità delle produzioni vegetali e animali

Su questo importante argomento sono state pro-poste due valide relazioni di base prodotte da:H. Auernhammer (Germania) e I. De AlencarNääs (Brasile).

H. Auernhammer ha esordito ricordando che:la modifica dei modelli alimentari dovuta all’e-voluzione delle forme di mercato e la semprepiù sentita esigenza di salubrità delle varie pro-duzioni agricole richiedono il controllo delleproduzioni stesse e la conoscenza della loro sto-ria (tracciabilità) dal campo alla distribuzione.La realizzazione di tali obiettivi comporta, anzi-tutto, la diffusione di tecniche innovative legatealle produzioni vegetali, com’è per l’agricolturadi precisione e la conseguente generalizzata uti-lizzazione della meccatronica e dell’idraulicaapplicate alle macchine agricole. Le recenti ap-plicazioni della meccatronica, in particolare,hanno fornito utili risposte ai problemi tecnici egestionali delle singole macchine in quanto tali,così come dell’intero parco macchine agricoleconsentendo il controllo in continuo delle pre-stazioni, l’ottimizzazione degli impieghi permezzo di sistemi di servizio gestiti a distanza.Ruolo fondamentale in merito, è poi destinato agiocare la robotica di campo. L’ampia disponi-bilità attuale e la continua evoluzione della sen-soristica e di altri strumenti elettronici consentedi realizzare la tracciabilità delle produzioni in-cludendo l’acquisizione dei dati culturali e am-bientali, nonché l’integrazione delle varie infor-mazioni. Analogamente può dirsi per la sensori-stica da applicare nelle fasi post-raccolta al finedi registrare con tecniche non distruttive le ca-ratteristiche specifiche dei vari prodotti primadella loro offerta sui mercati. L’uso di queste

tecnologie e procedure può garantire che la trac-ciabilità renda sicura l’informazione, evitandomanipolazioni improprie e garantendo la qualitàdei prodotti. Da qui l’esigenza di: rendere sem-pre più intelligenti le macchine agricole; svilup-pare le tecniche proprie dell’agricoltura di preci-sione; assicurare la raccolta di informazioni a tut-ti i livelli della catena produttiva fino alla com-mercializzazione sviluppando sensori appropriatie l’automazione. Poiché i concetti propri dellatracciabilità eccedono normalmente le capacitàofferte da singole istituzioni di ricerca così comeda singole industrie, si rende necessaria la messain essere di progetti integrati tali da consentire diraggiungere rapidamente standards tecnici appli-cabili.

I. De Alencar Nääs ha esordito ricordando che:l’applicazione di biosensori alla produzione ani-male, essenzialmente basati sulla miniaturizza-zione di dispositivi elettromeccanici, è in usodalla metà degli anni ’70 nei vari stadi della pro-duzione, dal controllo dell’alimentazione aquello del comportamento degli animali in alle-vamento. Tale applicazione, in questi ultimi die-ci anni, si è notevolmente ampliata. Si tratta dipassaggi interessanti e importanti al fine del-l’applicazione dei principi di tracciabilità relati-vamente a eventi e processi che avvengono al-l’interno della catena della produzione proteica.L’ultima generazione di queste tecnologie com-prende la reale possibilità di immagazzinare da-ti sugli animali e la loro vita, pervenendo al-l’autenticazione di protocolli specifici. La ge-stione di un dato evento, anziché di un quadrogenerale, così come avviene nel comparto delleproduzioni vegetali, porta la precisione dellaproduzione animale a valutare perdite ed a indi-viduare errate diagnosi incrementando l’effi-cienza e l’accuratezza dell’uso delle tecniche diprecisione. L’applicazione della meccatronicanella produzione animale è possibile tramitel’uso di biosensori e degli accennati dispositivielettromeccanici, consente di migliorare la rac-colta dei dati e, conseguentemente, di ottenerepiù precise azioni al riguardo. Vengono, in me-rito, riportati alcuni esempi sull’uso di questetecnologie in particolari comparti della produ-zione animale.

14

2.1 Sistemi di rilevazione e raccolta di datisull’equipaggiamento agricolo

Questo interessante argomento è stato trattatonella relazione di J. F. Reid (USA).

J. F. Reid inizia rimarcando che i sensori attua-li e i sistemi di raccolta di dati nell’equipaggia-mento agricolo sono elementi fondamentali ri-chiesti per lo sviluppo della tracciabilità. Le at-tuali tecnologie dell’agricoltura di precisione,adottate dai produttori forniscono caratteristichebasilari nella raccolta dei dati nella disponibilitàlimitata dei sensori. Comunque, a dispetto dellecaratteristiche fornite da questi sistemi, la trac-ciabilità agricola è chiaramente nelle prime fasidi sviluppo. L’agricoltura non dovrà sviluppareindipendentemente tutti gli elementi centrali perla tracciabilità. Per esempio, la necessità di rac-colta di dati per la tracciabilità può beneficiaredegli sviluppi tecnologici che contribuiscono al-la continua abbondanza d’informazione nellanostra società grazie al progresso informatico edi sistemi elettronici. Gli strumenti per proces-sare ed estrarre dati sono in procinto di esseredisponibili per usi generici e possono essereadattati alle esigenze dell’agricoltura. D’altraparte i sensori sono un fattore limitante per latracciabilità. Un motivo è che molte delle carat-teristiche riguardanti il raccolto e il suolo sonodi difficile misurazione e i sensori esistenti pati-scono delle interferenze nelle loro risposte. Inaggiunta non sono ancora stati sviluppati im-portanti sensori per la tracciabilità. Ciò è sicura-mente vero per quanto riguarda i sensori atti amisurare le caratteristiche proprie di frutta everdura. Sfortunatamente, in concomitanza al-l’aumento di richieste di sensori, la ricerca sup-porta lo sviluppo di sensori adatti in chiaro ri-tardo. In aggiunta i sistemi di raccolta di dati ne-cessiteranno di espandersi per eguagliare il li-vello dei dati richiesti per la tracciabilità. Il tra-sferimento automatico dei dati tra elementi delsistema intensificherà l’efficacia della tracciabi-lità; sono richiesti metodi di stoccaggio perma-nente per provvedere alla registrazione di rispo-ste misurate dalla tracciabilità. Sensori addizio-nali serviranno a facilitare la misura delle rispo-ste ed a fornire il trasferimento automatico dei

dati. Un grande investimento sarà richiesto persviluppare queste tecnologie innovative.

2.2 Integrazione e certificazione del sistema:le richieste del mercato per la chiarezza e latrasparenza

Di questo argomento trattano le relazioni di J.Zaske (Germania) and L. Bodria (Italia).

J. Zaske esordisce ricordando che: tutte le par-ti coinvolte nella catena alimentare esigonosempre di più dal fornitore precedente la provadi qualità e sicurezza dei prodotti. Il fondamen-to di ciò è una ininterrotta documentazione delflusso del prodotto e di tutti i passi del processoattraverso l’intera catena, dalla produzione pri-maria attraverso il trasporto, l’immagazzina-mento, l’elaborazione, la distribuzione, fino alconsumatore. Lungo questa strada, la sicurezzadel prodotto deve essere monitorata da ispezio-ni pubbliche o private sulla base delle regola-mentazioni nazionali e/o della UE. A causa de-gli alti rischi, dovuti alla complessità della pro-duzione e al suo largo volume, l’industria ali-mentare è stata la prima a stabilire Sistemi Am-ministrativi di Qualità e Sicurezza (QS) che in-cludono l’Analisi del Rischio e Sistemi di Pun-ti di Controllo Critico (HACCP), che si accor-dano in generale con la ISO 9000 ff. Industria ecommercio non richiedono solo ai produtori pri-mari di fornire grosse quantità di prodotti sicuridi qualità definita e costante. Sempre di più ob-bligano le aziende o gruppi agricoli a provvede-re a ciò, per esempio con la certificazione deiloro prodotti (marchi QS, marchi Bio etc.), ostabilendo propri sistemi di QS-management,sempre in accordo con l’ISO 9000 ff.

L. Bodria sottolinea che: le catene di produzio-ne alimentare stanno incessantemente diventan-do complesse cosicché un appropriato standardper la sicurezza alimentare è in questo momen-to di alta priorità per i consumatori. La traccia-bilità – che può essere definita come “identifi-cazione delle organizzazioni e flussi dei mate-riali coinvolti nella formazione di un’unità diprodotto identificabile individualmente e fisica-mente” – è uno strumento essenziale atto a for-

15

nire il necessario livello d’informazione e adidentificare le responsabilità nel caso di prodot-ti alimentari non sicuri sul mercato. Un interes-se più profondo della tracciabilità è associato al-l’applicazione volontaria di standards interna-zionali all’interno di un sistema di certificazio-ne nazionale che controlli l’adesione alla docu-mentazione richiesta. Un sistema di tracciabilitàvolontario sarà un elemento di valore aggiuntoche contribuisce ad aumentare la competitivitàdei vari prodotti e una garanzia di un impegnolibero e consapevole da parte dell’amministra-zione dell’organizzazione. Il Club of Bologna,conclude l’autore, deve inoltre stimolare ed inco-raggiare uno sviluppo appropriato dell’automa-zione nella meccanizzazione per fornire imma-gazzinamento della raccolta di adeguate informa-zioni e trasferimento capace di “tracciare” l’ori-gine dei prodotti agricoli.

Tracciabilità: il ruolo della meccanizzazioneper il controllo dei processi e la qualità delleproduzioni

Quest’ultimo, interessante argomento è trattatocongiuntamente da un rapporto preparato da R.Guidotti e A. Pagani (Italia).

R. Guidotti e A. Pagani esordiscono richia-mando, pur per sommi capi, la storia di questiultimi 50 anni di sviluppo della meccanizzazio-ne. Solo negli anni ’90 essa si è trovata a doveraffrontare il concetto della tracciabilità con tut-to l’enorme potenziale di elettronica applicata,appunto, alle macchine agricole e ampiamentericordato dalle precedenti relazioni. Questoconcetto travalica il ruolo delle aziende agrico-le che, in molti casi continuano ad operare sen-za essersi rese conto di esso e della sua impor-tanza in termini umani, tecnici, economici edambientali. Ciò anche se, pure da questo puntodi vista, molti passi avanti sono stati compiutinel progressivo acculturamento degli agricolto-ri. Questi, tuttavia, richiedono ora tutti una for-ma di assistenza per un ampia formazione al ri-guardo, sì da poter rispondere alle richieste deiconsumatori. Al momento e per alcuni anni, tut-tavia, gli autori ritiengono che – specie a causadella frammentazione aziendale – un contributo

materiale per la tracciabilità possa essere forni-to dalla diffusa distribuzione territoriale di con-tracting associations or companies particolar-mente sensibili a questi nuovi problemi e in gra-do di farvi fronte.

Al termine delle varie relazioni, si è aperta, siaa Chicago, sia a Bologna, un’intensa ed utile di-scussione alla fine della quale i partecipantihanno concordato sulle seguenti

Conclusioni e raccomandazioni– considerata l’importanza crescente della

tracciabilità come strumento atto a garantirela salubrità delle produzioni alimentari diorigine vegetale e animale ripercorrendonela storia, l’utilizzazione e la localizzazionee, quindi, proteggendo i consumatori;

– ricordata l’esigenza che un’adozione gene-ralizzata di questo strumento deve impegna-re gli stati e i governi dei diversi paesi nel-l’individuare e definire precise direttive attea contribuire alla salvaguardia della salutedei cittadini;

– richiamata la conseguente esigenza di: svi-luppare specifici processi informativi sugrande scala per: identificare i punti crucialipropri delle varie catene alimentari; pro-muovere la definizione di standards interna-zionali delle diverse produzioni nonché deisegnali per la registrazione e il controllo deimateriali e dei flussi energetici propri di cia-scun sistema di produzione e distribuzione;

– riaffermata l’esigenza che la tracciabilitàvenga definita all’interno del più ampio con-testo della certificazione delle aziende agri-cole;

– individuata nella meccanizzazione la chiaveper la definizione della storia delle singoleproduzioni che dall’azienda entrano nellacatena alimentare per giungere sino allamensa;

i partecipanti, unanimi, raccomandano:al Club of Bologna di:

– assumersi il compito di approfondire, trami-te specifici gruppi di lavoro le varie proce-dure necessarie a detta tracciabilità, definen-do le nuove tecnologie necessarie - basate su

16

appropriati sensori e strumenti elettronici ol-tre che su programmi informativi adatti - araccogliere, immagazzinare, controllare etrasferire le informazioni acquisite sulle di-verse produzioni alimentari, sì da offrire aivari paesi gli strumenti utili a legiferare inmerito;

– collaborare strettamente con i gruppi indu-striali per la definizione delle tecnologie ne-cessarie, considerando le specifiche esigen-ze tecniche ed economiche proprie dei varipaesi con particolare riguardo a quelli emer-genti nei quali l’agricoltura resta tuttora lacomponente principale delle loro economie;

– promuovere un’ampia azione educativa e ditraining tecnico per gli agricoltori, sì da con-sentire loro una completa ed efficiente ge-stione della tracciabilità;

all’industria costruttrice di macchine agricoledi:

– completare con urgenza le linee delle mac-chine commerciali con appropriati strumen-ti atti a tracciare ed acquisire informazionidurante lo svolgersi delle operazioni propriedelle aziende agricole e zootecniche;

– porsi come completo e valido partner nei ne-cessari negoziati con le altre industrie dellacatena alimentare al fine di definire con pre-

cisione a quale livello le informazioni sullatracciabilità siano necessarie;

– assicurarsi che la tecnologia propria dellatracciabilità sia adatta alle esigenze dellecondizioni di lavoro proprie delle aziendeagricole senza apportare ulteriori aggravi dilavoro ma anzi promuovendone l’uso;

– garantire che il costo delle nuove tecnologieaggiuntive sia affrontabile da parte degliagricoltori e delle imprese di meccanizzazio-ne, con speciale riferimento alle esigenzeeconomiche dei paesi in via di sviluppo;

– completare le proprie esperienze e cono-scenze nel progetto, nella produzione, nellavendita e nella manutenzione dei sensoriadatti, del software, dell’hardware per la ge-stione dei dati, la comunicazione ecc;

al comparto agricolo di:

– migliorare il proprio livello di conoscenzaper essere pronto ad operare con queste tec-nologie appropriandosi del loro uso;

alle istituzioni di ricerca di:

– svolgere attività utili a far fronte alle impor-tanti ricorrenti sfide tecniche per soddisfaregli obiettivi della tracciabilità, operando instretta collaborazione col comparto indu-striale ed agricolo.

17

13th MEMBERS’ MEETING (Part 1)Chicago (USA), 27th – 28th July, 2002

In the occasion of:the ASAE Annual International Meeting and the XV World CIGR Congress

Opening Session

Session 1

Mechanisation and traceability of agricultural production: a challenge for the future

1.1 The quality of productions. Market needs. Institutional and prescriptive aspects

1.2 The role of mechatronics in the traceability of crop and livestock productions

Leading person: Richard O. Hegg, USA

List of participants

OPENING SESSIONLeading person: Giuseppe Pellizzi, Italy

Prof. Giuseppe PELLIZZIPresident of the Club of Bologna – ItalyI am especially pleased to be opening this work-ing session of our Club of Bologna which – asalready happened in 2000 in Tsukuba (Japan) –is being held here in Chicago in conjunctionwith the Annual International Meeting of theASAE and the XV CIGR World Congress. Allthis confirms the importance of the Club’s activ-ities, which are carried on with the backing ofUNACOMA (Italian Association of AgriculturalMachinery Manufacturers) and under the aegisof CIGR itself. The subject we are about to dis-cuss—the issue of traceability—and which willlater be completed in the forthcoming meetingto be held, as usual, in Bologna on 16th and17th November of this year, is of particular im-portance both to help combat hunger in theworld, as well as to answer the growing demandfor safe and healthful foodstuffs. In fact trace-ability is, very simply put, the history of eachfood product beginning with the preparation ofthe land in which it will be grown, to the harvestoperations, its subsequent partial or total pro-cessing, and ending with its placement on themarket. This is a topic that has been discussedand worked on for some years throughout theworld, and the first concrete decisions – such asthe European Union regulation passed on 18January 2002 – defining methods for monitor-ing the entire supply chain, have already beenadopted by the main countries. But – as unfor-tunately still happens all too frequently – theprevalently biological character of these issuesmeans that lawmakers completely forget therole of mechanisation and equipment in the sup-ply chain, thereby neglecting the associatedproblems and needs. However both machineryand equipment play an indispensable role inevery stage of the supply chain, and it is there-fore necessary to be able to evaluate them, un-derstanding their performance, identifying theneeds for innovation and fulfilment of specificrequirements for assuring the quality and safetyof products. Consider, by way of example, theimportant effects which machines for spreadingfertilizers and pesticides can have in this con-nection, and the ensuing need for adjusting theoperation of such machines. This is why we

consider it important to begin discussing thesecomplex problems as of now. And we will be do-ing this with two sets of papers, the first of ageneral character and the second with a moretechnical and scientific slant, precisely in orderto underline the role that mechanisation mustplay, also as a tool for tracking the productionprocess and safeguarding the consumers. Thesepapers will deal with the following topics: thefirst two papers will discuss the meaning oftraceability, the quality of productions and theneeds of the markets; the second two paperswill address the role of mechatronics in thetraceability of plant and animal productions.The speakers will be: Prof. Paolo De Castro(Italy) and Prof. Francis Pierce (USA), fol-lowed by Prof. Hermann Auernhammer (Ger-many) and Prof. Irenilza De Alencar Nääs(Brazil). I extend our warmest thanks to all ofthem and wish them all the best with their pre-sentations, which I hope will be followed by aserious and constructive debate that will enableus to draw useful Conclusions and Recommen-dations.Before closing and handing over the presidencyto full member Prof. Richard Hegg (USA), whohas kindly accepted to serve as chairman of thissession, I would like to extend a warm andfriendly greeting to the official representative ofUNACOMA who is here with us – Mr. Tugnoli –as well as to CIGR President Bartali, and toASAE President Skaggs. I have had the pleasureof spending some interesting discussion dayswith both of them in April in Morocco. And fi-nally, a special thank you goes to ASAE for thesupport which they have once again given us, toNew Holland America and in particular to Dr.Allen Rider for his customary helpfulness in or-ganising yesterday’s excellent technical tour.Please allow me now to add a few remarks on:• what has been done for the propagation of

the Code of Ethics which was discussed ex-tensively at our last meeting;

• what steps have been taken for the proposalsput forward by K. Renius for setting up apermanent structure for the transfer of tech-nology to African countries.

Well, for what concerns the Code of Ethics, wehave distributed it to all 12 European associa-

23

tions of agricultural manufacturers adhering toCEMA and to EMI in the United States; forwhat concerns Japan, I have asked Mr. Kishidato directly forward the Code to the Japanese as-sociation of agricultural machinery manufac-turers. All these recipients have been asked toexamine the document and get back to us withtheir comments and opinions. So far, I have on-ly received responses from a few associations,but I am confident that more will be forthcom-ing. For what concerns Prof. Renius’ proposal,we have contacted various Italian and interna-tional organisations to illustrate what is need-ed, requesting an initial financial contributionable to permit to about ten experts from differ-ent developed countries to attend an initialmeeting that will be held in Morocco, hopefully,I hope within the end of the year. At the sametime, we are establishing contacts with organi-sations in Asia and South America for the samepurpose. The activities are therefore growingever more intense and, I hope, productive.I now give the floor to Valerio Tugnoli, followedby Bartali and Skaggs.

Prof. Wayne SKAGGSPresident of ASAE – USAThank you Prof. Pellizzi. It is a pleasure for meon behalf of ASAE to welcome you to the USAand to Chicago. We are glad to have you with usas we hold our 2002 Annual International ASAEmeeting jointly with the 15th CIGR World Con-gress. Many of you are members of ASAE andmany of you do not get the chance to be with usoften, and we are particularly glad that you arehere. ASAE is this year 95 years old. In formeryears, just a few years back, we held two meet-ings per year and almost every year one of thosemeetings was held here in Chicago. Conditionsare a little bit different now than they were atthose meetings, which were held in December inthe rain and the snow and sleet, usually or of-ten. Nevertheless, we are glad to be back here inChicago again and I hope you will be enjoyingyour stay here as the meetings go forward. Youwere housed yesterday by two former ASAEpresidents, Al Rider and Gail Holloway ofCNH. I understand your field trip went well,and that the weather cooperated, with the sun

coming out in the afternoon, just as we prom-ised that it would. You have an outstanding pro-gramme planned for today, and I am sure youwill have productive sessions. I hope all of youare planning to attend the CIGR-ASAE meet-ings starting today through Wednesday, Therewill be over 900 technical papers presented atthe meetings which will be organised in techni-cal sessions to accommodate both CIGR andASAE technical presentations. The meetingswill include presentations by many of theworld’s experts. You are some of those expertsand you will be making some of those presenta-tions. Those papers will be on topics that spanthe breadth of our profession. I am going to par-ticularly call your attention to the session 75;there are many other interesting sessions, butsession 75 is on agricultural engineering andinternational development in the third millenni-um; it will be held on Tuesday starting at 9 a.m.,in rooms K and L. I think that this will be a ses-sion of particular interest to many of you.Of course, our meetings also include normal re-ceptions, discuss events, tours. I think it is shap-ing up a bit to be an outstanding meeting andwe appreciate you participation in it with us. Ifyou have not registered yet and you wish to doso, there is still time. The registration desk willbe open today just outside this room, just downthe hall. Again thank you for your attendance,your presence here adds to the prestige of theASAE-CIGR meetings and helps us to make thiscooperative effort truly a world-class event.Thank you for being here.

Mr. Valerio TUGNOLIRepresentative of UNACOMA – ItalyAt this session of the Club of Bologna, I havethe honour of representing UNACOMA’s Presi-dent, Aproniano Tassinari, and its DirectorGeneral, Carlo Ambrogi, who are unable to at-tend, as they would like to do, this meeting,which coincides with the International Confer-ence of the American Society of AgriculturalEngineers (ASAE) and with the 15th WorldCongress of the International Commission ofAgricultural Engineering (CIGR). Besidesgreeting all the participants on behalf of UNA-COMA, I would like to express the organisa-

24

tion’s warm appreciation to Prof. GiuseppePellizzi, the Club’s President, for all he hasdone, and I would also like to give a specialthanks to Prof. Paolo De Castro, President ofNomisma, an important Italian Institute, whowill be reading a directory report. The leitmo-tiv of this session is “Mechanisation and Prod-uct Traceability: a Challenge for the Future”.It will be followed up when the Club will meetin Bologna in November. The title expressesone conspicuously important aspect: whereshould agriculture be heading for; hence, theincreasingly decisive role falling to mechanisa-tion in ensuring higher product quality togeth-er with compatibility with the environment.This explains why there is such interest in therole that can be played by mechatronics inproduct traceability. I certainly don’t plan toget into the substance of the debate here. But Ithink this is a good chance, on behalf and in thename of the Italian Agricultural Machinery In-dustry Association, to confirm UNACOMA’sfull willingness to continue its support for theClub, both in its home turf in Bologna, atEIMA, but also at other events such as here inChicago that attracts the attention and interestof international experts, who thus ensure a de-bate with highly qualified participants and con-tributions. We are convinced that technical andtechnological issues of which mechanisation issurely emblematic cannot be considered inde-pendently of what we might describe as a cul-tural pre-condition. This is why the knowledgein question should be propagated to all the ge-ographical areas where agriculture is prac-ticed, as a function - in different social and eco-nomic realities - of the value of the tools thatmechanisation makes available: tools that canbe modulated according to the needs emergingin each area as a result of history, traditionsand lifestyles, in brief, the differing life-storiesof the each people and civilisation. This is whythe birth of the Club of Bologna and its evolu-tion over the years represent something goingwell beyond the affirmation of an association ofagricultural mechanisation experts at the high-est level. It also provides a stimulus to initiatea debate and an improvement, identifying solu-tions that will work in countries with an ad-

vanced agriculture, but also in the developingcountries to which increasing attention must bedirected. Above all, the Club’s role must be tocreate a climate of cooperation in which it ispossible to transfer the knowledge acquired tothe vast range of people involved, as well as topublic opinion. Once again, I thank you foryour participation on behalf of UNACOMA andwish you a good debate.

Prof. El Houssine BARTALIPresident of CIGR – MoroccoThank you very much, Prof. Pellizzi. I ampleased, also on behalf of CIGR to say that weare very proud and happy to see the Club ofBologna meeting take place on the occasion ofthis joint 15th World Congress organised by theCIGR in conjunction with the annual ASAEmeeting. While we were touring yesterday Icounted 17 countries represented in this Club ofBologna meeting, which I add, as Prof. Skaggssaid, give prestige to this event. The subjectsthat are debated are of the utmost importancefor the CIGR global network and we are happythat we can benefit from the discussions and putthis in our e-journal newsletter in order to com-municate them to the rest of the world.Let me say that Prof. Pellizzi, who is behind thisinitiative, and UNACOMA are eager to con-tribute to CIGR feasibility. In Marrakech lastApril, Prof. Pellizzi attended a special meetingof CIGR, there were also Prof. Skaggs and themeeting was to prepare this big event of Chica-go. I am also happy to mention that from what Iheard, Prof. Pellizzi was also behind UNACO-MA to prepare a meeting in Morocco that is totake place towards the beginning of next yearand which will be joined to a field day whereItalian agricultural machinery will be on expo-sition and introduced to Moroccan agriculture.But at the same time, about 20 African partici-pants will be sponsored to come and see whatcan be adapted to their context. This in fact, asyou know, is the best way to support and devel-op technology transfer and we are grateful tosupport the unity that UNACOMA and Prof.Pellizzi of the Club of Bologna offers us.I wish your meeting every success and thankyou again for your participation.

25

Giuseppe PELLIZZIThank you very much El Houssine for yourspeech. With this, we have finished the openingsession. Let me remind you, before we startwith the work, that, in your bag, you have ayellow sheet with the address of each of you.

Please check it. There are some modifications.If something is modified, in the e-mail, or inthe fax or in the address, please inform thesecretary.I am pleased to give now the floor to our sessionchairman, Prof. Richard Hegg.

26

SESSION 1

Mechanisation and traceability of agricultural production: a challenge for the future

1.1 The quality of productions. Market needs. Institutional and prescriptive aspects

1.2 The role of mechatronics in the traceability of crop and livestock productions

Leading person: Richard O. Hegg, USA

Prof. Richard O. HEGG USAI am very pleased to serve as moderator todayand I think it is a very interesting and fasci-nating topic to address, because it ties in thefuture of our agricultural-food system, it tiessort of in the engineering aspects, and whatkind of roles we and our countries can play.Certainly there could be some tremendouschallenges out there in the future and this tiesin so I think it is an excellent topic for oursession today. And I might make some com-ments from my personal perspective of look-ing at these issues we’re seeing the issues oftraceability as we will find out in the plantsystems and certainly also in the animal sys-tems in this food production. In some cases itcould be for environmental purposes. Wemight look at the water, soil and air; what ishappening, what is affecting them and why dowe need to trace what we are doing in agri-culture. Another aspect would be in the foodsafety area, for example. Many concerns forwhat has been added in food, what has beenmodified and to be able to trace that back tothe source; once again, another huge chal-lenge for us. Another one that I can think of isworkers’ safety. This relates back to the ma-chinery and the machinery system, wherethere are weaknesses and problems that mightaffect workers’ safety. So, those are sort ofthree examples. Another one that we haveprobably to keep in perspective here, is look-ing at what is appropriate for developedcountries and what is appropriate for devel-oping countries. A different kind of technolo-gy, a different situation and different prob-lems that we and this group would have to ad-dress and look at those types of things.Two other different ways to look at it I thinkof traceability’s legal requirements. Whatregulations will you have in your country thatwill require you to trace? For example, wecould probably project in the years ahead andin some cases right now where you are usinginsecticides and pesticides and herbicides.Where are they being used. Tracking, tracingmonitoring, record keeping of all that. If youdo not have that, it is probably going to be

coming. So that is for the legal requirements.Another traceability that we have seenevolved in many countries over the last twoyears is the marketing of products and I thinkof the example and even the gentleman of thefarm we visited yesterday, if you picked up alittle bit of his conversation you will haveheard him talking about some of the beef ani-mals that he produces and he uses the Ab-erdeen Angus and in this case he gets an ad-ditional price supplement for that – he canmarket it as Aberdeen Angus. So they have tobe able to track and trace that there is Ab-erdeen Angus type of beef. So it is for market-ing and we think of the organic food areas.Being able to track and trace that somethingis certified as organic. Again, a lot of trace-ability is going to be required, and from anengineering aspect we will have to play a ma-jor role in that.Before I turn it over to our first speaker, Iwish to remind you that in your packet you al-so have a couple of sheets that I described be-fore, that you can write down key sentencesthat you might want to, not present but turn inat the end of our sessions. So you have got acouple of pages there and my suggestion isthat, as the discussions and presentations goon, you make some notes yourself and at theend of the day you write down some of thosekey sentences and you can turn them in to thesecretary or to Prof. Pellizzi or myself, so wecan gather those and use as part of our Con-clusions and Recommendations. I guess that Iam going to keep track and when we get to thediscussion part and we can try and keep ontarget and not diverge too far away from thetopics we are trying to address today so insome cases I might ask you either to reduceyour comments or to focus in; so I apologisefor maybe having to do that but we want toaddress the issues of the day.So the overall purpose of this and I think wewill do well to set it off as recommendations.We have some tremendous experience andbrain power in this room from a variety ofcountries and if we can bring something to-gether, some key recommendations that wecan then support, and promote, and push for-

29

ward to the potential industry or policy mak-ers. This type of thing is what we want to beable to do. So what would be the end goal oftoday is to have some good recommendationsthat we feel for that can be supported in thefuture. That will conclude my comment and

the first speaker I would like to introduce isProf. Paolo De Castro professor of FarmEconomics in the University of Bologna. Hewill be making our first presentation. Then wecan continue with the second presentation byFrancis Pierce and Ralph Cavalieri.

30

Topic 1.1 a - The quality of produc-tions. Market needs. Institutional andprescriptive aspects in EU

by Prof. P. De Castro (Italy)

1. The consumer and food market changes inthe European Union

The recent years have seen a substantial andsudden change in the behaviour and in the rela-tions between consumers and the agri-foodchain. These changes, though characterised bydistinct dynamics, have a common root in therelation with quality.

If, on one hand, the relationship between con-sumers and food produce has experienced, infunctional terms, a growing demand of productbuilt-in services – such as single dose packs,fast food, whether frozen, fresh in modified at-mosphere or vacuum-wrapped – on the other,the demand related to the process and the pro-duction system has taken a great visibility. Theconsequence has been that consumers in pur-chase choices are considering new issues: “howis it obtained?”, “where is it produced?”, and“what are the impacts of the production meth-ods on the environment and on land?”. Consid-ering the market and non-market problems oc-curred over the last ten years, these questionsseem particularly topical and urgent in the fieldof animal husbandry, while still involving, atleast for the future, the whole agri-food sector.

The data of a recent survey on Italian con-sumers provide quite clear indications on theranking of food products perceived as being ofhigher quality (Table 1). In other words, thetable illustrates the “premium” consumers arewilling to spend to ensure quality produce.

As clearly indicated over 90% of interviewedare willing to pay a premium. In particular, onethird of the sample is willing to pay between 6and 10% more than the conventional produce.There are, however, substantial shares of con-sumers who are willing to recognise largelyhigher price differences.

A recent survey of Eurobarometro on the EUconsumers does confirm these values.Shortly, it may be stated that, from the perspec-tive of the EU production firms and chains, qual-ity is a choice that may find a direct return in theconsumer even in economic terms. Obviously,for these indications to translate into effectiveeconomic results, it is necessary to achieve andcommunicate a quality that is perceived andcould be recognised by the consumer.

Next to these “traditional” definitions of quali-ty, a new issue has been recently emphasised,that is food safety. Focus on this has been in-duced and stimulated by particularly attractingissues for the public opinion and the media,such as the “mad cow”, the debate on biotech-nologies and on genetically modified organisms(GMOs) in the food sector, and even some scan-dals such as the Belgian dioxin-chickens.

Moreover, looking closely at the Italian realitywe discover further paradoxes that deservesome reflections. This is the case of the BSE inwhich Italy has seen, on one hand, the highestdrop of domestic consumption of beef in Eu-rope, and, on the other, one of the lowest num-bers of affected animals in Europe. Actually, in2001 the Italian beef sector has experienced a28% fall in consumption, with -30% for vealand a less, although evident, marked reductionfor beef (-25%). This trend is countered by theincrease in pork (+18%), poultry (14%) andrabbit meats (4%).

Such severe effects did not occur in other Euro-pean countries, where the epidemic showedstronger effects: from 1987 to 2001, indeed,over 18,000 cases of infected animals were ob-served in Great Britain, 277 in France, 246 inIreland and 125 in Germany, against 50 casesonly recorded over the same period in Italy.

In the same way, other affairs that have con-cerned the European poultry sector have notspread in our country thanks to the high health-sanitary standards adopted. Nevertheless, de-spite these objective data, the consumption onthe domestic market has, however, decreased asa result of information campaigns and of the at-tention devoted by media to food scoops.

31

2. The changes and the new orientations ofthe EU agricultural policy

Besides the direct impacts on the market and ondemand behaviour, these events have had a fur-ther effect that has no precedents in the past;they have indeed modified the attitude and thecitizen-consumer relation as well as the wholechain related to foodstuffs. This has also influ-enced the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP),that is the system of rules, tools and economicresources aimed in the past to ensure the foodrequirements of the European Union but alsothe economic conditions and farmers’ income.For some years the CAP has been put under“observation” by the public opinion because, onone hand, it absorbs a considerable share of theCommunity budget, nearly 50% with an expen-diture of over 40 billion euro, but, on the other,it has not been able to prevent “shocks” such asthe BSE and swine fever, and to ensure the con-sumers’ and citizens’ safety, in general.

This has pointed out explicitly the issue of thequality of rules and of the agricultural policy,but also the problem of their acceptance by thepublic opinion. On this basis it is interesting tolook at the data of the last Eurobarometro sur-vey of 2001, which has indicated the objectivesthe European citizens would like to have as ba-sis of the CAP (Table 2).

The table shows the theme of the new objec-tives as compared to the past; the priorities arethe “safety and healthiness of products” (90%)and the “environmental sustainability” of pro-ductions. Vice versa the economic and produc-tive objectives that have supported the historicalfunctions of the CAP are not considered todayas being priorities.

If we consider the recent evolution of Commu-nity policies we find that some major moveshave been made in the direction indicated andexpected from citizens.

First of all the White Paper on food safety andthe so-called “Food Law” of July 2001. In com-pliance with the prescriptions, in few monthsthe Authority for food safety will be established.Next to these horizontal “pillars”, which are es-

sential to build a relation of confidence with theconsumers, the other great effort should concernthe CAP. The CAP is making, during theseweeks, the first moves towards the mid-term re-view of the agreement on Agenda 2000, signedin 1999. This will give the opportunity both tocheck and improve the relationship of agricul-ture with the markets and to revise the relevanttools and objectives. The CAP will increasinglybecome a tool able to orient the farms’ and thesystem operators’ behaviour towards qualityand consumers’ expectations.

The European agri-food chain is facing the newcause and effect relationship that relates theCAP, its cost and the objectives it is intendedfor. If the definition of the objectives, based onthe review of the CAP scheduled for 2003, is re-spondent to the “new” citizens’ requirements itwill be maybe possible to undertake an action ofsustainable development of the agri-food chainand of its enterprises over time. In this action,more than in other options, quality productscould find the appropriate space.

Nevertheless, these new bases do not only con-cern the European Union but also involve di-rectly the countries and international productionsystems. This is due, on one hand, to the con-stant increase of the international trade of agri-food products with the subsequent enlargementof the scope of the rules and requisites of prod-ucts and of their production systems. On theother hand, there are an increasing number ofcountries in which the public opinion and thepoliticians address explicitly new requirementsto the agricultural and agri-food sectors.

3. The EU approach to quality and food safety

Without going deeply into the specific policies,these scenarios find a common denominator inthe new needs of “assurance” on food safety, ingeneral and on the transparent certification ofproduction processes and of the single productsbeing used and obtained.

Adequate tools should support this assurance,and it is within this context that the EuropeanUnion is strengthening the need to introducesystems of product traceability. This is a choice

32

that opens up new prospects, such as the han-dling of information, the labelling and segrega-tion of sectors (the so-called identity preserva-tion).

The development of the European food legisla-tion has been influenced, over the last fortyyears, by scientific, social, political and eco-nomic forces. Within this period, the food legis-lation has pursued different strategic objectives,such as harmonising the national measures andsupplying a basis for the domestic market, oradopting common measures within the commonagricultural policy (CAP). Although not alwaysexplicit, these objectives have been indissolublyrelated to the creation and keeping of a high lev-el of human health protection, consumers’ safe-ty and safeguard. The multiple objectives haveentailed some differences in the approach tofood legislation as well as inconsistencies oreven gaps.

On this basis, the White Paper on food safety ofthe European Union has defined the strategicobjectives, the priorities and the work pro-gramme relative to food legislation, in general,and food safety, in particular. Actually, theWhite Paper has confirmed and defined thecommitment of the Commission to devise anoverall integrated approach to regulate the en-tire food chain. In particular, the White Paperhas launched the proposal to establish a Euro-pean Food Authority and has provided a com-plete range of definitions, principles and meas-ures to ensure a high level of protection and aneffective operation of the domestic market inthe food sector.

The White Paper has identified the need to facethe issue of consumers’ and commercial part-ners’ confidence in the European food sector.Consumers and commercial partners have actu-ally lost confidence in the public bodies’ capac-ity to regulate and control the safety of foodsupplies, in the system of elaboration of the Eu-ropean food legislation and in the European in-stitutions themselves. This has necessitated asubstantial revision of the Community organisa-tional system.

The need to have promptly a sound and reliablescientific consultancy in a sector that is gettingmore and more innovative and technological, isheavily weighing on the European system of thescientific committees in charge of devising spe-cific views. The Community legislation makesuse more and more of scientific evaluations de-signed to protect the European population. In thefood sector such a task is charged to the scientif-ic committees established by Commission deci-sion No 97/579/CEE2, that sets up the scientificcommittees in the field of consumers’ health andfood safety, and decision No 97/404/CEE3 thatestablishes a steering scientific committee. Thisgrowing need has inevitably enlarged the system,both in terms of the committees’ ability to assessthe safety of scientific papers and for the evalua-tion of more general issues relating public health.

This proposal reviews the organisationalchanges required to ensure the working out ofscientific views and to encourage co-operationwith the member States so as to ensure the bestuse of the available skills.

The regulations of the European Parliament andCouncil (COM2000/716), commonly known as“Food Law”, have actually materialised theseobjectives, establishing the principles and gen-eral requisites of food legislation, and fixingsome procedures for food safety, including anearly warning system for food and feed-ingstuffs. Moreover, it has established the Euro-pean Food Authority, defining its scope, tasksand responsibilities.

Contrary to the relatively recent developmentthat food legislation has experienced at theCommunity level, the national laws in the foodsector are much older. Therefore, the definitionsof food and the general principles and requisitesof food legislation are deeprooted in the legalhistory of some member States.

While having similar notions and principles, na-tional provisions show some differences interms of methods and details, which can disruptthe domestic market operation.

In other words, they refer to some basic princi-ples, definitions and guidelines (also in terms of

33

obligations and responsibilities for enterprises)that could be useful for the future review of themeasures in force or for working out proposalsin new sectors. One of the strengths of “foodlaw” is that it has fixed some common defini-tions, including the definition of “food”, andhas established the guidelines and general legit-imate objectives of food legislation, so as to en-sure a high level of health protection and an ef-fective operation of the domestic market.

In conclusion, focussing on the legal issues re-lated to the origin, the recent food scandals(BSE and dioxin) have shown that the possibil-ity to identify the origin of feedingstuffs andfoods, including the ingredients and foodsources, plays a major role for consumers’ pro-tection. In particular, the traceability facilitatesthe possible withdrawal of foods at risk, and al-lows consumers to have ad-hoc and accurate in-formation on the products concerned. The re-cent proposals of the Commission that are di-rected to re-formulating legislation in the fieldof food hygiene indicate the general requisitesapplicable in this field and enable, however,derogating the need of traceability in the sectorswhere it is not feasible while establishing,where necessary, more specific requisites.

In particular, there is already an existing trendfor all feedstuff and food producing companiesto establish systems enabling them to identifytheir own suppliers of food, feedstuffs and ani-mals intended for human consumption, as wellas those who, in turn, supply their own products.

This is to be made available, upon request, tothe relevant authorities. This provision also con-cerns importers, as they should be able to iden-tify those who have exported a given productfrom a third country. This measure is intendedto ensure that enterprises are at least able toidentify the previous and subsequent rings ofthe food chain, unless specific provisions re-quire a greater traceability.

4. Enterprises and chains towards traceabil-ity: new roles for mechanisation

Without going deeply into the regulatory and le-

gal aspects, it is now possible to address the keyissue of my presentation, that is the implicationsand effects of new quality tools, in particulartraceability, on the agricultural sector.

First of all, it is important to underline that thepast experience points out that the single com-ponents of the sector cannot, per se, satisfy theconditions required to ensure the consumer ef-fectively: it is therefore essential to ensure anintegrated sector-based approach, which haslong been accepted at the European level, andemphasised in the White Paper on food safety.

