Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo

Traceability Recovery Percentage Range?


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

nevin2756

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 10 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 31 May 2022 - 10:10 PM

I was reading my company program (Mock trace exercise must be conducted within 4 hours to account for 99.5 – 105% of raw material and 100% of finished product).

Just wonder does anyone have idea where is the % range come from? Is there a reference somewhere? 



jfrey123

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 41 posts
  • 10 thanks
8
Neutral

  • Earth
    Earth

Posted 02 June 2022 - 06:49 PM

I've never seen literature referencing percentages of product in a traceability exercise, just requirements for the one step forward and one step back.  I can't imagine a justification for not having 100% in either case.



Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,536 posts
  • 1075 thanks
339
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 03 June 2022 - 04:22 AM

Hi nevin2756,

 

A reasonable target will be based on your process/product. For finished product I would certainly expect close to 100%.

Here is a bit from BRCGS Guidance:

It is unlikely that the mass balance exercise will be able to account for all materials to 100% accuracy. However, the company needs to justify any discrepancies and demonstrate understanding of the nature of the variance.

 

Kind regards,

Tony



Ryan M.

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,286 posts
  • 466 thanks
269
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham, AL
  • Interests:Reading, crosswords, passionate discussions, laughing at US politics.

Posted 03 June 2022 - 02:36 PM

It is based on your process and systems capability. Process being how efficient it is and your typical yields for ingredients, packaging and product.

Also the trace and accounting systems you have in place. Some of these can be very good and some are terrible.

I’ve always used 95% to 105% and haven’t ever come under any questioning about the range. I did have one auditor ask how we achieved exactly 100% one time. In this facility we manually weighed everything in and out. We used an ERP system that was very, very good and we routinely achieved 100%. I did have to explain to the auditor we even accounted for scrap which was a calculation based on input and output weights. The auditor recommended we audit the scrap number, but….I informed him this is audited with each batch based on input and output weights.

At any rate….sometimes it can be easy and sometimes it can be hard.



Sam D

    Grade - AIFSQN

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 31 posts
  • 3 thanks
10
Good

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:Travelling

Posted 03 June 2022 - 06:00 PM

I calculate recovery as following and it always lets me account for 100% of final product produced unless there is an error. I  never had issues with it.

 

 

Recovery: successful if 100% recovered in 4 hours

 

Amount produced (A)

 1500 units

 

 

 

Amount distributed (B)

1000 units

 

  

 

Amount in stock ©

500 units

 

  

 

% Recovery

(B+C) ÷ A x100

100%

 

 

 

On the other hand,  when I perform mass balance to calculate my yield, it's never a 100%. My yield calculation accounts for  quantity of raw ingredients used,  finished products made and loss/waste.

 

 

Hope this helps.



Miss Frankie

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 109 posts
  • 12 thanks
16
Good

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female

Posted 03 June 2022 - 06:55 PM

It is based on your process and systems capability. Process being how efficient it is and your typical yields for ingredients, packaging and product.

Also the trace and accounting systems you have in place. Some of these can be very good and some are terrible.

I’ve always used 95% to 105% and haven’t ever come under any questioning about the range. I did have one auditor ask how we achieved exactly 100% one time. In this facility we manually weighed everything in and out. We used an ERP system that was very, very good and we routinely achieved 100%. I did have to explain to the auditor we even accounted for scrap which was a calculation based on input and output weights. The auditor recommended we audit the scrap number, but….I informed him this is audited with each batch based on input and output weights.

At any rate….sometimes it can be easy and sometimes it can be hard.

 

This is similar to what we did at my former job.  We also accounted for loss, but even with weighing it, there was always a small amount that you didn't get.   We never had an auditor question it.



AJL

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 106 posts
  • 2 thanks
9
Neutral

  • Denmark
    Denmark

Posted 04 June 2022 - 06:27 PM

Hi,
Been wondering about what an auditor will accept for raw material recovery under BRC audit.
Out system isn't great, so I manually went through 6 months of production paperwork to trace a batch.
I ended up with 92% recovery, which I think is a mix of waste ( left over in the drums) and possibly mis recording batch codes.
Say for example 2 batches were used but only one batch code recorded if the operators weren't paying attention.
Through 6 months of paperwork And calculation, I could also have made an error!
Can people share their experiences and also perhaps justification for between 90-110% recovery?



Ryan M.

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 1,286 posts
  • 466 thanks
269
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham, AL
  • Interests:Reading, crosswords, passionate discussions, laughing at US politics.

Posted 05 June 2022 - 01:41 AM

This is likely a gap that needs to be corrected.  However, you don't really know unless you do another trace exercise and see if you get similar results.  I would document your findings and do another trace exercise to see if you get similar results.  If you do, then it is a gap that needs to be corrected.  
 

However....in some industries and cases you can have a wider variance.  It just depends on the product and the process.  If that's the case make sure the reasoning behind that wider variance is well documented because it is likely to catch the eyes of an auditor and/or regulator.

 

Remember...you do trace exercises to learn about any potential issues that you can resolve before you have to do it for real and it is then a REAL ISSUE.

 

 

Hi,
Been wondering about what an auditor will accept for raw material recovery under BRC audit.
Out system isn't great, so I manually went through 6 months of production paperwork to trace a batch.
I ended up with 92% recovery, which I think is a mix of waste ( left over in the drums) and possibly mis recording batch codes.
Say for example 2 batches were used but only one batch code recorded if the operators weren't paying attention.
Through 6 months of paperwork And calculation, I could also have made an error!
Can people share their experiences and also perhaps justification for between 90-110% recovery?



Tony-C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Fellow
  • 3,536 posts
  • 1075 thanks
339
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Koh Samui
  • Interests:My main interests are sports particularly football, pool, scuba diving, skiing and ten pin bowling.

Posted 06 June 2022 - 05:04 AM

Another point to add to those raised. Historical figures for usage and wastage levels can be used to demonstrate anticipated losses in the process from raw materials to finished product. For example it is known from historical batches that the system cannot be fully purged/ has losses and only 98% ends up in packed product.

Kind regards,

Tony



Kara S.

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 91 posts
  • 31 thanks
40
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Female

Posted 06 June 2022 - 01:43 PM

As a few people have already mentioned - there are a lot of factors that could account for the 95-105% range. Whether its your bulk systems, or just the accuracy of your traceability system. Some companies also want you to treat this as a more real life scenario in which you would encompass of buffer for your recall, including a couple batches before and after the affected ingredient/ material was used. 

 

One example of the +/- range is due to bulk/ comingling of ingredients. If you are asked to trace 50,000 pound lot of bulk dry ingredient you received in, but it was placed into a silo with 2 other 50,000 pound shipments, you will likely not have an exact 100% recovery rate. Even if you performed the mock trace for the whole silo - the weights will likely not add up to be the exact amount you received in. There could be leaks or scales being slightly off that you would just not match the weight. 

 

Also short shelf life products tend to have some issues. Like in bakery - we used the same color kwik lok (plastic tab) 2 days in a row. If orders changed, we would be running the same product 2 days in a row with the same color tag. The way our trace system was set up, we could not distinguish between which production date was pulled so we would have to account for both lots which increases the amount recalled. It was a CI opportunity, but if there was ever a recall event, everything would be pulled from the shelves so that's when the auditor's exercise would not match what we would do in the event of a recall event. We could still trace everything - but in reality everything from from the depots and their stores would be pulled off the shelves. Just a business decision to protect consumer incase investigations expand the scope. 


Kind regards, 

 

Kara Scherer 

Food & Beverage Industry Consultant

LinkedIn  |  Webpage

 

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users