Even though the traditional bar codes are the most used systems in marking the products, newer technologies, enabling more data to be included, are becoming more popular. The disadvantage in using barcodes is that they must be read in a certain position which requires human
intervention (thus time and effort) and there is a possibility for error and inefficiency. A label is also easily damaged59 as borne out by common experience at supermarket checkouts. In
comparison, RFID systems reduce labour costs as no manual scanning operations are required. An RFID reader can scan numerous tags at the same time; identification is simple and rapid, resulting in reduction of profit losses caused by e.g. employee and customer theft, vendor fraud or administrative error. In the food industry, RFID provides improved management of perishable food items (continuous monitoring of item routing reduces waste and improves customer service levels); Improved tracking and tracing of quality problems by using individual product codes; as well as improved management of product recalls. RFID Tag is also more durable and enables reading in e.g. dirty and cold conditions, which may in case of bar codes be almost impossible. Its larger memory enables individual recognition of products.
The main limitation of RFID is the costs of tags. For a low-price food product the cost may be too high. There has been a great lack of standardization for all technical systems (numerical, or bar codes or TAGs), but the situation has been substantially improved. In the end of 2004 an ISO- standard 18000-6C came in force for UHF tags used in RFID technology. The standard is known by name EPC-Gen2. This increased the use and sale of UHF tags quickly followed by reduction of price.
In the near future, RFID-based systems will be used, in addition to tracking the goods, also to monitor the quality of the products and the supply chain itself. RFID-based remote sensing will enable e.g. the online spoilage detection of vacuum-packed food products and the continuity of cold chain60. As an alternative to conventional barcodes and RFID, new electrically readable coding techniques have also been developed. These electrically readable codes are cheaper than RFID tags but still have some major benefits of RFID technology. Electrically readable code can be attached to a product using conventional printing techniques combined with special inks. Electrical code itself can be invisible and is not as sensitive to dirt and other visible disturbances as a conventional barcode is. It is also possible to embed some sensor properties into these codes as with RFID tags. Read range and flexibility of the system is not comparable with RFID, though.
Innovative technology utilizes microscopic, edible bar codes that can be applied directly onto foods to make them more secure, safer, and also less expensive by replacing “one step forward, one step back” traceability protocols with reach-through and real-time documentation of the origin and subsequent history of a product. E.g. polydactyl acid or celluloses can be used for producing food markers by extrusion. The size and concentration of these markers must be such that they have no detectable effect on the tare or the texture of the marked product. The information has to be encoded on the surface of a fairly rigid microscopic particle and the particle attached to food by either (1) electrostatic attraction, (2) use of wetting agents, proteins, or lipids as adhesives, or (3) mixing the particles into a material that is subsequently mixed into or applied to a food. Generally binary codes are scored and embedded onto and within a fibre. When placed on/ in food, the markers by definition become Food Additives and must be safe for consumer at
maximum level at which a consumer would be exposed. In some cases, it may be useful to use a marker that dissolves after a particular amount of time or after it has been heated to a particular temperature.61
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Author wishes to thank Helen Sargent, Postharvest & Emerging Technologies Manager for Horticulture Australia Limited for her guidance and advice on development of the Review and for access to HAL Reports.
The Author would also like to thank the following MARRS Syndicate Members for their input and contributions to the project both in terms of knowledge, experience, guidance and financially One Harvest,
Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture Research, University of Tasmania, MAR (Machinery, Automation Robotics) Pty Ltd,
Primary Industry South Australia, University of Wollongong,
University of Southern Queensland,
Queensland Primary Industries and Fisheries, DEEDI,
Future Farming Systems, Victorian Department of Primary Industries, Zespri International,
CSIRO ICT, Fibre King Pty Ltd
Grape Exchange Pty Ltd, SPC Ardmona,
Plant & Food Research New Zealand,
Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, and
CITED LITERATURE
1
Mechanisation, Automation, Robotics and Remote Sensing (MARRS). NHRN/PISC Feedback per Industry Analysis Plan. 2008 Helen Sargent (HAL), Bob Williams (DPI&F) and Jay Katupitiya (UNSW) NHRN/PISC. Unpublished report Horticulture Australia Ltd.
2
HAL White Paper, 2005. Internal document.
3
Horticulture for Tomorrow website. About Horticulture section.
4
Policy Position for Horticulture on Seasonal Labour. Horticulture Australia Council. Horticulture Policy Summit
Canberra October 2008.
5
Peter Mares, Latrobe University. “Seasonal migrant labour: a boon for Australian country towns”? 2nd Future of Australia’s Country Towns Conference, Bendigo. July 2005.
6
Kawamura, N., K. Namikawa, T. Fujiura and M. Ura, 1984. Study on agricultural robot (Part1). Journal of the JSAM 46(3): 353-358
7
V-TOL Aerospace Pty Limited and UAV Flight Services. Unit 18, Rocklea Junction Business Park, 1645 Ipswich Road ROCKLEA Q 4106 www.v-tol.com
8
Vegetable Harvesting Systems. Town Drove, Quadring Spalding, Lincolnshire UK PE11 4PU
www.vhsharvesting.co.uk [email protected].
9
http://www.npl.co.uk/electromagnetics/terahertz/intelligent-harvesting-robot#
10
Murakami, N., Ito, A., Will, J. D., Steffen, K., Inoue, K., Kita, K., Miyaura, S. (2008) Development of teleoperation system for agricultural vehicles. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 63: 81-88.
11
Slaughter, D. C., Giles, D. K., Downey, D. (2008) Autonomous robotic weed control systems. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 61: 63-78.
12
Estrada-Flores, S. “Opportunities and challenges faced with emerging technologies in the Australian vegetable industry.”Food Chain Intelligence. HAL Project VG08087, 2009.
13
Twomey, A., "Mechanical harvesting of selected vegetables -feasibility study", VG05073., Sydney, 2006.
14
Scarfe, A. J., Flemmer, R. C., Bakker, H. H., Flemmer, C. L. (2009) Development of an autonomous kiwifruit picking robot. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Autonomous Robots and Agents, Wellington, New Zealand.
15
Cembali, T., R.J. Folwell, T. Ball, and C.D. Clary," Economic comparison and non-selective mechanical harvesting of asparagus.” Int.J. Veg. Sci. Vol. 14, No. 1, 2008, pp. 4-22.
16
Dr Silvia Estrada-Flores, Food Chain Intelligence Pty Ltd. Personal communication 2009.
17
Carnegie Mellon “Developing Automated Systems to Enable Precision Farming of Apples, Oranges”. November 19, 2008. Byron Spice, Carnegie Mellon University, Robotics Institute 5000 Forbes Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15213 [email protected]. http://www.ri.cmu.edu/news_sub.html
18
http://www.fieldrobotics.org/casc/CASC/Welcome.html Prof. Sanjiv Singh, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Robotics Institute 5000 Forbes Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15213
19
Automation for Specialty Crops: A Comprehensive Strategy, Current Results, and Future Goals. The 4th IFAC International Workshop on Bio-Robotics, Information Technology and Intelligent Control for
Bioproduction Systems (2009 IFAC Bio-Robotics IV Workshop), September, 2009. Carnegie Mellon University, The Pennsylvania State University, Washington State University, Vision Robotics Corp, Oregon State University, and Purdue University http://www.ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/2009/9/BioroboticsSep2009.pdf
20