This means that each operator of the food chain,ranging from agriculture to distribution, shouldbe responsible for his/her competence, develop-ing “sector protocols” that include also thepoints of change and transition from a phase tothe next.

If considering the quantitative aspects, the ex-perience of countries that are currently involvedin the production of GMO agricultural prod-ucts– such as the USA – provides important in-dications showing that there are – above all – di-rect effects on production costs.

From a recent study of the EU Commission re-ferred to the segregated management of maizeand soy-bean in the USA, it results that farmshave experienced an increase in productioncosts between +6/7% and +16/17%. The costitems with the highest impact are those referredto the management of contamination and to thetransportation and storage phases.

But the effects of this situation affect the wholesector, including the first buyers such as themilling and feedingstuff industries. The pur-chase price of “ogm-free segregated” maize andsoybean in the USA experience exceeds theconventional price by about 13 US$/ton formaize (about 10% of the price) and 40-45 US$for soybean (about 15% of the price).

Nevertheless, we should frame these brief indi-cations in a larger context. Above all these sig-nificant impacts on costs could change signifi-cantly as related to the scale economies result-ing from a large spreading of these methods. Onthe other hand, the recent experience does con-

34

firm that the adoption of these methods can sup-port policies of supply differentiation and com-mercial upgrading, thus shifting actually on fi-nal buyers all or part of the actual increase incost.

Lastly, we cannot ignore that in some cases,these new production orientations are not an op-tion but a forced choice to aim at the long-termsustainability of agricultural activities and ofthe agricultural policy as well.

In the light of these indications, we can drawsome conclusions on the effects of these scenar-ios on the future prospects of agricultural mech-anisation. These prospects could be analysed attwo levels:• directly• indirectly.

The first level is the one that derives directlyfrom the application in food sectors of trace-ability systems, and hence their extension to allproduction phases, including those related to thefield.

Within this prospect the major relevant item foragricultural mechanisation is related to the issueof segregation, that is the autonomous or fullyseparated management of entire productionchains. At present, the needs of traceability as-sociated to segregation are strong for “ogm-free” and organic sectors. Nevertheless, theseneeds are likely to extend in the forthcomingyears to other certified productions that shall besegregated.

These methods of chain management necessi-tate and will increasingly necessitate a specialfocus on the possible sources of crossed con-tamination. Within this frame the demand forspecific mechanical tools and means related tothe needs of segregated management will grow

and will demand both technical solutions able torespond effectively to crossed contaminationproblems (attention is to be paid to the cleaningof means and mechanical parts) and mechanicalmeans, more flexible in use and likely to be ef-ficient even at different scales from the presentones.

On the other hand, it is necessary to assess the“indirect” effects resulting from the prospect oftechnical means demand in relation to the newagricultural and food scenarios. These scenarioscould lead to:• re-define the geographical distribution of

productions in different world areas, withinsingle macro-areas or within the EuropeanUnion;

• reduce the subsidies (despite the recentchange in trend in the USA), notably thoseoriented to direct objectives of increase inproduction and productivity, with possiblenegative impacts on the capacity to invest intechnical means;

• further trade liberalisation, with the majoreffects of China accession to the WTO andthe future accession of Russia;

• and lastly new demands even for technicalmeans will emerge; in this sense the mostrelevant case is that of Eastern Europe coun-tries that will join the European Union start-ing from 2004, thus causing an enlargementof the European agriculture by over 60 mil-lion hectares.

Next to these dynamics there are other majorvariables that are still very uncertain; theyrange from the signing of agreements on inter-national trade (especially for the contents re-lated to the Trips and the international protec-tion of designations), to the mid-term reviewof the European Union agricultural policy(Agenda 2000).

35

Table 1 - How much one is willing to pay as an extra for a quality produce [Source: Swg 2001Investigation “The challenge of quality”].

Table 2 - What do the European citizens expect from the Common Agricultural Policy [Source:2001 Eurobarometer Survey].

36

EXTRA-PAYMENT SHARE (%)

Nothing 5

Till 5% 20

Between 6 and 10% 33




Over 30% 5

I don’t know 4

OBJECTIVE SHARE FIRST OPTION

Safe and healthy products 90%

Respect of the environment 89%

Protect small enterprises 82%

Adapt agriculture to consumers’ needs 81%

Improve the living conditions in the rural world 80%

Increase the competitiveness of the EU agriculture 78%

Topic 1.1 b - The quality of produc-tions. Market needs. Institutional andprescriptive aspects in US

by Prof. F. J. Pierce and Prof. R. Cavalieri(USA)

1. Introduction

The topic evolved from the belief that the newtrend on traceability of products is related alsoto an appropriate mechanization and that eachmachine has to answer to the quality require-ments of food needed by the market (Prof.Giuseppe Pellizzi, personal communication,2002). In this paper, we address the topic oftraceability in agriculture and what traceabilitymeans to the future of agricultural mechaniza-tion with particular reference to the state ofagriculture in the US Prof. Paolo De Castro ad-dresses this topic with reference European con-ditions.

We approach this assignment with the followingperspective. Our context will be productionagriculture in the US, with special reference toirrigated agriculture of high value crops. Wewill briefly address the “state of agriculture” inthe United States because there are many issuesbeyond traceability that are shaping the futureof agriculture in the 21st century and that createnew demands for technology and mechaniza-tion beyond that needed for traceability. It is ourpremise that US agriculture in general must re-duce the cost of production of the highest qual-ity crop and food products if it is to be compet-itive in a global market with both global and lo-calized demands on what is produced and how.We then discuss traceability and what thatmeans to US agriculture. Regardless of whethertraceability is mandatory or voluntary, it ap-pears that the US must be able to deal with it be-cause consumers will continue to demand it andbecause it is achievable with current if notemerging technology. We discuss three areaswhere mechanization can contribute to cropquality and traceability: Automation, quality de-tection, and tracking. We conclude with a beliefthat while technological advances to improve

quality and traceability of crops and food prod-ucts are feasible, the degree to which the US canproduce the needed advancements in these areasdepends on the strength of its research programsin agricultural mechanization and technologydevelopment. At this point, the public capacityin the traditional agriculture research institu-tions in the US is not adequate for the challengedue to lack of funding and national priorities inthis area over the last few decades. Gearing upthe research capacity for this effort should be apriority for the US.

One caveat before we proceed. Nowak (person-al communication, 2002) suggests that there aretwo agricultural systems emerging in the US:the large, commercial, highly mechanized pro-ducer and the small, niche market, green labelproducer often found in the urban fringe.Nowak suggests that the latter group will notneed traceability since the market they servedoes not demand it and accepts the food theysell because they are “local” or their marketpitch sells “trust”. Therefore, while our discus-sion may not pertain well to this agriculturalsystem, it will have relevance if these producersengage in the broader marketplace, particularlythe world export market.

2. The State of Agriculture in the UnitedStates

Any discussion about mechanization and trace-ability must begin with an appreciation of theeconomic environment in which US agriculturemust operate. Eastern Washington agricultureexperienced a rash of difficulties during 2001that exemplify the general state of agriculture inthe United States. In January, 2001, potatoeswere selling for US$ 0.022 per kg, well belowthe cost of production, largely due to a glut ofpotatoes on the market. In February, the antici-pated drought from lack of snow pack in themountain ranges of the Pacific Northwest andSouthwest Canada caused water districts inEastern Washington to reduce irrigation sup-plies to junior water right districts to about one-third of their normal allocation. In some areasof the Pacific Northwest, specifically KalamathFalls, Oregon, water was completely shut off to

37

hundreds of thousands of acres of irrigated land.Low water levels increased the competition forwater resources due to priority water rights forfish in Eastern Washington rivers. The WesternUnited States’ electrical energy crisis hit, fur-ther reducing water availability and taking hun-dreds of thousands of acres out of productionwhen the water rights for those lands were pur-chased by power companies like BonnevillePower Administration. In April and May 2001,the Bush Administration proposed extendingand broadening of the Andean Trade Prefer-ences Act (ATPA), which expired at the end ofthat year and gives duty free or reduced-ratetreatment to the products of Bolivia, Peru,Ecuador and Colombia. Agricultural productsarriving from countries covered under earlierversion of this Act, such as asparagus, reducedthe market price to levels unsustainable to theseUS industries. The year 2001 was the last yearfor farmers in select counties in WashingtonState to meeting strict water quality standardsfor irrigation in which water leaving a farmfield has to be as clean or cleaner than irrigationwater entering that field. The US Environmen-tal Protection Agency (EPA) continued theirprocess of removing targeted groups of pesti-cides from the market, many of which havebeen essential to pest management in irrigatedcrops of Eastern Washington. These changes arepart of a general move to what are referred to as“soft” crop protection chemicals that are muchmore selective and allow for the management ofbeneficial organisms. Finally, apple growerslost money for the third straight year in 2001,resulting in the consolidation of both growersand processors in the tree fruit industry. Theyear 2002 has the same problems perhaps witha different set of players. This year, droughtplagues other regions of the US, such as Col-orado, which is experiencing the drought of acentury and widespread fires.

The long-term outlook for farmers and agribusi-ness has not been bright for these and many oth-er reasons. Globalization, national policy, envi-ronmental accountability, competing uses forwater and farmland, frequency and intensity ofdrought and floods, energy shortages, and over-

production all make farming tenuous. Add tothat concerns over food quality and safety, andmost recently, homeland security, and it be-comes increasingly difficult to select the busi-ness model needed for sustainable food andfiber production. The relevant point is that anydiscussion about the effects of traceability onmechanization cannot ignore the other factorsshaping agriculture in the United States.

Solutions proposed to reverse the downwardtrends in farm profitability in the US take threegeneral tracks: legislative, including farm sub-sidies and trade protection; increased market-ing; and improved competitiveness. The re-cently passed Farm Bill is record setting in thedollars allocated to farm subsidies in the US;thus, the legislative track is increasing in inten-sity, although arguably, there are winners andlosers here. Increasing markets for farm andfood products is generally the favorite of farm-ers because it fulfills the notion that anythingthey can produce can be sold. Many would likea return to the scenario that occurred in the ear-ly 1970’s when grain prices quadrupled andfarmers were encouraged to farm “fence row tofence row” [1]. Improving competitiveness in-volves a preference for our products over oth-ers. While very desirable, this is the most diffi-cult track for agriculture largely because it in-volves improving quality while at the same timereducing the cost of production and requiresstrict attention to consumer preference, which isoften illusive and constantly changing. Trace-ability is important here because product differ-entiation and branding foster competitivenessand require traceability and/or identity preser-vation. However, there is more to competitive-ness than traceability.

Consider the apple industry in the United States,which has declined, in recent years due to issuesdiscussed previously. Until the last two years,apple growers were not receiving direct pay-ments from the Federal government that severalcommodities enjoy. While accepted by growersas short term aid, for the most part, apple grow-ers do not want to take this track in the long-term. Marketing has been and will continue tobe an integral part of the apple industry and is

38

well supported by industry dollars. However,after three years of losing money, this industryhas realized that marketing alone cannot sustainprofitability. The fact is that globalization hasmade it possible for others in the world to pro-duce apples at lower prices and levels of quali-ty that are adequate to compete with US apples.The US apple industry now realizes that it mustincrease it’s competitiveness in global and do-mestic markets by offering the highest qualityapple at an affordable price. While simple inconcept, this is difficult to achieve for two rea-sons. The cost of apple production has and con-tinues to increase while retail price and totalconsumption remain flat; and, secondly, con-sumer preferences have changed more rapidlythan the industry’s products have changed.

To this the tree fruit industry in Washington hasresponded by developing a “TechnologyRoadmap for Tree Fruit Production”(www.treefruitresearch.com) which outlines theresearch and development program needed toattain their stated vision: “For the tree fruit in-dustry in the Pacific Northwest to be globallycompetitive, it must reduce the cost of produc-tion of the highest quality fruit by 30% by2010”. The underlying notion here is thatWashington apples can compete in the globalmarket if they are of high quality and are af-fordable even if retail costs for their applies ex-ceed the competition. This belief is held be-cause, when done well, the unique growing con-ditions of apple growing areas produce fruit ofexceptional quality found in few other places inthe world. The details of the roadmap can befound in the documents available on the website. What’s important to this discussion is thatthe key to achieving the roadmap’s vision istechnological innovations that lead to automa-tion in orchard and packing operations, highlyefficient and effective orchard management sys-tems, intensive and site-specific informationsystems from field to market (including identitypreservation for market differentiation), andvalue-added throughout the production andpacking operations. A major target here isworker productivity and safety, both large costsin apple production and packing. Of significant

importance is optimizing orchard managementsince various management practices have directimpacts on product quality.

Certainly, there are many new opportunitiesavailable now and forthcoming in niche and dif-ferentiated crops in the US. In some cases,there exist significant infrastructure limitationsto what farmers can actually achieve. One suchcase is the opportunity for marketing wheatbased on quality (e.g., protein content). Basical-ly, certain markets, for example, Japan, areseeking wheat with specific protein ranges andwill pay a premium for wheat with guaranteedquality. The problem for wheat growers istwofold: wheat proteins varies within fields andfrom year to year and there are constraints with-in the harvest operation to separate and segre-gate wheat in the combine and in segregation ingrain storage and transport, at least at the locallevel. With current technologies, wheat farmerssuggests that while the premium is desirable,they are unable to extract that premium givencurrent equipment and infrastructure.

It appears that the forces acting on agriculturediscussed above – globalization of markets, na-tional trade policies, environmental quality con-cerns, climate change, and consumer preference(including traceability) – will continue to shapeUS agriculture. Efforts to counterbalance theseforces and fortify US agriculture – farm subsi-dies, country of origin labeling, trade protection– will also continue. Some predict that this sit-uation will inevitably lead to an even more dra-matic decline in agricultural production in theUS, with food production relegated to other na-tions that can produce food more cheaply thanus. Blank [2], in his book entitled “The end ofagriculture in the American portfolio”, arguesthat technological innovations have made itpossible for other less developed nations tocompete globally. This new competition has re-duced prices and created relatively low and stat-ic returns on investments in US agriculture overthe last quarter-century. Blank [3] states that theaverage real net return to assets in US agricul-ture has been negative every year since 1994,was -3.8 percent in 1999 and that “farmerscould do better just depositing their money in

39

the bank”. In reality, over the last 25 years, theretail cost index has remained relatively flatwhile the farm value index has fallen remark-ably, leading Duffy [1] to conclude that it doesnot appear that in the United States the primarybeneficiary of future technological changewould quite likely be agribusiness firms. InBlank’s [3] view, the fact is that prices arefalling faster than are costs per unit of produc-tion and unless future technologies can reversethis trend, American producers will continue be-ing forced to make the investment decision toleave commodity markets and, ultimately, theindustry.

While Blank [3] portrays the end of agriculturein the American portfolio, he does leave openthe possibility that future technologies might re-verse this trend. Others take the view that tech-nological innovation is in fact the way the UScan compete globally. While Friedman [4]agrees that technology created globalization, hebelieves that it is technology that will allow theUS to compete in a global market place. Hepostulates that there is no other country betterpoised to compete with technology than the US.In traceability issues, like non-GMO foods,rather than view this as another lost market,Friedman would view this as another opportuni-ty for technological innovation and suggest thatno one is better positioned than the US. Whilethe situation for a given farmer or sector of USagriculture may be closer to that postulated byBlank, we subscribe to the Friedman view thattechnological innovation provides the US withwhat it needs to be globally competitive. We al-so subscribe to the general vision of the tech-nology roadmap that to be globally competitive,US agriculture must produce high quality foodat an affordable price, recognizing that con-sumer preference, including the demand fortraceability, largely defines food quality.

The general challenge for mechanization is toassist agriculture to manage and/or overcomeconstraints so that US farmers and food proces-sors are positioned and equipped to effectivelycompete in global markets. President Bush, ina speech delivered on November 28, 2001 to thenational Farm Journal forum, called on Senate

leaders to abandon efforts to resurrect old-fash-ioned crop subsidy programs and urged them toembrace the future by passing farm bill legisla-tion that meets his goal of improving the abilityof farmers to compete in a global marketplace.Bush suggested increased spending on agricul-tural research and extension programs to pro-vide American farmers with the highest qualitycrops and most technologically advanced farmequipment and practices in the world [5]. The2002 Farm Bill creates record subsidies but al-so proposes large increases in research and ex-tension.

We draw from this discussion that the best re-sponse of US agriculture to the issues facing itis to embrace technology and develop whateveris needed to be globally competitive. Such aneffort is non-trivial and it suggests a significantrole for mechanization. We next explore the is-sue of traceability to explore ways in whichmechanization can contribute to a world of“traceability” in agriculture.

3. Traceability

Traceability is “the ability to track the history,deployment or location of an entity (for exam-ple a plant, animal or food-stuff) by means ofrecorded identifiers” [6]. Essentially, traceabili-ty systems are systematic record keeping sys-tems and are used primarily to keep foods withdifferent attributes separate from one anothereither by physical segregation or by identitypreservation (IP) [7]. Thus, IP is a system ofproduction and delivery in which the grain issegregated based on intrinsic characteristics(such as variety or production process) duringall stages of production, storage and transporta-tion [8]. Traceability is closely linked to prod-uct identity but IP can also relate to the origin ofmaterials and parts, product processing history,and the distribution and location of the productafter delivery [9]. The recordkeeping, segrega-tion, and “all stages of production, storage, andtransportation” dimensions of IP systems imme-diately suggest an important role of mechaniza-tion in traceability since they all involve mech-anization to some extent.

40

Golan et al. [7] suggest that the purpose of IP isto guarantee that certain traits or qualities (thesource and nature of the crop or food stuff) aremaintained throughout the food supply chainfor purposes of: (1) product differentiation andmarketing of foods with undetectable or subtlequality attributes, (2) to ensure food safety andquality, and (3) to improve supply side manage-ment, for example, to improve management ofproduction flows and tracking retail activities.The upside of traceability is the opportunity itpresents for increased value at various placesalong the food chain - from genetics to crop pro-duction to food processing to marketing and toretail. For example, Tastemark™ is a uniquemarketing program designed to provide the con-sumer with the same recognizable taste guaran-teed across all fruit and produce types(www.tastemark.com). The program is basedon a technology developed by Taste Technolo-gies Ltd in New Zealand that provides for highspeed, non-invasive, online Brix (solublesolids) sorting system using near infrared spec-troscopy. The guarantee is sweet fruit and thekey is providing consumer value through theguarantee and the brand. The system has beenin use for at least two years in a few fruit pack-ing operations in the US This trademark system,under the Tastemark™ brand, guarantees oneaspect of fruit quality to the consumer for a pre-mium price, adding value to both the packer andthe grower. Labeling is increasingly used tomeet consumer demand and is exemplified bythe organic food industry in the US

The downside of traceability is its use as a re-quirement to compete in the marketplace. Themost notable example is the mandatory trackingof genetically engineered crops and food pro-posed by the European Union (EU) to distin-guish them from conventional foods. There isconsiderable resistance in the US regarding themandatory tracking of genetically engineeredcrops and food, with Golan et al. [7] arguingthat it “is not among the practical or efficient us-es of traceability”, proposing performance stan-dards as a better solution. The United Statesgovernment believes product tracing should berequired, if at all, for food safety purposes only

[9]. Regardless of whether traceability ismandatory or not, the demand for non-GMOproduct markets has grown at rapid rates suchthat certain markets, like Europe, require them.Thus, the willingness to provide non-GMOproducts has grown and adjustments are beingmade to meet traceability requirements. Takefor example the efforts at identity preservationin soybean production and processing as report-ed by Wijeratne’s [10] who writes:

“The need and opportunity for identity preser-vation in oilseed processing” derives from thefact that “the conventional technology for veg-etable oil production evolved on the basis thatrefined vegetable oils from different sources be-come similar in appearance, smell and taste.The advantage is that they can be blended atwill to derive desired functional characteristicsin food applications. The disadvantage is thatoils lose their identity upon refining and blend-ing. The structure of the traditional oil extrac-tion and refining industry does not lend itself toidentity preservation in processing. The Indus-try has responded to the economic opportunityof identity preservation during oilseed process-ing by developing a non-solvent system for oilextraction” that “can be decentralized and op-erated on a relatively small scale” and is “com-plimented by small scale oil refineries thatmatch the extraction rates of the small non-sol-vent systems. This concept has provided a totalvalue adding opportunity to soybean with a rel-atively simple technology that can be practicedat the rural level.”

This new method of extraction (called the Ex-Press® System) had been established in 60 in-stallations in the Mid Western United States atthe time of Wijeratne’s [10] assessment.

The previous example demonstrates that inno-vation can be key to implementing traceability.There are, however, more subtle issues associat-ed with traceability. In reality, what may haveemerged as a product differentiation opportuni-ty producing added value to farmers, proces-sors, and wholesalers, can evolve over time in-to an industry standard, and as such, become arequirement rather than a premium as originally

41

envision. The expectation is that theTastemark™ system may change the marketpermanently and no fruit will sell without it orsome equivalent consumer guarantee. Thosewho innovate can pay for the conversion costswith the premiums received early in the adop-tion of the new technology; those who delay un-til the technology is required must absorb thosecosts as part of their capital budget outlay. Thisevolution is to be expected and clearly illus-trates the dynamic nature of traceability issues.

One additional aspect of traceability that furthercomplicates its implementation is that often thequality attributes of importance to the consumerare qualitative in that attribute testing is not pos-sible. Golan et al. [7] refer to these attributes ascredence attributes and offer some insights intotheir properties and how they affect traceabilityas follows. When quality attributes are easilydetected, like specific colors and shapes, trace-ability is not required to evaluate food quality.However, quality differences that involve cre-dence attributes, ones that are difficult to dis-cern even after consumption of the product,generally require IP and traceability systems toestablish market credibility. Credence attributesinvolve either a change in the content of theproduct which is difficult for the consumer todiscern (e.g., a change in nutrient content) or in-volve a characteristic of the production processwhich cannot be discerned by the consumer orby specialized testing equipment (e.g., organi-cally grown). With credence attributes, productdifferentiation must be achieved by segregationof production lines, by intensive tracking and/orthrough the services of third party entities (ISO,ANSI, government agencies) that provide suchthings as standards, testing, quality assurance,certification and inspection. Products with cre-dence attributes as their source of differentia-tion must establish market credibility either bymaking it or buying it from third parties.

Whether traceability is economical depends onmany factors but is certain to involve consumerpreference and their willingness to pay for val-ue added beyond conventional foods. Trace-ability and IP may be necessary to create newmarket opportunities or to even sell in markets

where traceability is mandated as is proposedby the European Union. A traceability systemwill likely add to the costs of food products andmust produce benefits that justify them if theyare to be of value to agricultural producers andaffordable to the consumer. For farmers andfood processors, the value in traceability isfound in areas where consumers are willing topay, particularly differentiated products and im-proved food quality and safety, and where trace-ability improves supply side management, thethree motives for traceability suggested byGolan et al. [7]. Of great importance is the is-sue of how the desired quality attributes fortraceability are created, acquired, recorded, and,perhaps most importantly, assured. Further-more, it is critical to the economics of traceabil-ity to find ways to minimize traceability costswhile maximizing the benefits of achieving it.The situation gets even better if traceability of-fers collateral benefits to other aspects of foodproduction.

Given the nature of traceability systems and thefact that segregation and identity preservationinvolve “all stages of production, storage andtransportation” the role of mechanization intraceability seems intuitive. We believe thatmechanization is critical to the success of trace-ability and is essential to the future of agricul-tural production relative to the issues facing USagriculture outlined above.

4. Food Quality, Traceability and Mecha-nization

We envision three major areas where mecha-nization can contribute to quality and traceabil-ity in crop production, handling, and process-ing: Automation, quality detection, and track-ing. We will couch this discussion in terms oftree fruit production and packing but the gener-al principles discussed here apply broadly toproduction and processing of crops and foodproducts.

4.1. AutomationLabor alone will not be able to achieve cropquality and traceability standards needed for USagriculture to be globally competitive. Many

42

US industries have turned to automation as ameans to achieve global competitiveness. Theautomobile and steel industries are good exam-ples of US business sectors that needed to im-prove product quality and achieve it at an af-fordable price in order to compete globally.These industries turned to automation because itoffered a means to control the manufacturingprocess to ensure product quality while at thesame time reduce labor costs that were higherthan their competitors and continually increas-ing. The situation is much the same for agricul-ture today but the major issues – labor (shortageof willing and qualified workers, worker pro-ductivity, and worker health and safety) andproduct quality and safety, including traceabili-ty – may be more intense for agriculture than itwas for other industries who dealt with these is-sues decades ago. Of significance here is theUS domestic policy in place since 1979 that ex-cluded federal funding of any research that re-duced the labor force in agriculture. The resultof that policy was the demise of public researchand development in mechanization particularlyin such areas as mechanical harvesting. Whilethat national policy was recently (February2001) reversed, it will take a considerable effortto gear up government sponsored research inmechanization to return to the needed level ofeffort.

What’s needed are machines that (1) reduce la-bor costs by either replacing labor or by in-creasing the productivity of the workforce byassisting workers to improve their efficiency,remove workers from harmful or repetitivetasks, and reduce worker exposure to undesir-able materials; and (2) are capable of doingthings to enhance crop quality that were not pre-viously possible. Labor is the orchardist’sgreatest cost and improving labor productivity,health, and safety represents a major opportuni-ty for reducing fruit production and processingcosts. Furthermore, quality improvement infruit production will require a better trainedworkforce that may not be available to meet thelabor needs in the orchard. Envisioned here arerobotic tractors for mowing, spraying, thinning,pruning, etc., all tasks that now require exten-

sive labor, machines capable of assessing cropand soil conditions and adding inputs accord-ingly, and machines that can harvest andprocess fruit based on quality attributes desiredby consumers.

Considerable progress has been made recentlyon robotic and auto-guidance/control tractors.John Deere publicly presented its driverless or-chard tractor in 2001 that can safely applychemicals without operator assistance but it isnot clear when these will be available for com-mercial use. Auto-guidance systems are avail-able from Bee Line of Australia and Trimble ofthe US that provide very precise positioningand tractor guidance and research continues[11]. An operator is still required with theseguidance systems but applications are beingdeveloped that allow a single operator to utilizemore than one vehicle simultaneously using au-tomatic following vehicle systems [12]. Reidand Niebuhr [13] report that automated vehiclenavigation may be the next revolution in agri-cultural production; however, machine safetyand machine function sensing (e.g., edge detec-tion, locating and dealing with obstacles) con-tinue to pose barriers for implementing au-tonomous technologies and therefore remains aresearch priority.

Even without automated vehicles, there aremany opportunities for automation of produc-tion and processing practices, including treespecific fertility and pesticide applicationsbased on real-time sensing of tree condition[14]. An important area of mechanization fortree fruit is mechanical harvesting, although theneeds are different for fruit grown for process-ing than that grown for fresh market. Tree fruitis still picked primarily by hand and, with laborshortages and increasing wages, at increasinglygreater cost. Mechanical harvesting is general-ly available only for tree fruit harvested for pro-cessing (e.g., citrus grown for juice) and gener-ally consists of shake and catch systems whichare limited in use for fresh fruit because of ex-cessive damage to the fruit [15]. Fruit picked forfresh market can be harvested using a shake andcatch system, but systems such as the new cher-ry harvester developed by Peterson and Wolford

43

[16] requires new approaches to marketing.The cherry harvester requires the use of an ab-scission-promoting chemical to reduce the fruitretention force of mature cherries to enable re-moval without stems and damage. However, amarket for stemless cherries did not exist untilefforts focused on making stemless cherries ac-ceptable to consumers. Robotics makes pickand place harvest systems possible and whileprogress is being made [17], no economical sys-tems are available commercially.

While mechanical harvesting is desired be-cause of reduced labor costs, harvest automa-tion is also desirable because it offers the op-portunity to value add during the harvest oper-ation. One opportunity is the exclusion of cullfruit from harvest bins sent to the packinghouse. The industry average for percent culls(fruit that does not meet fresh market qualitystandards) is approximately 25% (David Allen,personal communication, 2001). Cull fruit isremoved from packing and processed mostlyfor juice. The bottom line is that the cost ofcull fruit in the packing house exceeds its mar-ket value and that cost is charged to the growercreating a negative to cash flow to them. Thepoint is that anything done in the field to assurethat only quality fruit is placed into bins thatare sent to the packing house (the notion of se-lective harvest) increases the profitability of thegrower and the packer. Machinery that auto-mate tasks in the orchard can, along with de-tection, separation, and tracking functions dis-cussed below, improve fruit quality, assure it,and reduce costs, thereby achieving the goal tobe globally competitive. Thus, the smart mech-anization of selective harvesting will lead to im-proved quality. Compare this with the mecha-nized harvesting of tomatoes which required thedevelopment of a uniformly ripening tomatothat could stand up to the rigors of mechanizedharvesting. The mechanical and electronic sys-tems of those days were not capable of makingthe selection necessary to take advantage ofmultiple pass harvesting – of course, for salsaand other processed tomato products, thereprobably isn’t the price premium for doing oth-er than they are currently doing.

4.2. Quality Detection The appeal of quality detection as part ofmechanization is that a machine has access tothe crop or food product at a time when a man-agement decision can be made that either af-fects quality or leads to the segregation of thecrop or food product in a timely and efficientmanner. In a cereal grain crop, for example,knowing early in its life cycle that the crop isshort of nitrogen creates the opportunity to addfertilizer to optimize grain protein. Knowingat harvest that the grain passing through thecombine varies in quality, such as the presenceof a toxin, protein content, or test weight,makes it possible to separate the grain accord-ing to grain quality and is desirable if doing soincreases its value. Fruit is often thinned toensure a given size or quality. If quality at-tributes of immature fruit could be detected,then automated thinning machines could re-move the fruit with the poorest potential there-by optimizing fruit quality. At harvest, theability to detect soluble solid content (Brix),skin defects, or internal disorders, would allowgrowers to separate cull fruit and send onlyquality fruit to the packing house. Quality de-tection and sorting is performed in the packinghouse but is not currently done in the orchard.

Quality detection remains an important issuein post harvest research and these techniquesoffer potential applications in quality detectionassociated with agricultural machinery. In thefuture, crop quality tests will deal with physi-cal quality attributes (color, texture, shape), in-ternal (chemical) quality parameters (solublesolids, flavor components) and perhaps, nutri-tional parameters (nutraceutical content, vita-min contents). Testing may even get to thepoint where the DNA content is analyzed toverify such things as variety or GMO status.Incorporation of quality detection as part of anautomated harvest system would be desirableif it could be done economically. The notionhere is that whenever quality detection occursin the field or as early as possible, the morelikely quality can be assured and costs re-duced.

Emerging technologies, like biosensors and

44

nanotechnologies, offer new possibilities forquality detection. New biosensors are beingdeveloped that in principle consist of smallcomputer chips designed to change propertieswhen exposed to specific chemicals which canbe detected remotely. For example, scientistsat Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque,NM are developing a real-time sensor based ona chemiresistor [18]. The principles of thistechnology were reported as follows:

“a chemiresistor is an array of miniature,polymer-based sensors, each of which re-sponds to a particular VOC (volatile organiccompound). The sensors are made by mixing acommercial polymer, dissolved in a solvent,with conductive carbon particles. The fluid isdeposited and dried on wire-like electrodes ona specially designed microfabricated circuit.In the presence of VOCs, the polymers absorbthe chemicals and swell up. This swellingchanges the electrical resistance in proportionto the chemical vapor concentration, whichcan thus be measured and recorded. When thechemical is removed, the polymers shrink andtheir resistance returns to its original state.The array can be used to identify differentVOCs by comparing the resulting chemicalsignatures with those of known samples.” [18].

The appeal of biosensors in agriculture wouldbe that they can be mass produced at suffi-ciently low cost that they can be spreadthroughout a crop. The function of machinesmay be to place, measure, and/or retrievebiosensors as part of their normal field opera-tions.

Quality detection at specific points in the pro-duction and processing of crops will be criticalto assuring quality and is a prerequisite toquality separation and tracking. Many qualitysensors are available during post harvest butwill need to be redesigned if they are to be eco-nomical for use in the field. Nanotechnologiesand biosensors may be important if they can beproduced at low costs. The access of machin-ery to the crop during production and post har-vest makes it critical that machinery detectionsystems be incorporated into their design.

4.3. TrackingTraceability involves physical segregation orthe preservation of identity (IP) and requires in-tensive record keeping. Since machinery is in-volved in many phases of food production andprocessing, intelligent machines that can ac-quire, process, store and transmit data on oper-ations will be required. The technologies andprinciples of precision agriculture are well suit-ed to meet the needs of tracking for traceability[19;20]. However, agricultural technologiescan be inadequate because they often are too ex-pensive, unavailable in rural areas, too applica-tion specific, and/or difficult to implement.Therefore, affordability and interoperability areimportant considerations in any tracking sys-tem. Computer speed, storage capacity, andminiaturization are more than adequate for thistask and continue to improve. Emerging tech-nologies include high speed wireless internet,radio telemetry, and radio frequency tags(RFID) will make data acquisition and datamanagement effortless. Wireless technologiesare also advancing automation [21] and qualitydetection as discussed earlier. Read/write RFIDtechnologies are capable of making supplychain and asset management seamless fromfield to the table. There appear to be few tech-nological limitations for tracking crop and foodquality. Costs and lack of standards for interop-erability may limit progress unless these areconsidered in the design of tracking systems.

5. Summary and Conclusions

Many factors are shaping the future of agricul-ture in the US and beyond and the effects of asingle factor, like traceability, are difficult to as-sess alone. Given the state of agriculture, to beglobally competitive, US agriculture must pro-duce the highest quality food at affordableprices, a task other business sectors have faceddecades ago. Traceability, whether mandatoryor voluntary, appears to be inevitable becauseconsumers demand it and because it is possibleto achieve. We believe that the appropriate re-sponse to these challenges is technological in-novation that improves crop quality and reducesthe cost of production. To achieve this, ma-

45

chinery of the future must be increasingly auto-mated, capable of detecting crop quality at var-ious points in the production and processingsystem, and fully equipped for tracking infor-mation about the crop from field to the table.Current efforts in agricultural automation - ro-botics, guidance, and mechanical harvest – areon the right track but are inadequate; they needmore investment from government and privateindustry to make needed advancements. Thepublic agricultural research programs in the US,consisting primarily of the USDA and Land-grant universities, no longer have the cadre ofscientists and programs it once had working onmechanization. Either these public sector re-search programs have to be strengthened or theprivate sector has to fill in the gap if agricultureis to embrace technology as a primary means ofattaining global competitiveness. Crop qualitydetection will benefit greatly from emergingnanotechnologies and biosensors but efforts toadapt current and future sensors to machines ataffordable costs are critical. Equipping ma-chines with tracking capabilities needed fortraceability should be technologically feasiblebut efforts to make tracking systems affordableand interoperable will be the challenge. Smartmachines with these capabilities will be in-creasingly important for US agriculture to com-pete globally and to meet the needs of con-sumers for a safe and high quality food supply.However, to get there will require significantpublic and private sector investment in researchand development that is not currently available.

References

[1] Duffy P. A., 2001. Casting bread upon thewater: Comments on technology, global-ization and agriculture. J. Agric. Appl.Econ 33, 2, pp. 341-247.

[2] Blank S. C., 1998. The end of agriculturein the American portfolio. Quorum Books,Westport, Conn.

[3] Blank S. C., 2001. Globalization, crop-ping choices and profitability in AmericanAgriculture. J. Agric. Applied Econ. 33, 3,pp. 315-326.

[4] Friedman T. L., 2000. The lexus and theolive tree. Anchor Books, New York.

[5] Merriman E., 2001. Bush, Veneman urgeSenate leaders to get on track with farmbill, economic stimulus. Capital Press, Fri-day, November 20, 2001.

[6] ISO, 2002. ISO 8402. www.isocenter.com.[7] Golan E., Barry K., Kuchler F., 2002.

Traceability for food marketing & foodsafety: What’s the next step. pp. 21-25.Agricultural Outlook, January/February,2002. Economic Research Service, US-DA.

[8] Rial T., 1999. Containerized oil seed,grain, and grain co-products exports (Anassessment for the shipper & exporter as-sistance program). Des Moines, IA (as cit-ed by Reichert, H., Vachal, K., 2000. Iden-tity preserved grain: Logistics overview).

[9] Clapp S., 2002. A brief history of trace-ability. CRC Press/FCN Publishing. Wash-ington, D.C.

[10] Wijeratne, W. B., 2002. Identity Preser-vation in Soybean Production and Pro-cessing. www.insta-procom.

[11] Noguchi N., Reid J. F., Zhang Q., Will J.D., Ishii K., 2001. Development of robottractor based on RTK-GPS and gyroscope.Paper number 011195, 2001 ASAE AnnualMeeting.

[12] Matsuura K., Iida M., Umeda M., OnoK., 2001. Production Automatic followingvehicle system. Paper number011164, 2001 ASAE Annual Meeting.

[13] Reid J. F., Niebuhr D. G., 2001. Driver-less tractors: Automated vehicle naviga-tion becomes reality for production agri-culture. pp. 7-8. Resource. September,2001. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI.

[14] Whitney J. D., Miller W. M., WheatonT.A., Salyani M., Schueller J. K., 1999.Precision farming applications in Floridacitrus. Appl. Eng. Agr. 15(5): pp. 399-403.

[15] Sarig Y., 1993. Robotics of fruit harvest-ing: A state-of-the-art review. J. AgricEng. Res., 54, pp. 265-280.

[16] Peterson D. L., Wolford S. D., 2001. Me-chanical harvester for fresh market qualitystemless sweet cherries. Transactions of

46

the ASAE. Vol. 44(3), pp. 481–485.[17] Bulanon D. M., Kataoka T., Zhang S,

Ota Y., Hiroma T., 2001. Production Op-timal thresolding for the automatic recog-nition of apple fruits. Paper number013133, 2001 ASAE Annual Meeting.

[18] Sensors, 2002. Soil and groundwaterchemical sniffer may help protect nation’swater supply. January, 2002. Vol. 19, No.1.

[19] NRC, 1997. Precision Agriculture in the21st Century: Geospatial and InformationTechnologies in Crop Management. Na-tional Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

[20] Pierce F.J., Nowak P., 1999. Aspects ofprecision agriculture. Adv. in Agron. 67,pp. 1-85.

[21] Hirakawa A. R., Saraiva A. M., Cug-nasca C. E., 2002. Wireless robust robotfor agricultural applications. pp. 414-420.In: Proceedings of the World Congress ofComputers in Agriculture and Natural Re-sources (13-15, March 2002, Iguacu Falls,Brazil).

[22] Pinstrup-Andersen P., 2001. Balancingthe benefits of biotechnology. The Aus-tralian, 23 January.

47

Richard O. HEGGI wish to remind you again that there are sheetsin your folders that you received about conclu-sions or recommendations and key sentences.Keep that in mind as we conclude our discus-sion and that you will be able to prepare some-thing to turn in. Now I also have a list here ofpeople who want to participate in the discussionby raising your hand so that I can identify youand so we can have some sort of order of thisand then when you speak give your name andcountry and then direct your comments whetherthey are comments or questions or whether youwant to direct questions to one of the speakers.

Dr. Yoav SARIGIsrael I have some comments for Dr. Pierce. I had a lotof discussions with Steve Blanks while I was atDavis (College, UC), and while I contest his fi-nal conclusions he is not easily brushed off,though his statement is very valid, very strong,and would be very hard to contest because thefact is that less people are involved in agricul-ture in the US. And if people think that trace-ability would save agriculture in the US, I donot think that Ralph Cavalieri and Prof. Pierceare that naïve. I think that unfortunately the for-mer Secretary for Agriculture of the US causeda lot of damage to agriculture in the US. Thereis no question about it. But I am afraid thatwhat is being done today might be too little andtoo late. I would have asked Dr. Pierce of all thethings he posted on his presentation how muchresearch money does he get now, to cap up allhis projects. I know what the situation is in Cal-ifornia. With thirty thousand dollars of researchprojects you cannot go too far and I am afraidthe US in many respects is getting itself to bebehind the UK and the European Community.And with countries like China, which alreadyover passed the US in agriculture in apple pro-duction, putting the US as number two. Andmany other countries similarly; it would be veryhard to compete with these countries becausethese countries will eventually also adopt qual-

ity assurance and quality evaluation techniquesthat we enjoy now today and they still enjoycheap labour. Ironically, as their standard ofliving goes up and more mechanisation is beingintroduced into their country, their cost of pro-duction is also going to be high. So then it mightbe easier to compete with them. So I am not try-ing to undermine the importance of traceability.It is very important, but it is only one aspect ofthe general picture. Like I said before I fullyagree with you, Dr. Pierce, with your generalconclusion: technology – that is the only salva-tion for US agriculture. The question is, howfast policy makers in the US will move to imple-ment that.

