Safety for meat: system comparison IKB - QS

IKB has held up 'comparatively' well

GIQS (Border Crossing Integrated Quality Assurance) eV is a dynamic network of European organizations in the agricultural and food industry. In its projects, GIQS brings together companies, research institutes, public and private organizations for the further development of cross-company and cross-border quality management. Solutions for the requirements of the new EU food law according to "Food Safety from Stable to Table" are developed. In July of this year, GIQS examined the two quality assurance systems IKB (Netherlands) and QS (Germany). The result of this comparison is not necessarily surprising, but still interesting for everyone who values ​​quality and safety in the meat industry.

The meat industry plays an important role along the German-Dutch border, particularly in the Rhein-Waal and Gronau Euregios. Around 30.000 farmers produce around 16 million pigs here every year, and over 80 small and medium-sized farms and some multinational companies specialize in slaughtering and meat processing. The open EU borders make free trade in goods between the Netherlands and Germany easy - if it weren't for the different opinions on food safety and quality. In the two countries, the pig sector produces according to quite different specifications: The Dutch work with their tried and tested IKB chain system, while in Germany production is carried out according to the regulations of the relatively new QS. Pig farmers who strive for unrestricted freedom in trading their piglets and slaughter pigs must meet the requirements of both systems. The GIQS study assessed the differences between the two systems and explored the possibilities of using a common audit checklist.

IKB proves itself in terms of points and content

The basis for the GIQS study were the valid provisions for IKB and QS in 2003 and 2004. IKB and QS seem to largely agree. However, there are 25 major differences and, to put it sportily, the result is 17-8 for IKB. That looks like a points win, but the numbers alone don't tell you anything about value. To do this, it is necessary to take a closer look at the provisions where QS or IKB scored well.

The new QA requirements, which are not included in IKB, relate to:

• the obligation to be a member of a salmonella control program;
• the ban on antimicrobial growth promoters in feed; 
• the protection of feed and bedding against wild boar;
• the conclusion of a management consultancy contract;
• the provision of a property plan;
• the registration of all inseminations carried out;
• maintaining a record for recognizing disease symptoms and diagnosing diseases;
• the ban on breeding non-QS piglets in a QS farm.

The first two requirements are certainly significant differences between IKB and QS, but they are only of a temporary nature. In the Netherlands, a salmonella program is scheduled to be introduced before January 1, 2005. In addition, the use of antimicrobial growth promoters in feed has been reduced by 1998% in the Netherlands since 70, and from 1 January 2006 these substances will be completely banned.

The ban on feeding animal fats is still a difference between QS and the quality assurance programs of other countries. However, even in Germany, animal feed is not completely free of animal fats (and also proteins), since the use of leftovers that may contain animal fats is still permitted. For safety reasons, the use of leftovers was banned in the Netherlands as early as 1986.

The rare occurrence of wild boar in the Netherlands is the reason why no specific measures have been formulated in the IKB system in this regard. At IKB, however, it goes without saying that feed must be stored safely so that quality losses and contamination are avoided.

At IKB, management advice is primarily embedded in the support provided by the veterinarian. For this reason, the minimum frequency for veterinary visits was set at four weeks - while QS only plans one visit every three months. Finally, the last three differences relate to administrative requirements that are not regulated at IKB or are only regulated as recommendations.

Failed to report important points

IKB differs from QS in 16 important points. All these points cannot be dealt with comprehensively here, but the most important differences relate to the issues of hygiene and dimensioning of the pig houses, analysis of prohibited substances, veterinarian and pig transport.

Overall, QS is based on the EU regulations for hygiene and minimum dimensions of pig houses. IKB goes further here. The minimum dimensions for pig houses per weight category exceed the EU requirements by up to 50%. In addition, IKB contains a number of provisions to promote hygiene in the pigsty and to prevent the introduction of pathogenic microorganisms.

The EU regulation 96/23 EC stipulates that the member states must ensure that farm animals and products derived from them must be free of unauthorized substances. At IKB, the SAFE system ensures that this requirement is met. In Germany, suitable measures to comply with the EU regulation are currently being worked on.

Other IKB regulations for which QS has to report "nil" include compliance with HACCP regulations in the animal feed sector, the restriction of the use of antibiotics according to a positive list, the exclusive and intensive use of veterinarians with a special license for Pigs and the mandatory certification of pig transporters to ensure professional, species-appropriate and hygienic transport. In addition, IKB farms must be inspected at least once a year, which means that pig farmers are under pressure every year to face possible sanctions in the event of violations.  

In addition to explaining these 16 differences, the report points out that additional requirements could come into force at IKB in 2005 and 2013. These differences are not discussed in more detail here because - although not announced - tightening could possibly also be introduced in the QS scheme.

Farmers who want to be certified according to both IKB and QS must therefore also pass two auditing procedures. Due to the different requirements of the two systems, this not only involves additional costs for the certification, but also the ongoing annual costs increase accordingly. For example, while the QS farmer does not incur any expenses for cleaning the transport vehicles because the system does not stipulate cleaning, the IKB farmer is obliged to set up a special washing area for cattle transporters. The costs for setting up this washing area alone amount to around €5.000; Added to this are the regular expenses for water, disinfectants and the disposal of waste water.

Low threshold for IKB farmers

As a conclusion, the GIQS study comes to the conclusion that the threshold for the IKB farmer to receive the QS certification is lower than in the opposite case for the QS farmer who also wants to work according to the IKB. It can be expected that these disparities will increase in the future when the Salmonella control program and the ban on antimicrobial growth promoters are introduced in the Netherlands. Formulas for calculating the expected costs under both systems and the full study can be found on the website www.giqs.org be accessed.

In the light of this GIQS comparison, it seems understandable that, according to a RIN survey carried out at the beginning of 2004, the majority of top European buyers think of the Netherlands when they hear the keyword 'quality assurance systems for pork', and that IKB is the best-known with 63 percent non-German quality assurance system in Germany.

Source: Düsseldorf [ ikb ]