Richard O. HEGGThat is an excellent question and one we strug-gled with right now. The reason for the tech-nology road map is to do two things, one isstart outline what we need to do and the otherone is to serve as a vehicle to raise the re-sources to get it done. Actually the value of theroad map in its current condition is more forthe latter. It has been well received by the agri-cultural community, by the tree food industryand by the politicians. But the funding to sup-port that does not exist and it is going to takea new initiative out of the Federal Governmentto support research in this area. We are not theonly ones pursuing that, the citrus fruit indus-try is also very interested in that and I knowyou know about the tree fruit folks of our statebecause they know you very well. We are goingto need the expertise of folks like yourself andthe Club of Bologna to help us because we donot have it. The resources to get this done aregoing to have to come, largely from the Feder-al Government. The United States are all brokeright now from the economy. We are in deeptrouble right now, in the state budgets. TheFederal Government has to take this as a pri-ority and the have to realise that the farm billshould include capability to make us growcompetitive, not just subsidies, and that is go-ing to take a long time to change. But we are

49

DISCUSSION

hoping to do this in a very short time becausewe used the year 2010 and everyone laughs atus like “2010, that’s eight years. You can’t doanything in eight years” And the answer is:”We do not have more than eight years!” to getsome of this, I think you agree on that. So, weare in a desperate situation to get this started.I think we got the scientific community ingroups like this, to do the work. I think we gotto resource setting. We are going to need thefederal dollars. I guess what I would ask forthis group is to take out our proposal and thattechnology road map and say “The mechani-sation industry and the scientific communitysupports that approach, and that would behelpful to us, I know”. Does that answer yourquestion?

Prof. Egil BERGENorway There are a number of very important issuesmentioned in this piece given by Prof. Pierce,and I would like to add to that: I think that itwill also have an effect here because when wespeak of economy and competitivity, we must re-member that the price that they can get in themarket depends a lot, not only on the cost ofproduction, but also on the market balance.When there is no volume control and how muchis put on the market you never know where theprice ends. And the price might vary far belowthe cost of production and that is where au-tomation comes in, as far as I can see. The oth-er unbalance is international trade. A situationwhere low cost countries try to compete withhigh cost country farmers and in the developingcountries are compelled to work for almostnothing and they will do it. They will be morecompetitive than the farm in the high cost coun-try. So the price is very much influenced by thecurrent currency exchange rates and some ofthose poor countries have so high currency ex-change rates that you can beat it no way. Theidea is not even to compete in any situation. Ithink that the task we have is to supply food at areasonable safety and quality for the wholeworld and that has many, many sides, of coursecompetitivity is important but it can never bethe only solution.

Prof. Josse DE BAERDEMAEKERBelgium I have a few questions for Prof. De Castro andfor Prof. Pierce. We see from your statementthat consumers are willing to pay more. Howev-er we find that in the discussions with super-markets in setting standards for performancethey say that they will not use those standardsand that they will not pay more for it. So maybethe supermarkets are getting the profit out ofthese standards of performance. That is one ofthe issues. The second one is those standards ofperformance should be global. Because yester-day at the farm we saw that the man did nothave traceability all the way back to the originof his calves, although in Europe this is manda-tory and we see that there could probably againbe a beef war between Europe and the US now,not for the whole month but for the traceabilitythat is not on there, that is, that cannot be per-formed. So we have to have something that hasto be global. And it means that when thosethings are global we will probably find that thecompetitor will have an advantage that wecould have and will disappear. So if we forceeverybody in every country to continuouslyadapt to this changed technology to take a stepforward together, we will have some more ad-vantages again.

Prof. Karl Th. RENIUSGermany I would like to make a comment on Prof.Pierce’s presentation. He addressed the technol-ogy road map points you see which should helpus find solutions for the problems. I think thatone general aspect in this discussion is to re-place open loop control by a closed loop con-trol. In my opinion this is very important. If yousee the production in this way you can find thatoutput targets compare with status by actualstandards, so we need the standards and thenmake input corrections in order to hit the targetif necessary. By this principle, which we dis-cussed several times in Germany in recentyears, there is an important principle: precisionfarming, of course. Everything can be made bet-ter: yields can improve, quality can improve,costs can be reduced, loads on environment can

50

be reduced and from the data you need to runthis process you can document your traceabili-ty. So this is a headline among these technologyroad maps.

Eng. Aad JONGEBREUERThe Netherlands I have a comment on the lecture of Prof. DeCastro, especially about the consumers’willing-ness to pay. I think we have to underline thatthere is a difference between what consumers’opinion is and what consumers really do, andthat is a problem: why the supermarkets are notwilling to pay more for special type products.

Prof. Abdel GHALYCanada I think that the agricultural production has to beconsidered as a whole system in which the qual-ity and the cost of production are not the onlycriteria used in evaluating the system. Duringthe production when you are starting theprocess from A to Z there are a number of wastestreams that one has to look at. Value AddedProducts are technologies that can use wastematerial and covert it into a valuable product orkind of production. But the health aspect andthe environment have to be considered as nega-tive costs in order to improve the whole equa-tion. If you go back into the short history whenDDT was invented, the person who inventedDDT Paul Moller, was actually given the NobelPrize for Public Health. And it was only fifteen-twenty years later that we stopped using DDTbecause it was unhealthy. So I think that theseissues of environment and health have to beconsidered in the whole equation not only mineat the farm gate.

Prof. Axel MUNACKGermany I would like to comment in more detail a prob-lem that has already been addressed by some-one else. Prof. Pierce pointed out that there is alack of standards and I think that it is a very im-portant thing to mention because in the productflows we would like to have that kind of track-ing and traceability. These product flows mustbe accompanied by an information flow and

usually product flows are trans-border flows to-day. So, the product is often shifted across dif-ferent borders between and in states so you needa certain kind of standardisation for thesetrans-border flows and these information flows.I think that we do not have the time to let such astandard evolve within the next ten-fifteenyears; it should be pointed out that there is ini-tiative needed for standardisation and thatsomeone should jump into the ring and take onthis task.

Yoav SARIGI fully agree with Prof. De Castro’s assessmentthat the consumer is ready to pay more for high-er quality. I know this is controversial and Iwould like to propose an explanation for thisdiscrepancy between what some people consid-er not to be true. I think his statement is correct,but only for a segment of the population, noteverybody is ready to pay more. However thereis an increasing number of people who areready to pay more for specialty products. Forexample, in California you find more and morepeople, but not all the population is ready to payfor organic products. A better example is fromthe Chinese market. China is still a poor coun-try but some people again, not the whole popu-lation but a segment of it, is ready to pay morefor good quality. Twenty years ago they boughtanything that was offered to them on the mar-ket; they were ready to pay for whatever theygot. And the quality was at its lowest possible.Now they have the option of buying high quali-ty products at a higher cost and you have moreand more people ready to pay for that. So I thinkthis is still true, however. As Dr. Jongebreursaid “Some people say they would like but theydo not actually do that simply because they donot have that kind of money”.

Dr. Antonio PAGANIItaly Mine is a general observation on both presenta-tions, which I found excellent. Just to say I gota bit confused on the use of concepts and termi-nology, because concepts such as quality andfood safety are being treated at the same leveland then we talk about traceability and we deal

51

with it as if it were the final objective we areconceiving. But at the same time in Mr. Pierce’spresentation we talk about lower productioncost as one of our objectives. So I feel like sug-gesting that we streamline our concepts a bit. Intrying to define what quality is at least amongourselves because we cannot treat food safety inthe same way as we treat food quality. Foodsafety is a prerequisite, it is a must. If a food isnot safe it is poison, its name changes entirely.So what is quality? I believe if each one of ushad a piece of paper to note down what qualityis, we would have 46-47 different definitions. Sowe can choose any one of the thousands andthousands of definitions and choose only one,that of Phil Crosby which says that “quality ismatching standards”. So we have to find stan-dards and if the standards are matched then theproduct has quality. If not, it is not quality. It isnot higher, or lower or medium quality. So thereis a need, in my opinion to put things in order.Say quality is perhaps the objective. Traceabili-ty is a means to achieve this objective is a dif-ferent thing again. So lower cost production is adifferent thing in my opinion. I get a bit con-fused on that.

Paolo DE CASTROI will first respond to Prof. Sarig. Of course notall consumers are able to pay for the high qual-ity products they want and you have to make akind of degree depending on how rich the coun-try is. It is the same problem the Europeancommunity is facing now and they are trying toput one policy for the fifteen members today andthe new ten members from the Eastern countriesthat will join the European Community into2004, because the needs and feelings of theirconsumers are completely different, when wetalk about animal welfare. For example, howcan we explain animal welfare when we talkabout it in Poland, or Hungary, where there arecompletely different situations? So of course,when I listen to the brilliant presentation of myfriend Pierce, I say:” It will be hard for a coun-try like Italy if we have to compete in the worldmarket and we only have the possibility to re-duce the production costs. How can we competewith the US for example? With the cost of pro-

duction if the average size of an Italian farm isabout 7 or 8 hectares, at any rate less than ten,whereas in the US we have something like 150hectares. So of course it depends on the marketwe are pushing to. We need to compete in qual-ity in the sense that we have to link the productwith the territory, the tradition, the country, orthe area, where this product is produced, so thisis the reason why we are so tough on trips ques-tion in the WTO, where the trip question means:How can we protect the geographical denomi-nation, even outside of the European Union -because it now only works with the Fifteen?Therefore, the approach is different and themarketing system that the farm will use will al-so be different, depending on the market we arethinking about. In addition, talking with myfriends from Belgium on the consumer problem;they introduced the big distribution system. Oneof the main problems, especially in Europe, iswe do not have the giants like Marks andSpencer’s or other big distribution systems typ-ical of the United States. If you take a look atthe budget of these very big firms, World Mart,is the biggest, it is so big that if they decide tobuy all the Italian distribution systems, they candecide at a very low level, they do not have togo to the chief executive’s office. The problemwill be how to link, how to manage, the rela-tionship between such different dimensions likethe distribution and the producer. The problemalso is how can the producers make the charac-teristics of the product they produce well knownto the consumer. We send an apple – just to stayin the Pierce’s example - from a specific area inItaly, like Trentino or different area and we canget a better price, because of marketing expens-es, because of a Regional Program to promotethe knowledge about the history of the applesproduced in the area of Trentino. Therefore, theproducer must concentrate on the market in thesense of how we can get the consumer to paymore. Because if it is only the cost of produc-tion, of course in the globalisation system wecannot have a chance to compete. At the sametime, I would like to ask my friend Prof. Pierceanother question, because I heard about whatDr. Sarig said how the Federal Programme sup-port the products that or are lower or are get-

52

ting some problems for income etc. I remember,but I am not sure that it is true. The farm bill ap-proved in May introduces some specific pro-grammes for apples and this is the first time, ifI remember well, that these were introduced, be-cause these were usually involved in the soy-beans, cereals or arable crops. This is the firsttime that specific help was introduced for theapple producer, which is very different if I com-pare it with the discussion going on in Brusselsthis week, where we are talking about how to re-duce and we had on the table the Fischer pro-posal to cut 20% of the direct tax from one end,and introduced the cutting system that could beabsolutely the first step of the facing out of thecommon agricultural policies. So, this is thereason why all the farmers in Europe are very,very worried and pushing the commission not togo in this direction otherwise we have nochance to compete in the world.

Francis PIERCEAbout the supermarkets willing to pay more.The reason for external cherries was that thesupermarket was willing to take it and market itto the public. So, you are right that the pricetends to stay flat and that is a problem. They arein fact looking for new products and new waysof doing it so it is not a total divorce there. Al-so, traceability should be global. So long asthere are no external issues, I think the problemis that traceability is going to have some extrabaggage along with it from each country andyou are going to have to get rid of it so thattraceability can cross boundaries like that. Thequestion about quality. Our folks get into thisdiscussion all time and apples and tree fruit andgrapes and the problem is the consumers defini-tion of quality. So, we can sit round and definequality, and the consumer is going to change assoon as we get it out. So, we have to think ofhow to get that thing moving in view of the con-sumer. The cost of production. Really, quality isnumber one. But it cannot be at any cost, youhave to get quality at an affordable price. So,quality is number one but it must have a priceassociated with it, which is the reason the priceof production language is in what we are doing.The question about the apple producers getting

help. Our farmers say: “we want a hand up nota hand out”. The policy in the US has been “thehand out” and they do not have policies of the“hand up”. We need people that say: “Invest inthe future to make you globally competitive”. Iquoted a president of the US in my paper, and heactually did support the idea for putting dollarsin the research. The problem is that the legisla-ture did not support that. So there are peoplethat like the idea of supporting research to de-velop new globalisation competitiveness, but itis not the general feeling of our Congress. Theissue of privacy. I had not put it in my paper andI realise now that I should have. We have peo-ple who say that you can measure anything youwant but you cannot talk about it with anybody.We will have to deal with the privacy issue. If Ido anything we have talked about at this meet-ing, we will have to know everything about whateverybody does. We will have to put a privacystatement in whatever we do because our grow-ers will tell us that you are not going to touchme in some places. So, if we are going to dealwith traceability and maintain privacy, weprobably will not be so successful.

Prof. Richard J. GODWIN UKI would like to ask Prof. Pierce his opinion withrespect to traceability on bulk produce: wheat,corn, soybeans, because it is very easy at themoment I think to see apples, strawberriesmaybe in small packages, and other things thatcan be easily identified and moved around with-in those packages. Unfortunately we are in Eu-rope; when GM soybeans came from the Amer-ican market told us it was impossible to sepa-rate GM and other soybean products coming in-to Europe and that therefore it would be totallyimpossible to have any traceability in any prod-uct differentiation. How do we see that happen-ing? Because that has a big impact in many ofthe items that we eat, and the animals that weeat as well, and have in the food chain, how canwe handle 60% or 70% of the traceability inagricultural products.

Francis PIERCE I will be glad to answer that, I want to give you

53

an analogy. I was in Michigan State in 1984 atthe time the car industry was in trouble. TheFederal Government said you will raise the fuelmileage standards. Industry said it is impossible,we cannot do it. They were thinking of the para-digm of the current carburettor system and howthey built engines. When they went to fuel injec-tion they found out and changed some thingsthat they could not effect to achieve very highlevels on fuel efficiency, if they changed theirparadigm. I spoke with Pioneer representativebefore I came here last week and here is an ex-ample of what they said they were willing to do.They had thought of an RFI detect, that would bein the machine and that would, you know, frac-tions of a percentage. They would drop that intothe grain flow every 100 bushels. And then thecollection device on the other end, if that grainwas flowing would look to see if it was flowingwithin RFI detects, if the spacing as not withintolerance then somebody got in there and start-ed mixing the grain. So, what I am trying to sayis that they are thinking of ways to doing that butit is not going to be the same paradigm in whichthey think we are going to come up with all newways. I think this chip-check analogy and layingthings in place and using the machine to changethings and move is probably going to be inter-esting but we do not think that way. I enjoyed thevisit to see CNH yesterday but I did not see anyof those in improvement and into the machinesyesterday. We saw the traditional way to maketractors and I loved them and I would like tohave every one of them that I saw yesterday. Butthey were not thinking how that tractor was go-ing to be smarter and help us in the cereal, Imean we need them to do that and I mean someof those folks from those companies are here andI would like to hear what they have to say abouttheir making machines smarter.

Prof. Makoto HOKIJapan I would like to back, as many others did, to Oneshort comment on quality. I think that foodsafety is not part of the project. It is a must. Ithink, when we say quality the taste and texturemust be considered, as well as colour andshape, or damage or storability. There should

also be factors deciding the quality of the food.

Ralph CAVALIERIBack to the question of bulk products and trace-ability. We have just released a new variety ofwhite wheat in the State of Washington and itwas determined that to develop a market theyneeded to be able to trace from seed to market ofthis wheat. It has really unique properties. Itturned out that for 20 cents a bushel to thefarmer, they are put enough money in the systemto ensure identity preservation and they wouldachieve it using containers rather than bulkshipments in a ship. So, if the price is there it canbe achieved in smaller segments. I agree thereare serious challenges when we are talkingabout shipload volumes of material. On the issueof quality. We have an experience in the State ofWashington, where we have uniform federalstandards for various commodities, fancy andextra fancy, and all of that, in apples. But is we,as a world community set up some standards ofquality, there will always be those individualswho will want to set higher standards. So, for ex-ample for the State of Washington they createdstandards that exceeded federal standards andimposed those on the industries from Washing-ton. So, if you see a box of apples, they will oftensay “Washington extra fancy” and that is agreater, higher standard of quality than the fed-eral one. So I think there are some difficulties insetting some minimum standards in thinking thatthe automation industry will be able to just usethat as their target because there will always bepeople pushing for the ability to sense addition-al quality parameters to elevate the standard fora perceived market opportunity.

Karl Th. RENIUSSince many have mentioned quality and qualitystandards, I would like to mention the qualitystandard ISO 9001. It embraces mainly techni-cal systems but it may be interesting to mentionthe main content, which is very easy. “Satisfy thecustomer regarding any aspect which can betaken into account”. That is the main content ofISO 9001 and it makes sense to develop anothermain standard similar to ISO 9001 for agricul-ture products. My question is one, I am not so fa-

54

miliar with this area of product quality; is thereany work in ISO to express such a product?

Giuseppe PELLIZZI I am not an expert in this field, but I have theimpression that we are insisting too much onquality and that is very different from traceabil-ity. Traceability is another thing because we canhave traceability of each product with differentqualities. So, it needs a different organisation.

Yoav SARIGI fully agree with Prof. Pellizzi. Traceability isnot synonymous with quality and I agree withdr. Pagani. It is one aspect, it is one means ofobtaining good quality. It is not the main topic.I think Prof. Renius has mixed standards withquality. There is a clear definition, there aremany books, but finally people have come to re-alise (Prof. Pierce is right) the consumer de-cides what quality is. we cannot tell the con-sumer what quality is. What we are doing is tosatisfy his requirements for what he perceives asquality. So all that we develop is for the indus-try to be uniform in what they produce to satis-fy the consumer As a last remark I would like tosuggest to the people of the Club of Bologna . Iwould like to add a third book to the two booksthat Prof. Pierce has quoted. It pours some coldwater on some of our ideas on mechanisation. Itis called “Fatal Harvest “. It preaches againstagro-business, and down scaling, and againstbiotechnology. Everything we preach for theypreach against. It makes good reading, goodmaterial, and gives you food for thought.

Abdel GHALYI just want to make a quick comment. The ques-tion was about ISO 9000, if any work was beingdone on this or not. The ASAE standard councilat the present time the standards council hasconsidered looking into this in the food process-ing area

Prof. Pierre ABEELSBelgium So far we have discussed quality and traceabil-ity. First point: quality characteristics defini-tions are part of family and social behaviour;

Second: quality of products and productions arepart of social ethics; Third: safety in food in-dustry and commercialisation are part of ethicsand – should I say - stock exchange. So I be-lieve, one thing for the Club of Bologna to do isto emphasise special communication and edu-cation beside our mechanisation objectives.

Josse DE BAERDEMAEKERI just want to add a little bit about this qualitything (Prof. Pellizzi does not like it I know). Imust just say that quality changes throughoutthe chain so, tracing the quality changethroughout the quality chain is also the objec-tive that we should keep in mind because theyare very appreciable products in many cases wework with.

Dr. Suraweth KRISHNARENI ThailandI have to say something about quality. The mar-ket would like to have good quality. I think weneed quality. If the people improve the quality ofthe product the price should increase. So whatis the standard for quality. Because you know,we need quality some time, we improve thequality. The price is low, especially in the Asiancountries. We try to develop the standard offruit, but the price of fruit is very low. In myopinion if the quality is improved the priceshould correspond to the quality. That is mysuggestion. How can we meet these standards?

Dr. Yoshisuke KISHIDAJapanA comment on traceability. Recently in Japanthe consumer likes to buy some agriculturalproducts directly from the producer, because theconsumer can find who makes these products,how they make these products. There is also amovement called the “straw food concept”.Traceability is a problem of the technical systemand at the same time this is ready to the systemof the production and the consumer. This meansthat we engineers have to prepare the engineer-ing system to ensure the traceability of the foodand at the same time we have to consider the to-tal system of the production and consuming ofthe agricultural products.

55

Prof. Abdel KAMARUDDIN IndonesiaI would like to underline something said byProf. Pierce about Green Power, or knowledgeabout agriculture in order to solve all thoseproblems. Particularly in our case in Indonesiathe education of the farmer in order to reach acertain level, like in the example of yesterdaythe farmer can manage all his inputs in order tomake the farm a good and sound basis. So thatis the kind of recommendation I would like toput forth. Train the farmer to a certain level thathe can manage his farm and make use of all hisinputs, and respond to all regulations like trace-ability that we have discussed here and so reachthat level.

Dr. Claude LAGUECanada I really appreciated the presentations by bothProfessors De Castro and Pierce especially re-garding the needs for mechanisation in the fu-ture. They talked about issues such as automa-tion, quality, detection, tracking, segregation,and reduce cost contamination. All are likely toresult in highly sophisticated equipment withprobably a fairly hefty price tag attached to it.At the same time, we have also talked about theneed to implement standards of production thatmay be related to environment and traceabilityand I just have a question. Is it possible to makethose systems affordable to small family farms?I was looking at the paper and I think there is agreat need to support family farms. Maybe in asurvey in Canada or the US, you would prettymuch get the same result. So I think we have afairly big challenge ahead of us. And as to howwe can implement all those things that would beaffordable to a small family farm who own andoperate their farms and not creating an envi-ronment that will result in further consolidationif that is important to the public feels a strongneed that agriculture should be in the hands ofsmall producers to a large extent, so I think wehave a big challenge ahead of us.

Prof. Malcolm MACKAYAustraliaI would like to follow up the comment made

about privacy and take one step further. Astraceability data is collected and aggregated wewill have marketing intelligence value and fromProf. De Castro and Prof. Pierce’s point of viewhow is this aggregated data and marketing in-telligence going to be used in the market place.

Francis PIERCELet us go five years down the road here. Thestorage capacity in the electronic age is goingto go up by about one hundred. A hundred timesmore storage. Five years I am going to have to-day. So we are going to collect a massiveamount of data is what you going to. There is abenefit to be able to manage that informationand in your kind of information, who is going toget this, who is going to extract the value fromthat data stream. That is a tough one. Agricul-ture has been fighting that at John Deere, forexample, all the other companies have tried toget into that business and it did not work forthem. So, it is not so easy as one might think.Because we are going to spend a fair amount ofeffort and we are not capable. Think about theway the professor from Minnesota spoke lastweek: Most of the data will never be seen byhim. Which means that we are going to have in-telligent systems that are going to bring that da-ta down to something a lot simpler for the hu-man being to use. And this is going to be mycomment to the question: the price is too high;what about the smaller farmer. It is going to bepart and parcel of the machines. If we are goingto build machinery for traceability, we will haveto look at what it is going to look like in fiveyears. The fact of the matter is that you are notgoing to handing data to anybody. It is going tobe automatically recorded and returned in aformat that is usable for the decision-making. Ifwe do not do that we are not going to have any-body who is extracted anyway we are going tohave to build it right in the first place. So Idodging the question a little bit, but frankly, wehad better be producing data products and notjust data or we are not going to make some ad-vances whatsoever.

Paolo DE CASTROI would like to make some comments, regarding

56

what the professor Lague said. Yes, if we makethe same survey in the US and Canada probablywe would have the same answer: of course thereis some inattention of the consumer of the itemsof quality, traceability. The problem is not giv-ing the minimum standard, but it will of course,be needed of all products. There should be atleast a food standard quality. The problem ishow is the producer able to convince the con-sumer that the products that they have is some-thing different. The key word is “diversifica-tion”. How can we get such a market, such apremium consumer who is able to pay ? But wehave to be able to make it clear to the consumerthat my products have something different I amnot talking about the scandal which will be atleast all the products will add a scandal. I amtalking about that quality is something morethan what we will be able to communicate to letthe consumer understand that this product has aspecific quality taste. If you talk about wine, forexample, it would be easy to understand what Iam saying, or olive oil, or some cheese or somefruit or vegetables. We have a very specificorganoleptic tasting or history of the productand of how they make it. This will depend on theability of the producer to transfer some con-cepts to a consumer, so the consumer will pay.You can see the example of Parmesan cheese.The price of Parmesan cheese is 25% higherthan other kinds of firm cheeses, which are sim-ilar, like Grana Padano, another Italian cheese,but at a lower price. Why does the consumerpay 25% more for Parmesan? It is difficult tounderstand the difference between the cheeses.But the history of the product, the area wherethe product is produced, and the protocol thatall the producers must follow to obtain theParmesan Cheese label. They have to followspecific rules. So all these things will push theconsumer and the producer will say: “con-sumer, my product is different”. And then wecan try to get this premium. Otherwise, it is notonly a question of traceability, it is an instru-ment, it is a question of having to make it, atleast reach the standard. Then it is a question ofrules to make the standard up to WTO level andat not only a European or American level. Wehave to follow the main standard otherwise

there will be distortion of competition. But theproblem of quality and the consumer paying ishow the producers are able to make it clear tothe consumer that the product is different. Thatwill be the challenge. Of course, it is for the richpeople, I mean we are not talking about thepoor countries. There, it is a kind of commodityat the lowest price. But in the richer countries,there are consumers who are able to pay, but weshould be able to make it clear to the consumer,otherwise they do not pay this premium, ofcourse.

Francis PIERCEI think the concept of a road map is a good oneand we have used it in the tree food industry tohelp them organise how they want to approachthere problems and fundamentally it is: wheredo you want to be and what is it going to takeyou to get there? And, I do not think there is abetter group in the world to do that in the rela-tionship between traceability and mechanisa-tion than this group. I would recommend thatthis group take this on as a task and to do thatby the next meeting and have that presented andapproved by your group in their Novembermeeting in Italy, and that gives you six monthsand that is a long time. For all the brainpowerthat is in here you should get this done in sixweeks but I give you six months.

Yoav SARIGI would like to make some practical recommen-dations addressing the issue of traceability. Ithink we talked a lot about traceability, com-bined this with quality and consumer prefer-ences. I think what we need to do and I wouldlike to recommend to Prof. Pellizzi to delegatethis mission to somebody or some group, for thenext meeting, to list all the existing technologiesthat address the issue of traceability today bro-ken up into different commodities like fieldcrops and fresh commodities, including grainsand fruit and vegetables and then list the tech-nological gaps that still need to be addressed.This will give us some practical targets for peo-ple around this table and top address other re-search people to come up with their practicalsolutions, how to do that, we talked a lot about

57

what it is, we did not talk enough about how todo that.

Dr. Lawrence J. CLARKEFAOI have been trying to sort out a lot of these com-ments that have come up, in particular this re-lationship between the producer, the consumer,the talk about quality, and then talk abouttraceability and it would seem to me that thequestion of quality is an issue between the pro-ducer and the consumer. The producer does hisutmost to produce something that the consumerperceives to be of high quality and he is pre-pared to pay for it. Consequently traceability isa tool by which the industry is regulated. Thenwe come to the public sector. The public sectorsets down the standards by which the producerhas to comply with for the safety of the con-sumer. Ttraceability is a tool that enables thepublic sector to determine, to control, to lookafter, the interests of the consumer. One exam-ple of this: recently in Germany there has beena scandal about organic farming and one of themain problems of that has been to trace theorigin of the contaminating product into the or-ganic food chain. Now in my opinion the or-ganic farming movement will not develop muchfurther, because at the moment and up to now,it has been a self-regulated movement. It hasbeen made up of people, producers, who arecommitted to organic farming. It is one of theirprinciples to produce food. When we start get-ting into the area of producing organic foodsfor profit then of course, motives will come into introduce, where possible, non-organicproducts and it is therefore going to be impor-tant that there are standards that apply to or-ganic products. But we also have the traceabil-ity to be able to identify when non-organicproduct s enter into the chain and where theyare originally from.

Prof. John K. SCHUELLERUSASince the Club of Bologna is dedicated toworldwide, we have currently been hearing somuch talking of North America and about Eu-rope. I think that one thing I would recommend

that the Club and its Members support is whiletraceability may give the capability to developthe economies to advance market crops but thatthe traceability technology strictly should notbe used as artificial trade barriers. In otherwords, that the technologies and the techniquesshould be available to the developing and oth-er countries. My second statement is that itseems to me a big advancement in somethingthat would be supported outside of the elec-tronic area this would be in the machinerytransportation would be to support and en-courage the development of portable simplesystems to avoid cross contaminations. There isa lot of potential for cross contamination forGMO-free and organic as was just mentionedcould cause problems. But simple systemscould advance this technology. My third com-ment is the country’s need to work together todevelop traceability standards and techniques.Prof. Auernhammer and Prof. Stone and othersworked on the electronics, took a pro-act of ap-proach in this, suffered a lot in doing so bythinking advanced act technology. We shouldsimilarly work on the traceability techniquesand standards. Another thing to be concernedabout, fourth thing, is: verification and audit-ing techniques. In the county we are in, CookCounty, Illinois, there is a huge lawsuit, multi-million dollars that McDonald’s is having topay, because their potatoes - their French fries- were assumed and told to consumers to be po-tatoes. But there was a small amount of beef fatessence used in the French fry and this has cre-ated a tremendous problem. When we start do-ing traceability and we start doing it on a in-ternational scale, we need to have some verifi-cation system. The ISO 9000 system has at-tempted to do that in the manufacturing indus-try although there are many of us who feel thatmaybe the cost might be more than it was worthbut that we should consider the opportunity ofdeveloping something similar in the agricultur-al industry.

Dr. Philippe MARCHALFranceI have two comments, one about the food mar-ket chain and one about the safety. On the food

58

market chain, we have noted in France that thepart of the family budget decrease from 23% to12%, in forty years, for food. And it is clear thatthe customer is not ready to pay more. Hespends less and less money for food today in Eu-rope. I am not sure that he is ready to accepttraceability, ready to pay traceability. The sec-ond comment concerns food safety. It is very im-portant to know that the level of safety is veryhigh today in Europe if you take into considera-tion the number of humans dying due to infec-tion, and it is clear, that when you discuss aboutdioxin or BSE is ok, but not that the level ofsafety increased more and more each year. Themain problem of the Club of Bologna is whichtechnology we have to develop to prevent con-tamination and to detect contamination, that issome all. For me it is more than ever importantto develop technology to prevent the contamina-tion of water, of food, that is what will be im-portant.

Prof. Hugo CETRANGOLOArgentinaI think that quality depends on each consumer.The concept of quality is different for each con-

sumer. For some consumers organic productsare a synonym of quality, for another non-trans-genic, for another again a nice product. Thefood industry must satisfy all of them becausethe differentiation of the product and the sensa-tion of the food are very important to attend tothe demand of each consumer or each group ofconsumers.

Richard O. HEGGI think we are concluding this session at thispoint. I will refer you back to the sheet I referredbefore, about some key recommendations andsome key sentences. But may be appropriated ifyou haven’t already to put something down, thisis the prime time that your mind in here ab-sorbed, or you have responded, or feel stronglyabout a particular topic that has been dis-cussed. So this would be the appropriate time,we will take just a few minutes for you to putsomething down on your sheet. The next two presentations were prepared: thefirst, by Prof. Hermann Auernhammer fromGermany and the second, by Prof. Irenilza DeAlencar Nääs from Brazil but it will be read byDr. Aad Jongebreur from The Netherlands.

59

Topic 1.2 a - The role of mechatronicsin product traceability

by Prof. H. Auernhammer (Germany)

1. IntroductionFeeding the world’s growing population willToday crop production worldwide has to be re-alised on continuously decreasing agriculturalused areas combined with an increasing worldpopulation. Starvation on one hand and afflu-ence on the other hand are dominating our dai-ly life. Engineering is delivering higher andhigher performances and new technologies arechanging traditional production processes. Thecommunity often meets this development withscepticism, because agricultural production be-came a strange unknown thing to the people:• milk comes from the super market, if milk

has a connection to the cow it is because ofTV advertising for chocolate with thecolourful (violet) cow;

• the well protected environment is requiredby all people, agriculture is the primary en-emy of the environment;

• crises like BSE and Foot and Mouth Diseasesupport the consumer in his distrust againstagriculture – agriculture means environmen-tal pollution and profit;

• the work in the garden, with flowers andpets, loved by almost all people, leads to aself-overestimation – everyone becomes aspecialist in agriculture.

Against this background the community has giv-en agriculture the role of the “bad boy” – agricul-ture has become a looser. Agriculture itself has toremember its results and advances in production,in the protection of animals and in environmentalprotection. In many cases agriculture is very scep-tic against technical developments and progressand is therefore missing new chances.

2. Overview on precision crop farming

2.1. Intelligent technologies New intelligent technologies in agriculture are

leaded by the utilisation of information tech-nologies. “Mechatronics”, the combination ofmechanics and electronics together with hy-draulics makes intelligent components availablewhich can be connected using electronic com-munication. This connection can be limited tothe internal communication of a machine or animplement where it increases the performance ofthe machine significantly and/or where it makesthe control much more easier. But the electroniccommunication can also connect tractors withimplements or implements with other imple-ments if standardised communication systemlike LBS / ISOBUS (Fig. 1) are used.

If positioning services like GPS NAVSTAR,GLONASS or Europe’s future “Galileo” will beintegrated, than the way for automated informa-tion acquisition and information use by locationand time can start.

2.2. Precision Farming Intelligent technology in combination with “po-sition and time” is much more than dividingfields into management zones. Precision farm-ing is positioned within the structure of preci-sion agriculture (Fig. 2).

Within this structure also precision forestry,precision horticulture and precise landscapemanagement are located.

Within precision agriculture precision (crop)farming and precision livestock farming arewell known. Both are completed by precisionpasture or grassland management.

Precision (crop) farming also can be differenti-ated. It starts with information acquisition, con-tinues with site specific farming and ends withmachinery management and organisation andthe field robots (Fig. 3).

3. Applications of mechatronics

Key examples should illustrate the new possi-bilities and show their realisation.

3.1. Automated data acquisition By the use of sensors intelligent technology isable to collect information autonomously. In

61

combination with position and time electronicdata acquisition makes the documentation ofproduction processes possible. If all machinesand implements involved in the productionprocess can be electronically identified the au-tomation of the data acquisition can be realised.Agricultural production traceability is on theway (Fig. 4).

3.2. Site specific crop management Site specific farming needs fields which can bedivided into zones and is therefore limited tofarming structures with large fields. In this re-gions precision farming has started and has al-ready become an established farming system inmany areas of Europe and the US.

3.2.1 Site specific farming

In areas with large fields (large scale farming)site specific plant production takes the hetero-geneities within a field into account followingthree different strategies (Fig. 5).

• Following the mapping approach the levelof the basic fertilization (not nitrogen), seed-ing and planting densities are deduced frommultiple local yield data and/or systematic(geo-referenced) soil sampling.

• Sensor systems (real-time approach) regis-ter the actual situation of the plant develop-ment (biomass) in the field or the growth ofthe weeds. Based on defined algorithms ofthe target yield (biomass) the amount of ni-trogen fertilizer is calculated and on-line di-rectly distributed.

• Finally both systems can be combined (real-time approach with map-overlay). Withthis combined strategy the application of toomuch nitrogen can be prevented, especiallyif caused by unusual plant development ni-trogen fertilizer amounts are calculated fromthe sensor signals which do not compare tothe long-term yield structure.

All this strategies require larger fields with thepossibility of a virtual separation of manage-ment zones with similar yield potentials, similarsoil types, similar weed population or similar ir-rigation requirements.

3.2.2 Transborder farmingFarms with small fields (small-scale farmingsystems) can only participate to this technologyif there is a very strong heterogeneity withintheir fields and if they have special precisionfarming technology available for small fieldswhich is - compared to enterprises with largerfields – much more expensive. But with existingsite specific farming technology the system canalso turned around – the existing small fieldsare used and treated as the management zonesof a larger virtual unit. Creating larger units(transborder farming) will introduce a “virtualland consolidation”. On these fields site specif-ic farming can be realised following differentaims and strategies (Fig. 6).

3.3. Fleet management Together with position and time the machine in-ternal information can be used not only for eco-nomic decisions, but also for the central man-agement of the machine organisation and utili-sation. For that purpose the information transferfrom the mobile equipment to a central coordi-nation headquarter and/or vice versa is needed.For use in the headquarter the locations of themachine action with all fields has to be madeavailable in geographic data. Machinery co-op-eratives (e.g. sugar beet harvesting co-opera-tives like shown in Fig. 7), machinery rings andcontractors would be able to calculate and planthe machinery demand to:• make the needed machines available at the

right place just in time;

• control the performance continuously;

• react on upcoming or possible capacityshortage;

• optimise the machinery adjustment usingtelemetric-service;

• initiate necessary service or repair measuresfrom the headquarter;

by using fleet management systems.

At least the intensive internal machine informa-tion together with position and time and a geo-graphic planning of the sequence of eventsmakes the automated guidance of vehicles with-

62

out any human driver possible (Fig. 8).

Developed step by step starting with:

• automated machine or implement guidancewith human control on board;

• combinations of manned guidance vehiclesand unmanned following vehicles (masterslave principle);

• unmanned autonomous guided self pro-pelled machines based on existing concepts/ constructions can be realised. But at theend there has to be developed a new type ofspecialised unmanned autonomous guidedvehicle for multi purpose field works. Withsuch a new conception the trend towardsbigger and larger and heavier machines inagriculture might be stopped and with a“herd of robots” it could become possible:

– on one hand to preserve and to farmsmall scale agriculture like in Japan and

– on the other hand to minimise the hugedemand for seasonal workforce in largeand highly specialised farms like in partsof the USA, GB and Eastern Germany(vegetable production).

Therefore there is a real need for an active andefficient research and development in the areaof field robotics with a lot of possibilities andrequirements not yet mentioned.

4. Traceability

With the availability of machine internal sen-sors, actuators, positioning and timing withGPS and the use of electronic communicationall technical parameters and activities inprocesses of the field processes can be automat-ically collected, stored and processed. In com-bination with manually collected information anew type of information pool will be available.It spreads across the agricultural productionprocesses on the fields, the farm management,further processing and storage units up to thedistribution and the retailer systems.

Information in this context means traceability(Fig. 9) with interfaces in the production chainfrom one process to the following one and with

interfaces to the:– administration → taxes, control and subsi-

dies;– society → confidence (transparent produc-

tion).

Though the real information requirements with-in the product chain have not been defined untilnow. The information demand is varying verywide. Regarding the three main steps in Figure9 the following information groups with sub-in-formation seem to be important:

Farm level (Farmer)• Field location, field size, crop, treatment,

yield expectation, yield, ingredients.• Nutrition application, nutrition balance.Commerce/Trade (Succeeding processes)• Mass/volume, origin, route of transport,

time of transport, occurrence during trans-port.

• Processes, ingredients, classification.

Consumer• Farming type, farmstead, region, time of

production, field operations.• Applications, fuel consumption, working

conditions, soil stress/working distance/ha.• Ingredients, water content, quality

rate/class.

The farmer will be able to deliver different in-formation parts to the consumer depending onhis participation in the production and to takeover the necessary responsibility in parts or intotal (Fig. 10).

Starting with the total responsibility of thefarmer it decreases with increasing transfer ofthe processing and treating more and more. Atthe same time the influence of the farmer on theproduct is reduced:

Farmer-only (direct marketing) chain:• Customized products are the demands of the

consumers.• Responsibility only by the farmer.

Farmer-commerce chain:• No influence on the end product by the

farmer.• Main responsibility by the farmer.

63

Farmer-contractor-commerce chain:• No influence on the end product by the

farmer.• Contractual influence to the contractor.• Main responsibility by the farmer.

Contractor-commerce chain:• No influence on the end product by the

farmer.• Contractual influence to the contractor.• Main responsibility by the contractor.

Also the shown information chain includes ad-ditional information of supplementary products(Fig. 11).

Regarding this products the farmer respectivelythe processing chain play the role of the con-sumer. This shows the complexity of a continu-ous and complete documentation because alsothe means of production have their own “sideinformation”. Therefore for the farmer clear andcomprehensible (realisable) interfaces have tobe created. They must be applied to his produc-tion and to his farm management.

From the situation of a farmer traceability in-cludes (Fig. 12):

• signalling from crop, soil, environment;• information gathering;• information processing;• information integration into the farm man-

agement;• information supply to/from the trade (hand

over and take over).

The role of mechatronics therefore means allactivities in this processes and steps of farmwork. Mechatronics on the farm level should:

• be prepared to sense signals;• use sensors for crop and field processes;• use controllers and actuators;• establish a through-going information flow

and information management;• guarantee the information flow and informa-

tion quality.

4.1 Efficient sensorsTraceability includes the complete documenta-tion of:

• the process with its typical figures;• the product;• the unequivocal temporal and local assign-

ment of the collected data and the changeswithin the process.

In a modern technology many sensors are avail-able today. Problems occur with the unequivo-cal mass and weight detection (harvesting andapplication).

At a very early stage of development are thepossibilities of the detection of quality and in-gredients under “real-time / on-line” conditionsin the field (Table 1).

Here a new wide field for future developmentsis opened which is expecting and requiring tomuch of single institutions or manufacturers.Therefore integrated projects should be estab-lished to investigate and examine the differentpossibilities and solutions. In connection to this“standardised calibration routines” have to bedefined and their improvement and modifica-tion have to be tested with newest informationtechnologies. Indispensable are “sample extrac-tion units / sampling automation units” with thepossibility to store samples for a longer time forthe documentation of the actual status.

In addition such systems need also additionalinformation from the point of the consumers.These are objective possibilities to detect:

• form, shape, size;• colour;• consistency;• and others.

4.2 Distributed controllersThe usually used sensors are components with-in a control unit together with actuators, inte-grated control strategies and an interface to oth-er controllers (nodes). The sensor informationtherefore normally is only one sub informationof the controller and must be processed in com-bination with other information to the target in-formation. Already today dedicated controllersare able to detect with its sensors a wide varietyof information and create and document wellknown as well as new process parameters in theassignment to position and time (Fig. 13).

64

More sophisticated networks of controllers needin both, the mobile as well as in the stationarytechnology additional and new functions e. g.:

Extended Task Controller: Besides the organ-isation and the control of tasks provided by thefarm management (normally by applicationcards and so on) this controller should be able tocollect and create required field parameters fortraceability depending on the specific needs ofthe farmer under his specific conditions. Start-ing from a basic-data-set of total working time,total amount of used/harvested material and to-tal consumption of diesel more and more de-tailed information should be provided.

Field-tracing controller: Detailed field datahave to include the position and the time infor-mation from GPS/Galileo. The provided recordsmay again include a basic-data-set and/or amore extended one for geografic data process-ing. Its resolution in recording may be definedby different criteria like:

• time stamp based (e.g. once per second);• occasion based (e.g. by changing on param-

eter in the whole process like applicationrate, working depth and so on);

• distance based (e.g. every 10 m).

In-field controller: As more and more informa-tion during field processes may be obtained on-the-go, a specific in-field-controller may inte-grate this information into task order data fromthe management. Its function and organisationmay be explained by the following example.

Today the needed nitrogen in top dressing is cal-culated from a given yield target and the real-time sensor signals showing the actual growthstage. Oversupply on spots with historical lowyields and/or low fertiliser uptake depending onavailable soil water create avoidable pollutionsof ground water and inefficient use of nitrogen.In this case a more sophisticated controller withan included knowledge base could optimiseboth and only such a controller would be able togenerate a traceable in-field information.

4.3 Standardised communicationToday these requirements could be fulfilled if

the worldwide acting agricultural equipmentmanufacturers would be willing to take over thestandardised electronic communication by ISO11783 (ISOBUS) as an international realisationof the German standard LBS by DIN 9684. Torealise this:• all interfaces have only to follow this stan-

dard;• controllers for all technologies have to be

available;• test installations for the standards have to be

available.

Because of the high number of manufacturersand because of the company specific intereststhis ideals seems not to be able to reach. A rea-son for this is also that every standard as small-est common denominator includes not all need-ed contents and beside this some contents arestill not clearly defined. In this realisation intothe code of silicon this leads to unavoidable in-compatibilities with:

• very long development cycles;• extensive and continuing tests on conformity;• frustrated users because of remaining in-

compatibilities with not detectable reasonsin a complex system.

Because of this only the use of a standard codelike it is realised in a “open source project”(Fig. 14) is able to deliver the needed accelera-tion in the development with fast error detectionand solving. If not incompatible “open systems”or more or less “closed systems of the globalplayer” will dominate the market of tomorrow.

4.4 Integrated security/safety Traceability needs an overall information secu-rity. To reach this aim much more efforts areneeded as mentioned and planned until today(mind crises like BSE, FMD, Nitrofen). Manu-al possibilities to manipulate the system are theweek points. Therefore more and more automa-tion has to be used (Fig. 15).

Only by using these procedures it can be guar-antied that traceability:

• makes a general information security possi-ble;

65

• manual manipulation can be avoided;• on farm security is possible;• pass the control of the administration;• earns and stabilise the confidence of the

community.

5. Conclusions

From these selected criteria of mechatronicsand traceability the following conclusions maybe drawn:

• Agricultural machinery is becoming moreand more intelligent. Position detection withGPS (or Europe’s Galileo after 2008) willbecome a basic component as well as a stan-dardised electronic communication based onLBS / ISOBUS and a high number of differ-ent sensors on tractors, implements and selfpropelled machines.

• Precision Farming seems to be the farmingstrategy and practise of the future. WithinPrecision farming applications automateddata acquisition will have the highest priori-ty. It will be followed by site specific cropproduction and fleet management. As a finaldevelopment autonomously guided vehicleswill be introduced into agriculture.

• Product traceability needs information gath-ering, processing, integration in the farmmanagement and information supply to/fromthe trade/commerce and documentation.

• Within mobile agricultural equipment GPSand the standardised communication by ISO11783 opens the best possibilities for trace-ability.

• Sensors available today are able to detect awide variety of process parameters. There isa big demand to detect the product quality,the ingredients and parameters defined bythe consumers.

• Traceability exceeds all existing securityconcepts. Manual inputs make manipulationpossible. Automation may be the adequateanswer.

• Comprehensive traceability concepts arepossible in crop production. But they exceed

the capabilities and possibilities of many in-stitutions and agricultural equipment manu-facturers. Only in multidisciplinary integrat-ed projects a minimum standard can bereached fast and certainly which can be fur-ther developed in many directions.

References

[1] Auernhammer H., Demmel M., Span-gler A., 2000. Automatic process data ac-quisition with GPS and LBS. AgEng War-wick, Warwick (UK), Paper Number 00-IT-005

[2] Christie R., Peterson S.W. , 2000. Foodmarkets of the future. 60th Jubilee Confer-ence, Hamilton Gardens Pavilion, Hamil-ton, New Zealand, 26 - 29 June 2000. Pro-ceedings of the New Zealand Society ofAnimal Production, 60, pp. 78-82.

[3] Deasy D., 2001. Traceability and enter-prise quality management in the food pro-cessing sector. New Food, 4 (4), pp. 67-69.

[4] Demmel M., Auernhammer H., 1998.Automatisierte Prozeßdatenerfassung -Elektronikeinsatz bei der Zuckerrüben-ernte. Landtechnik 53, H. 3, S., pp. 144-145.

[5] Demmel M., Rothmund M., Spangler A.,Auernhammer H., 2001. Algorithms for adata analysis and first results of automaticdata acquisition with GPS and LBS ontractor implement combinations. In: Pro-ceedings of the Third European Confer-ence on Precision Agriculture (Eds.: Gre-nier, G., Blackmore, S.). Agro Montpellier,Vol 1, pp. 13-18.

[6] Demmel M., Ehrl M., Rothmund M.,Spangler A., Auernhammer H., 2002.Automated Process Data Acquisition withGPS and Standardized Communication -The Basis for Agricultural ProductionTraceability. ASAE: Meeting PresentationChicago, Paper No. 023013

[7] Garbutt N., 2000. Meeting consumer de-mands for food safety: European retailer

66

protocols for protection programmes. TheBCPC-Conference: - Pests and diseases,Volume 1. Proceedings of an internationalconference held at the Brighton HiltonMetropole Hotel, Brighton, UK, 13 -16November, pp. 129-132.

[8] Gayton J., Armstrong J., 2001. Market-ing to the consumer in the 21st century.Proceedings of the Second InternationalSymposium on Edible Alliaceae, Adelaide,Australia, 10-13 November 1997. ActaHorticulturae. No. 555, pp. 51-55.

[9] Glemot C., 2000. Purposes and tools oftraceability at the growing and shippingstages. Infos-Ctifl., No. 166, pp. 24-28.

[10] Golan E., Krissoff B., Kuchler F., 2002.Traceability for food marketing & foodsafety: what’s the next step? AgriculturalOutlook. No. 288, pp. 21-25.

[11] Hansen O. M., Breembroek J.A., LewisK., Janssens S.R.M., 1999. Nutrientrecord-keeping and reporting for legisla-tion, crop assurance and traceability. Pro-ceedings International Fertiliser Society.1999. No. 440, 36 pp. presented at a con-ference in Cambridge, UK, 9 December

[12] Jouglard B.. Equipment and method per-mitting tracing the history of a food prod-uct through production, processing an dis-tribution. French Patent Application.

[13] Kormann G., Auernhammer H., 2000.Moisture measurement on forage harvest-ing machines. Abstracts of AgEng War-wick 2000: Agricultural Engineering intothe Third Millenium. Silsoe: Silsoe Re-search Institute, Part 1, pp. 309-310

[14] Laffi G., Pasini P., Delgado I, LloverasJ., 2001. Traceability in the alfalfa dehy-dration chain. Quality in Lucerne andmedics for animal production. Proceedingsof the XIV Eucarpia Medicago spp. GroupMeeting, Zaragoza and Lleida, Spain, 12-15 September 2001. Options-Mediterra-neenes: - Serie - A, Seminaires-Mediterra-neens. No. 45, pp. 219-223.

[15] Langan J. , 2000. Traceability and foodsafety systems. Farm and Food. 10:2, pp.34-36.

[16] Metheringham T., Rodway L., 2001.Quality in practice using proven sensorytechniques to aid quality control. NewFood; 4 (2) 19, pp. 21-23.

[17] Pascal G., Mahe S., 2001. Identity, trace-ability, acceptability and substantialequivalence of food. Cellurar and Moleku-lar Biology. 47: 8, pp. 1329-1342.

[18] Robertson A., 2000. The interface be-tween consumer needs and food scienceand technology. Food Australia; 52 (6), pp.244-248.

[19] Rothmund M., Demmel M., Auernham-mer H., 2001. Methoden und Ergebnisseder Datenauswertung bei der Automatis-chen Prozessdatenerfassung mit LBS, GPSund IMI® auf Traktor-Geräte-Kombina-tionen. In: Berichte der Gesellschaft für In-formatik in Land-, Forst- undErnährungswirtschaft: Referate der 22.GIL-Jahrestagung in Rostock, Band 14, S.,pp. 129-132.

[20] Smith J., 2001. Traceability systems takecloser control from seed to shelf. FreshProduce Journal; 19 Jan., pp. 13-14.

67

68

Figure 1 - Structure of LBS / ISOBUS

Figure 2 - Precision agriculture

69

Figure 3 - Applications of Precision Farming

Figure 4 - Automated process data acquisition with LBS, GPS and the implement indicator IMI

70

Figure 5 - Strategies of site specific plant production

Figure 6 - Transborder farming in a “virtual land consolidation”

71

Figure 7 - Fleet management system for sugar beet harvesting and transport by machinery co-op-erative

Figure 8 - Autonomous vehicle guidance in a master slave system

72

Figure 9 - Traceability in the production chain

Figure 10 - Information responsibility in the crop product chain

CropField

processesFarm

processesCustomizedprocessing

Storage Distribution Retail Consumer

Farm (direct marketing)

CropField

processesFarm

processesCommercialprocessing


Farm Commerce

CropField

processesFarm



Farm Farm CommerceContractor

CropField



Farm CommerceContractor

73

Figure 11 - Product chain with supplementary products in the food production

Figure 12 - Information flow on the farm level

Figure 13 - Parameters from automatic data acquisition in field work

Figure 14 - Open source model LBSlib

74

75

Figure 15 - Safety concepts for the automated process data acquisition

Table 1 - NIR-real-time sensing for quality detection

Topic 1.2 b - The role of mechatron-ics in animal productions

by Prof. I. De Alencar Nääs (Brazil) (*)

Abstract

The concept of biosensors technology appliedto animal production, mainly based on theminiaturized electronic mechanics (MEM) hasbeing used since the mid 70s into severalstages of production, such as feeding, detec-tion of metabolic testing in animal husbandry,as well as to individual identification and mon-itoring, which is an important step towardstracking of actions and application of trace-ability of events and processes in the animalprotein production chain. Last generation ofsuch devices includes the real possibility ofstoring animal data as well as providing au-thentication protocols. The concept of specificmanagement of a certain event rather thentreating the herd/flock as a whole, likewise theprecision farming, leads the precision animalproduction to re-evaluate losses and misdiag-nosis by increasing the efficiency and accura-cy and the use of precision techniques. The ap-plication of mechatronics in animal productionis found through the use of biosensors andMEMs, improving data collection and allow-ing more precise decision making actions. Thispaper presents some examples of the use ofthis technology in specific areas related to an-imal production.

1. Introduction

The overall performance of animal productiondepends on the herd or flock management aswell as the nutrition, sanity control and lodg-ing facilities. The concept of this kind of pro-duction is directly related to the reduction ofselected losses and process control. Each pro-duction segment is controlled for reaching op-timization in the whole production system. Theconcepts of precision animal production mayapply at farm level for the animal manage-

ment, housing environmental control, diseaseand nutrition control, information and identifi-cation, and ultimately, the overall treaceability.In the last decade new technical tools havebeen introduced in animal productionunits/farms as support to decision making, es-pecially for management, feeding strategies,animal health and fertility. Along with that,specific computerized systems were developedin order to elaborate the related variables andto provide the manager/farmer with opportuneand appropriate tools and alert signals.

Average based models were the basis for thestandard method in commercial animal pro-duction farms for monitoring most operation,and the forecasted values were compared tomeasured ones as well as to the next forecast-ed value, generating a predict average estimat-ed value and, generally introducing an error, socalled deviation. This has been applied forfeeding system, reproduction practices as wellas for predicting behavioral patterns.

With the advancement in microelectronics thepossibilities of its use in animal production be-came feasible mainly for providing reductionof losses by better supporting decision makingprocesses. Biosensor technology has great po-tential for improving animal welfare, healthand production efficiency. The recent increas-ing incidence of diseases, such as bovinespongiform encephalopathy (BSE), tuberculo-sis, brucellosis, mastitis, and foot and mouth,has raised concern in the livestock industryand in society. Infectious diseases of livestockhave major implications not only in animalwelfare and production efficiency but also inhuman health, and food safety and quality.

According to [1], the future of animal proteincommerce depends mainly on an industry re-acting towards the following concepts: hon-esty, openness, detailed information available,traceability, assurance of quality, and flexibili-ty for changes. For the retailer or fast foodbuyer, it is only possible to build up a businesswhen quality is always renewed, when final

76

(*) Presented by Eng. A. Jongebreur (Netherlands)

design is correct, and it is always available inthe right place at the right time.

This paper reviews the state of art as well asthe prospective possibilities of the use ofmechatronics in animal protein production sys-tems.

2. Overall view on the possibilities of preci-sion animal production

Currently, diseases are controlled mainly withvaccines and drugs but the emergence of antibi-otic-and drug-resistant pathogens means thatdiseases will continue to be a problem. More-over, the use of antibiotics will become evenmore severely restricted in the future. Biosensorapproaches are a promising tool to diagnose,and thereby aid in controlling animal disease ina more individual basis. These systems are in-expensive and reliable diagnostic tools that canbe used by non-specialists. In addition, the testcould be done at the animal’s side providing im-mediate information about the status of a dis-ease.

The widespread use of antibiotics andchemotherapeutics in animal husbandry (to con-trol diseases and improve animal performance)has led to the occurrence of veterinary drugresidues in foods of animal origin. Many coun-tries have been introducing more restrictivefood control measures but traditional microbialmethods are not sensitive enough to meet newregulations and classical analytical techniquesare often precluded owing to the level of expe-rience, skills and cost required. Biosensor tech-nology offers an alternative drug-screeningmethod that is highly sensitive, does not requiresample preparation, and can be rapidly carriedout on-line at a low cost. Biosensors could alsobe used in the detection of metabolic levels inveterinary testing and animal husbandry, for ex-ample estrus detection by monitoring proges-terone levels in milk.

By the mid-1970s experiments had been carriedout with electronic transponders for individualfeeding of cows and automatic data recording[2, 3]. The electronic “black boxes” (first gener-ation) were attached to collars used around the

neck. Later on, further miniaturization of elec-tronics allowed the development of tiny elec-tronic transponders, which could be injected un-der the skin (second generation). Also the pricedeclined dramatically. Because of the many lo-gistical and tactical benefits of electronic ani-mal identification, a worldwide market couldarise for this application, primarily for agricul-tural animals, but also for companion and zooanimals. This needed the standardization ofcodes and interrogation techniques. For thispurpose, IOS came up in 1996 with two stan-dards: ISO 11874 for the 64-bit code structureand ISO/11785 for the combined FDX/HDX in-terrogation protocol, working at 134.2 kHz [4, 5and 6]. The third generation, currently under de-velopment, includes also read/write possibilitiesfor storage of the (medical/gentics) history ofthe animal and sensor technologies for automat-ic monitoring of animal health and perform-ance. Moreover, advanced third generationtransponders can also be provided with authen-tication protocols to prevent fraudulent copyingof transponder codes. IOS is also developing astandard for this new generation, which will becompatible with the existing standards.

It is understood as precision farming the use ofspecial techniques and tools that permits specif-ic management for a certain specific site and/orspecific situation on field occurrence. The use ofsuch techniques and/or tools is supposed to leadmanagement to a certain specific decision, andmore precise action, rather than the use of aver-age based values decision. Likewise in animalproduction large herds or flocks incorporatelosses due to management decision based on av-erage values. As an example, literature statesthat the upper critical housing temperature(UCT) for raising poultry breeders is around28°C, however when studying individual ani-mals it is found that UCT can vary from 27 to32°C in the same genetics, and in some individ-uals the fluctuation within this range can causelosses up to 4% in the final result of fertile eggs.Apparently geneticists could detect through mo-lecular genetics and genome tracing, a geneticmarker responsible for this fluctuation in envi-ronmental response, leading the genetic devel-

77

opment of breeders in a direction of a specificselection of thermal resistant animals and conse-quently, making the flocks more homogeneous,reducing losses related to heat stress exposure.

The use of electronic olfactometry is anotherexample. Electronic olfactometry mimics thehuman smelling system by using an array of gassensors and a simulated “brain”, transformingthe organic compounds contained in the head-space of the sample into an electrical signal inthe form of curves via chemical sensors (metaloxides). Currently, the combined use of an arrayof gas sensors and neural networks approachprovides a rapid method for measuring smellsand a complement to the human nose insmelling analysis. In this sense, quality controlin the food industry is one application that hasseen the strongest development in recent years.The differentiation of products derived fromIberian breed of swine by the use of olfactome-try for classifying products on the basis of thediet they have received using adipose tissue assamples was studied [7]. The occurrence offraudulent practices, consisting of the use ofgreased feed in an attempt to imitate the charac-teristics of range-diet animals, means that newmethods are required to characterize these ani-mals on the basis of their diet. Characterizationof the aroma of Iberian breed products hasmainly focused on cured products, using extrac-tion with solvents, static or dynamic headspace,on solid adsorbents by gas chromatographycoupled to “sniffing”, or extraction with super-critical fluids. In this sense, relationships havebeen reported between the diet, genetics andsensory characteristics. The authors developedan algorithm that uses the electronic nose foridentifying and classifying the specific meatproduct with precision. Olfactometry can beused as well to identify hazardous gases insideanimal housing.

3. Applications

3.1. Biosensors Most biosensor developments have been in thebiomedical field, where many in vivo applica-tions demand small sizes. The on-line nature ofa milk progesterone sensor did not require that

the sensor be miniaturized to the point of utiliz-ing microfabrication technology [8]. Their pri-mary considerations were the physical sensordesign, fluid transport, optical sensor configura-tion, fluid mixing, sampling of the raw milk,and automation. The ideal biosensor would be aprobe, similar to that found in a pH meter. Sincethe standard enzyme immunoassay identifica-tion of progesterone (EIA) is currently per-formed and standardized using microtitreplates, they used this technique as a startingpoint. The biosensor was then developed usingEIA for molecular recognition and consequenceidentification of estrus in milking cows.

Radio frequency identification (RFID) plays akey role in electronic monitoring systems, whichare inherently related to sensing systems. Thiscombination makes it easier to switch from in-tensive to semi extensive animal husbandry sys-tems (e.g. group housing of sows) as cited in [9].Different systems are used as RFID as shown inTable 1. Integration of on-animal sensing de-vices opens possibilities for the automation of so-phisticated tasks such as health monitoring andreproduction status (estrus, pregnancy) (Hurst etal, 1983 cited by [8]). Some examples aretransponders equipped with a temperature sensor,as presented by [10], or in combination with ac-tivity tracking [11]. The accuracy of these im-planted temperature sensors is about 0.2°C. As inmost cases not the absolute values, but just therelative changes contain the significant informa-tion, the resolution must also be specified, andbecause of the digital representation of the tem-perature measurement, it is necessary to providethe result with at least one decimal place.

Sensor-based transducers also have been devel-oped for monitoring the body temperature, theelectrical cardiogram (ECG) signal and the pHvalue [12]. These sensors have been used tomonitor stress on piglets during transportation.The sensors are both the strength and the weak-ness of the monitoring concept. Typical per-formance aspects are the selectivity, the accura-cy/resolution and long-term stability. In particu-lar sensors with selective bio-interfaces cancause stability problems. An example of thisclass of biosensors is the interface with the en-

78

zyme glucose oxidase (GOD) for glucose detec-tion. Improvements have been achieved withimmobilizing techniques (Puers, 1993 cited by[6]). Because the sensor circuitry of these ad-vanced devices requires a more or less continu-ous energy supply, small (mostly Lithiumbased) batteries have to be integrated in thetransponder. Despite the application of very lowpower electronics, the lifetime of such devicesis limited. One improvement to extend this life-time is dual powering by using an internal bat-tery for measurement and storage of data to-gether with external an external radiating pow-er source for transmission of data to the reader.Another alternative is the use of an external ra-diating powering source for both the interroga-tion and the semi-permanent activation of thesensor circuitry, thus enabling unlimited use ofthe sensor/transponder [6].

3.2 Accurate behavioral data for supportingoptimal housing designThe optimal design of animal housing requiresmeeting a large array of variables, especiallywhen the welfare standards are faced. For in-stance ideal dry bulb temperature, which associ-ated to relative humidity and black globe tem-peratures away from the thermoneutral zonemay lead to undesirable environment and con-sequent losses in production.

The thermoneutral dry bulb temperature forbreeders during the production stage lies be-tween 22°C and 28°C. When the upper criticaltemperature (UCT) is reached, the latent heatlost by evaporation is highly affected by envi-ronmental relative humidity level.The bird’s UCT is influenced by the ventilationrate, the presence of cooling devices, and thetemperature of drinking water. The bird’s ther-mal regulation process in response to heatstressing conditions uses extra energy, leadingto loss in productivity. Broilers in the first threeweeks are more sensible to sudden weatherchanges requiring a more isolated building. Op-timum poultry production requires a housingenvironment that can offer well-distributed ven-tilation within especially for the last week bird’srequirements.

The seasons characterization is related to solardeclination, and the solar orientation of a build-ing is then affected by the solar radiation fluxintensity that reach all the housing sidesthroughout the day. During the Winter at lati-tude of 40°S, for instance the North side of abuilding receives in average three times moresolar radiation than the East and West sides.While during Summer the North and South re-ceive together only half of the solar radiationthat reaches the Eastern and Western sides. Inlower latitudes, as the case of São Paulo State,by the Tropic of Capricorn those differences aremore enhanced and, during some clear sky Win-ters the Northern side is highly affected in termof incident solar radiation.

The location of a poultry housing regarding so-lar orientation is then of importance. Dependingon the time of the year some side of the build-ing will have more incident direct solar radia-tion as well as the diffuse radiation according tothe sun movement. This will influence directlythe total heat load inside the building.

Using RFID [13] recorded poultry breeder’s be-havior and related their behavior to the environ-ment characteristics using telemetry in small-scale model housing in two different solar ori-entations. Six female breeders were used in themodels and they all had a transponder implant-ed. Four readers were used to record theirmovement within the small-scale housingplaced on: nest, drinker, feeder and wall. Theenvironmental parameters measured were: dry,wet bulb and black globe temperatures. Datawere compared and the breeder’s behavioralpattern according to environmental characteris-tics was determined as seen in Figure 1.

Knowing in a more accurate way the behaviorof animals by using RFID, it will be possible todesign better housing for intensive animal pro-duction.

3.3 Use of transponders for ID in animal pro-duction and the use of treaceability processesNevertheless consumers are quite aware of thehealth problems the ingestion of unsafe foodmay bring to them and their families and asso-

79

ciate this item to the animals housing and man-agement, ingestion of drugs and ultimately theprocess and conservation of the productthroughout the market chain. Safety is one ofthe most demanded qualities in food productsnowadays, and it interacts mainly for assuringquality. It is important to meet the consumer’srequirements for food safety through the use oftreaceability of the animal welfare and healthcontrol as well as the labor welfare and health,reducing also the risk of contamination from allsources in the process of production.

Devices for electronic animal identification, be-coming available in the mid-1970s, facilitatedthe implementation of sophisticated livestockmanagement schemes. The standardization byIOS of the next generation of injectable elec-tronic transponders opened a worldwide marketfor all species of animals. The third generation,currently under development, includes alsoread/write possibilities and sensor technologiesfor automatic monitoring of animal health andperformance. The addition of these sensors fa-cilitates the automation of sophisticated taskssuch as health and reproduction status monitor-ing.

The discussion about the best place for implant-ing transponders in some species of animals isstill being updated. A solution for transpondersapplied in new born piglets inside the ear’sbase, for use in posterior traceability inside thewhole swine production system was presented[14]. The use of transponders for complete elec-tronic traceability in swine production remainsa challenge. The use of electronic ear tags is stillthe most common way of tracking swine withinthe production sites.

Electronic identification of cattle usually re-ferred to as RFID has many advantages for farmmanagement. First, it can be regarded as a con-siderable improvement in relation to visualidentification of numbers. The main advantagesare the elimination of labor costs and the de-crease of incorrect readings from 6% to 0.1%[11]. RFID also facilitates the use of automatedhousing systems and combines the advantagesof the conventional loose housing systems (rel-

ative freedom for the animals, attending someanimal welfare demands) with the advantagesof the stanchion barns (control of single ani-mals). Allowing the automation of, for example,feed monitoring and rationing, weighing anddrafting can implement sophisticated livestockmanagement schemes.

Using RFID cattle management can be carriedout on basis of the individual animal perform-ance recording (as suggested in Fig. 2), dis-pensing of feed, geographic routing dependenton the animal status. Examples are robot milk-ing and the implementation of geographic infor-mation systems to assess the potential transmis-sion of infectious diseases between herds [9].Also from the point of view of return on invest-ment, RFID systems seem to be a good solution.Other important applications enabled by inject-ed electronic transponders are improvement ofdisease control and eradication as well as fraudcontrol. The latter application is very importantwithin the European Union (EU), where premi-ums are being paid to stimulate extensive sheepand beef production. Also within the EU, it isnot longer allowed to eradicate some contagiousdiseases by means of vaccination. In case of anoutbreak, it is very important to trace back theorigin, movements and contacts between ani-mals to be able to stop the further disseminationof contagious diseases.

In practice, RFID implementations can give riseto several problems. Reading speed and dis-tance must be optimized for specific applica-tions. The International Committee for AnimalRecording (ICAR) developed in 1995 a set ofrequirements regarding (among others) thereading distance and reading speed. Other is-sues include biocompatibility of encapsulation,as well as the injection site in connection withmigration problem, recovery in slaughterhous-es, and the open trade that needs standardiza-tion, and proper effective management of issuedunique life-numbers.

Due to the consumers demand on requiring cer-tain characteristics of the product includingthose related to sanity control up to ecologicalfeatures, identifying the final product is one of

80

the objectives on the treaceability process. Thetreaceability in this case is to assure the con-sumer herd or flock welfare and health, goodnutrition, non use of certain drugs and that thereis adopted in the farm environmentally safewaste management.

3.4 Detection of estrus in dairy cowsIn many countries breeding results are decliningas can be illustrated by a decrease in conceptionrates after artificial insemination and by an in-crease in calving intervals. Part of these prob-lems seems to be related to the failure to detectestrus or to the misdiagnosis. It is generally ac-cepted that heat detection efficiency is lowerthan 50% in most dairy herds (and, consideringprogesterone concentration in milk or plasmaon the day of service, from 5 to 30% of the cowswere not in or near estrus when inseminated [1,10, 15, 16 and 17].

Continuous or almost continuous observationsstudies have shown that displays of estrous be-havior occur unevenly throughout each 24 h pe-riod and many of them are of short duration(Esslemont et al, 1980). These findings were re-cently confirmed on large number of animalsusing electronic devices that allow continuousmonitoring of behavioral activity. Thereforeregular periods of observation of estrus are re-quired which is less and less possible within theconstraints of actual management practice, par-ticularly because individual dairy herds increas-ing in size, the manpower input per cow will de-crease. Figure 3 shows the percentage of accu-racy in the estrus detection rate of milkingcows, using two systems of observations.

Tested by [18], the DEC® system (IMV Tech-nologies, France) is an electronic device de-signed to detect estrus in the bovine species. Itsprinciple is based on the electronic detection ofstanding mounts accepted by cows in estrus.The criteria (number of, length and interval be-tween mounts) are analyzed by a microproces-sor associated with the sensor and give a defini-tion of the onset of estrus. During the course ofthis experiment, the efficiency of estrus detec-tion by visual observation (69.8%) was higherthan the efficiency usually reported in the liter-

ature (38 to 56%); however these values are av-erages and efficiencies over 60% have been al-ready observed in individual herds. The contin-uous (24 h a day) surveillance of the cows rep-resents one of the main advantages of electron-ic devices when detecting estrus. Therefore itlooks surprising that the efficiency of theDEC® system was approximately only 50% ofthe efficiency provided by visual observation.Their data were not in agreement with this state-ment as the false positives represented 12.8% ofthe estrus detected by the DEC® system versusonly 7% of those detected by visual observa-tion. In comparison with the accuracy reportedfor HeatWatch®, another electronic pressure-sensing system, the accuracy for the DEC® sys-tem (84.6%) seems to be lower than the value of100% reported by [19] but similar to the 85%observed by [20].

Another way of detecting estrus in milkingcows is the use of on-line system to automati-cally monitor luteal function by assay of eachcow’s milk for progesterone every time themilking machine was attached. A sensor tech-nology to implement the rapid assay and createan automated sensing system for operation inthe dairy parlor during milking, and to evaluatethe sensor performance and reusability for mul-tiple test cycles was presented [8]. For an auto-mated on-line sensing system, sampling of theraw milk stream was necessary. Although vari-ous sampling devices are commercially avail-able to remove small volumes from a flowstream, a device was specifically designed forthis biosensor. Since this mechanism is in con-tact with the milk being shipped commercially,cleanliness is of considerable importance. Byusing pinch valves, the milk never wetted thevalves, and sample flushing by the next cow’smilk was relatively quick and simple. Sinceflow through this valve was always inward,milk contamination was not a problem. The ac-cumulated blocking effect of the milk proteinslimited conjugate absorption to the fluidicscomponents. The sensor was successfully de-veloped to work on-line in a dairy parlor usinga control computer for sequencing its opera-tion.

81

3.5 Reduction of losses in animal productionby the use of mechanized and electronicprocesses Individual electronic feeding has been used indairy cows and grouped gestating sows breedersfor nearly ten years. A transponder is placed ina necklace that opens automatically the gate andfeeds individually each animal according to itsmilk production and need. The use of this tech-nology has been developed mainly for largemammals (beef cattle, dairy cows and swinebreeders) and is yet in development for broilers,specially breeders.

Processes such as milking of cows in the milk-ing parlor are dependent on the control of thepressure in the pump, and the individual moni-toring is important for identifying variables thatmay affect production.

In [21] is presented a system that uses a radiotransmitter and a flux register inside an on-linemilk production, pressure data can be measuredand controlled, reducing the incidence of mastitis(due to pressure fluctuation) in the herd. Figure4 a and b show the way the sensor measures andcorrects the pressure in real time during milking.Several methods of cleaning dairy cows prior tomilking and found that the best way for thisprocess was the mechanized use of water spray-ing with an electronic device that controls theamount of water sprayed as well as pulsing tim-ing have been studied [22].

4. Conclusions

Biosensors show great potential for applicationsin the livestock industry, particularly where rap-id, low cost, high sensitivity and specificitymeasurement in field situations is required, butthe technology must overcome several obstaclesbefore becoming a commercial success. Thebarriers for the slow transfer of technology fromthe lab to the field are mainly technical, partic-ularly in the production methods to fabricate re-liable and inexpensive sensors, in the stabiliza-tion and storage of biosensors and above all inthe total integration of biosensor systems. Theapplication of biosensors requires a specifica-tion that should include a sampling system, a

biosensor, a calibration system and a model ofhow the information is to be used to control theprocess of interest.

More than 100 million dairy cattle, as well assows, in the developed world are managed usingartificial insemination and thus the potential forthe progesterone biosensor system is tremen-dous even if only a small proportion of farmerstake up this technology. The biosensor systemwill also be capable of being extended to diseasemonitoring, analyzing routinely for markers ofmastitis infections or antigens of disease. With the use of miniaturized electronic mecha-nism (MEM) will be possible to record and con-trol, each time in a more accurate way, events ordiseases in order to respond for the optimizationof animal protein production.

The use of automation/mechatronic in animalproduction will help farmers decrease lossesduring the animal production cycle, by the useof precision principles and more accuracy, im-proving animal management.

The role of traceability in the animal protein pro-duction process remains a challenge for facingthe consumer’s demand, while practical solu-tions in the complete food chain are still miss-ing. There is a large room for transfer of tech-nology as well the development of new devicesand applications of new techniques and systems.

References

[1] Holroyd P., 2000. Tendências do mercadode carne para o novo milênio (Tendency ofthe meat market for the new milenium). Pro-ceedings APINCO. Campinas. May 2000,pp. 93-109.

[2] Rossing W., 1976. Cow identification forindividual feeding or outside the milkingparlor. Proceedings of the Symposium onAnimal Identification Systems and their Ap-plications. Wageningen, 1976.

[3] Rossing W., 1978. Automatic data record-ing for dairy herd management. Proceed-ings of the International Milking MachineSymposium. Lousville, 1978.

82

[4] Eradus W. J., 1993. The development ofStandards for automatic animal identifica-tion. Proceedings of the XXV CIOSTA-CIGR V Congress. Wageningen, 1993, pp.307-311.

[5] Eradus W. J., 1998. Developments of elec-tronic animal identification in Europe. Pro-ceedings of the TAG Europe 98 Congress.Antwerp, 1998.

[6] Eradus W. J., Janssen M. B. , 1999. Ani-mal identification and monitoring. Comput-ers and Electronics in Agriculture (24), pp.91-98.

[7] Gonzalez-Martin I., Perez-Pavon J. L.,Gonzalez-Perez C., Hernandez-MendezJ., Alvarez-Garcia N., 2000. Differentia-tion of products derived from Iberian breedswine by electronic olfactometry (electronicnose). Analytic Chimica Acta (424), pp.279-287.

[8] Claycomb R. W., Delviche M. J. 1998.Biosensor for on-line measurement forbovine progesterone during milking.Biosensors & Bioelectronics (13), pp. 1173-1180.

[9] Geers R., Puers B., Gedseels V., WoutersP., 1997. Electronic Identification. Monitor-ing and Tracking of Animals. CAB Interna-tional. Wallingford.

[10] Nelson R. E., 1988. Electronic identifica-tion in the United States. National WorkPlanning Meeting on Electronic Identifica-tion of Beef and Dairy Cattle. Ottawa,1988.

[11] Artman R., 1999. Electronic identificationsystems: state of art and their further devel-opment. Computers and Electronic in Agri-culture (24), pp. 5-26.

[12] Ville H., Janssen S., Jourquim J., 1993.Monitoring physiological parameters. Ani-mal Monitoring and Identification. The Eu-ropean Systems Amies. Portugal, 1993, pp.63-79.

[13] Nääs I. A., Pereira D. F., Curto F. P. F.,

Behrens F. H, Carvalho J. C. C., Amen-dola M., Mantovani E. C., 2000. Deter-mining the Broiler Female Breeder Behav-ior Using Telemetry. The XIV MemorialCIGR World Congress 2000, Tsukuba. Pro-ceedings of The XIV Memorial CIGRWorld Congress. Tsukuba, Japão: CIGR,2000 (1), pp. 1014-1018.

[14] Pandorfi H., Moura D. J., Silva I. J. O.,Sevegnani K. B., Caro W. I., 2002. Evalu-ation of the migratory distance of passivetransponder injected in piglets. In Interna-tional Congress of the International Pig vet-erinary Society. July 2002, (1), pp. 309.

[15] Appleyard W. T., B. Cook 1976. The de-tection of estrus in dairy cattle. Vet. Rec.(99), pp. 253-256.

[16] Hoffmann B., Günzler O., HamburgerR., Schmidt W., 1976. Milk progesteroneas a parameter for fertility control in cattle;methodological approaches and presentstatus of application in Germany. Br. Vet. J.(132), pp. 469-476.

[17] Nebel R. L., Dransfield M. G., Jobst S.M., Bame J. H., 2000. Automated electron-ic systems for the detection of oestrus andtiming of AI in cattle. Anim. Reprod. Sci.(60), pp. 713-718.

[18] Saumande J., 2002. Electronic Detectionof Estrus in Postpartum Dairy Cows: Effi-ciency and accuracy of the DEC system.2002 (article in press) Livestock ProductionSystem.

[19] Xu Z. Z., McKnight D. J., Vishwanath R.,Pitt C. J., Burton L. J., 1998. Estrus de-tection using radiotelemetry or visual ob-servation and tail painting for dairy cowson pasture. J. Dairy Sci. (81), pp. 2890-2896.

[20] Stevenson J. S., Smith M. W., Jaeger J.R., Corah L. R., LeFever D.G., 1996. De-tection of estrus by visual observation andradiotelemetry in peripubertal, estrus-syn-chronized beef heifers. J. Anim. Sci. (74),pp. 729-735.

83

84

[21] Nääs I. A., Fialho F. B., 1998. Zootecnia deprecisão (Precision Animal Production).Organized by Silva, I. J. O.. Ambiência naprodução de leite em clima quente. Piraci-caba, 1998, (1), pp. 1-9.

[22] Hogewerf P. H., Van Den Berg J. V., DeHaas Y., Ipema A. H., Stefanowska J.,1998. Teat Cleaning With Pulsating LiquidStreams: Cow Behavior And Milk FlowRate. Fourth International Dairy Cows Con-

ference. 1998, pp. 1-8.

[23] Esslemont R. J., Glencross R. G., BryanM. J., Pope G. S., 1980. A quantitativestudy of pre-ovulatory behaviour in cattle.Appl. Anim. Ethol. (6), pp. 1-17.

[24] Silva K. O., Nääs I. A., Salgado D. D.,2002. The ID microchip migration inpiglets. In International Congress of the In-ternational Pig veterinary Society. July2002, (2), pp. 439.

Richard O. HEGG Now we may start with the discussion.

Prof. Jaime ORTIZ-CAÑAVATE SpainA question to Auernhammer. What do you meanby landscape protection?

Hermann AUERNHAMMERIt is just an idea. Maybe we have to have thetargets set in an existing structure should sur-vive in the next 10 or 20 years So we have tolook for what or which technology can do onthis small scale farm. Landscape Protectionlooks like what I called transborder farming, a“virtual land consolidation” managed as alarge unit. Since it is just an idea, we shouldthink on it, we have no solutions at that time.

Francis PIERCEProf. Auernhammer is it possible that there issuch a thing as a certified traceability machine?If you buy that at a shop can you get it to giveyou people traceability requirements?

Hermann AUERNHAMMERNot at the moment. It takes a long time. Thereare various problems at the moment.

Egil BERGEI just want to add to what was presented thatthere are different problems when we speakabout big and small animals because it is eco-nomical to put one automatic identification tagon these big animals, while if you have a lot ofsmall fish or chicken the cost is more then theprofit. So you need some kind of badge identifi-cation to follow the products from the farm. Thenext problem is to carry the traceability on tothe consumer.

Prof. Luigi BODRIAItalyI should like to underline that traceability is aneed of the market and you have to pay for thesystem that can be generally applied on agri-cultural production. Traceability is a need of

the market. So in this presentation, mechatron-ics offers very many possibilities for setting theparameters of production. So this excellentpresentation offers us many points for our dis-cussion, and underlines, as has been done sev-eral times today I think, that one of the maingoals of our discussion in this session is to de-fine the really necessary parameters that can bein the traceability process to avoid so manynumbers and figures that makes systems verycomplex and costly and difficult to apply sys-tem. We must define traceability, what does itmean. It starts from the farmer and arrives atthe consumer. In the long run we need a verysimple practical way to utilise information thatwill be our duty to find by the end of our work.

Richard O. HEGG Prof. Auernhammer, you offered many differentparameters in your presentation. Is there anyclassification that they can be put in? Are thereany critical ones? Since you have a very largenumber and I though they were listed.

Hermann AUERNHAMMERIt was my intention to find out what they mightbe and how much they may be and whatevermay be implied. I still have no list of prioritiesit could be this road map to ask for specificproducts. I believe that every product has somespecific priorities, the location of the produc-tion maybe one; another one may be the ingre-dients and so on. Within such a road map themain examples should be looked for to get a listof priorities and then the remainder is parame-ters and they will increase as we use more elec-tronics, more sensors and the list of parametersincreases.

Francis PIERCEI have found when Prof. Auernhammer wasspeaking on Figure 9 that there was a chartshowing traceability in production chain andanother one that showed up a whole lot of pos-sibilities and I could not help to think of geno-mas where there are thousands and thousandsof combinations and the question would be:

85

DISCUSSION

Could this group do what? Could we lay out onefigure nine for one cropping system for the pro-duction of corn for animal feed and how are wegoing to do it? You get one done, because thereare – what are the possible combinations – itmust be an absolute phenomenon – so it’s thesame problem as the genoma. Let us take rab-bits arches and figure the simplest one out firstand say “no we did one”, so that my recom-mendation would be to do one. And figure outhow to lay one out. I do not care how you aregoing to do it. Whether you are in Germany oranywhere else. Take a crop or something that issimple and lay it completely in a figure nine andeverybody said ”you know what? You got it”and that is it. And you got one done. Then youhave a model and you do not take the most com-plex. Take something that is doable and force itall the way out. And I think his framework hereis fairly good. But to have it done and have thisgroup to agree you know. But you did one, sonow let us go to the second, and the third oneand one day there will be thousands of combi-nations.

Richard J. GODWINI would like to support those last statements.The other thing that occurred to a number of usjust before lunch was: where did their lunchcome from? What was the traceability of every-thing that we ate, and where do we stop? I meanwe heard all the arguments about traceability. Iam not quite sure where they are coming frombut I think they will happen. The question willbe: how far do they go? Because if we are look-ing forward to see a chip alongside the dinnerthat we eat, then we are looking for many, manymultiples of chips, bringing that dinner to ourplate. One plate of chips. But where does itstop? I think that of we take it through to theconsumer, to the ultimate end, what we collectin the field or in the farmyard or in the animalhousing will be a very easy part of our I. T. in-formation gathering session. What happens inthe bounces of the higher regency when oneproduces meals for us it will be a completelydifferent thing. Therefore, I think that commonsense will have to come into this at some pointin time. But I do not know what drive for it all

is, and I would like to hear something about thisfrom people who have more knowledge on itthan I have. To amplify a little bit what you said.I mean we heard the story many times. I mean ofthe most hazardous place for food safety is inyour home kitchen.

Aad JONGEBREURIn order to come to priorities, I think we firsthave to look at what the market is demandingand then have to go at the production processand I think that, in animal production, the mar-ket is requiring it be free of antibiotics anddrugs and it must be free of special microbesthat can cause damage to animal or humanhealth. I think then we have to put priority oncrop production. I should say that you must al-so underline the questions connected to the ap-plication of chemical products. The identifica-tion of these issues and the prevention of theseissues are also important points over there.

Josse DE BAERDEMAEKERI think we have heard excellent presentations oncollecting all the data and registration. This isbasically I think an upstream activity. In thetrade there is a big concern about downstreamtraceability which means that if I have mydoubts today that something went wrong todayin my production processes of products Ishipped last week I should be able to find wherethey are. I think that probably this is better forthe consumer, acceptability, rather than ship-ping all the data all the way through. We justknow that if something went wrong we can findwhere the products are, and if we got some-thing, what is wrong.

Richard O. HEGG Can be interesting any comments regarding thisaspect to the traceability and on the proper an-imal products related to developed and develop-ing countries. What are the implications?

Antonio PAGANII was just wondering if we leave to the marketto decide which are standards, which are thefeatures of any product in order to provide whatthe market asks for. Do we not risk being biased

86

and selective, in as much the market in the de-veloping countries might require very little oralmost nothing and that the last countries mar-ket may require far more. So, I do not knowwhere we will end up with traceability. Are weproducing different types of products, some witha given traceability that lead to certain qualitystandards and others that do not because themarket does not require anything specific inItaly? Somebody mentioned this morning thatthe Club of Bologna should take care of mar-keting in general not only in the industrializedcountries’ markets. Also, is there a point, I askmyself and to you, in defining more precisely towhich traceability should apply to, in order notto risk to leave some countries behind?

Lawrence J. CLARKEI would just like to add my concern. In the FAOwe were working with clients who came fromdeveloped and developing countries, most of thework of course is in the developing countries.What I have been hearing this morning and thisafternoon has been going through my mind andis leading to an increasing polarisation of themarket between the developed country marketand the developing country market and whetherthis will lead to increase barriers to trade, to re-fund developing countries into developed coun-try markets, because when I think at the level oftechnologies of many countries, particularly inAfrica I think that many of the technologies andthe concepts that we are talking about are out ofreach., with even the EU regulations, for exam-ple, on pesticides residues and things like that.Many products from developing countries eventhough they may comply, they will not be able toprove they comply and they will therefore beturned away at the border.

Hugo CETRANGOLOTraceability could be the cheapest way to givethe consumer specific knowledge about specificproducts. Traceability will be different for dif-ferent market requirements. In the specific caseof the developing countries I think the devel-oped countries that are producing for exportmust decide on the traceability system that thecustomer requires. In our experience, for exam-

ple, World Mart, Carrefour and the other royalaccord have the similar requirement in the do-mestic market that they want in the internation-al market. The other way of distribution with atraditional food be small shops, they are not inrequirement of traceability.

Giuseppe PELLIZZII have the impression that we are having a gen-eral discussion on a question that needs to beconsidered into more deeply. So I suggest thatwe define a small work group that could providesome more detailed information on this prob-lem. Taking into consideration that the Club ofBologna was founded by UNACOMA, that is theassociation of manufacturers, we need to givesome technical suggestions to the manufactur-ers in order to provide or produce machinesable to respond to the different problems. I donot know if you agree to this.

Richard O. HEGG Yes I think it is an appropriate comment. we canwait till after the conclusion to appoint theworking group.

Giuseppe PELLIZZIThis group can meet one time during this yearand then produce a document that can be stud-ied later in more detail, so that it do not seemsthat we are continuing to discuss without reach-ing any conclusion.

Jaime ORTIZ-CAÑAVATE I think that from this discussion we are having abad impression. At least for the European Com-munity, we have more safety in our food thanever and we eat better than ever before. Thereare very few cases of poisonous or some deathsproduced by the mad cow disease. People areaware that they are dangerous, but I think it isalso because this information in the newspapersproduces a large impact. In any case, asRichard Godwin said: What are we eating inour lunch? I think that the manufacturer or theproducer of milk or other products has the re-sponsibility to give the right product and also togive the expiry date when the food will nolonger be fit for human consumption. So, to

87

conclude, we engineers meet to provide bettersensors to establish quality and health aspectsof the food, for the consumer. We have to beaware that we are making progress and normal-ly and we must realise that we have good foodfor consumption.

Yoav SARIG Although that it is obvious that we have a re-sponsibility towards UNACOMA who sponsorsthe activity of this Club. But I think that UNA-COMA and definitely the Club of Bologna hasgreater responsibility, and I fully agree withLawrence Clarke, and it seems that there al-ready are major rifts between the developedworld and the undeveloped or developing coun-tries. What we have discussed today appliesprimarily to the developed world – Europe, theUS, Canada etc. – and these are issues that arevery important, and we should continue to ad-mit this, but at the same time we should try todevelop – I do not have a magic solution – themechanism with which we could possibly edu-cate or deliver the message and look for whattechnologies are applicable for the less devel-oped countries we/you will be dependent alsoon some food from these countries and we wantall the restrictions we apply upon ourselves tobe applicable to them. So as I said before, I donot have any magic solution to do that, but it iscertainly a problem. We should be aware ofthat.

Prof. Gajendra SINGHThailandI agree with the earlier speaker, we have tothink of the whole world, not only of the devel-oped world. You have seen the examples of thefood produced in the developing countries (isexpected to be cheaper and with globalisationthere is likely to be an excess for the market. Ithink the problem explained about apples fromWashington is related to that. I think that ap-ples in China, apples in India are much, muchcheaper, for the years to come than the applesproduced in Washington State. It is very littlesupport to them in terms of quality mainte-nance and traceability. I think they are not ableto enter these markets, otherwise there will be

the fear of creating this rift. It is already there,the haves and have-nots. So, they will benefitfrom your technology, from the developedcountries’ technology and this is an excellentneed for farmers that the business houses canset up this mechanism there of quality controland bringing in lower cost products for the de-veloped markets which is already happeningthat the number of developing countries havecontract farming systems where a big interna-tional food distribution firm sets up an industryand contract the farmers to furnish a certainproduct with all the food supply and qualitymonitored and then they supply the finishedproduct to the developed market countries. So Ithink that it is a mechanism already started,you cannot stop it, but I think this is where aClub like this and other organisations can helpto ensure that this process is a benefit to allsides.

Prof. Daan GOENSEThe NetherlandsI think traceability also gives developing coun-tries a number of excellent opportunities. Theygrow a number of expensive crops like specialcoffees, special teas. When they can prove theoriginal place of origin with a specific taste ofthat origin they can reach premium prices onthe international markets. So, I do not think thattraceability is only a threat to them; it’s also achallenge. The point of departure must still bethe need for cheap identification and educationand traceability technology to make it afford-able for them.

Richard O. HEGG Let us go back to the comment that Prof. Pellizzimade earlier regarding the possible formationof a working group. I recall from the presenta-tions of the afternoon a framework, or roadmap.I saw that for both the crop and the animal pro-ductions from the product to the consumer andyou can start that out with the framework andthen fitting in all the possible technologies thatexist or the lack of technologies, what is appro-priate, what is a priority listing. All those typesof things would be potentially a task for a work-ing group to complete. That is my problem.

88

Josse DE BAERDEMAEKERI think that is an interesting idea. If we go backto the farmer of yesterday and think of howmuch time he spends in his office, probably en-tering data just manually. We could do as wellautomatically with the machines, then the ques-tion is: what is the price of doing that? Howmuch is it worth for a farmer to have his regis-trations done automatically? And then we comeback to the question that Prof. Pellizzi asked,can we do something like that, with guidelinesfor our machine manufacturers?

Richard O. HEGG Then the comment that Prof. Pierce made too,saying: Well let us just take, if we have a frame-work out there, one and put a complete systemin, as maybe another task that the working groupcould do, that type of things and I think thatwould be a very serviceable document to have.

Karl Th. RENIUSI have a proposal regarding this working group.I think the subject we are discussing is a politi-cal subject also, does everybody agree? So,what about a small working group, which buildsup a contact with the Ministry in Italy responsi-ble for this area, which looks for the problem.Our group is a neutral group, a delegation fromthe Club of Bologna, so we can have any mean-ing; we are in a neutral position without any po-litical aspects. So to make the first step of thissmall group, those people will contact the Min-istry, seeing it is also a technical problem andthen at the next meeting report what the out-come was. Could that be a solution?

Giuseppe PELLIZZII doubt if there is somebody in the Ministry inItaly who could understand what traceability isand the difference between it and quality itself.So maybe this could be the interest of the Euro-pean Union. In any case one of our speakers,Paolo De Castro, was the former Italian minis-ter of agriculture and he could help us.

Lawrence J. CLARKEWe started by talking about traceability, the en-gineering aspects of traceability. The discussion

matter is fully known, as has been said, into thewhole area of food safety. I know that in FAO wehave a huge group working on internationalfood safety standards. I have not brought anyinformation with me on that but I could discusswith them the possibility of them cooperatingwith this working group, to bring into the dis-cussion the actual current status of internation-al standards of food safety and how they areworking towards that.

Francis PIERCEI was going to make a comment earlier and Ithink it still holds. When I was given my assign-ment it was the machine had to be in the picturebecause this is a huge topic and I think it wouldbe a disservice for this group to stray all theway across the whole board here and not focuson how the machine is going to help or how it isgoing to make this happen or not happen. So Iwould like to see it tied to the mechanisation asyou, because that is the strength of the Club ofBologna, and let some other organisationschase after some of the bigger issues that arefar beyond anything this group can do, becauseI would like to see it make a contribution on themachinery side. I think that if you focus on it,every time you get into a discussion you have amachine on the table, whether it is a developingcountry or the most developed farmer on theplanet, there is still a machine there. What is themachine going to do? And I would encourageyou not to lose sight of that because this is whatthis group is best at.

Lawrence J. CLARKEI would just like to respond to that and I tend toagree. However, when we talk about the devel-opment of engineering technologies to developtraceability, we also have to be aware of whatwe are developing it for, and that is set by stan-dards, by legal requirement, by what producersare obliged to produce because only if we knowthat, do we know what tool we actually have toproduce.

Josse DE BAERDEMAEKERI think that you are right, but at the same timethere are already a number of private initiatives

89

from supermarkets, from consumer organisa-tions that specify what you have to register,what information they want to have. So, theseare things that we could use, and say: can wedeliver that automatically using the machine, asProf. Pierce says.

Francis PIERCEI just want to talk on one comment. It was men-tioned that you are going to take 15 years forthat one single standard for one single thingmachinery. I am just a little concerned, you justdrift off and twenty years from now we all arejust sitting here and saying: yes that was a niceidea where are we? I want to hold to my com-ment about focusing, because we do have ma-chines everywhere in the world and I do notcare how sophisticated they are, if you keep tothat focus maybe you can get more done andmaybe you will not be here fifteen years fromnow say we never made it.

Richard O. HEGG I think I am about ready to conclude the discus-sions this afternoon. Thank you very much foryour participation and the good ideas that wereshared. I guess I am going to make a suggestion

that is a little bit on setting up a working groupand maybe turn that over to our President to dothat. And one of the thoughts would be thatsome of the people that were involved in thepreparation of these presentations that weheard today could be obvious players in thatworking group as possibilities. I have writtendown some ideas here that I shall share withyou about some of the things we discussed. Atthis point then, before you can leave the room,you have the sheet in front of you where you aregoing to write down your key comments or sen-tences. Prof. Pellizzi is going to be at the doorcollecting them before you leave. I thank youagain for your participation. I think it has beena very good session.

Giuseppe PELLIZZIBefore closing this meeting, I want to expressmy deep thanks to Richard Hegg and to all ofyou for your cooperation. I found this meetingvery, very interesting. I have taken note of yourproposals on the working group compositionand I will try to organize it following your sug-gestions. Thank you very much. The best to allof you, looking to meet you in Bologna in No-vember.

90

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Giuseppe Pellizzi ITALY PresidentValerio Tugnoli ITALY (UNACOMA) MC (replacing C. Ambrogi)Malcom McKay AUSTRALIA MC MemberLawrence J. Clarke FAO MC Member Philippe Marchal FRANCE MC Member Karl Th. Renius GERMANY MC MemberPietro Piccarolo ITALY MC MemberOsamu Kitani JAPAN MC MemberOleg Marchenko RUSSIA MC MemberGajendra Singh THAILAND MC MemberRichard O. Hegg USA MC MemberBill A. Stout USA MC MemberHugo Alfredo Cetrangolo ARGENTINA FMPierre F.J. Abeels BELGIUM FMJosse De Baerdemaeker BELGIUM FMAbdel Ghaly CANADA FMClaude Lague CANADA FMArne Møller DENMARK FMHermann Auernhammer GERMANY FM + KNSAxel Munack GERMANY FMPeter Schulze Lammers GERMANY (CIGR) FMAbdullah Kamaruddin INDONESIA FMYoav Sarig ISRAEL FMPaolo Balsari ITALY FMLuigi Bodria ITALY FMAntonio Pagani ITALY FMMakoto Hoki JAPAN FMYoshisuke Kishida JAPAN FMHidetoshi Ura JAPAN FM (replacing N. Kobayashi)

Won Kyu Park KOREA FMYeodoo Yun KOREA FMManuel Cabrera Sixto MEXICO FMEl Houssine Bartali MOROCCO (CIGR) FMHassan Bourarachi MOROCCO FMAad Jongebreur NETHERLAND FM+KNS (replacing I. Nääs)

Evert Niemeijer NETHERLAND New Full MemberEgil Berge NORWAY FMShujun Li P.R. CHINA FMMaohua Wang P.R. CHINA FMLeonid Kormanovsky RUSSIA FMJaime Ortiz-Cañavate SPAIN FMSuraweth Krishansreni THAILAND FMRichard J. Godwin UK FMAllen Rider USA FMJohn Schueller USA FM

91

Daan Goense NETHERLAND InvitedPaolo De Castro ITALY KNSRalph Cavalieri USA KNSFrancis Pierce USA KNSWayne Skaggs USA (ASAE) InvitedJohn F. Reid USA InvitedValeria Vicinanza ITALY Technical SecretaryRoberto Oberti ITALY Technical SecretaryFrauke Beeken GERMANY (CIGR) Technical Secretary

92

13th MEMBERS’ MEETING (Part 2)Bologna (Italy), 16th – 17th November, 2002

In the occasion of:the XXXIII EIMA show

Opening Session

Session 2

Mechanisation and traceability of agricultural production:

a challenge for the future

2.1 Sensors and data collection systems on agricultural equipment

2.2 System integration and certification: the market demand for clarity and transparency

2.3 Traceability: the role of mechanisation for the control of processes and the quality

of productions

Leading persons: Bassam Snobar, Jordan – Philippe Marchal, France

List of participants

93

OPENING SESSIONLeading person: Giuseppe Pellizzi, Italy

Mr. Aproniano TASSINARIPresident of UNACOMA – Italy The Club of Bologna’s annual appointment atEIMA can by now be seen, not so much as a tra-dition, as an institution. It started out as a hopeexpressed in far off 1987, during an interna-tional symposium on agricultural mechanisa-tion, research and its propagation with a view toinnovation in the agro-industrial system in theyears to come. The idea stemmed from the needfor constant study and debate on developmentstrategies for agricultural mechanisation, northand south, east and west. We owe the growth in the Club’s authoritative-ness to its president, Prof. Giuseppe Pellizzi,and the Management Committee, thanks to pro-fessional and scientific rigour they gave in-stilled in the debate and the globa1 scope of theconclusions and recommendations that are theresult, which would certainly merit greater at-tention from the institutions responsible forplanning agricultural policies. It is quite clear that modernising and rational-ising agriculture, the indispensable premiss if itis to be competitive and profitable, is condi-tioned to an important extent by the use of ma-chines appropriate to the different crops or ani-mals raised and the differing geographical, soiland climate conditions in which they have towork. Here, I won’t recall the intense development ofattitudes and culture that the club has passedthrough in the last few years, with reference tothe themes it has discussed, and which have un-doubtedly offered food for deeper thought fromalI those involved with these issues, from aca-demics to manufacturers. But I would like to say something about a ques-tion I find particularly important, and part ofthe discussion during the meeting in Tsukuba in2000 and resumed last year in the second ses-sion of debate at EIMA. I am referring to theethical aspects of agricultural machine whichhave now been formulated in terms of an “Eth-ical Code” drawn up by Y. Sarig (Israel), withL. Clarke (FAO), I. De Alancar Nääs (Brazil),R. O. Hegg (USA). A. Munack (Germany) andG. Singh (Thailand). The code covers not onlyhow agricultural machines are designed and

made, but also how manufacturers shou1d be-have towards their employees, customers, sup-pliers, shareholders and competitors.The assumption lying behind the code is thatagricultural machine makers work in a field vi-tal for mankind, guaranteeing food as part of anenvironmentally compatible process, whencefollows an especia1ly demanding range of re-sponsibilities and a mora1 obligation to main-tain standards of professional behaviour in linewith the most stringent conditions of ethicalconduct. In an era of “globalisation”, there sometimesseems to be the risk that competing successfullyis placed at al1 costs before raising process andproduct quality, so I think a strong cal1 for theapplication of principles of social ethics as wel1as professional principles is more opportunethan ever. On behalf of UNACOMA, I voicedeep thanks to the club for making such a valu-able tool available to anyone who wants to un-derstand its importance. That said, I would like to stress the importanceof the club’s f1irstst session of the year , inChicago in July, on the occasion of the ASAEIntemationa1 Conference held jointly with theCIGR’s 15th World Congress, on problems ofproduct traceability in agricu1ture and agricul-tural mechanisation. The introductory reports by P. De Castro, F.Pierce and R. Cavalieri and the technical con-tribution from H. Auemhammer and I. De Alen-car Nääs certainly represented a valuable con-tribution and a basis for fruitful discussion witha view to giving manufacturers reliable indica-tions of how machines and plant can best re-spond to the specific needs of product traceabil-ity. Continuing the debate during the sessionhere in Bologna, focussing especially on mech-anisation in product and quality control willmake a further contribution of interest to thesector . On this occasion, I am also happy to highlightthe fruitful cooperation begun between the cluband the CIGR and ASAE and to express a bigthank you to their two presidents, Prof. El Hous-sine Bartali and Prof. Wayne Skaggs. This co-operation is opening up prospects for joint ini-tiatives for objectives of general interest for the

97

development of agricultural mechanisation. I would also like to offer my special thanks toDr. A. Rider, the vice president of CNH America(and past president of the ASAE) for offering theparticipants in the club’s session in Chicago atechnical study day with a visit to the CNHProduct Engineering Center at Burr Ridge anda farm devoted primarily to cereals. I thank all of you for attending this session dur-ing EIMA 2002 and wish you the best for a fruit-ful debate and a happy stay in Bologna.

Prof. Giuseppe PELLIZZIPresident of the Club of Bologna – ItalyDear Colleagues and Friends,Let me add only few words to the welcome ad-dresses by the President of UNACOMA. I wouldthank, first of all, Mr Tassinari and all UNA-COMA staff for their support and to give to yousome information on what happened in these3.5 months after the Chicago meeting, as far asthe general subject “Traceability and Mechani-sation” is concerned. We will have today andtomorrow to discuss the three last topics on thesubject as a continuation of what we have dis-cussed in Chicago on the basis of the excellentkey note reports by De Castro (Italy), Pierceand Cavalieri (USA), Auernhammer (Germany)and De Alencar Nääs (Brazil). During this peri-od I have provided to nominate a working groupon the subject composed by Auernhammer, Bo-dria, Cetrangolo, De Baerdemaeker, Marchall,Nääs, Piccarolo and Sarig. This group met forthe first time yesterday afternoon. Today it willpresent a first draft of guidelines with which wehave tried – as decided in Chicago – to definewhat Traceability means and which new prob-lems for mechanisation we have to solve. Thisproposal, of course, will be discussed during themeeting and I hope that you will improve thetext giving also specific tasks to the workinggroup in order to arrive within our next meetingin Bologna (2003) to have a complete frame ofthe problem as well as precise technical indica-tions to be distributed abroad. A second impor-

tant aspect is concerning the “Code of Ethics”.Most of the agricultural machinery associationsbelonging to the main European countries haveaccepted the Code proposed by the Club de-claring their adhesion to it and their availabili-ty to distribute it within their associates.I apologize to inform you that also this year, af-ter the death of prof. Laszlo Lehoczky in 2001,at the beginning of last September our col-league and good friend Derek Sutton (UK)passed away due to a hearth attack. I have avery good souvenir of him, of his kindness, ofhis clearness and capability as well as of his hu-manity. It is a big lost for the Club.A more enjoyable information concerns the factthat we have 5 new members of the Club: prof.Luis Santos Pereira (Portugal) incoming Presi-dent of CIGR; Mr Galen K. Brown (USA) fromFlorida Department of Citrus; prof. TheofanisA. Gemtos (Greece) and eng. A. Ronzoni (Italy)consultant expert in agricultural machinery. Heprobably will be nominated general manager ofthe Regional network on agricultural machin-ery of Asia and the far East. To all of them ourdeep welcome, sure that they will actively con-tribute to the work of the Club.Now we start and I am pleased to give the floorto B. Snobar (Jordan) to whom I have asked toserve as session chairman for today, while to-morrow our chairman will be Philippe Marchal(France). To both of them my deep thanks fortheir availability. Please, Bassam.

Prof. Bassam SNOBARJordanGood morning everybody. I bring you greetingsfrom our country Jordan, and my colleagues atthe University of Science and Technology ofJordan. I am very happy to be here even thoughwe are in Ramadan, once supposed to be fastingand enjoying a religious holiday. Neverthelesswe will start with the topic 2.1 “Sensors and da-ta Collection Systems on Agricultural Equip-ment” presented by Dr. John Reid from USA.

98

SESSION 2

Leading persons: Bassam Snobar, Jordan – Philippe Marchal, France

Topic 2.1 – Sensors and data collec-tion systems on agricultural equip-ment

by Dr. J. F. Reid (USA)

1. Introduction

Current sensors and data collection systems onagricultural equipment are fundamental ele-ments required for the development of trace-ability. The current precision agriculture tech-nologies, where adopted by producers, providebasic capabilities in data collection within thelimited availability of sensors. However, despitethe capabilities provided by these systems, agri-cultural traceability is clearly in the early phas-es of development.

Agriculture will not have to independently de-velop all of the core elements for traceability.For example, data collection needs for trace-ability can benefit from the technology devel-opments that are contributing to the continuedinformation richness we have in society fromadvances in computer and electronic systems.Data processing and data mining tools are alsobecoming available for general use and can beadapted to agricultural needs.

On the other hand, sensors are a limiting factorfor traceability. One reason is that many cropand soil characteristics are difficult to measureand sensors that exist suffer from interferencesto their response. Additionally, several impor-tant sensors for traceability have not been de-veloped. This is especially true for sensors re-quired for the measurement of the characteris-tics of individual fruit and vegetables. Unfortu-nately, during this time of increasing needs forsensors, research supporting the development ofsuitable sensors in clearly lagging.

The relevant commercially available and re-search sensing and data collection technologieswill be discussed in more detail.

2. Data Collection System

The current data collection systems used on

agricultural equipment result from the productsused for tracking product characteristics in pre-cision agriculture. These are typically of limitedcomputational capabilities build up around spe-cial processors under the control of the variousmanufacturers. These systems can be adapted totraceability within the limited scope of their ca-pabilities. These systems serve the basic recordkeeping needs for crop planting, chemical ap-plications, and yield. Although successful in thestorage of the basic information, these technolo-gies lack the capabilities for seamlessly docu-mentation of crop information and require asubstantial effort on the part of the producer toenter data.

2.1. Data Storage and Retrieval The most common methods for storage and re-trieval of data on field equipment are PCMCIAstorage cards. These devices are typically, takento a desktop platform for integration with com-pany specific GIS software for analyzing thedata.

Data archiving is dependent on the level ofmanagement of the producers with computertechnology. The potential for errors is oftenhigh from year-to-year. And the resources forpermanent documentation are subject to changebased on advances in computer and storagetechnology. There would be value for systemsthat can permanently house information for pro-ducers. However, such systems would have toprovide guarantees of data security and mayhave difficulty becoming adopted by producers.

The trends in the industry are for data entry tobecome more reliable with automated data ac-quisition methodologies to remove the need foroperator data entry. RFID tags and bar codescanning methods are methods that can poten-tially ease the data transfer process. It is alsopossible that some of the materials used in pro-duction can be sensed automatically. One exam-ple would be modular seed and fertilizer con-tainers that link directly to planter bins withRFID detection of seed information for entry in-to the seed monitor database for a specific rowunit.

101

The most common methods for storage and re-trieval of data on field equipment are PCMCIAstorage cards. These devices are typically, takento a desktop platform for integration with com-pany specific GIS software for analyzing thedata.

Data archiving is dependent on the level ofmanagement of the producers with computertechnology. The potential for errors is oftenhigh from year-to-year. And the resources forpermanent documentation are subject to changebased on advances in computer and storagetechnology. There would be value for systemsthat can permanently house information for pro-ducers. However, such systems would have toprovide guarantees of data security and mayhave difficulty becoming adopted by producers. The trends in the industry are for data entry tobecome more reliable with automated data ac-quisition methodologies to remove the need foroperator data entry. RFID tags and bar codescanning methods are methods that can poten-tially ease the data transfer process. It is alsopossible that some of the materials used in pro-duction can be sensed automatically. One exam-ple would be modular seed and fertilizer con-tainers that link directly to planter bins withRFID detection of seed information for entry in-to the seed monitor database for a specific rowunit.

2.2. Data Visualization and Operator Inter-faces Data are visualized through displays of numeri-cal and graphical data. Typically, operators passthrough a number of screens related in the oper-ation of display device. Current systems supportthe display of a limited amount of information.Comparisons between various manufacturersproducts reveal significant that there are signif-icant variation in display size, resolution andformat.

In addition to displays, there are a number ofadditional modes used to interact with the oper-ator, primarily as output devices. Lightbars areone common mode of communication to the op-erator. Some manufacturers use audible indica-tors.

Operator inputs to the data collection systemsare typically through pushbuttons and hard andsoftkeys on the interface devices. Micro switch-es that interface with data collection system ac-tivate some machine functions to document theoperator’s use-mode of the machine.As equipment becomes more automated, thereare several challenges related to the operator in-terfaces and the operator’s visualization of ma-chine functions. At a basic level, there is a needfor interfaces that can ease the entry of data.Human factors studies can be used to identifynew methods for data entry that ease the burdenon the operator. More advance technologies,like speech recognition, can further support in-teraction with the operator. Operator dependen-cy issues and the effect of machinery noise needto be minimized. The general increase in ma-chine intelligence can foster cooperative inter-actions between the operator and machine. Asecond challenge of the increase in informationis that operators are subject to information over-load. Increased data richness are going to re-quire tools to isolate relevant information forthe operator to control and provide automatedmethods to respond to non-critical information.

3. Sensors on Agricultural Equipment

Modern agricultural systems are becomingmore integrated with electronics and sensorstechnology. The sensors measurements arecombined with localization to identify wheremeasurements are being made. Sensors for per-ception of plant and soil environment will be re-viewed as potential systems for use in traceabil-ity.

3.1. Localization of Measurements Localization in agriculture is primarily achievedusing GPS technology. Differential GPS (DG-PS) is the basic level required for most agricul-tural applications. DGPS combines the GPS so-lution with a correction signal from a local ref-erence station to improve the quality of local-ization. Differential GPS correction signal comein the form of signals broadcast over ground orsatellite sources. Some of these corrections arefree, including WAAS and the AM corrections

102

broadcast from Coast Guard beacons, while oth-ers are subscription services received from serv-ice providers (i.e. Omnistar and Starfire SF2corrections).There is a need for measures of performance ofGPS receivers. The stationary performance ofGPS receivers is a commonly used measure ofperformance. Performance is characterized bypositioning accuracy and precision of the re-ceiver. The accuracy is calculated from themeasurement errors compared to the absolutetrue location, whereas the precision is deter-mined from the measurement errors comparedto the estimated true location, which is the aver-age of the measurements. The accuracy and pre-cision of several competitive systems (Table 1)reveals that a accuracy can be greater than 0.80to 2.0 m for several competitive systems testedover a 24 hour period. The precision can be 0.4to 2.0 m over the same time period. The betterquality corrections come from subscriptionsthat are purchased for a fee and they indicate ac-curacies of 0.8 1.0 m with a precision of 0.4 to0.6 m.

Dynamic performance can provide additionalinsight into the performance of DGPS systemsthat relates to their use in the field. In fact, somesystems perform better under static conditionsdue to Kalman Filtering algorithms that do notperform as well under dynamic conditions.Some experimental evaluations of dynamic per-formance have been attempted. One such meas-ure has measured the performance of DGPSsystems used in parallel tracking operations ofstraight-line passes. In this case, the perform-ance of the GPS systems can be documented interms a receiver bias and cross-track error (Fig.1). Performance of DGPS systems is much bet-ter in dynamic performance due to the shorttime frame between passes, which is typicallyless than 20 minutes for many applications. Passto pass errors can often be less than a few cm(Table 2).

GPS for localization needs to consider the re-ceiver performance and match that with the re-quirements of the specific application. Thecommercially available systems are adequatefor mapping the characteristics of large planter,

sprayers and harvesters. But as the need for pre-cision information increases, these systems maybe inadequate. RTK-GPS provides for high ac-curacy that can offer repeatable positioning on aday-to-day basis. However, these systems areexpensive and are not widely deployed. GPSmeasurements are adequate for agricultural onfields with low slope. However, many agricul-tural lands have significant slopes and GPSneeds to be supplement with sensors to correctfor the slope of the terrain.

Additional localization methods will be re-quired that can augment GPS to provide moredetailed information on specific product trace-ability. These will require relative on-machinelocations of sensors that can be determinedfrom implement configurations in some appli-cations. Addition sensors on the vehicle thatprovide a perception of the environment will re-quire calibration of perspective relative to thevehicle GPS positioning systems.

3.2. Crop QualityCurrent sensors for measuring crop propertiesthose available for measuring harvest character-istics of crops in precision agriculture. In mostcases, moisture content and mass flow rate aremeasured. Typical systems measure grain flowand moisture content independently. Onemethod of measuring grain flow rate is based onforce transducers on an impact plate placed inthe gain flow path in the clean grain elevator.Grain moisture content is measured using thewell-known capacitance methods by samplingthe flow from the grain flow in the clean grainelevator. The sensing elements are near the exitto the grain tank and thus suffer a time delayfrom the actual time that the crop is harvested.Cotton production systems also have sensorsavailable for yield monitoring. One commer-cially available cotton yield sensor consists ofpairs of emitter/detector units mounted on therow units of the picker chutes. The emitter unitprovided multiple beams of infrared light to thedetector unit mounted on the opposite side of apicker chute. Cotton being conveyed to the bas-ket interrupts the beams and this information isused to compute seed cotton weight. Other

103

methods have been explored for cotton yieldmeasurement including the cumulative weightof the basket. This challenge in some of thesemeasurements has been the removal of meas-urement biases or the effects of machine opera-tion on the sensor response.

Other crop quality sensors based on bulk weightmeasurement are in early stages of commercial-ization for cotton, beets, tomatoes, carrots andother crops. These systems are primarily basedon measurement on the accumulated load.

New sensors for crop quality are emerging forcorn and cereal grains based on NIR, NIT andother RF technologies. If successful, these willlead to detection of crop moisture, oil and pro-tein level that can be used to further character-ize crop quality. Another advantage of thesesystems is multiple measurements of the cropcharacteristics at a reduced number of samplingpoints.

Sensor calibration is a critical factor for mostcrop quality sensors. Grain moisture sensingbased on capacitive plate measurement of thematerial flow is the most mature of the tech-nologies and has good performance based onidentification of the specific cereal grains, beansor corn crops. The performance of other sensorsbased on RF and optical technologies are limit-ed by calibration curves that are often specificto crop, season, and variety.

The fouling of sensors during tough crop har-vest conditions can also be a significant obsta-cle for sensor performance. Interferences resultfrom dust, surface moisture, and other residuesthat can bias the sensor output.

3.3. Soil PropertiesSoil sensors have been a popular research topicover the last 20 years. The primary sensors forsoil properties have been related to the detectionof soil nutrients, moisture content and pH.Some activity has focused on the detection ofsoil physical properties, primarily related to theidentification of compaction.

3.3.1 Soil Nutrient SensingSensors for the automation of soil properties

measurement have been an active research areaover the past 20 years. The current most-adopt-ed practice is manual sample collection at wide-ly spaced grid points with remote laboratoryanalysis of samples. Increased grid resolutionhas been considered to provide more informa-tion on the process. Trucks, tractors, and ATV’sand information collection systems have beendeployed in assisting scouts in data collection.The automation has come in the form of sys-tems to assist in the identification of discretesampling points at GPS-controlled sampling lo-cations. A strong research topic has been the de-velopment of on-the-go sensing systems to in-crease the data density and reduce the time forthe availability of information. If perfected,these systems could also provide a direct link tocontrol operations for field operations. Re-search is exploring on-board sample collectionwith on-board analysis.

On-the-go direct sensing of soil nutrient con-centrations is still an immature concept. Theprimary problems relate to sample acquisition,sample preparation, and sensors for the nutrientresponse. Sample acquisition is a simple as ex-posing the sensor to direct “contact” with thesoil, as in an optical measurement, to samplingand preparing the soil for a measurement of asolution extract from the soil sample (i.e, ion-selective field-effect transistors). Other methodssuch as electrical conductivity provide more in-direct measures of soil properties.

The difficulty in all soil analysis is that the sen-sors have to deal with interferences from themultitude of soil properties to the specific re-sponse that is desired.

3.3.2 Soil Physical PropertiesThe primary sensors for soil physical propertiesinclude soil surface residue and detection of soilhardpan layers. Surface detection methods havebeen primarily based on machine vision sensing.Hardpan detection methods are typically basedon load cells in the drawbar or on instrumentedshanks to relate the forces to a specific depth ofoperation. These sensors are in the researchphase and will require some advancement to bemade useful for production agriculture.

104

4. Conclusions

A review of the sensors and data collection sys-tems use in production agriculture leads to thefollowing conclusions with respect to the devel-opment of traceability:

• The sensors and data collection systems thatare available today provide a low-levelfoundation for the development of traceabil-ity systems.

• Data collection systems will need to expandto match the level of data needed for the

traceability systems. Automated data trans-fer between elements of the systems will in-crease the effectiveness of traceability.

• Permanent storage methods are needed toprovide a record of the responses measuredby traceability.

• Additional sensors will be needed to facil-itate the measurement of responses and toprovide automated data transfer. Increasedfunding will be required to lead to the de-velopment of these innovative technolo-gies.

105

GPS RECEIVER ACCURACY (ONE-SIGMA) PRECISION (ONE-SIGMA)(m) (m)

StarFire/SF2 0.88 0.45

StarFire/SF1 1.92 1.10

StarFire/WAAS 1.34 1.17

AgGPS132/OmniStar 1.10 0.58

AgGPS132/Beacon 0.81 0.56

AgGPS132/WAAS 0.85 0.57

Outback/WAAS 1.01 0.61

GarminGPS17N/WAAS 2.30 1.94

Figure 1 - Definitions of the measurement error (Ei), cross-track-error (XTEi), track-error (TEi),and bias error (Bi).

Table 1 - Static positioning accuracy and precision of GPS receivers from all the stationary testtests data using a Trimble RTK-GPS as a reference

Table 2 - Dynamic positioning accuracy of GPS receivers from tests conducted on a north-south-run field using a Trimble MS-750 RTK-GPS as the reference system for DGPS measurements.

106

GPS RECEIVER PASS PASS PASS-TO-PASS PASS-TO-PASSERROR ERROR ERROR ERROR(BIAS) (SD) (AVERAGE) (RMS)

(cm) (cm) (cm) (cm)

StarFire/SF24.8 kph (15 tests)8.0 kph (15 tests)12.8 kph (15 tests)19.2 kph (16 tests)all speed (61 tests)

StarFire/SF14.8 kph (15 tests)8.0 kph (15 tests)12.8 kph (15 tests)19.2 kph (16 tests)all speed (61 tests)StarFire/WAAS4.8 kph (2 tests)8.0 kph (1 tests)12.8 kph (2 tests)19.2 kph (2 tests)all speed (7 tests)

AgGPS132/OmniStar4.8 kph (15 tests)8.0 kph (15 tests)12.8 kph (14 tests)19.2 kph (16 tests)all speed (60 tests)

AgGPS132/Beacon4.8 kph (11 tests)8.0 kph (11 tests)12.8 kph (11 tests)19.2 kph (10 tests)all speed (43 tests)AgGPS132/WAAS4.8 kph (13 tests)8.0 kph (15 tests)12.8 kph (15 tests)19.2 kph (16 tests)all speed (59 tests)Outback/WAAS4.8 kph (15 tests)8.0 kph (14 tests)12.8 kph (14 tests)19.2 kph (14 tests)all speed (57 tests)

GarminGPS17N/WAAS4.8 kph (15 tests)8.0 kph (14 tests)12.8 kph (14 tests)19.2 kph (16 tests)all speed (59 tests)

8.28.19.38.98.6

12.111.611.111.311.5

5.39.89.49.88.4

5.24.75.77.05.7

13.811.39.69.611.1

10.010.810.710.310.5

9.510.310.310.710.2

18.716.515.417.417.0

0.90.91.11.61.1

0.60.50.60.80.6

2.32.32.02.02.2

2.21.81.81.51.8

2.52.52.11.92.2

2.52.22.42.52.4

1.00.80.81.10.9

3.92.62.31.82.6

0.60.30.30.30.4

1.41.01.00.81.1

2.21.70.91.11.5

1.91.31.61.51.5

3.82.42.02.12.6

1.81.81.21.41.5

2.01.00.90.71.2

9.25.95.04.36.1

1.20.91.11.61.2

1.61.21.21.21.3

3.43.12.32.32.8

3.12.32.62.12.5

4.73.93.13.03.7

3.33.02.83.03.0

2.41.41.31.31.6

10.56.75.74.96.9

107

Prof. Bill A. STOUTUSAI wanted to invite John Reid and all the speak-ers that are meeting today and tomorrow tosubmit their papers to me for incorporation forpublishing in the CIGR e-journal website andalso I was impressed by your Power Point slidesand if you would be so kind to give me a CD ofthat, I would like to put that on the website aswell. Let me to remember you to transform allthe files in pdf form. While we are talking aboutthat all the papers that were presented at theClub of Bologna meeting in Chicago are al-ready on the CIGR website and they are very in-teresting, and those of you who were not therewill find them very interesting, so have a look. Ihave sheet that has the website address so if youask me I shall give you the website address ifyou wish to have a look at these papers.Concerning the presentation, my question isthis: you mentioned that soybeans are disap-pearing. Let’s broaden that comment just a littlebit. Agricultural engineering education pro-grammes as we had know them in the past, arealso disappearing and there are many, many ex-amples are of that. Where are the young engi-neers going to come from to carry on work, suchas you described, in the future?

John F. REID This is a very easy question to answer becauseI’m very passionate about the subject and theanswer is: I don’t know. I am very concernedabout this and at the same time I left Academiaa couple of years ago, to go into this industryjob and I see it, I even feel worse about it nowthat I’m in industry and I see how bad it is andit’s going to be a big challenge in the future andI often find myself asking questions about theinformation that we’re going to forget and usein the wake of the information that we’re gain-ing.

Prof. Daniel BERCKMANSBelgiumMy question is for J. Reid: you have given avery interesting overview of existing sensors

systems under development. However, manytimes and in the conclusion you said that theyare dead and needed for traceability systems, asthe final goal. My question is: should this betechnology driven? Because that is what we seenow, we measure what we can measure, and weare limited by the systems. Another way wouldbe: it is research driven. We define from theproduct what the data are that we need fromtraceability. Is that already clear? With a differ-ent type of researchers. In addition, we developthe sensor from scratch for doing that. Should itbe technology-driven or research-driven? Be-cause this is the best strategy.

John F. REID Now, I also showed some information systemsthat are already going in place and it’s based oninformation putting information in chain fortraceability and even without sensors the datacollection aspect of this is going to evolve muchfaster. For example, these companies that aregiving around the concept of making money offof having the food chain connection is going totake place irrespective of our advances in sen-sor development. The sensor challenges arethat, as these systems evolved and become morecapable, they are limited by whatever sensor ex-ists, so I really believe the research approach isbetter we shouldn’t be doing things only be-cause technology, and I say that as a machinevision specialist you are always looking for an-other machine vision problem and even in mycareer I have done a few things that I try to ap-ply my skill rather than address the needs of aparticular problem. We have to differentiate thisbut usually the market place will do that for usand will not accept something just for the tech-nology.

Daniel BERCKMANSI am wondering then whether the variablesthat have to be measured throughout the pro-duction chain are already defined. Let me justgive one example, for instance poultry, be-cause I’m more familiar with animals. Weknow that in the incubation period, and in the

DISCUSSION

growing period, temperature is crucial. After-wards when we go to the slaughterhouse, forhygienic reasons, temperature is crucial. Instorage and transport, temperature is crucial,when the retailer offers the product, tempera-ture is crucial. Therefore, if we can have a sen-sor on each egg and that goes with the eggthroughout the chain until you have the pieceof meat, that is traceability, and how will wefind this temperature. My question is: Doesthis already exist, in the type of products weare thinking about?

John F. REID I think the concept is very good, and actually,we should be very good at measuring tempera-ture, should we not? It doesn’t always require acomplicated solution for these problems, andso, maybe you don’t even need a sensor, but youneed something that responds to temperature toindicate that something bad has happenedalong the way. The difference is, do you need toknow when that bad thing happened and recordthat and having humans in the loop to observethese types of indicators, and then it is still pos-sible to implement a very effective system. It on-ly amazes me, I have seen examples in countriesthat are the last developed that are furtheralong in traceability than the high technologymethodologies that exist in other countries thattry to throw technology at it. It is not just some-thing that is necessarily driven by technology;it’s driven by the information and how you at-tach it to the product.

Richard J. GODWINThere are a couple of competing questions al-most, when we look at the traceability issueversus other applications of the technology inprecision farming. Precision farming has al-most come and gone in less than a decade, be-cause nobody sees any value in it. There hasbeen a lot of hype, a lot of technology thrown atit, and no great worth perceived by the farmer.If that from a production point of view is not be-ing seen as way to go forward who is going topay for traceability. Will the farmer pay fortraceability or will the consumer pay for trace-ability?

John F. REID I think it’s not going to be paid for by the farmer,we can’t be keep throwing technology at thefarmer and have it make him money necessari-ly. It is making money in a very few cases. Thegraph, I showed, where the arrow is going in theother direction, from the end user towards theproducer. Where the information is valuable indifferent parts of that chain is where it has to ex-ist. I did not show this in my presentation, be-cause it wasn’t a business presentation on trace-ability, but there is some evidence that the peo-ple along that chain can have a reduced cost,become more efficient, by having this informa-tion exchanged through the food chain and stillallow the producer to be profitable.

Richard J. GODWINI do not believe because the people along themiddle do not allow the producer to be prof-itable and what is going to happen is that theyare going to put all of those costs onto theproducer, what we’ve got to do is to help theproducer to get some added value from this inorder that there is a way forward so thathe/she are sustainable in business at the endof the day.

John F. REID I see your point and I agree with you. Actuallyyou’re segmenting producers by the ones thatneed those expectations and the ones that donot. It still doesn’t make the producer successfuluniversally which has to still happen in ourview; it starts segmenting them into those whocan and those who cannot.

Jaime ORTIZ-CAÑAVATEYou, John, mentioned about the localisation inorchards; the information in orchards is moreexpensive and you have also talked aboutAGRIS, a system for traceability used mainly inCalifornia. Could you please tell us more aboutthis subject?

John F. REIDI can talk a little bit more about orchards, asfar as the AGRIS, I am not extremely familiarwith the product exact that it uses. I know one

108

use of it. I talked about tracking tomatoesthrough the various way, from production intothe way stations and caching informationthrough that. Actually there is a website thatyou can look at. I suppose if you just looked upeTomato you would find that and it gives someexamples of the input screens where data islogged, and it’s probably more explanatorythan I would be on this subject. As far as a lo-calisation in orchards, my experience in thatarea comes from the friend Pierce who was atthe Chicago meeting and he and I have con-nected as a result of that meeting. I went to hisnew-style orchards in the US where they aretrying to reduce the labour costs and along theway the producers think about being able toidentify the characteristics of each individualfruit; and just that concept in itself - of beingable to have a machine that can go through andidentify each fruit specifically - they changedthe tree structure, so that they are more planar.It’s easier to say that the fruit is growing almostin a plane as you are travelling down to the or-chard. But even though that simplification hasoccurred the logging of this information - youhave a mobile vehicle where you have individ-ual fruit and even clusters of fruit where theyhave to make some decisions about removingsome of the fruits and leaving the others thatwill eventually be in the crop and having thatinformation go through this chain. It is ex-tremely complicated although to the producerseems that if you have these machine visioncentres it must be easy and possible to do. Butit is still very far from being in the producer’shands and I see there is a big challenge to that.Furthermore it is made more difficult becauseGPS technologies are affected by the treesthemselves, different architectures, different or-chard configurations, different hillsides andblock satellite views. There is a lack of an ab-solute reference in some of these cases, too.These producers will have to drive downthrough the orchards during the season and de-cide where they would place boxes for the har-vesting, even manual harvesting based on thenumber of fruit they have detected in the trees.I think that is achievable but is not an easything to do.

El Houssine BARTALIThis is a general comment. First of all, I wouldlike, on behalf of CIGR, to thank and congratu-late Prof. Pellizzi for this excellent meeting andcongratulate the speakers for their valuablespeeches. CIGR is a global network and theClub of Bologna is one its important sub-net-works. For a better idea of what the Club ofBologna is doing I think I would like to suggestthat the participants keep more in touch withCIGR secretariat, because I don’t see this im-portant activity shown on our website. Sincethis is for researcher teams should be set up andmany things should be looked for: what types ofprojects are being funded, where to get fundsand what type of topics are covered. All this in-formation is useful and should be updated.Maybe the Club of Bologna should nominateeminent coordinators for the CIGR secretariatwebsite.

Prof. Fanis GEMTOS GreeceI would like to continue the question of BillStout. Who’s going to apply all the technology?At least in my country, I know that in the last 20years a lot of privileged people have left agri-culture and now we’re willing to ask them toadopt the new technology which is quite diffi-cult to understand, even for an agronomist andI don’t know all the situations. A lot of peopleare ready to apply Precision Farming, so I sup-pose - if I’m going to do the same in Greece - alot of people are going to ask “What is allthat?” So my question is: How are you prepar-ing this technology to make it familiar to thefarmers and easier for them to apply?

John F. REID I think now, most companies have a service as-pect that tries to make these technologies usefulto the producers but, frankly speaking, these arenot a large moneymaking aspect of the compa-nies in a product like autotrack and paralleltracking in yield mapping; they don’t make themost of these companies in terms of the prod-ucts and the offer. I see some progress but, toyour point of connection between people, if youare inventing a technology and you apply it in

109

crop production we tend to associate with theengineering aspects of that. Let us say that Imake a technology that can do crop pulse sens-ing; for me to sell that to a farmer I have first toconvince the agronomist that this is a usefultool. So, along the way, working with these tech-nologies, even if I have scientific evidence thatthis is good technology to use and we should useit, I have to objectively show this to some verysceptical people and convince them that itmakes a difference. These groups sometimes usetechnology roles, because they become accus-tomed to the methodologies that work in theirlocal areas. In the US we even have controver-sies between one State and the next; about ni-trogen management, for example, there arecompletely different philosophies and so it isvery difficult for a sensing technology to movethrough all of that to become something that isactually applied by the farmer. It requiresdemonstration and production of technologiesand proving them to collect evidence that itworks. You almost have to have faith that this issomething that is going to work and eventuallyif you provide the technical evidence that itdoes. At the same time you have to have eco-nomic justification for these technologies. In myexperience in vision sensors I have found thatvision sensors may not be photodiodes. A betterway than having this technology, put one ineach row rather than having visions sensors -that see many rows - or remote sensing - thatcan see a bigger area - and you have to keep allof these moving.

Dr. Theodore FRIEDERICHFAOI feel a bit uncomfortable with the discussion ontraceability and the way this topic is handled. Ifeel that we might get carried away with the en-thusiasm of solving technical problems so thatat the end we might trace back the origin andthe history of a specific piece of agriculturalproduce. Why do I feel uncomfortable? The top-ic of traceability came up in an environment ofglobalisation; an environment where it becameimpossible for the consumer to see where thefood was coming from and in an environmentwhere the food was losing in value. Now, if we

solve this problem only from the technical pointof view, I think we might hand up in a conflict,especially looking back at the ethics discussion,which we had previously. Should we give thetechnical tools to a system, which is my question(talking about questions of globalisation) orshould we not try to define where is it suitable,where should we find technical solutions andwhere should we say clearly we don’t want tosolve it technically because we want solve it ina different way.

John F. REID Of course, my topic was on sensors and datacollection and I agree with you. In fact we willsee traceability take place without technical ad-vances. It is the flow of information that showsthe connectivity trough the system, that is themost fundamental element; sensors make thingseasier if it’s realistic to use them; it may be thatthe adoption of sensors are not required even noprofitable processes. I think sensors will be use-ful though to track field characteristics thathave been measured and perhaps to provide abenefit, but they have to be used if it is an im-portant part of the system.

Axel MUNACKI would also go in the same direction asFriederich and Berckmans said. I would like toput the question - as a task for the existing sen-sors - with respect to the application traceabil-ity being appropriately defined and have sometasks for new sensors in order to fill the re-quirements in defining what traceability is and Ithink it is not the case. So concerning the exam-ple of John Reid, with respect to airborne flightsand satellites and resolution problems, do youknow what resolution you finally need in orderto apply these techniques to traceability? At themoment, I think, satellite images have been usedmainly for administrative purposes and alsoairborne images are mostly used in the EU toget some support for olive tree manufacturersand farmers. So, it is more administrative workwith those images and not so very much, aswhat technicians think, such as input controland supervision of material flows. Also for di-rect fieldwork, when you go into nutrients and

110

soil moisture, I think you have problems con-cerning the resolution level: the soil, of course,has a big variance and the usual methods whichwe apply are point-wise measurements. There-fore, the problem is: how many measurementsyou need to get average answers? So, I thinkthat there are a lot of problems, at least with re-spect to the new problem of traceability that isa new application to be redefined and thoughtas new aim.

John F. REID I do not know if I need respond to that, but Iagree. I suppose that resolution goes, if you tryto look for original problems, widespreadstresses that you can detect with a remote sens-ing, but you would not want to be counting thenumber of olive trees in the mapping

Irenilza DE ALENCAR NÄÄSI would like to come back to the point that BillStout raised. Actually we need to discuss threemajor points in my view. One is that traceabili-ty can be done manually or electronically. WhatJohn Reid presented is still the electronic way ofdoing that. We already know that if we obtainthe files of information manually, we introducean error and more errors you introduce in theprocess less value it gets. If you see traceabilityas the final product it has an added value. So Iagree that we have to develop new sensors oruse sensors available and address our researchtowards that, in order to make it profitable in along run. We could use those sensors to have thevalue of the product and actually make the foodsafer; so it starts food safety at the far end ofprofit. Concerning the research problem it isfound - most people mentioned it - that we arenot prepared, because most of the researchgroups are very narrow-minded, if I may say so.Going into the subject, I find necessary to havea multi-disciplinary group working together:people from Information Technology need to bewith us, people from physics, from mathematics.New logic, new mathematical logic has been de-veloped to be used in this subject. So in Brazilwe use not only multi-disciplinary but eventrans-disciplinary; we go into other disciplinesin order to understand most of those problems

to apply it in a better way, in an optimal way.So, I think we need to train better our students,our people and maybe - if we address the ques-tion in a broader view - it would be much easi-er for us to understand, not only what is goingon but also to apply the technology in a rightway.

Francis SEVILAAmong the various problems, I would like topoint out one: the ability of the farm machineindustry to cope with the various challenges re-lating to sensor and data collection develop-ment. I am not talking about the technical chal-lenge, industrial and commercialisation chal-lenge. John Reid, you have quite broad viewsfrom your career; you have been in various ar-eas. My question is: do you think that industry -and you are a member of a major company - istechnically ready, or business ready, or mindedto invest in all the necessary expertise, not onlyto design, but to produce, to maintain and tobring almost to the consumer and to the com-mercialisation network all these new technolo-gies? Farm machinery industry is - with certainscope of electronics, physics, data managementsoftware etc. - a kind of technology which is notquite so at ease in the old network: to maintain,to sell, to have the growers with them. So whatis your opinion on that?

John F. REID These are subjects that industries are very ac-tively looking at. But I should say that they arenot prepared and because they look at it in avery small way. To the mechanical industries,the machine is everything and technology is thesmall cost you are going to add to it. Eventhings like autonomous vehicles, it could be thatthe machine is the small part and the technolo-gy you add to it is the big element of this. Thatviewpoint is definitely not in the industries. Thatis part of the challenge. We might move intothese areas through partnering with othergroups. We do not find things in these indus-tries. These are slight to be challenged; there isthe increase in efficiency that will be created. Itis not just possible that we just make the ma-chine and not worry about the other aspects of

111

this that the producer has to deal with. It doesnot mean that industries can make the shift intothese areas and go at them I can see there is abig challenge with it.

Pierre F. J. ABEELSThe main and fundamental question about de-veloping sensors and using them is to go back tofundamentals: what are we measuring and forwhat are we measuring the various parameters?In biology, temperature is the most common pa-rameter to follow during the process. But inagriculture: what is soil compaction? What issoil humidity? What is wind effect on the soilsurface? What is growing rate? What is the fer-tiliser capability for one plant and for anotherplant; for corn or for soy? You do not have thepossibility to manage, to monitor the growth; itis still a variable process in biology. So we needmore information from biology, it is necessary toengineer that science. I already started in the60’s to develop some sensors, even to automatethem, and we had a lot of parameters to bemeasured. So we must stop once, just to have afundamental reflection on what is compatible,what is comparable and how to give the instruc-tions. We are very far in engineering, in high en-gineering for all machinery, we are not so far inbio-engineering. We just try to manage it, but wedo not have information from botanists about themeaning of some substances, of some ions in theplant or in the animal life. So I would like tohave support from the industry to organise akind of meeting of those scientific forces comingfrom research and teaching and practice, just tovalidate the sensors.

John F. REID I support that statement, it is very important. I donot know how we are meeting a challenge by thecommon mode integrated. But even if you devel-op a specific sensor, this specific production sys-tem you apply has to be considered in this wayand made indeed in the different places in theworld where you have planned have to be con-sidered those factors, to make that sensor useful.So very complicated in industrial skimmed maybe the usual problems and solve them having toaddress these more difficult issues

Philippe MARCHALThe title of your presentation, Mr. Reid, is “Sen-sors and Data Collection”. I focus my questionon this second point. What is your opinionabout the importance of data transmission anddata storage technology for traceability? Doyou believe that the use of standardized andcheap technologies are the key point for the de-velopment of traceability?

John F. REID The technologies that are used for transmissionand data collection are fields of the primitivelevel. For traceability really is important insome instances that traceability is structured forinformation from machine to machine and has tofollow through the process; we do not have thiseased. RFID tags technology exists and could beused. But it is at all another expense of space. Sothat’s right now to have traceability is a moreprimitive level: the data transfer and storage ismanual, sometimes it is carried on a card, on In-ternet and all these things are error sources thatcan exist. It is important to completely automatethose data transmissions; we do not know theanswer yet, but it seems a very big task. Yoursecond question was on standardisation fromdata storage and data transmission. If you thinkabout all the things a farmer has to do for trace-ability, it is very important to have a manage-ment tool helping him in keeping track the vari-ables. You know some farmers are pretty good atkeeping the records in a more business modethan they had. They probably have these histor-ical records but there is an increase in volume ofdata. I see this thing be an element of a largerdevelopment still needed.

Yoav SARIGI can understand why some of the participantsfeel uncomfortable, because I have the samefeeling. I feel it because of the title. I do notblame John Reid for that because he was del-egated for the subject but because of the sub-ject. In many ways he got carried away withtechnologies. In many respects we put the cartbefore the horse, we forgot that the theme ofthis meeting is traceability and not automa-tion, it is not sensor technologies and every-

112

body is already talking about fancy technolo-gies and transmissibility and recordabilityand we forget about traceability. I think thattraceability, even though it is not spelled outclearly, is a consumer requirement. The pro-ducer makes a statement: I have a safe prod-uct, I have a fresh product or I have a con-tamination-free product or some other state-ment. The consumer wants to verify thesestatements and they want to make sure thatwhat the producer claims is true. The few ex-amples from the past are meat that met cowdisease, the salmonella contamination of eggsand chickens and so on. They make all theseproducts. The treatment of the less developedcountries as a separate issue, but it is danger-ous, because one gathers that your words im-ply that it is “ok” for less developed countriesto consume products with a higher thresholdof residues; they will eventually come to thesame status as us, but the consumer will beready to pay for the added safety of food. Thestatement I made that food is organic, the con-sumer who would like to consume organicfood will want to make sure that it is organic.So all the things that we have talked about af-terwards come afterwards, after the statementof traceability. So in my opinion first we haveto define what is important, what are the pa-rameters needed to ensure and identify thatthe statement is correct, and they will be dif-ferent for each product. After that we have todecide what technologies are available today:some are new sensors, panel sensors of theproduct is using ones own sensor devices.Why else should we go to fancy English pro-cessing systems that one uses today. Let us fo-cus our attention on what the subject is: to de-fine the parameters, to decide what are thetechnologies only available and the main taskfor the Club of Bologna is to give the messageto researchers worldwide, what is still neededto be done. That is our task and that is thegoal of the Club of Bologna.

Daniel BERCKMANSI would like to make two comments. I thinkmany comments stay in the same direction: it isnot a technical problem. First we have to han-

dle what we have to measure. I think the addedvalue of traceability is not only safety; that isnot enough. A product is safe and then onlycan it be put on the production chain. It cannotbe a little bit safe, either it is safe or not. Thatis one thing. Another thing is input limits; intrying to define these fundamental problemswe do not only have to look at an angle con-cerning environmental impact of fruit prod-ucts, energy input, without interdiction for thenews, that is what people are interested in,what people pay for, until that is not somethinglike they consume. There are many kinds ofconsumers, for instance, like some people thatbuy a very cheap car and they do not know itis a cheap car, on the other hand some peoplebuy a very expensive car, because maybe theyhave good comfort or more safety, they havemore information about this product than wehave about food product done. I find that thekey issue is education. How do I install the in-terface with the consumer? How is he “edu-cated”? Because if the consumer wants to payfor traceability, the retailer will ask for it andthat retailer will act as the production chainwill make.

Richard J. GODWINMr. Reid, a question relating to almost three dif-ferent types of product. We have livestock andwith livestock the thing is driven into the yard,it is identified and then chopped up and so it isvery easy to take from the thing as a whole andsubdivide the beef cattle into steaks andsausages. You have a crop, a series of products,such as apples or oranges or grapefruit that arediscrete and are usually marketed in trays; andthen you have maize or barley or wheat. In fact,maize wheat and barley go into the livestock.We may be able to do many things, effectively toact as a tachograph to confirm that all of themaize has been cultivated up to standard. Buthow do we know that it is not contaminated?What happens when you mix farmer A withfarmer B with farmer C? And some of each, oftheir wheat goes into a loaf of bread. I havegreat difficulty in how we understand and con-trol that. I wonder if you give any thought tothat in term of traceability.

113

John F. REID I think that today this is impossible. I think thething we can do easily is farmer crops, in termsof small grain products being able to attach thisinformation as we talked, what is happened inthe well known systems. You know what thefarmer said happened in a field and maybe youare documented on this event, but in the fieldnext to it there could be a GMO crop that mayhave some influence on it. So if you don’t haveyour information, it might be true for the cropallocation, but there could be boundary effectsthat create differences there and you do nothave the ability to say that those things on acredible basis. I don’t think it’s going to be eco-nomical to do that either. Although if you look atthe key problems, that can happen - you know,parts per billion is a very dangerous amount tohave - and so we need that if we consent thatlevel, we are unable to detect these things whenit is in a bigger level. A better challenge andbetter results in some of these research areasare to found variables that are related to thatproblem and document those, because it is any-thing we can measure effectively. So this kind ofdifferent situation trough the slow food chain oninformation we don’t correct and now can beused some of it can be sensored. It is a prosper-ous career for someone to work on. It’s what wecan try to define.

Richard J. GODWINThe reason I asked the latter question wasmaybe a few years ago when GM maize wascoming in to Europe from the Midwest, it wasimpossible for the Midwest farmer to differenti-ate between GM and non-GM products, but itjust shows how done difficult is the sharpen inunit control things.

John F. REID In one part of the world organic and non-or-ganic apples grow in the same land area, and soits practices are organic to meet its prospectus-es of the standards is mapped all over the world,so it was discussing last night in different partof world prospectuses of the organic be quitedifferent. So your definitions might not be do al-low that happen.

Bill A. STOUTI wanted to come to the comment that you madeand remind the group that this meeting is thestep two in the discussion of traceability. Stepone we did in Chicago and in the whole meetingin Chicago, which some of you attended andsome did not, there was for reasons for trace-ability the implications to food quality, the con-sumer driving forces, etc. And now we ask JohnReid and other speakers to come here and focuson sensors and other elements of this so bigsubject and so let us not blame John Reid fordoing what we asked him to do. Please go backand read what was presented in Chicago, therewere excellent papers, on reasons why we arehere today.

John F. REID To respond to the original question: I could nothave agreed more with your comments becausewhen I talk about the issues of traceability it isreally a matter of looking at what we have andwhat we are working on, in terms of sensors anddata collection. But it may not be the most im-portant part of this whole process.

Prof. Jürgen ZASKEGermanyI think we are discussing the topics of the after-noon. What we have learned or what we know isthat industry has a lot of solutions for precisionagriculture, we know this. Prof. Godwin hasmentioned that there is no economic effect sofar; this is not true on big farms. I could com-ment on that. We have learnt in this presentationthat there are many technical solutions to tracethe production and this is the task of the paperand no more. What we will present this after-noon are the other question, traceability is agri-culture policy driven, it is market driven, it hasto establish confidence. There are a lot of psy-chological human aspects in it, what I feel, whatis likely is that there is not enough communica-tion between the agriculture engineering indus-try or the machines manufacturers and the foodindustry. I think this is the problem. Or the foodsupply chains which really could say what is re-quired in traceability and what they would liketo have: the machinery manufacturers develop-

114

ing or the researchers developing. This dia-logue with the certifying institutions, I feelwhich gives them the quality seal or the seal oforganic production. So on one hand it is a man-agement problem and on the other hand it is atechnical problem, but it is market driven, andwe should have to consider this. So I think youshould have put technical questions to Mr. Reidinstead of holding up all with what you are go-ing to discuss this afternoon.

Antonio PAGANII have been trying to follow the discussion to seeif there was a statement with which I could notagree, but I could not find anything. I agree witheverything. But we have been touching severalsubjects not strictly related to each other, so Iwould invite my friends and colleagues to com-ply a bit more with the principle that some of usare very familiar with the logical frameworkwhereby in a discussion you set some objectivesto be achieved, some results to be produced,some activities to be implemented to producethe results to achieve the objectives, and someinputs required to implement activities. In thiscase we were talking, and the presentation wasextremely good, even if I am not a specialisedengineer in this, I understood something, whichis already a result for me, it was sensors and da-ta collection systems in the agricultural equip-ment, something related to technology. So thatis the point of discussion. So the scope of thediscussion is what could be the use of the sen-sors in the data collection in order to applytraceability in view of possibly meeting the re-quirements what do they want, the customer, theclient, the end client market and something else.So why do we not go step-by-step, and this wasthe point, a terminological issue.

Karl Th. RENIUSMany intelligent comments have already beenmade, so my speech will be very short. We havealready done two steps in this direction and myproposal is to go two further steps to better un-derstand the problems, coming back to whatSarig said, to identify the needs for the nextsteps, and my proposal for the ManagementCommittee of the Club is to consider the subject

on case studies of traceability for the next meet-ing. What types of food chains do we have: notonly for plant production but also for animalproduction, and to look for some interestingcases and to identify the problems better. Wenow have a certain basis and we can learn theproblems better if we do that.

Francis SEVILAI’d like to make a comment composed of twostatements. The first statement: when we speakof traceability we are not speaking of goals, weare speaking of four main partners: the retail-er, the food distribution company, the food pro-cessing company and the grower company. Thesecond is: each of these partners on the chainhas different potential for investment in tech-nology; so the cost of the technology that theycan afford is different. If we take the retailer theInformation Technology that usually he can af-ford is around a thousand Euro. If we take thefood distribution company, the major ones, yourealise that the cost of Information Technologythat they are obliged to buy, is around one mil-lion Euro. In the food processing company, theaverage cost of their computer system isaround 50-55 thousand Euro. And now to thegrower, we are speaking of technologies thatthe grower has to buy. Probably he cannot af-ford more than 10 thousand Euro. I just men-tioned at this point to show that when imagin-ing what kind of technology you have to pro-vide to the growers, we have to take in accountthis problem of ability to deal with investmentand probably the technology that will have tobe developed for growers will have to be sharedbetween growers, because it has been men-tioned that traceability is a difficult perform-ance and in the food chain the farmer partnershave not the same financial ability to cope withthis problem.

Bassam SNOBARNow, we have to invite Yoav Sarig to give the pres-entation of the Working Group formed in Chicago“Guidelines on Traceability”. Then we have thepresentations of Prof. Zaske and Prof. Bodria:“System integration and certification. The marketdemand for clarity and transparency”.

115

Yoav SARIGBill Stout reminded you that this meeting is thefollow up of what started at Club of Bolognameeting in conjunction with CIGR-ASAE mani-festation that held in Chicago last Summer. Sothis is the second step and it was decided in thattime that a Working Group from the Club ofBologna would meet and prepare a draft rec-ommendation for consideration by the Clubmembers’. The Working Group consist of prof.Pellizzi, prof. Auernhammer, prof. De AlencarNääs, prof. Bodria, prof. De Beardemaeker,prof. Piccarolo, prof. Marchal and myself. Thedraft of the paper is as follows:

Draft Guidelines on the Traceability1. Traceability: methodology on tools allowing to

know in detail the record of any vegetable or animalproduct put on the market. Such knowledge allowsa correct evaluation of each product in terms ofhealth safety proper to each food or feed product.Food and feed products safety is mainly related toits natural and genetic contents and to the fact thatthey are free from chemical and/or toxic residues.Food and feed safety depends mainly on compo-nents that can be evaluated and quantified.

2. Growing environmental pollution as well as organ-ic production, on one side, and G.M.O. production,on the other, urge actions on food safety, taking in-to account that the objective of the food system is toproduce healthy people, not just food. It is thereforeessential to know: for each crop, the environmentalconditions, the method of growing as well as thetechnologies used pre and post-harvest; as for ani-mals, how they were reared and the technology in-volved.- At the growing stage it is therefore important to

know for each crop:- the genetic origin of the crop;- the orographic and pedologic characteristics as

well as the agronomic and environmental con-ditions;

- the know-how and technologies used forpreparing the soil, for sowing and maintenanceoperations;

- the know-how and technologies used to distrib-

ute organic and mineral fertilizers, as well aschemicals;

- the methods and technologies of harvesting.At the post-harvest stage it is vital to acquire, in re-lation to the final destination of products, the infor-mation on the various post-harvest and storage tech-nologies and methods.As for products or components to be processed iscrucial to know: the method of preservation, the useof chemicals, a full knowledge of the processingmethods and technologies used. Products intended for direct consumers’ marketshould be tested to detect residues and other unde-sirable properties.Finally, crops for animal feeds should be checkedto make suitable for each animal species and veri-fied if proper for processing.Once the origin of feed is controlled, animal hus-bandry has to be defined as follows:- type of breeding;- welfare conditions;- feeding methods and technologies; - methods and technologies for the best achieve-

ment of final products (milk, eggs, meat).3. Mechanisation is a key point for improving trace-

ability and each machine has, consequently, to beequipped with appropriate sensors and instrumentsable to acquire the data mentioned above, within theall food and feed chains. To this end there is the need to develop sensors andI. technologies able to measure and record the his-tory of each product with the general goal to associ-ate the information to the product.

4. At the same time it is necessary to acquire stan-dards based on each country’s or region’s legisla-tion.

5. The main goals of the workgroup, to be reached be-fore the end of November 2003, consequently are: - identification and collection of existing stan-

dards; - identification of the architecture of different

food and feed chains to design a traceabilitysystem appropriate to each of them;

- identification of the architecture of the machin-ery systems and then of the sensors and elec-tronic requirements as well as of informationsystems to be applied to the various machinesand plants.

116

Topic 2.2 a – System integration andcertification: the market demand forclarity and transparency

by Prof. J. Zaske (Germany)

1. The food market as seen by the consumers

• Consumer expectations

Depending on their social status and education-al background, consumers expect:

- safe products - high product quality - low or reasonable prices - consideration of sustainability and ani-

mal welfare criteria during the produc-tion process

with differing priority.

• Transparency for the consumer

In producer-close distribution such as:- Direct distribution by the

producer/farmer, ranging from on-farmsales to the farm’s own chain of shops(e.g. milk and meat products),

- Sale via regional distribution chains onthe basis of producer associations, e. g.“Franconia Farms”, (both may includeorganically and conventionally producedproducts),

- Distribution directly via the local foodcraft trades (bakers or butchers).

the personal confidence of the customers in theproducer or craft trade is the basis for purchases.

In producer-distant distribution, e.g.:- Distribution via the retail trade; branded

products create the basis of trust andconfidence.

The packagings secures the product identity andcontains essential informations, in particular

· Origin/manufacturer · Ingredients/conservation agents· Nutrition facts · Production and use-by date. · Batch/Lot· Storage instructions etc.

Producer-distant distribution increasingly is:- Distribution via retail trade chains (e.g.

REWE; objective: optimising businessmanagement and lower prices): The sellbranded products too, and to a growingextent house brands (e.g. “Ja!”), whichcontain the same data on the packagings,but instead of the manufacturer’s namestate “produced for REWE”. Here theorigin is frequently no longer traceable(Fig. 1).

- Distribution via discount chains (e.g. Al-di; objective: further price reductionwith low service input): Products aregenerally less well-known brands or“pseudo-brands”, which almost plagia-rise the brand layout. Both are labelledlike branded products.

In particular producer-distant distribution needslabelling in order to inspire confidence amongbuyers. This is also required by law. For logisticreasons labelling is generally supplemented bybar codes.

• Changes in consumer behaviour

- Decline of the market share of the retailtrade

- Market share of retail chains and espe-cially of discount chains is increasing(shopping at discounters is no longerconsidered to be discrediting)

- It is generally expected that all productsare labelled as described above

- Food safety is presumed à priori- Differentiation on the basis of “quali-

ty”(“visible” quality, image of the brand,attractiveness of the packaging)

- Increase in the share of organically pro-duced products due to · expected higher nutritional value · expected lower contamination · supposedly better taste (with possible

poorer appearance being tolerated)· for reasons of organic conviction.

Organic products can be purchased both di-rectly from organic farmers or in organic foodshops. However, shopping in the food trade orat discounters, who are also offering organic

117

products to a growing extent, requires consis-tent labelling of the foods as organic products.

2. The food market as seen by suppliers

The shift of distribution to large trading chainsmakes it necessary to offer large quantities ofproducts, processed or unprocessed, with de-fined and constant quality. The trade and thefood industry therefore prefer to buy fromlarge-scale farms, or they force smaller farmsto form associations. Parallel with procure-ment on the home market, the wholesale tradeand food industry are increasingly obtainingsupplies from international markets, partly atmuch lower prices. Market liberalisation catersto this trend.

In this way, however, the origin of the primaryproduct becomes increasingly less visible. This means that the trade (especially in thecase of unprocessed products) and the food in-dustry have to guarantee the quality and safe-ty. They have to win consumer confidence bycredible labelling (Fig. 2).

3. Aspects of food safety and product quali-ty

• Food safety

Safety has long since played a role in the sen-sitive areas of food and nutrition. In this con-nection there are extensive legal regulations atnational and to a growing extent at EU level,especially in the hygiene sector, e.g. covering

- meat and meat products- milk and dairy products- bread cereals, flour, bakery products,- fruit and vegetables.

The product safety is monitored by: - state inspections (e.g. regarding pesti-

cide residues) or - self-organised inspections by enterpris-

es or by associations of enterprises (e.g.for milk).

In particular the ingredients and any contami-nation require very extensive and discriminat-ing laboratory capacities.It is in the vital interest of both primary pro-ducers and processors not to be expelled

abruptly from the market due to safety short-falls. The possible damage in the case of largeproduct quantities is higher and the probabilityof faults with complex production methods us-ing a variety of material flows and processstages is greater. For this reason the food in-dustry developed new instruments for in-housemonitoring to avoid risk at a very early stage. According to U. Nöhle, Messrs. Nestlé, cus-tomer requirements for fault-free products ledto exceptional efforts by manufacturers to op-timise their information management and theirprocess sequences. “The establishment ofHACCP Systems (Hazard Analysis and Criti-cal Control Points), hygiene plans, batch trac-ing possibilities, recall systems and the opera-tion of laboratories in accordance with EN45001/GLP, embedded in an overall QM sys-tem in accordance with ISO 9000 ff., includingtraceable documentation and archiving, havedistinctly increased safety in food production.”However, the industry is interested in morethan secure product safety in its own produc-tion process. It wants divided responsibility“upstream” and “downstream”:

a) “Upstream” it wants to obligate suppliersof (pre-)products to ensure that their prod-ucts comply with the safety requirements(in accordance with national and EU regu-lations); in other words the (pre-) productsmust be free of:- physical contamination (glas, dust etc.); - chemical contamination (pesticide

residues, nitrate, toxins, other chemi-cals, that enter the products e.g. via theuse of sewage sludge or precipitation);

- other specific biological diseasepathogens (salmonella, bacteria, prionsetc.).

b) “Downstream” it wants to be able to re-move products from the market selectivelyif contamination or spoilage has occurreddespite all care, e.g. due to negligence orsabotage, in order to hold in check the dam-age sustained (loss of product, costs of dis-posal, loss of image), as well as to be ableto claim recoveries if appropriate.

The health authorities are interested in this too.

118

They are also interested, within the context ofrisk management, in:

- removing products from the market; - finding the party causing the damage;- if appropriate, initiating criminal pro-

ceedings;- eliminating causes.

This requires traceability from primary pro-duction till the “consumer’s refrigerator”.The most important instruments here are exactand uninterrupted documentation (declara-tions, freight documents, laboratory resultsetc.), which is provided to a growing extentwith computer support, and clear labelling ofthe product.

“Uninterrupted” means documentation via theentire chain:Primary producer → transport→ storage →processing → distributor → counter display.

• Product quality

“Quality” means “the sum of similar or sameperceptions of a group of persons (consumers/observers) regarding a specific product orservice”.Quality is an essential factor in determiningthe price obtainable, and food quality and foodsafety are closely connected. While faults discovered in food safety and vis-ible spoiling lead to immediate loss of the mar-ket, quality defects impair marketing succes-sively.

Quality in fruit and vegetables is usually perceived by our senses, e.g. in thecase of fresh vegetables or fruit via:

- size, form, colour;- consistence, “freshness”;- odour;- taste.

Corresponding quality criteria are agreed be-tween the producer and the customer (trade orprocessor) and should be based as far as possi-ble on objective (measurable) assessment cri-teria. The ingredients (acids, sugar, esters etc.)determining taste and odour and the dietetic in-gredients (vitamins etc.) must be determinedby laboratory examinations.

In addition, a separate examination for foodsafety is conducted.There are very specific national and EU regu-lations regarding fresh products, too, e.g. con-cerning:

- trade categories;- data on varieties and origin; - cleanliness.

These dates must be given on the correspon-ding labelling on the packaging or in the dis-play (Fig. 3). Transport packaging, e.g. fruitcases or cartons, serve here not only to protectthe products, but also to secure their identity.They are marked with the appropriate la-belling.

Quality in potatoesAnother example is presented by potatoes, thatare usually packed in nets on the basis of vari-ety, size, colour, and cooking behaviour. Herethe labelling is provided on tags. Since thesedata partly concern “internal quality features”,both storage warehouses and packing units re-quire exact information from the producer.

This means that for both potatoes and fruit andvegetables, there is a growing demand fortraceability right back to the individual field orplantation.

Quality of bulk productsA third example is formed by bulk products,especially cereals. Here, large bulk quantitieshave to be “labelled”.

The intended use is of major importance, e.g.as bread cereal or brewer’s grain. The exami-nation criteria are then the baking quality orthe brewing quality. This depends not only onthe variety, but also on the composition of theingredients, especially of proteins, and this inturn is determined e.g. by the nitrogen fertilis-ing. This means that the buyers or processors(mills) also require comprehensive documen-tation from the primary producer/farmer.

Under certain circumstances processors evenprovide the primary producers with concreteadvice regarding production measures, withinthe framework of cropping contracts.

119

Additionally safety examinations are directedespecially at pesticide residues, toxins, mouldinfestation or ergot.

4. Quality and Safety Management and Cer-tification

• Quality and Safety Management

Since quality and safety are influenced by theway of primary production, grain mills, brew-eries and feed concentrate mills require com-prehensive documentation from the primaryproducer (farmer), too.

Furthermore, they have detailed requirementsfor each link of the production chain:

(Farm production) → drying/cleaning → trans-port → storage → transport → processing/pack-ing → transport → trade or processor

The overall aim is to ensure that the final prod-uct satisfies the necessary criteria regarding

Quality and SafetyThere is a tendency of moving away from stand-alone solutions in quality and safety manage-ment for each link of the chain towards inte-grated quality and safety (QS) management sys-tems.

This obligates the individual partners to createrespective structures, to harmonise these, and toimplement measures that serve the commongoal “QS”.

The foundation of this is agreed documentation,which is based on documents, process data and- if required - samples to verify the differentsteps of the whole process.

• Certification

Subsequently the quality and safety of the prod-ucts must be certified and labelled in order toachieve marketing advantages! (Fig. 4).The certifying institution can be:

- the bulk buyer (e.g. the grain mill, thefood industry or the feed plant), Thebranded product is here the guarantee forthe customer/consumer (flour, bread);

- a number of farms or enterprises in formof a quality producer community (quali-

ty eggs production);- an institution especially created for this

purpose, e.g. an executing organisationof a “quality seal” (Fig. 5).

5. Integration of the quality of the productionprocess into quality assurance systems

• Interest of the buyers

As already mentioned at various points, productsafety and product quality depend directly onthe nature of primary production (residues, in-gredients, suitability for processing etc.).

In this respect, buyers increasingly demandfrom producers evidence concerning the qualityof production (seed used, fertilising pro-gramme, consideration of waiting periods afterpesticide treatment etc.), in addition to measur-able data concerning the product (e.g. moisture,protein content, residues).

This is intended on the one hand to rule out cer-tain undesirable substance in or on the products,and on the other hand to guaantee quality-deter-mining ingredients.

• Interest of the public

However, documentation of the productionprocess has further objectives:a) to provide to a critical public evidence of

sustainable, environmentally sound manage-ment including the consideration of animalwelfare aspects;

b) to provide data for applications for subsidiesor to avoid sanctions, especially in connec-tion with national or EU legislation.

Within the framework of this paper we shall on-ly look at point a):

The minimum that the public expects of agri-culture is that it observes the “rules of goodmanagement practice” and uses the “best avail-able technology”.

Since these factors are generally not visible onthe product itself, they must be declared credi-bly by the producer by means of a description ofthe production process. This then enters thequality guarantee via the brand or a quality seal.A group of the population that is particularly

120

critical as regards organic aspects makes addi-tional demands on top of this:

- specific maintenance of soil fertility (e.g.minimum or conservation tillage);

- matter or nutrient cycles on the farm (in-cluding avoidance of mineral fertilisers);

- avoidance of chemical pesticides (substi-tuted by biological or mechanical plantprotection measures and special crop ro-tation etc.);

- animal welfare oriented management (nocages, more space for each individualanimal etc.);

- no use of genetically modified organ-isms (plants and animals);

- reduction of energy consumption etc.Farmers who want to produce and sell productsin accordance with these criteria have to keepstrictly to the rules of corresponding institu-tions. These are organic farming associationsthat certify the farms after inspection and a tran-sition phase (generally 2 years). Both the farmand the products are labelled accordingly (e.g.by “Bioland” or “Demeter” - seals); or the newEU Ecological Regulation is used as a basis forcertification; labelling is then carried out withthe new “EU Bio-seal” (Fig. 6).

6. Conclusions

Management

• Since consumers increasingly demand foodsafety and high product quality and environ-mentally sound production in line with ani-mal welfare, integrated management systemsfor quality and safety (QS) are indispensable.

• These comprise complete documentation ofall substance flows through all processstages including transport and storage, andthe performance of checks on food safetyand on quality factors at all critical points ofthe entire process, right through to the dis-play in the retail trade.

• These measures end with labelling of theproduct and a guarantee of quality and safe-ty via the brand, via QS symbols of variouskinds, or via the retail trade chain.

• The more complex the final product, e.g.deep-frozen dishes, the higher the demandsreated to the QS management.

• This results in a trend to obligate the suppli-ers more strongly. Evidence is increasinglydemanded that suppliers have their own ef-fective quality and safety management sys-tems. In the case of large product flows andhence high risks, it is therefore required thatsuppliers be certified in accordance withDIN, EN, ISO 9000 ff.

• Suppliers who cannot produce evidence ofthis are ousted from large markets in themedium term.

Technical aspects

• In addition to management aspects there arealso technical aspects concerning quality as-surance and food safety:

a) suitable software and hardware for thenecessary management systems includ-ing documentation (IT);

b) fast, precise and low-cost testing tech-niques (laboratory technology);

c) new sensors and process computers foron-line process control regarding qualityand safety and for data capture:- for stationary plants, e.g. in the post-

harvest sector and in the food indus-try;

- for tracking products from the pro-ducer to the point of sale;

- for process.

Requirements of agricultural machinery

• For geo-referenced data acquisition duringprimary production on the farm DGPS is al-ready common practice. The data processingis carried out in a first stage via GIS. Theseelements form the technical basis for “preci-sion farming (crop) “ (Fig. 7).

• Equivalent technologies are being devel-oped for the livestock production sector, in-cluding an appropriate BUS. The precondi-tions for “precision livestock farming” havebeen created with the electronic animal

121

identification system - at least for “large”productive livestock like cattle.

• What is lacking is a comprehensive inter-linking of IT-supported plant production andlivestock production in a farm managementsystem that includes the documentation ofall data, which are determining food safetyand quality.

• Second, new sensors or sensor/process com-puter combinations have to be developedthat, as far as possible, allow the recordingof additional safety and quality-relevant fac-tors on-line, e.g. on-line moisture contentmeasurement, protein determination, toxinsurveying etc.

• The same applies by analogy for livestockproduction, where new sensor techniquesare in demand for animal-physiological pa-

rameters and for questions of behaviour, aswell as for quality parameters of the prod-ucts (milk). There are already several prom-ising approaches.

• Dynamic development can be observed inthe field of tracking products from producerto buyer, for example: “active labelling” viasensor/data logger combinations or radiotransmission of data for transport surveil-lance (temperature recording), or the appli-cation of new sensors, e.g. the “artificialnose” for early recognition of spoiling, alsowith radio-remote transmission etc.

• One essential aspect of all above mentionedpotential agricultural engineering solutionsis the standardization of signals and signaltransmission. This has to be solved as soonas possible.

122

Figure 1 - Branded products and equivalent house brands

Figure 2 - Labelling in the case of convenience products

123

Figure 3 - Labelling in the case of fruit

Figure 4 - Sales promotion on the basis a of quality and safety (QS) management system and cer-tification

124

Figure 5 - Quality seals of a regional certifying institution, “Quality Product – Pro Agro Inspected”

Figure 6 – “EU Bio-seal” for organic production/products

125

Figure 7 (A,B) – “Pendulum-meter” for assessing the crop density in front of the tractor/ spreaderfor real-time precision fertilization; geo-referenced documentation via DGPS

A

B

126

Topic 2.2 b – System integration andcertification: the market demand forclarity and transparency

by Prof. L. Bodria (Italy)

1. Introduction

The concept of traceability takes on a complete-ly different significance when it is extended be-yond the farm to embrace the agroindustrialsector as a whole.

In this case, traceability means the ability to re-trace all the stages of the production and distri-bution system, and must therefore be viewed astraceability over the entire agri-food chain, fromfarm field to the consumer’s table.

It follows that agri-food chain traceability willbe relatively simple when all the processing ishandled by a single organisation (Fig. 1), butbecomes extremely complex for multiple-ingre-dient products which call upon a number of dif-ferent systems for raw material production, pro-cessing and marketing (Fig. 2).

It is necessary, in this case, to identify and char-acterise all the material flows (raw materials, ad-ditives, semi-finished products, packaging mate-rials etc.) that converge into a given product, aswell as all the organisations involved at eachstage, in order to ensure that the product’s historycan effectively be retraced to ascertain the causesand responsibilities for any problems or defects.

Agri-food chain traceability is therefore a con-cept which can be defined as:“the identification of the organisations and ma-terial flows involved in the formation of a prod-uct unit that is individually and physically iden-tifiable”.

From this definition, it follows that traceabilityis based on two fundamental elements. Firstly,the fact that traceability is in effect an allocationof responsibility, making it substantially differ-ent from other product and process assurancesystems such as ISO 9000 for quality and HAC-CP for safety, which are both designed to con-trol technical aspects.

All the actors involved in the preparation of theproduct must assume responsibility for the ma-terials used, and for the procedures and operat-ing conditions within their competence, so thatin case of harmful or defective products thecauses can be identified and the appropriate cor-rective and control actions implemented.

The second fundamental element of traceabilityis the lot, that is to say the unit of product thatcan be physically and individually identified,and which provides the true basis of an effectivesystem for managing emergencies and attribut-ing responsibilities. In fact, the lot makes it pos-sible to identify all the units which have under-gone a given production process, so that theycan be isolated in the event of quality or foodsafety problems.

2. Definition of a traceability systemThe complex composition of the agri-foodchain makes it very difficult to define a singletraceability system that can be applied to thebroad diversity of food products.

It is therefore necessary – as has already beendone for quality certifications with ISO 9000 -to define general standards, which provideguidelines for the implementation, managementand surveillance of agroindustrial traceability.

Such standards should aim to assure the trace-ability of each specific product and the individualactions taken to produce it, as opposed to gener-ic supply chain traceability, as well as to identifythe organisations involved in its formation.

A framework of this type requires that somedesignated “leader” handle the coordination thesupply chain, a role that could presumably -though not necessarily - be filled by the organi-sation which markets the finished product. Theleader organisation would be responsible fortracing the agri-food chain leading to the for-mation of the product, and for defining opera-tional procedures to assure that the causes andresponsibilities of any food safety hazards canbe identified.

A traceability standard could be developedalong the following lines:

127

- identification and designation, as the agentsresponsible for traceability, of the organisa-tions which handle the processing opera-tions and transfers of primary raw materialsor other components significant for the pur-poses of traceability, and of those whichsupply secondary materials (process agents,additives, packaging, etc.);

- designation of a coordinator responsible fordefining the operating methods and trace-ability procedures, and for collecting the rel-evant documentation and ascertaining com-pliance;

- documentation of the material flows withinthe agri-food chain, recording each passagein qualitative and quantitative terms;

- management of lots through every stage ofthe process, ensuring that they are identifi-able and that their traceability is document-ed at all times;

- a code of agri-food chain on each of the doc-uments which accompany the loose or pack-aged materials entering the productionprocess;

- the marking of every package that reachesthe end consumer with a logo identifying theagri-food chain, and with a lot code;

- the possibility of traversing the supply chainin both directions: in order to both “trace”(i.e. work back from the finished product toits origins) the nature and history of all thecomponents, as well as “track” (i.e. recon-struct its forward progress) an unsafe rawmaterial in order to identify the finishedproduct lots which may have been contami-nated by it.

3. Compulsory or voluntary traceability?Placing the procedures for agri-food chaintraceability within an appropriate regulatoryframework is a question of primary importance.Some organisations—most notably the Euro-pean Union—appear to favour a statutory impo-sition of traceability. In fact, in its White Paperon Food Safety, the EU in states that “... thecompetent authorities monitor and enforce thisresponsibility through the operation of nationalsurveillance and control systems….” [5].

An alternative route, however, would be toleave agri-food chain traceability to the initia-tive of individual organisations who voluntarilyundertake to comply with the rules and proce-dures set out in the standard.

In the compulsory case, traceability is treated asessential for the assurance of product safety, andhence encoded in a legally binding frameworkof rules, in much the same way as HACCP hy-giene monitoring.

This solution has the advantage of a generalisedapplication of traceability, but also presents anumber of shortcomings.

The HACCP experience has highlighted the dif-ficulty of achieving simultaneous complianceby such a large number of production systemsand firms, as well as of intervening in businessmanagement decisions – by definition tied tothe discretion of the entrepreneur – with unifiedsystems for hygiene surveillance.

What’s more, there is the risk that a compulso-ry system will, on the one hand, prove cumber-some and difficult to manage for certain typesof organisations, and on the other hand will suf-fer from the absence of an appropriate and effi-cient public enforcement system.

Therefore, compulsory traceability could poten-tially prove difficult to implement, giving rise toan inefficient system of surveillance, therebyopening the way to purely formal applicationsand false documentation [4].

In contrast, a voluntary system – based on a uni-vocal definition of traceability set out in an in-ternational standard – implies a free and con-scious commitment on the part of the organisa-tion’s management, and therefore leaves lessscope for dodges or accusations of excess com-plexity.

In addition, this type of approach would maketraceability a selling point to the consumer,making it an element of added value on the mar-ketplace, thereby enhancing the competitive-ness of the product.

Voluntary traceability would therefore have thepractical effect of making its fair application ad-

128

vantageous to the producers themselves, as wellas to the surveillance bodies.

4. Certification of traceabilityIt is clear that agri-food chain traceability mustbe subjected to surveillance and certifications,performed by independent bodies that are cred-ible and representative. In fact, a false declara-tion of traceability does not just constitute a de-ception vis a vis the consumer, but is also an actof unfair competition between firms.

In the case of voluntary adoption of agri-foodchain traceability, the certification could consistof:- an international standard which sets out

general implementation guidelines;- a number of certification bodies accredited

by the national standards authorities;- a system for documenting material flows

that is appropriate for the different productsupply chains.

The final watchdog role, however, would haveto be played by the competent public authority,presumably the Ministry of Agriculture or theequivalent regional bodies, which would handlethe general supervision, taking part in the ac-creditation of the certification and control agen-cies, as is already done in Italy for DOC (con-trolled origin) marks and organic farming prod-ucts.

5. Conclusions

Traceability is a tool of fundamental importancefor answering the market’s growing demand forfood products whose safety is assured by atransparent system that is able to attribute re-sponsibilities to farmers and producers.

The best solution for ensuring correct applica-tion would be to define a food traceability stan-dard, which can be voluntarily adopted by or-ganisations, enforced and supervised through asynergetic collaboration between private organ-isations and public product certification bodies.Agricultural mechanisation (or, better, thewhole agricultural engineering sector) plays akey role in building a traceability system beingappointed to monitor the first steep of the food

chain from the field to the process phase.

As it has been underlined by preceding speakers(namely Auernhammer [1], Nääs [2] and Reid[3]) recent development in electronics and sen-sors technology made now available data col-lection systems that can provide the basis forthe development of agricultural traceability.Current localization systems based on differen-tial GPS can offer accuracy in the order of 1-2m, while “variable rate” distribution systemsand “yield monitoring” systems can easilyrecord what and how much we distribute andwe harvest.

So the main steep for the development of a reli-able traceability in field cultivation and animalbreeding is to enforce and expand data collec-tion systems in order to create a data archivingsystem able to permanently house and flow in-formation following the different food compo-nents along its routing from field to table. At thesame the importance of appropriate certificationbodies has to be underlined.

References

[1] Auernhammer H., 2002. The role ofmechatronics in products traceability.Club of Bologna, 13th Members Meeting(Part 1), Chicago.

[2] De Alencar Nääs I., 2002. Applications ofmechatronics in animal productions. Clubof Bologna, 13th Members Meeting (Part1), Chicago.

[3] Reid J. F., 2002. Sensors and data collec-tion systems on agricultural equipment.Club of Bologna, 13th Members Meeting(Part 1), Bologna.

[4] Peri C., 2000. Tracciabilità di filiera. Traobbligo di legge ed opportunità competiti-va per le produzioni agroalimentari. Attidella Accademia dei Georgofili, XLVII.

[5] 2001. White Paper on Food Safety. Com-mission of the European Communities,Brussels.

129

Figure 1 - Traceability chain is simple in the case of a single product.

Figure 2 - Traceability is very complex in the case of a product with multiple-ingredients.

130

DISCUSSION

131

Bassam SNOBARWe express our deep thanks to Y. Zaske and L.Bodria for these interest reports and now wecan open once more the discussion.

Prof. Ladislav NOZDROVICKYSlovak RepublicI think that the Working Group work is appro-priate and should bring vivid discussion in ourgroup and, as usual, we have to take care toconnect this initiative with the existing groups,which are working on it, evidently InformationTechnology and Traceability up-to-date mat-ters, and various groups are involved. So mysuggestion is to check with this group to makesure that everything is connected to work andproduce with this group. Concerning the pres-entation, my question is this: you mentionedthat soybeans are disappearing. Agriculturalengineering education programmes as we hadknow them in the past, are also disappearingand there are many, many examples of that.Where are the young engineers going to comefrom, to carry on work, such as you described,in the future?

Theodore FRIEDRICHMine is more a statement than a question. Afterthese two presentations, I am not so sure anymore if traceability is really an issue of interestfor the final consumer. Does the final consumerreally want to know from which farm the grainfor his bread comes from? I think it is reallymore an issue for several steps in the chain andfor legal tracing of liabilities and it can lead, asprof. Bodria said, the EU to the idea to intro-duce a system of punishment and I think that isvery dangerous step and I very much like theproposal you brought of the voluntary system,because I think you can sell traceability as apositive instrument not as a an instrument ofpunishment for the farmer who wants to im-prove the quality of his product and who wantsthe people to appreciate and see a better quali-ty product. Because that farmer, in the existingsystem, has no incentive to do so, because hisproduct will disappear in the bulk of anonymous

produce. And so I think that that is the approachI would really prefer to sell traceability reallyas an incentive for the farmer and not as a con-trol mechanism for the consumer.

Prof. ZOLTAN LANG HungaryIn Hungary we are learning new technologies toraise quality control. In my opinion, traceabili-ty is close to production technologies, so thereare different production technologies definedlike the normal technologies and the bio-tech-nologies. The buyer is not interested in all theelements of production, like how the soil wasploughed or the sowing or harvesting was car-ried. But there are critical elements like the useof chemicals and so on. So the buyer is interest-ed in if the production technology was correctlycarried out and there are institutions which arebe able to verify this, by tracing the sprayingduring production, or during the processing us-ing chemicals. So not the whole technologyshould be traced because it would be very, veryexpensive. Nobody would pay for each of thesesteps, but only the critical ones. The buyershould only know that the technology was cor-rectly kept or not correctly, even about those el-ements like grain. If it is not correctly dried thenit will not be a good bread, it will not be breadat all, it will be a cereal and the buyer is not in-terested in this, the consumer he is interested inthe final product that it is correctly producedand the plant correctly grown, and that theprocess was fulfilled correctly. Maybe new tech-nologies should also be introduced, besides thenormal technology and the biotechnology,maybe improved level technologies, and markedon the product. But that is all that the buyer isinterested in.

Luigi BODRIAI want to make some comments on the consumerdemand. Following the enquiry after mouth cowdisease and the recent worldwide food crisis, itseems that the market is very worried about thehealth safety of what they are eating. The glob-al market, that makes the origin of food so con-

fused worldwide, has caused worries in the con-sumer, so I am quite sure that people are veryinterested in having, not to know, but to have thepossibility just in case, to verify how the food isproduced. So traceability must not be a certifi-cation system, that is the conclusion, it makestraceability too complex, it is too costly. It is justinformation flow, just in case, for all that foodthat is produced there must be the availability tocheck the possibility of where your food comesfrom, how it is being produced, in which area,on which farm and so on. So if that should be ona voluntary basis and that may add value toyour market and this cost may be shared by thefinal consumer and also by the producer, ofcourse, who may have a commercial benefitfrom a traced product that may be more attrac-tive on the market and produce more interestingcommerce.

Jürgen ZASKEI think that the buyer is not interested in the de-tailed traceability. For him it is important to beguaranteed that the product was correctly pro-duced and the oldest and best guarantee is thebrand. If they make mistakes the brand will dis-appear from the market immediately, especiallyif they have short-fallings in safety. Quality canbe compensated and tolerated, but if safety iswrong then the product is finished. Secondly,they want information about correct productionand here it is in the interests of the manufactur-er, of the large bakeries and so on. In Germanyyou can find, on the bread you buy in the super-market or in the retail trade, “produced fromgrain from integrated production”. That meanscorrect production with the correct amount ofchemicals and correct treatment etc.. So thebuyer is only interested in signals. The buyerseal and so on, but the producer, or rather thefood industry, is interested in traceability to pre-vent big problems if by chance, due to negli-gence, or even due to sabotage, a product wasinfested or poisoned or whatever. Therefore,they really want to get the product from the mar-ket to know where it has gone and take it off theshelf. This is not only in the interest of the foodindustry it is also in the interests of the Govern-ment, so they need this traceability downstream

and the Government wants the traceability up-stream - who has caused the problem andcharge him? I have not mentioned the nitrogenescandal in Germany. They found a plant protec-tion agent in baby food. That is normally theworst case. So they traced, it was the meat.Where did the meat come from? Where did thefeed come? This was from a neighbouring coun-try. But they bought the grain in the East Ger-many. They found the feed mill and they boughtfrom a farm and the problem was the storagebetween the farm and the mill. It was one ofthose big hangars you have in East Germanywhere they stored chemicals during the oldregime, before reunification. The hangar wasonly swept clean and in the corners there werebig piles of chemicals, and you can imaginewhat happens if you store tons and tons ofchemicals (hundreds or thousands of tons) andthe chemicals went in contact with the grain.

Axel MUNACKI would also address you on the question oftraceability on a voluntary or compulsory basisand I think the meaning of traceability is theability to trace back and not the usual providingthe trace back in any case. So in my opinion al-so, the consumer is not interested in having abig printout on everything he buys, where itcomes from, where it was stored, who did theprocessing and so on. I think a certain label isenough. For most people, also the discrimina-tion of eggs - we actually have the labelling sys-tem: 0, 2, 3, etc. in order to define the eggs fromecological eggs and others - together with thedate is enough. Those people who want more in-formation are not going to buy at the bigchains; they are going to direct marketing per-sons and maybe they will pay extra money. Theyare not 90% of the consumers but only about5%. Then we come to the decision of whethertraceability should be on a voluntary basis oron a compulsory basis. My opinion is a little dif-ferent from Zaske’s who mentioned the big ni-trophene scandal in Germany; I think the au-thorities should be interested in separating theblack sheep from white sheep, in some sense.What is in the public interest? The interest of theconsumer, as a whole, is to prevent the black

132

sheep marketing from coming up with whatsome of the traders and other people are doing.Here you will need compulsory traceability be-cause otherwise you could not make clear to theother people that all the steps they are doingcould be - in some sense and if there is anyproblem with the food they provide - tracedback and then they could have a problem. So ifyou make it voluntary, then you will alwayshave people who would like to make big moneyin a short time and making something which isnot professional and in this way traceabilitywould be measured on the value it adds to thefood and, in most cases, it should prevent - not100% which is never possible - those bad prac-tices and give the consumer some certainty of agood quality product.

Yoav SARIGI would endorse what Munack has just said.Why is it true that the consumer is not interest-ed? It would be impossible for him to digest allthe information. He is still the moving force be-hind the issue of traceability. Given the optionthe producers would not do this voluntarily.Why should they? It would impose more ex-penses on them. But it is different when dealingwith food safety, it is a different issue when wedeal with food quality or food safety. With foodquality, I am 100% in favour it should be volun-tary and let the market play its role. Whoevergains by his superior quality will remain on themarket, the others will be left out, but we cannotleave the issue of food safety to the whims of theproducers, this is the responsibility of the Gov-ernment and there are many cases in history ofa few poisonous cases, because let us face it,sometimes the producers could not care less,they care more about making money. There aremany companies that went bankrupt because oflawsuits, so we should point out that it is to theirbenefit to actually be behind traceability tomake sure that they can stand any loss. So thisis the whole case of what we are talking about.That is why we put the major emphasis on foodsafety rather than on food quality.

Jürgen ZASKEThere are other instruments. First you have to

consider that the food industry and the whole-sale trade have ethics of the own. Then ask thesuppliers of the products from the farming ifthey have certified their farms and/or if thetransport enterprise has certified their enter-prise via ISO 9000. If an enterprise is really in-terested in being correct, then it is self-organis-ing. The organisation within the enterprise, ifyou have these applets, for primary production,via transport, via drying and so on, each of theenterprises being certified a code into ISO9000, then you have an instrument that is vol-untary. And if you, for instance, as a food pro-ducer like Nestlé, asks your supplier: we willtake products from you only if you are licensedand you follow the ideas of ISO 9000, then wehave a very good instrument and I feel that thisis the future. It should not all be arranged by theGovernment. If there is criminal power behindselling things, getting it from the world market,like the nitrophene grain, it will only get on themarket by chance. Generally, if you ask yoursuppliers to follow general ethics, I think that isthe best way and that means arranging thethings voluntarily.

Hugo CETRANGOLO I agree with Prof. Bodria in the necessity of sep-arating the traceability process from the foodquality condition or standard. In my opinion,traceability is the methodology and the toolsthat allow to have all together the informationfrom primary production, the industrial processand the storage, the transportation, the distri-bution, concerning each single product on themarket and their ingredients. Each group ofconsumers, or each company or Governmentwith different information on each product anda correct traceability system must provide thatinformation. Because of that we think thattraceability is a tailor-made system for eachproduct, for each company and for each market.

Luigi BODRIAI wish to add something more to my colleagueSarig, who has a pessimistic opinion about foodproducers. When I say that traceability shouldbe voluntary, I don’t mean that food productionshould be completely free, I mean the rules; the

133

conditions for safe food production are compul-sory and fixed by law. Traceability is only adocument that trace what process has been usedand where production has been done. So trace-ability must not be confused with process certi-fication. Traceability is only the recording ofwhat happens. The law sets out what must bedone. In the case of the recent mad cow scandal,the producer was not within the law. Traceabil-ity is the way of finding out who was out of law,but the law must work, of course.

Jaime ORTIZ-CAÑAVATEI refer to the certifying institution mentioned inthe paper of Prof. Zaske. The first thing is tohave confidence in the manufacturer or produc-er. It is a standard machinery in the EuropeanUnion that all the safety is assumed by the man-ufacturer. But anyhow afterwards they are test-ing institutions that they go normally, voluntar-ily to see if the level of the machinery are ok,like in energy or in playing or in testing ma-chinery. So I feel that these certifying institu-tions can be very similar to these machinery in-stitutions. They will work to have these stan-dards of qualities and also traceability and lat-er this will encourage these institutions, if theywork properly, they will encourage in develop-ing sensors to establish this quality. This was aquestion to Prof. Zaske. He also mentioned verybriefly that there is no use of the GeneticallyModified Products, I feel that is a very difficultdiscussion but just to say no use of that is verystrict, too radical.

Jürgen ZASKEAgricultural machinery has certain rules for be-ing tested, concerning safety, usability andthings like that. And exactly the signs or theseals you get on organic production, and so on,is following in the same, you have an accredita-tion process, first of all, you have a long list ofwhat you have to do and what you do not haveto do. That is number one. Then you have a lotof discussions with the organisation which is as-sessing your farm then and it also includestraining, of course, and there is a transit phaseof two years, before you can start to produce bi-ologically or organically. There is also a final

meeting, where an independent group is lookingif you are really ready to produce according tothe regulations and then the farm is certifiedand the products are certified. In any case whenyou follow the EU laws or the other organisa-tions, which are certifying the things, it is a verystrict and very correct way of getting the certi-fication. Then, you are checked regularly again,so surprisingly, some people are coming andchecking what you are doing in the right joband if you are using concentrated feed which isnot from organic production, if you are raisingchickens for instance. So this is, coming to theeggs, a very strict and a very rigid way of get-ting the seal and maintaining the seal. Verycomparable to the testing of agricultural ma-chinery.

Giuseppe PELLIZZII have the impression that we have forgotten inour discussion the problem of the developingcountries for which there is a must to assure agood, complete safety of the food. This is an ac-tivity that has to be performed by the Govern-ments. It cannot be left independent, on a vol-untarily basis. So I think that we must considerall these things, we have to consider this prob-lem that is very important. As second point, onwhat Zaske has just talked about the scandal inGermany. I want to remind my colleague Bo-dria, that in Milan, a few days ago, 50 restau-rants were closed, because the food did not an-swer to the safety systems.

Luigi BODRIAThis is supporting my idea that compulsoryrules are not effective. Because there are com-pulsory rules for restaurants in Milan; if thecleaning restaurants are cleaned, if hygienicrestaurants should be voluntary, so all therestaurants might be clean, but a lot of them arenot and this is the problem.

Karl Th. RENIUSThis is, of course, always a typical aspect ofdiscussion when these types of problems arediscussed: what should be voluntary and whatshould be regulated. I think we should look forgood balance. If you see machinery (Ortiz-

134

Canavate mentioned that in the EU we haveregulations for machinery safety), we have tofocus some safety regulations. But there is alarge band still for voluntary activities. Forinstance, in the machines building industry isdefining every part, which has built in a ma-chine, which is relevant for safety, they pre-pare a special documentation. In case of anaccident they can say that it has been doneeverything and these are the documents. Nowwe do not feel responsible for the accident.This is a close loop process which is betterthan a regulation. So, in my opinion we shouldlook for a good balance between regulationsand freedom and responsibilities, as Zaskementioned.

Irenilza DE ALENCAR NÄÄSI was very surprised of the presentation. As youwell know, Brazil is a large grain producer aswell as a meat exporter. We have really beendiscussing traceability since BSE out breakingin England, because we would like to continueexporting meat so we have been discussingtraceability distressfully and it is very clear forus that we have three steps in traceability, es-pecially to have the food safety reliable, thefirst is identification, the second one is certifi-cation and the third one is inspection and au-diting. It is obvious and clear that auditing andinspection have to be done by the Government,because it is a matter of public health, first ofall. Second, it is also an export business, andwe have to be very careful. As Prof. Zaske men-tioned, he gave an example, I was surprised bythat, because some producers got it and for in-stance they provided a certification for eggsproduction. For us it was very clear that: iden-tification, certification, inspection and auditinghave to be three very separate and distinct sec-tors of the traceability chain and in the foodchain process. It is to be sure that fraud isavoided in the whole process. We also foundthat standards are needed, because we had alittle scandal with Canada, that said that ourmeat, our beef cattle probably could have BSE.We had an inspection and it ended up that therewas something else behind the curtains and ourbeef cattle were in pasture. This was very good

for us; we really thanked the Canadians for do-ing that without that time because they have gotus stronger and we really got the certificationand the auditing and we are identifying ourbeef cattle and we are going towards the get-ting back the credibility we had in the market.So, this was in a first step very inconvenient forthe country. The Ministry of Agriculture im-posed on all exporters to get certification andidentification for their beef cattle and theslaughterhouses are paying more for that, sothey are paying more than the producer to havethe animal identifying for beef to slaughter. Sostandards are needed. There are three stepsidentification, certification and auditing; in ad-dition training in education is vital in the wholeprocess.

Giuseppe PELLIZZIWe can start now with a new session to finishour discussion. I’m pleased to introducePhillippe Marchal who kindly accepted to serveas chairman for this half a day. Please Philippe.

Philippe MARCHALI thank prof. Pellizzi. Now we have some timefor your questions on the Topic 2.1. If you havereally very important and crucial questions donot hesitate to ask.

Hermann AUERNHAMMERI think Yürgen Zaske brought up some moreitems for discussion when he mentioned the dif-ferent seals responsible for quality manage-ment on the one side or what in Brussels is nowcalled Farm Audit, what we discuss with theBioSeal or what we call Eco Audit. So trace-ability will give us a lot of information and tosome extent the different seals will need thesame information or additional information. Sowhen we talk on traceability and also acquiringdetails from the farm, they should be taken on-ly once and be available in different modules,for example temperature. So it depends onquality management, and it should be availablefor the farm audit, and should be available asaudits too. It means we have to have a kind ofmodernisation of data management, or whatev-er it is.

135

Daniel BERCKMANSTwo small questions. The first is: all of us be-lieve that safety is the main issue, but I amafraid it is the consumer’s perception, the con-sumer that is informed by the press. My questionis: do we have enough scientific data to supportthis perception? I am wondering that safety isthe main issue. The second question is: if welook at scientific data we know that a lot of peo-ple die from heart disease, could traceabilityhelp us to set up long term research to look forthe link between what we eat and health im-pact?

Jürgen ZASKEI think that safety is expected by the public “apriori”. They expect it and it is our job and thatof the manufacturers to make sure that the prod-ucts are safe and the public is not interested inhow this is done and traceability is only one in-strument. The second question: there should bebetter cooperation between agriculture engi-neering and agriculture and the discipline of thehealth sciences, concerning the dietetic aspectsmainly. In Potsdam we have a very big Instituteof nutritional research but we have no coopera-tion and that is typical. I would turn the ques-tion to the other colleagues: do they alreadyhave cooperation with nutrition research insti-tutes for human beings, not animals or plants?

Giuseppe PELLIZZII have a question for all the colleagues. I wouldask all of you if you agree with our final recom-mendations, and confirm that the first obliga-tion is for the States and the Governments andthat they have to decide to protect the safety andthe health of the people. Do you agree or not? Ido not think that it is only a question of con-sumer needs, it is the need for each Govern-ment.

Josse DE BAERDEMAEKERMr. President you are right on this. It also hap-pens in the federal agency for food security inBelgium, there are several agencies in othercountries and there is the European Food Safe-ty Agency, that are setting out some guidelinesfor production and registration of production

and in that sense, I agree with what colleagueHermann Auernhammer says, as an engineer-ing community, we will have to provides to makeeasier for farmers to register and that can satis-fy the different systems that exist.

Irenilza DE ALENCAR NÄÄSYesterday I pointed out that in a “certificationchain” we have three major points: identifica-tion, certification, inspection and auditing. Iagree with Prof. Giuseppe Pellizzi that for in-spection and auditing the Government must bepart of it, because when we play the role of foodsafety we are talking somehow on public healthproblems so we actually need a policy on thatand the Government should be part of the au-diting and inspection at least.

Jürgen ZASKEMrs Nääs, you are absolutely right but the timewas too short to explain the chin of auditing andinspection and so on, but the final link or ele-ment of it must be the Government. But what Iwanted to mention is we have a green-red partyin Germany and the Minister of Agriculture islinked to the green party and they have evenchanged the name from Agriculture to Con-sumers’ Protection and agriculture comes onnumber 3. So you can see how the hierarchy isin Germany. I think that this is a general ten-dency and of course they are establishing a foodsafety agency in Germany closely linked to theEuropean Union. I think that is a political trend,which we can only support, but we must supportthat they do not forget agricultural engineering.

Giuseppe PELLIZZIDo you agree that in the Conclusions and Rec-ommendations we underline that the problem ofsafety and traceability is very important for thedeveloping countries or not?

Jaime ORTIZ-CAÑAVATEI completely agree, but we first have to providefood and then safe food, it is more important.

Prof. Luis SANTOS PEREIRAPortugalI wish to call your attention to the last sentence,

136

the importance of the said word is particularlyrelated to water when we see that the horticul-ture near the towns is mainly done with untreat-ed waste water and this part of the problem isabsolutely enormous. I suppose that Jaime’ssentence was probably not the best, because thehealth problem that is associated with the foodin urban and peri-urban agriculture in some ofthe world countries is extremely large and I sup-pose that we cannot forget it.

Yoav SARIGIn the past two days we have talked a lot abouttraceability and I think it was very educationaland very lovely, but I think what was missing isbefore we leave we need some complete recom-mendations. What are we going to do next? Wetalked about voluntary traceability systems,compulsory systems and so on. But we are go-ing to direct for the next meeting some actionsdelegated from the Club and I’d like to hearfrom the members some recommendationsabout what should we do next.

Jürgen ZASKEI recommend that we go home and try to con-vince our own Governments. It is very difficult,I think to go to the EU as a group of agricultur-al engineers like now, maybe Josse De Baerde-

maeker can do that, some others of us, but Ithink that we should convince our national min-istries first.

Irenilza DE ALENCAR NÄÄSWe agreed yesterday that mechanisation is a keypoint for improving traceability, and Sarig youpointed out it quite clearly. What I would like toleave here is the message that we agree that weneed to have safe food, I’m sorry Jaime, but weneed to produce, it is a matter of “let the peopleget these by hunger or by eating bad food”, it isbetter that we provide food and safe food for theundeveloped world and why not? If the mecha-nisation is the key-point. So the message thatthe Club should really think about this is: howcan we do that using mechanisation and that isthe key-point: how we can use mechanisation tohelp the undeveloped world to produce food andsafe food.

Philippe MARCHALNow it’s time to close the discussion about thetopic 2.1. The next topic is “ Traceability: therole of mechanisation for the control of process-es and the quality of production”; we have twoco-authors, only one paper that will be present-ed by both Dr. Antonio Pagani and Dr. RobertoGuidotti.

137

Topic 2.3 – Traceability: the role ofmechanisation for the control ofprocesses and the quality of produc-tions

by R.Guidotti and A. Pagani (Italy)

1. The interlinkages between mechanisation andthe ‘historical course’ of any agricultural pro-duce have never been so strong as from the in-tensive application of the electronics to the en-gineering of farm machinery.

Though the ‘mechanical’ nature of farm-power,which developed after the forties, greatly con-tributed to alleviating human fatigue and reduc-ing the time of cultivation practices, it was inthe sixties and seventies that the advent and util-isation of hydraulics curbed human labourwhile boosting work precision and timeliness.When in the eighties, the electronics was firstapplied to farm machinery, it was generally ac-knowledged that the primary scope was not somuch that of improving their performance or re-ducing production nor utilisation costs, butrather that of attracting the interest of a specificmarket braket, i.e. the younger part of the po-tential customers.

It has been only in the late nineties that, with theemerging of the concept of traceability, an en-tirely new horizon was somehow discovered onthe enormous potential of applying electronicsto agricultural machinery, as clearly pointed outby the previous speakers.

2. It is likely that the concept of traceabilitygrew out of the need, on the part of processors,to document the history of individual raw mate-rial lots in order to comply with the quality stan-dards of their industry—standards which are in-directly determined by the market and hence bythe demands of end consumers.

For many agricultural productions, in manycountries, this trail of accountability currentlyends at the storehouse: in fact, the majority ofagricultural goods, with the exception of somehigh-end productions, consists of undifferentiat-

ed products whose origins, cultivar and otherquality characteristics are unknown, with theexception of a few parameters geared towardproviding the industry with a homogeneousproduct supply, obtained through the statisticalmixture of dissimilar lots.

As we know, the products which the industryconsiders raw materials are in reality finishedgoods for the upstream segment (the agricul-ture) of the supply chain: however farmers takelittle note of this, other than for those few pa-rameters which can influence the price com-manded by their product lots.

3. Nowadays, confronted with the market’s de-mand for an accurately documented history ofany product lot, farms are paying the price ofpoor competitiveness, especially if they arefragmented or of insufficient size.

Very few farms implement a systematic fertili-sation plan, fewer still routinely perform soilanalysis, and only a tiny number deploy toolsfor monitoring the response of crops to factorsof production, according to the methods of pre-cision farming. This backwardness is attributa-ble both to the small size of farms existing invarious coutries, which limits the funds avail-able – in absolute terms – for investments intechnology, and to a generalised lack of confi-dence due to the negative agricultural markettrends.

When we speak of adapting an economic sys-tem to new conditions, we often forget that sucha transition is also accomplished through thewithdrawal of those ill-equipped to deal withthe change, and that only a few farmers are will-ing to accept economic sacrifices in order se-cure future survival in the market.

Many farms - perhaps the majority in manycountries - are currently subsisting from day today, without realising that they have alreadyoverstepped the mark and lost all prospects forfuture development.

4. Mechanisation is an essential ingredient ofproductivity, both for maintaining the profitabil-ity of workers and for assuring sufficient com-

139

petitiveness to farms, which have long beentrapped in a differential between earnings andcosts where the former element is dictated bythe processing industry and hence, ultimately,by the market.

The impacts of traceability for farm field oper-ations on the edible portions of crops have bynow been internalised, inasmuch as they affectmanipulations of the (existing or future) productwhich take place prior to industrial conversionand which can influence how the product isprocessed. For example, it is just as important toknow the quality and quantity of plant protec-tion products applied on a cereal during its veg-etative cycle (agronomic aspect) as it is to knowthe method of distribution (mechanical aspect),as well as the subsequent history of the productduring the harvest, transport, drying and storagephases.

5. Much less obvious, however, are the correla-tions with other mechanical operations, forwhich we need to consider the global quality ofthe agricultural system as a whole—a conceptthat is becoming increasingly important in theminds of consumers.

Setting aside, for the time being, the controver-sial question of organic agriculture, which looksset to remain a niche sector and will never beable to feed a population, like that of Mediter-ranean Europe, long accustomed to spendingless and less on food, and let us instead attemptto understand the direction that consumers ex-pectations might take.

Clearly, we need to develop a model of sustain-able agriculture (where the adjective signifiesmutual compatibility of the various objectivespursued) that is able to reconcile the productionof good, inexpensive and healthful foodstuffs,with the observance of ethical standards thathave become indispensable for public opinion,such as worker health, animal well-being, re-spect for the environment in general and thesafeguard of the rural landscape.

Within this framework, the traceability of thecomplete production process becomes the onlybasis for ascertaining whether a given agricul-

tural production complies with the precepts ofglobal quality.

And hence the theoretical cycle that wesketched out becomes aligned with the cropproduction cycle as a whole, in terms of spaceand time: it may be important to know not justwhen the main farm field operations were car-ried out and by whom, but also the mechanisa-tion chain that was used, for example to makean a posteriori assessment of safeguard of thesoil.

Another example that can help to illustrate thecomplex interactions between different cropproduction options is the choice between directseeding and traditional methods: in the firstcase, there are certain problems associated withprotecting the crop (total weeding during pre-seeding, greater care during the vegetative de-velopment due to the persistence of parasites hi-bernating on the topsoil), while in the secondcase there is a cleansing effect on the soil and areduction in the amounts of plant protectionproducts that are used.

It is clear that the ability to reconstruct the his-tory of the crop that has formed a product lotmakes it easy to guarantee its quality character-istics to end consumers, without forcing the in-dustry or distributors to assume responsibilityblindly, i.e. without definitive proofs.

From these examples we can conclude that agri-food chain traceability needs to include each ofthe individual agents that take part the produc-tion process – from farm field to the consumer’stable – creating an information gathering sys-tem that is as simple and intuitive as possible. Infact, although production methods in industryare highly standardised and therefore definableonce and for all, the primary agriculture sectoroften has to alter its plans and agronomic deci-sions in response to climate events. This makesit necessary to track the crop (and hence theproduct lot that will ensue...) by recording allthe criteria, choices and time periods in a “fieldlog”.

It is currently believed that, for instance in Italy,only a few farms are able at present to document

140

the manner in which a crop has been produced,especially for herbaceous and industrial cropswhich are not grown under contract or bound byspecific production standards.

6. The problem of the fragmentation of produc-tion units that go into product lots could con-ceivably be overcome by using – as centres ofaggregation – the organisations which handlethe collection of the product (commercial firms,cooperatives and consortiums) or a considerableportion of the mechanical operations (contrac-tors).

Contractors, in fact, often play an important rolein determining the choice of cultivar, fertilisa-tion and pest control plan, as well as advising onthe most suitable operations for a given circum-stance, on the strength of their physical pres-ence on the territory and resultant expert knowl-edge of the soils and their respective aptitudes.

Consequently, contractors could justifiably actas the collectors of information that can helpfarmers break out of the vicious circle of undif-ferentiated productions, adding value to theirproducts and confronting markets proactively

rather than passively, through deployment of theappropriate mechanical, electronic and informa-tion technologies. These must therefore be ur-gently defined with a view to their dissemina-tion.

7. As far as the consumers are concerned, wehave already mentioned how, by representingthe market demand, they greatly contribute tothe definition of products international stan-dards. However, it should not be ignored thefact that the demand is often driven by well ar-ticulated and conceived marketing campaignsthat, to a large extent, literally create new needsand forge specific preferences. Needs and pref-erences that too often coincide with the interestof the intermediaries and the distributors morethan with those of the end utilisers.

Within this perspective, the role of the contrac-tors becomes even more important, as theycould be the guarantors of cultivation patternsand practices primarily aimed at turning outsafe and genuine products, hence protecting thehealth and eventually the real interests of theend consumers.

141

DISCUSSION

143

Josse DE BAERDEMAEKERI think that in some of the things you said thereis a contradiction between production methodsthat we have and food safety that really exists.For example, there are also indications that insome of the biological or ecological produc-tions which is demanded by a number of con-sumers and pressure groups that may led tomore unsafe products and traceability does notreally guarantee the safety of the product, be-cause you could have registration, you couldhave auditing, but in the end the product may beunsafe. For instance the micro-toxins in grainshave been on increase in the last twenty years.Yet we do more controls, we have more regis-trations and so on, but we use less pesticide.This is one of the problems so if your require-ments are to have a label of biological produc-tion, you may undoubtedly have a product thatis free from pesticides, but has other dangersand so there is a difficulty and there is a con-tradiction there.

Axel MUNACKI have some different findings with respect tosome of the things presented. I think we have todivide into quality and product properties andtraceability, because traceability is one meansto find out how the product was treated, butwhether the product finally contains the limit ornot I think is not a problem of traceability. It isa problem of what product properties we want.So traceability could be a means of testing ormaking sure that special product propertieshave finally appeared in the product, but weshould separate traceability from distinct prod-uct properties, because traceability is a meansand not the final property. Another case was: itwas cited that there are some product parts,some processing parts that are easy to trace andothers that are not so easy. I have my doubtswhether we could divide them into easy and notso easy things; if you think about the BSE scan-dal and the nitrophene scandal; in both cases itwas end-processing, end processing of animalfeed stuff. And so it is processing and storage ofend product is part, which is easily traced, so I

have my doubts that you could from the begin-ning divide into parts that are easily traced andsome others.

Antonio PAGANII do not think there is anything easy, by defini-tion. As far as the quality and traceability, nodoubt: traceability is a instrument, a system, ameans to make sure that in the end you havesomething you have been asked for. So oncemore, the keyword “quality” comes up again.Even in Chicago there were several referencesto quality and I also expressed the view that Iam not satisfied with the use that is made of thisword “quality” among us without quality beingdefined, it was also said that “quality” is whatthe consumer wants, and what the consumerwants is not exactly what he has in mind, but issomething that has been put in his mind. In myview “quality”, and this is Phil Crosby’s defini-tion, is the compliance with some standards.Some standards are set and the product thatcomplies with those standards is a quality prod-uct, if it does not comply with those standards itis not a quality product, it is something betterthan average but not a quality product, it is sim-ply not in that line. Here we have a very weakpoint, because in many cases, especially forfood, standards are not very well defined, so wetend to rely on the taste and the intelligence ofthe consumer, who is very often manipulated bythe market. So traceability is a means, a tool,used to achieve the quality standards thatshould be set. But they should be set and in myopinion they are not yet, in many cases it is leftto people’s feelings, to “this is better, that isnot”…, or they follow the indications of the ad-vertising or of the marketing companies.

Josse DE BAERDEMAEKERI have one comment on your last statement. Ithink traceability and other things is not tomake sure to have a product that you asked for.I think it is just to make sure that the productwas produced with a number of steps that youasked for and it may not be the product that youreally want but at least it has passed through

that number of steps that you have been able toregister. It does not guarantee anything aboutthe quality of the product.

Antonio PAGANITraceability is a means of reaching a certainpoint and obtain what you want and in order toobtain that particular product with those partic-ular characteristics you have to follow a certainpattern. I do not have a very clear answer tothis question, but I do not see a situation whereyou follow a pattern that was established andeventually you have a product that is differentfrom what you expected. Unless your expecta-tions are based, as I have already said severaltimes, not on precise reasoning, but just on theoutcome of an impression, of a feeling, of asomething that has been induced. But if youhave a clear definition of what the final productshould be and a clear definition of the processthat leads you to that result, traceability is justan instrument where you check whether it pass-es or not.

Luigi BODRIAI have some comments because I am one of thesupporters of the voluntary application of trace-ability. I agree that the real basic force drivingproducers to improve their production to applytraceability will be an economic benefit. Thepoint is: will traceability be an economic bene-fit? Well, the answer is yes, if we think thattraceability comes from the market require-ments. So, if the market requires traceabilitythat means that traceability is economicallyavailable, and we have several examples: withthe ISO 9000 the quality certification is volun-tary, not compulsory. But there is a rush to haveISO 9000 certification for quality, because allthe big companies require it for certificationand even with traceability we now have the firstattempt for traceability like Auchan, the big dis-tribution chain is tracing vegetable products;the “Latte Milano”, for instance, is making atraceability system and that’s why? Becausethere is the very specifically system to point outthat there is a thing but they think that is prof-itable for market reasons, so they do it. The ad-vantage of voluntary traceability is that it will

not be applied generally, but will only be ap-plied by people who decide to do it. And if youwant to do it, most probably you will not do it sobadly. On the contrary we talk about safety;food safety is imposed by law. So that is a ne-cessity, that every countries, as it is has beenpointed out by several speakers, have, more orless, aegis for food safety and food control. Yetdespite this, we still have so many scandals, be-cause the regulations imposed by law are notrespected. So traceability must not be a rule, itmust just be a way to control that safety rulesstated before must be respected or, as Josse DeBaedemaeker said before, how the product ismade, so you can choose and decide if the safe-ty rules are respected or not.

Prof. Arturo LARA LOPEZMexicoOne is comment and the second one is a ques-tion. The comment is that in most developingcountries we have an exporting sector in agri-culture. These countries have the technical ca-pacity and the understanding and also the eco-nomic possibility to gradually introduce thetraceability idea. But I must say that, at least asfar as my country is concerned, that that will bea small percentage of farms capable of doingthat. I also support the idea of not enforcing itbut rather go on a voluntary basis, but also, lis-tening to what some speakers and of course An-tonio Pagani have said today, it seems to me thatit would be good for us to have some relation be-tween this concept and the ISO standards, likeISO 9000, that are already there, do you thinkthat something like that could be related?

Antonio PAGANIWell I will take a more general level. What I seeas a need, is an effort and here I refer to Gov-ernments and to the education of the end con-sumer. So ISO should not be only a topic forspecialists, it should become something morefor the end consumer. So to educate the end con-sumer, to express its views on the ground ofsome real information and data not only on im-pressions, and feelings and so on. So, that is oneof the recommendations I will do, if the Club ofBologna can express a view on that, to encour-

144

age Governments to start something - and I donot know what - in order to educate the con-sumer to express or formulate their requestsbetter. Because, coming back to what also LuigiBodria said, I mean that the open question iswhether the end consumer should ask for safefood, healthy food or traceability, he does notknow, he asks for something good for himself.He asks for traceability in order to be sure thatthe things have been done in a certain way, inorder to have something that is not defined verywell. So that is the feeling, so he is asking forsomething scientifically, shown and demon-strated, something that is like a map, you know?You have a map of your streets to reach a cer-tain place that is vague, which is represented byhealthy food. Does he know what healthy foodis? Look how many times in the last thirty yearshave we been pointing to some food, to some el-ements and saying “Oh that is ideal for yourhealth”, or the contrary ”that is really bad“. Iremember when I was a kid chocolate was bad,it was forbidden. The same applied to many oth-er things.

Yoav SARIGIn my opinion there is still some things that arenot clear and some misconceptions, and I wouldhate to leave without doing my best to clarify. Ithink that now you will probably begin to un-derstand why we try to separate the issue ofquality from food safety. I completely disagreewith Dr. Pagani. I think there are standards, butstandards are not a substitute for what the con-sumer wants. You will be surprised but the con-sumer knows exactly what he wants. Standardsare imposed to make sure that we get a uniformquality. But whether there is a standard forfirmness the last word is for the consumer tosay: “This is not a firm food I am not going tobuy it ”. In addition, there has been much evi-dence that the standards have been changedbased on the feeling of the consumer. But qual-ity is something the consumer knows. However,with food safety the consumers knows that hewant a safe food, he does not know what safefood entails: it is not in his capacity to know andto ask for. But he relies on regulations, regulat-ed systems to ensure that he gets a safe system.

Now regulation by itself (that is what Prof. Bo-dria said) again are not a substitute for trace-ability. Let us say you have a regulation for safefood and something happens, so what is next?The consumer says: “sues the company”, thecompany says: “we did everything ok, we aregoing to prove that. The only mechanism to dothat is traceability. I fully agree with Prof. AxelMunack: that traceability is a vehicle, a mecha-nism of information, the trace back all the oper-ations that were done on that certain product,on some major products, to ensure that at theend you can go back and say: ok, here we cansee what went wrong. Eventually this would be-comes profitable for the producer because thiswould eliminate the reason to sue him. So in thefirst place the producer will say: “I fully agree”and in that respect I agree with Dr. Pagani, theproducer says: “I could not care less. I sell it, Iget money for it, I am happy”. He is going besued for it, unless there is mechanism to ensure,like with the car companies, that if you sue thecompany and the company shows that they wentthrough all the procedures to ensure all the saferecords, they come out clean. So again: trace-ability is a mechanism, we, as engineers have toadvocate the need for all the necessary instru-ments, if they are not already available, to en-sure that we could trace all the various phasesof the product, from the phase of production tothe consume.

Karl Th. RENIUSI fully agree with what you said. Just beforeyour speech I prepared something. First, ISO9001 says: “quality is means satisfying the cus-tomer in a whole”. That is the definition. And inmy opinion we have two groups of customers orconsumers. The first one is saying: “we expectsafety as a must in any food, we expect it, it isnecessary. If safety is a problem, it is a problemfor the producer who has made this food andthis is the majority of consumers, in my opinion,and there is out of question of not supportingthat. There is a smaller group of consumers say-ing: We would like to know details about theprocess, about the food chain to have a betterfeeling and more confidence on safety and qual-ity . We are willing to pay an extra for that,

145

sometimes 100% more, sometimes 200% more.I think this is a smaller group but for bothgroups we need instruments for traceability.

Prof. Franco SANGIORGIItalyThe discussion would have been more profitableif we had considered some product that is al-ready traced, almost from one decade, like themilk. At least all the milk that is sold is alreadytraced. The topics about quality are already de-veloped in some existing products. In this case,in all the countries, there is a system able toanalyse, to make thousands and millions ofanalyses at a very low price etc., in order to de-termine the quality of the product, or rather thecharacteristics, I would say not the quality, andto give the details in order to achieve a systemof payment that is related to the product. Thatmeans we can discuss if this system is applica-ble to other products. This is the real challenge:what we need to apply to other products is thesame system that was already developed formilk. What we can say is that there are productsthat can be easily traced and easily checked aswhat happens for milk. But there are quite a lotof other products that absolutely impossible oralmost absolutely impossible, if we also have toconsider the economy, to trace. But this couldbe the basis of the discussion.

Yoav SARIGJust a follow up Franco Sangiorgi. I would liketo make some practical recommendations. Ithink these make it much more clear if we canpick a case study, or several case studies; notjust selecting the easy ones but some maybemore difficult ones and see what is alreadyavailable and trace this product from the verybeginning until the consumer and list all thephases and state what instrumentation is avail-able to measure all the parameters and what in-strumentation is still missing that we can notuse. For example, there has already been done alot of work on traceability on wine. There arecompanies that can show you exactly all thephases and they have all the instrumentation todo that. Somewhat similar to milk, but with someother products it is somewhat more difficult.

Why not ask the Management Committee of TheClub of Bologna to nominate a small workinggroup to do this and prepare several case stud-ies for the next meeting and this would probablywould clarify for all of us. What is really neededand what really mean by traceability.

Antonio PAGANII fully agree. Now the question now is: wherewould you start this process from? From theconsumer? Or from the producer? Therefore,you start from traceability in order to find outwhat is needed at the end, or would you start thisoperation with the markets survey to see whatthe consumer requires for that first? Because if Iunderstood what has been said before correctly,is that we have to comply with what the con-sumer wants: quality, standards, etc., etc.

Yoav SARIGI tried to separate the issue of quality from foodsafety. We do not start from the consumer, be-cause the consumer does not know what thepromise of safety means. So we are not going toask the consumer what he wants. We trace aproduct, let us pick just for the act of it, let uspick an apple. We trace all the phases, from thegrowing stage to the post harvesting stage, un-til the consumer gets it, and trace just docu-ments, not asking what we wants, because wedo not know. What we want is to record all theactual phases of the production level, for the ob-jective that if something goes wrong in thechain, if something here happens, then we cantrace it back and say: “ok, this is because theorchard was irrigated with contaminate wateror the orchard was over-sprayed with chemicalsor the product stayed in the storage for too longperiods and was exposed to environmental pol-lution “. This is the sort of information we needand this has to be regulated. The producer willnot do this voluntarily and the consumer wouldknow what to ask for. So forget for the time be-ing about the consumer. We care for the con-sumer but we should do this job for him. Hedoes know what to ask for.

Karl Th. RENIUSThis was my proposal yesterday, to set up case

146

studies. Perhaps this working group can startthis work. I think we all would be happy to havesome more material on such a food chain andthe discussion can be directed in other morecritical areas which are not recognised now.

John F. REIDYesterday I talked about traceability is beingbroken into four areas. Compliance and foodsafety, we talked a lot about, and those issues ofcost production and cost avoidance for produc-ers. Compliance in the sense: is the crop 100%organic? In terms of food safety: managing re-calls so that we have methodologies and a placewhere they can do that. The other aspect of thisare the performance improvements; so beingable that tighter specifications and tracking andbranded claims of the fourth one which, is lastto relate, to create the value. I guess I am inter-ested in some comments on how we, as peopleinterested in mechanisation, provide tools orcapabilities for the producers, so that they cantake advantage of this created value. Are themechanisation systems needed? Or is this just amethodology that we have to implement usinginformation technology that fits into an existingtraceability system?

Josse DE BAERDEMAEKERI think that John’s comment was very good, be-cause, in the case of the apples and in the caseof a number of crops, there is a lot of documen-tation or papers available of what has hap-pened during the production and storage, whatwas sprayed and so on. Getting it in a usableform that traceability can go through all theway to the end, that’s an Information Technolo-gy problem and also a problem of confidential-ity that goes with it. This is, I think, a good chal-lenge. The next question that we also have tostudy: how fast can we penetrate the marketwith this? How fast can this be introduced anew technology because this is going to be anew technology, will it take a year, will it taketen years?.

Dr. Yoshisuke KISHIDAJapanI wish to make a comment. We need to have

some survey about the new marketing and pro-duction marketing consuming system which canhelp the present ability of mechanisation fortraceability. That means through the discussionwe found we do not have enough technology atpresent to ensure the traceability of agricultur-al product. But already, without such a completetechnology. Already the producer and the con-sumer and marketing people started this newsystem, which can make easier to get the trace-ability of agricultural products, for example, di-rect marketing from farmer to the consumer.The consumer can believe the farmers and alsomarketing people may be sure on who makesthis product, when and how he makes it. Trace-ability problem is related to the productionmarketing and the consumer systems. YoavSarig recommended about the working group,about the things but also I would recommend toad some survey on the new production market-ing consuming systems that can help the lack ofability we have at present.

Dr. Oleg MARCHENKORussiaFirst of all it is my opinion that safety food con-trol, quality food control and also traceability ofthis chain production should be considered as anecessity. It depends on the level of production.We do not speak about levels of production, thefirst one is Local level of production, the secondis District, the third one is Regional then Feder-al level of production. I will use Russia as an ex-ample. Local production: 90% of potato, 40-50% of milk and meat, 63% of vegetables andwool, were produced by a small plots of land <0.1 hectares, most manually. So a very goodquality and they sell each other this product, be-cause of the great distance to deliver some food, for example, to another region; this is not soeasy. So on the local level it is very difficult toinstall some food, quality or safety control, butthey know each other, they sell each other andthey like this control, because if you know thatis not good milk you will not go and buy it fromthese neighbours, you will go to other neigh-bours to buy it. However, on the District levelwhere there is processing of milk, meat, somevegetables, grain, bakery for example, it is, of

147

course, necessary to have some inspections, asusual. They try to control what is necessary, buton the Federal or Regional level there are ofcourse many problems, because many differentcompanies processing food try to label them, tryto advertise them in different ways. Of coursethere is another way: imported food. All shouldhave Federal inspections, with the governmentofficials. It seems to me evident to consider thisproblem comparing and depending on the levelof production.

Philippe MARCHALWe have to try to be efficient and to not loosetime. This morning it was an efficient discussionwith a lot of active questions and we go on withthe discussion if you have questions duringsome minutes. After we go on with the Recom-mendations of the Club also on the documentpresented yesterday by Sarig. Now, everybodycan take the microphone for a question.

Josse DE BAERDEMAEKERI think we have to get something done in theWorking Group and my question to some of thepresenters is: what is the engineering develop-ment that still needed and what is the researchthat still needed to implement traceability, be-cause traceability will be forced on our produc-ers anyway. What is we have to be done from theengineering and research point? This is myquestion: do we have any ideas at this moment?

Giuseppe PELLIZZIMy impression is that we have now more knowl-edge of the problem and we can decide every-thing now and step by step we can arrive in thefuture, through the Working Group mentionedby Sarig, to define everything especially for theengineers.

Prof. Milan MARTINOVYugoslaviaI would like to give an idea and for Yoav Sarig,for the task of this group which is very difficult.We are now almost all faced with the problem ofthe number of students and we are really in po-sition now and our duty is to make more attrac-tive field of agricultural engineering and to

think about the next generation and to maintaina good place as we had in the past, in the lastcentury. I think that the idea of traceability isvery good and that is very clear one multi-dis-ciplinary problem but those, who is taking firstthe stage will be in a position to get more fromthis activity. I think the task of your task force isvery important for the future of AgEng profes-sions. Initiative should come from our profes-sion and in that case the other professions willbe at our service it is very important now andthis is my answer to your question that of coursehave to be discuss longer in more details. An-other question is to Hermann Auernhammer,could we call this “Group of activities connect-ed to traceability” something like good agricul-tural practice, good post-harvesting practice,good manufacturing practice, with many possi-bilities to change that according to the specialgroup of products and special country condi-tions and special consumer demands.

Luis SANTOS PEREIRAI have a little bit difficulties in understandingeverything that we discussed here. Not becauseof production in Europe but production outsideof Europe and particularly production withsmall farmers. During a long time, I did not ad-vocate the use of low quality water in irrigationbecause it is always contaminating everything:soil and final products and I exposed that aftera long time we do a network for certification ofthe product that come from areas where the wa-ter is not of a very good quality, but without suc-cess. Unfortunately I visited one of these areas,where this was practice and said: “ok people isadapted and use it and so on”, but some peopledied in that week I was there. So, we have no ef-fective means to know exactly how traceabilitycan be applied to these kind of small farmingsystems. The problems of else despite the factthat they create enormous problems that every-body knows, does not bring the people to adoptany kind of key for the use of the products likethe water. So how can we go up/down in theseareas to the consumer’s ideas. For instanceProf. Renius was saying that safety is a mustand some consumers may say that they needmore information to know about. However, in

148

many cases the people do not have the neces-sary minimum requirements of safety like JaimeOrtiz-Cañavate was saying, they just want food.So we have several steps in these approachesand that is why I am confused and I do not knowhow to move. I suppose that the fact that wehave developments in developed countries isgood, but we have to think about how this de-velopments can be useful for the areas wherethere are more problems. I am still confused, be-cause I have no idea, despite the fact that I amworking in these areas, I do see that our col-leagues don’t consider the importance of theseproblems.

Eng. Armando RONZONIItalyI’m for the first time at the Club of Bolognameeting and I would like to give a short sug-gestion. It has already been mentioned yester-day that it could be useful to refer to the ma-chine-manufacturing sector to ensure safetythrough conformity certifications for safety. In2000 the EU published the green book on IPP(Integrated Product Policy) with the aim to im-proving environmental performance on a widerange of products. The basic methodology forachieving the complete control of the entirechain from raw material to process, to utilisa-tion until final disposal as LCA (Life Cycle As-sessment). In addition, certification is evolvingtoward an environmental product declaration. Isay that, because it might suggest something.This possibility to transfer and adapt thismethodology to the food chain and to transferthese principles and procedures to preserve thesustainability and converge on human healthfor the food chain traceability. So a possiblesuggestion is that the Club of Bologna couldestablish links and cooperation agreement withthe European Commission and the newly bornIFSA Food safety Agency which recently hasestablished its board and Directors etc. And setup a specific committee or work group to elab-orate guidelines for traceability aiming to re-spond on safety environmental protection phi-losophy and at the same time taking advantageto a certain extent of methodologies alreadyavailable.

Yoav SARIGI think that Josse De Baerdemaeker touched amajor issue of the topic. I think that for the pasttwo days we have elaborated and I was hopingthat at least to most of us it became clear whatwe mean by traceability. Maybe some still ob-ject to what had been performed here but I thinkfor the majority it became much clearer. Nowwe have to be far more concise and to be con-cise we know what traceability is. What we needis to answer the question that Josse De Bearde-maeker posed. What is the need in engineering?Do we need engineering input? And do we needadditional research? In my opinion the answeris almost obvious, we need. The question is:how do we take the next step? Keeping in mindthat the Club of Bologna is not a research groupand that we do not have the capacity to do allthis work we can only initiate that and promotethe idea of traceability, according to DeBaerdemaeker traceability eventually is goingto be imposed on us. So there is no way out.What I would suggest is, and I have alreadysuggested it, is to start with the case study. Iagree with Antonio Pagani that it would be agood idea to take some case studies, one or two,from the less developed countries. The issue ofsmall farms is a major issue. We cannot provideall the answers to all the situations, but at lestwe should get started. How to do this you tocome up with all the needed information it’swhat is needed. Let me give you an example ofwhat we did in the past and Josse De Baerde-maeker and I participated in a workshop andtried to identify the technological gaps on post-harvest technologies. We gathered the group ofscientists – it was under the auspices of the US-Israel bi-national agricultural research fund,that took place in the US and we had about 30or more scientists from the US and Israel plusseveral from Europe and Japan, addressing theissues of post harvesting technologies and weeven came up with the makers showing for eachof the major crops: what is available now, whatare their technologies available, are they onlycommercially used, are they still in the researchphase and what is still needed to be researched?I think similarly, by analogy, we should be ableto come up with the same thing. However, it is

149

an enormous task because what are going to bethe products we are going to address; are wegoing to address everything? We cannot possi-bly do this within the framework of the Club ofBologna. My suggestion therefore is, to give ourhumble contribution to the case study and hope-fully to initiate additional work maybe throughthe EC by forming a concerted effort group thatwill take this and work for several years to reg-ister all that is available and list out what is stillmissing. That will be the contribution of theClub.

Bill A. STOUTMy point is that whatever we do and I thinkcase studies are great. Let us cast it in terms ofthe human being and the idea that whatever isdone in the name of traceability should be forthe benefit of humans. We too often talk aboutnuts and bolts and sensors and so forth but allof this should be for the benefit of humans andI would even say that we should recruit a soci-ologist or a humanist as part of this task forcehelp us to put our recommendations in terms ofthat the benefits must outweigh the costs interms of human welfare. I think that we as en-gineers fall far short on this point, and that ispart of the reason why we do not have enoughstudents in our programmes and that the publicand the politicians are cutting our programmesbecause we’ve failed to make the case: that weexist to help the humans live a better life. Theonly justification for traceability or any tech-nology is that it should make life better for hu-man beings.

Francis SEVILAYesterday the President was upset because nokey or action was going out of the discussionand we told you, Yoav Sarig and myself, that weshould do something about it. So we spent sometime to write a complete recommendation. So Iam going to propose to the club some kind ofrecommendation. I think that having in mindthat part of the mission of this club is to makerecommendations to the farm machinery indus-try. I have shaped out of our discussion to-daysome key recommendations to this machin-ery industry. I suggest to read them in case you

agree or disagree: to stay in the market, any in-dustry has to be connected to the world eco-nomic web; for farmers part of this connectionimplies to trace information on their produc-tion, the so-called traceability. This leads theClub of Bologna to the following recommenda-tions to the farm machinery industry; recommendation one: there is urgent need tocomplete the line of commercial machines withappropriate tools to trace information duringagricultural production; recommendation two: the farm machinery in-dustry has to be a full and equal partner in thenecessary negotiation with the other industriesof the food chain, such negotiation is needed todefine to what level tracing information is need-ed, the farm machinery industry in this negotia-tion has to defend the feasibility from the tech-nical and commercial standpoints; recommendation three: industry has to makesure that the tracing technology is adapt to thefarmers working condition not bringing anotherworking load and promoting the so-called invis-ible technology; recommendation four: industry has to makesure that cost of this technology is affordable byfarmers or by farmer organisations especiallywhen taking into account the developing coun-tries’ agricultural situation; recommendation five: the machinery industryhas to complete its expertise and know-how inthe design, production, selling and maintenanceof the needed information technology as sen-sors, software and hardware, data management,communication, etc.; recommendation six: research has to be pro-moted in order to match the numerous remain-ing technical challenges to meet the above ob-jectives.

Giuseppe PELLIZZIYour proposals are very interesting. I have theimpression that the first recommendation con-tradicts a little bit the last and because if yourecommend research it implies that there is noavailability of sensors and so on. So if you canmodify recommendation one a little bit, it couldbe useful. As second problem I should like toknow the opinion of the manufacturers.

150

John F. REIDI probably am not a very representative personof the manufacturers, because I spent most ofmy time in your ranks (your side of the table).But having said that, I think that these recom-mendations are finally addressing some of myconcern and interest that we focus on – that ma-chinery needs to support the traceability, notdisagreeing with Bill Stout on the importance ofthe human element. That is going to be definedas a pro-records certifying system and otherpeople are defining that they have a role andwill play in this process. Recommendation oneis very important because it sets the goal ofwhat is needed for each system and what do weneed to provide. In some cases we don’t have todo anything because it is already there. Butthose systems will improve. Given that goal foreach of the traceability systems, we can move tothe last statement of what the research needs orwhat is needed to be developed in term of sen-sors. I think that in some cases there is going tobe completely new mechanisation systems tosupport the transfer of information in single andindependent ways. So I really support these rec-ommendations. I really think it is in the direc-tion that the Club needs to head in order to fitinto the traceability that is going to take placearound us. Now, as far as the role of manufac-turers. I think that industry will see that in thepast we have made machines that the farmersand the producers have used in their operationswithout regard to the impact on the overall sys-tem and we have been pack and part of it but wehave been able to focus on the machine. This iswhere our profession comes in. Because now weneed not be concerned about the biology, theconnections to other systems. That is really therole that agricultural mechanisation and agri-cultural engineers play in the overall food pro-duction system.

Jaime ORTIZ-CAÑAVATE I did not work so hard as Francis Sevila, but Ijust make a sentence that I think was in whatyou said in the last two sentences. It is a recom-mendation that the Club of Bologna encouragesfarm machinery designers and manufacturers todevelop, together with research institutions,

sensors for detecting or registering the proper-ties of agricultural commodities in order to pro-mote or facilitate the traceability of this prod-uct. This is exactly what Francis Sevila said be-fore in the last recommendations.

Arne MØLLERDenmarkI suggest that the recommendations should in-clude a sentence about standards for stores anddata transmissions to make sure that everythingcan work together.

Philippe MARCHALI have a proposal for the recommendations formechanisation ask to the companies to alsodon’t forget the market for Africa and for all thecountries, the mechanisation for all the coun-tries and they have to take in consideration al-so the new equipment for this type of agricul-ture. Because the market is different, the need isdifferent, and the equipment is also different.

Giuseppe PELLIZZICan I ask the speakers to give their recommen-dations to the secretariat in order to prepare afinal draft?

Prof. Paolo BALSARIItalyI would like to add something to the documentproposed by Francis Sevila concerning educa-tion; I think we also need something abouttraining and education.

Richard J. GODWINWhat are the mechanisms that the Club ofBologna has? If we have gone through thisprocess, it might seem a bit like heresy, and Idon’t mean it to be. But how can we expect oth-ers to listen to these laudable ideas that wehave? What mechanism do we have to make tomake it stick? I am afraid I’m lost at that.

Antonio PAGANII think there is something missing in the recom-mendations perhaps, with reference to whatProf. Bill Stout said. His last comment. I meansomething should be there about human beings,

151

after all we don’t only have machines. Thankyou.

Philippe MARCHALTo include the human benefit it would be veryuseful in recommendations. Perhaps there is aninteraction between the link of the Club ofBologna and the Food Safety Agency of the Eu-ropean Commission. On a strategic point ofview, it will be useful to come on to that resultsof the Club of Bologna that will have a connec-tion with the Food Safety Agency of the Euro-pean Commission. I give this information, thisrecommendations to the Food Safety Agency todevelop a contact on a strategic point of view itwill be useful for a work.

Bassam SNOBAR I think that it is good to give a comment onwhat are the of mechanisms, the kind of trans-fers our recommendations to the industries andto the decision makers. What influence has theClub of Bologna on the industrial sector? I donot know.

Philippe MARCHALIf you are active and you really believe in therecommendations we have built today, we aresuccessful. The Club of Bologna writes the re-sults of the work of everybody here.

Giuseppe PELLIZZIYes I think that we have different proposals asconclusions and recommendations. One is of ageneral type. In fact we will write in the finaldocument and the other is for the WorkingGroup, chaired by Yoav Sarig. I nominate him,in this moment chairman of this Working Group.For instance, the problem of the case study is arecommendation for the working group, as isthe recommendation for the working group thecase study on cocoa.

Luis SANTOS PEREIRAI think that cocoa is a very bad example, be-cause most of the cocoa is rain-fed and if it isnot rain-fed it is an industry crop and then it isused very good quality water. So the majorproblem is the products that are consumed

raw, as vegetable land side. So we do not haveto go outside of Europe to see how traceabili-ty can be in vegetables that are irrigatedaround our towns. So Yoav Sarig may findproblems in his own country because they re-quire to have irrigation in order to have veg-etables. So Yoav Sarig is probably in a goodposition to select a good key. It is not neces-sary to go to these kind of very far, very longchains, where very probably we may not haveany problems at all.

Yoav SARIGI would like to go back to the question posedby J. Godwin. I have been concerned with thatfor a long time and I fully agree. I think, al-though I do not have a recipe to remedy thisanswer, I think what is missing, and this notregards only traceability but regards othersubjects as well. That we are missing a moreclose contact with industry and policy-mak-ers. If we have ever had more representatives,not only John Reid , this is no guarantee, butat least it would have been a start, becausethey will take this message home and eventu-ally this will be infiltrated to the managementand the policy - makers, and by the same to-ken, policymakers from the EC and from theUS, do not forget the US. The US is sometimesforgotten and they are the major producers,this is still missing and we should work on thatand I think this is the responsibility of theManagement Committee.

Josse DE BAERDEMAEKERI think that Yoav Sarig is right. There is anothergroup of industries that we must include: thereis the distribution industry, the supermarkets. Ican tell you the story of Europe Gap: wheresome supermarkets got together in Europe andsaid “we need some standards and we needsome traceability in the fruit and vegetable pro-duction” and as of next year Albert Heinz’s:“we will not sell any fruit and vegetables any-more if they are not under guaranteed produc-tion system that can not be traced back”. Sothey set the requirements and in the UK super-markets are very strong in this, I think we haveto talk to them. But the system will be imposed

152

on us, they have already their guidelines, I thinkit will depend on us to see how can we come in-to play to make life easier for farmers, to makelife easier for those that use it throughout thechain.

Jürgen ZASKEA very practical example. If you want to influ-ence the decision makers and the industry, thepoliticians and so on we need some informa-tion. I would suggest that we publish the re-vised Conclusions and Recommendations moreor less immediately after a meeting and not justbefore the next meeting. So then we have for-gotten everything. We get the documents in avery nice publication when, one year later, ourmind is directed to some other topic.

Giuseppe PELLIZZII am surprised to hear this. The Conclusionsand Recommendations are published in theCIGR newsletter one month later so you canfind them immediately.

Philippe MARCHALMaybe we can come back to the case study. Itseems that cocoa is not the right one. If there isanybody that has some proposal for the casestudy, let him let us know, if it is not today, evennext week.

Josse DE BAERDEMAEKERAs a proposal I think that the fruit and vegetableone is quite good. Because I know in this EuroGap there are many countries involved – SouthAfrica, Chile, African countries in general, aswell as the US and Australia. I know there aremany that are a number of things that are com-mon for many countries, North and South.

Hugo CETRANGOLOWe can write two-case study. One on a mediumsize company that produces corn for humanconsumption for the European and anothercountry markets. The second one on the meatfor the European market mainly from the bigdistribution. This is very easy for us to write thecases because we are working with them inthese activities.

Giuseppe PELLIZZIDue to the fact that you are a member of theWorking Group, could you please provide infor-mation on the case study that you suggested.The same applies to beef.

Franco SANGIORGII suggest to include in the case studies one thatI consider the most important, i.e. cerealstraceability. Cereals are produced all over theworld and cross-oceans and travelling all overand are subjected to many changes. So we havethe chance to be clear with the industry onwhat can be done at harvesting level, whichequipment is necessary and which type of elec-tronics, which type of sampling devices, ofanalysis, etc.. So we can provide a full packageof things to be utilised in order to trace thistype of products, both for human consumptionand for animal consumption. So I presume thatthis could be the first, one of the first, or ratherthe most important, example. But other exam-ples, I heard about the question of vegetablesand fruit, etc., are a big difference, becausethere are different ways of managing this typeof products, so the case study here becomes abit more complicated, because of the differenttypes of marketing.

Philippe MARCHALWe extrapolate that the leader of the WorkingGroup is Yoav Sarig and he perhaps helps us tocollect this information. As a member of theWorking Group I have to help you, without anyproblem. We’ll try to share the problem. Ourdiscuss is about strategy regulation or institu-tion. We discuss about case study, we have someabout human benefit effect, about education. Doyou have all the proposals to complete the rec-ommendations, please.

Josse DE BAERDEMAEKEROne consideration for industry also is that thereis a huge software problem involved and that weshould get together with software houses and tryto find some common grounds and how to imple-ment traceability and use the information tech-nology as well. It must be done between all thepartners in industries and agreeing with them.

153

Philippe MARCHALWhat is the proposal? For Working Group,and I’m taking Yoav Sarig’s part, if he has notany problems, it is to have a list of the work-ing groups, not in the Club of Bologna butoutside, that have realised works on the sub-ject, as a list and a result of this WorkingGroup. Perhaps in North America, in Europe,in Asia or in Africa all the ways come on thissubject try to collect bibliographies and thelist of the existing working groups today, sothat we do not re-invent what has already beensolved and perhaps I have to take in charge asgood the fact of collecting the bibliographieson this subject and the list of the existinggroups. Please, if you know in your countryworking groups on the subject, send this in-formation to Yoav Sarig such we obtain, not acomplete mirror, but a good information onthe existing working groups on the subjects ata world-wide level. Peter Crossley ask me twominutes to inform you about the European ini-tiatives.Prof. Peter CROSSLEYUKLast year I mention that we were setting a pan

European program, I’m pleased to say that theprocessional exists I pass information to selectthe people here. We have not at the momentpartners and we have studied only pro-grammes from Greece, from Germany andfrom Belgium and we are working to increasecollaboration with others European partnersin this venture.

Giuseppe PELLIZZIMr. Chairman we arrived at the end of our work-ing day and we can conclude this meeting. I askthe people who are interested, to give me theirrecommendations. I want to inform you that nextyear the EIMA will be between the 14th and 18th

of November. So, I suggest we have the meetingon the 16th and 17th November, Sunday and Mon-day. Do you agree? I want to express my deepthanks to all of you, and I think that we have hadtwo good and interesting days and we have im-proved our knowledge of the problem and takensome decision that could be interesting. Thankyou very much to all of you, and a special thankto the chairman of the sessions B. Snobar andPh. Marchal who leaded the discussion in a per-fect way.

154

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Giuseppe Pellizzi ITALY PresidentCarlo Ambrogi ITALY (UNACOMA) MC MemberTheodore Friedrich FAO MC (replacing Clarke)Philippe Marchal FRANCE MC Member Karl Th. Renius GERMANY MC MemberPietro Piccarolo ITALY MC MemberBassam A. Snobar JORDAN MC MemberArturo Lara Lopez MEXICO MC MemberJan Pawlak POLAND MC MemberOleg S. Marchenko RUSSIA MC MemberBill A. Stout USA MC MemberHugo Alfredo Cetrangolo ARGENTINA Full MemberChakib Jenane AUSTRIA (UNIDO) New FMRainer Ramharter AUSTRIA FMPierre F.J. Abeels BELGIUM FMJosse De Baerdemaeker BELGIUM FMIrenilza De Alencar Nääs BRAZIL FMNicolay P. Mihailov BULGARIA New FMAnthony Wylie CHILE FMPavel Kic CZECH REPUBLIC FMArne Møller DENMARK FMFrancis Sevila FRANCE FMHermann Auernhammer GERMANY FMAxel Munack GERMANY FMJurgen Zaske GERMANY FM + KNSFanis Gemtos GREECE New FMZoltan Lang HUNGARY New FMYoav Sarig ISRAEL FMPaolo Balsari ITALY FMLuigi Bodria ITALY FM + KNSAntoniotto Guidobono Cavalchini ITALY FMEnzo Manfredi ITALY FMAntonio Pagani ITALY FM + KNSArmando Ronzoni ITALY New FMMakoto Hoki JAPAN FMYoshisuke Kishida JAPAN FMTsuneo Suto JAPAN FMToshio Tsuda JAPAN FM (replacing Kobayashi)Yeodoo Yun KOREA FMEl Houssine Bartali MOROCCO (CIGR) FMLuis Santos Pereira POURTUGAL New FMLeonid Kormanovsky RUSSIA FMLadislav Nozdrovicky SLOVAK REPUBLIC FMJaime Ortiz Cañavate SPAIN FMSuraweth Krishansreni THAILAND FMYunus Pinar TURKEY FM

155

Malcom Carr-West UK FMPeter Crossley UK FMRichard John Godwin UK FMJohn F. Reid USA New FM + KNSMilan Martinov YUGOSLAVIA FMGennaro Giametta ITALY Associate MemberFranco Sangiorgi ITALY Associate MemberDaniel Berckmans BELGIUM InvitedPaolo De Castro ITALY Invited Cesare Giordani ITALY Invited Roberto Guidotti ITALY Invited + KNSMassimo Lazzari ITALY Invited Fabrizio Mazzetto ITALY Invited Paolo Sani ITALY Invited Shigeyuki Hara JAPAN InvitedValeria Vicinanza ITALY Technical SecretaryMarco Fiala ITALY Technical SecretaryRoberto Oberti ITALY Technical Secretary

156

TABLE OF CONTENTS

13th MEMBERS’ MEETING

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5Conclusioni e Raccomandazioni generali 13

13th MEMBERS’ MEETING (Part 1), CHICAGO (USA), JULY 27-28, 2002

OPENING SESSION

G. Pellizzi 23, 26W. Skaggs 24V. Tugnoli 24E. H. Bartali 25

SESSION 1Mechanisation and traceability of agricultural production: a challenge for the future

Leading person: Richard O. HeggR. O. Hegg 29

Topic 1.1: The quality of productions. Market needs. Institutional and prescriptive aspectsThe quality of productions. Market needs. Institutional and prescriptive aspects in EUP. De Castro 31The quality of productions. Market needs. Institutional and prescriptive aspects in USF.J. Pierce and R. Cavalieri 37

DiscussionR. O. Hegg 49, 59 Y. Sarig 49, 51, 55, 57E. Berge 50J. De Baerdemaeker 50, 55K. Th. Renius 50, 54A. Jongebreur 51A. Ghaly 51, 55A. Munack 51A. Pagani 51P. De Castro 52, 56F. Pierce 53, 56, 57R. J. Godwin 53M. Hoki 54R. Cavalieri 54G. Pellizzi 55P. F. J. Abeels 55S. Krishnareni 55Y. Kishida 55A. Kamaruddin 56C. Lague 56M. McKay 56

157

L. J. Clarke 58J. K. Schueller 58P. Marchal 58H. Cetrangolo 59

Topic 1.2: The role of mechatronics in the traceability of crop and livestock productions

The role of mechatronics in crop product traceabilityH. Auernhammer 61The role of mechatronics in animal productionsI. De Alencar Nääs 76

DiscussionR. O. Hegg 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90J. Ortiz-Cañavate 85, 87H. Auernhammer 85F. Pierce 85, 89, 90E. Berge 85L. Bodria 85R. J. Godwin 86A. Jongebreur 86J. De Baerdemaeker 86, 89A. Pagani 86L. J. Clarke 87, 89H. Cetrangolo 87G. Pellizzi 87, 89, 90Y. Sarig 88G. Singh 88D. Goense 88K. Th. Renius 89

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 91

13th MEMBERS’ MEETING (Part 2) BOLOGNA (ITALY), NOVEMBER 16-17, 2002

OPENING SESSION

A. Tassinari 97G. Pellizzi 98B. Snobar 98

SESSION 2Mechanisation and traceability of agricultural production: a challenge for the future

Leading persons: Bassam Snobar and Philippe Marchal

Topic 2.1: Sensors and data collection systems on agricultural equipmentJ. F. Reid 101DiscussionB. A. Stout 107, 114J. F. Reid 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114

158

D. Berckmans 107, 113R. J. Godwin 108, 113, 114J. Ortiz-Cañavate 108E. H. Bartali 109F. Gemtos 109T. Friedrich 110A. Munack 110I. De Alencar Nääs 111F. Sevila 111, 115P. F. J. Abeels 112P. Marchal 112Y. Sarig 112, 116J. Zaske 114A. Pagani 115K. Th. Renius 115B. Snobar 115

Draft Guidelines on the TraceabilityTraceability Working Group 116

Topic 2.2: System integration and certification: the market demand for clarity and transparencyJ. Zaske 117L. Bodria 127

DiscussionB. Snobar 131L. Nozdrovicky 131T. Friedrich 131Z. Lang 131L. Bodria 131, 133, 134J. Zaske 132, 133, 134, 136, 137A. Munack 132Y. Sarig 133, 137H. Cetrangolo 133J. Ortiz Cañavate 134, 136G. Pellizzi 134, 135, 136K. Th. Renius 134I. De Alencar Nääs 135, 136, 137P. Marchal 135, 137H. Auernhammer 135D. Berckmans 136J. De Baerdemaeker 136L. Santos Pereira 136

Topic 2.3: Traceability: the role of mechanisation for the control of processes and the quality of productions

R.Guidotti and A. Pagani 139

159

DiscussionJ. De Baerdemaeker 143, 147, 148, 152, 153A. Munack 143A. Pagani 143, 144, 146, 151L. Bodria 144A. Lara Lopez 144Y. Sarig 145, 146, 149, 152K. Th. Renius 145, 146F. Sangiorgi 146, 153J. F. Reid 147, 151Y. Kishida 147O. Marchenko 147P. Marchal 148, 151, 152, 153, 154G. Pellizzi 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154O. Martinov 148L. Santos Pereira 148, 152A. Ronzoni 149B. A. Stout 150F. Sevila 150J. Ortiz-Cañavate 151A. Møller 151P. Balsari 151R. J. Godwin 151B. Snobar 152J. Zaske 153H. Cetrangolo 153P. Crossley 154

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 155

160

Finito di stampare nel mese di Giugno 2003 da

06059 TODI (Perugia)

proceedings of the 13th members’ meeting - club ......68 expertsfrom 35 countriesand representa-...

Documents