Traceability in the Feed Chain — How to Implement It Step by Step

Why traceability is the foundation of feed safety

Traceability is not an add-on to a quality management system — it is its backbone. General EU food law requires feed operators to ensure the origin of a raw material or product, and its onward movement, can be established. This applies to practically every participant — producer, distributor, warehouse, transport company — regardless of size. See the feed law regulations page for the legal framework.

GMP+ FSA turns this into concrete, verifiable practices: assigning batch numbers, keeping receipt and dispatch registers, and linking production documentation to raw material batches. Traceability is what lets a company pinpoint a problem's scope when a non-conformity is found — instead of pulling weeks of production "just in case", it can limit action to the batches actually affected.

The "one step back, one step forward" principle

A practical foundation of traceability is the "one step back, one step forward" principle: every operator must identify who they received a raw material or product directly from (one step back) and who they passed it directly to (one step forward). You don't need its entire history from field to plate — knowing your immediate supplier and customer is enough. These individual links, applied consistently, build full traceability "from field to animal". If any link is missing — a delivery reached the warehouse unlinked to a transport document, or a dispatch was never assigned to a customer — the chain breaks, and reconstructing it afterwards can be very difficult.

Traceability at raw material receipt

The first link where gaps most often appear is raw material receipt. Every delivery should be unambiguously linked to the supplier, the supplier's batch number (or another identifier), and the transport document — waybill, invoice or delivery note. At unloading, someone must record the vehicle's registration number, the batch number and the delivery date, then match this to an internal receipt number.

A common mistake is receiving raw material "in bulk" — without recording which supplier batch a delivery came from, especially when the same supplier delivers several times in a short period. This later makes it impossible to quickly establish which deliveries could have been affected by a supplier-end problem. Good practice is a receipt register where every entry has its own unique number, linked to the transport document.

Assigning the production batch number

The production batch number is the central element of the whole system — it ties together the raw materials, the production process and the finished product's dispatch. Numbering rules should be simple and written into an internal procedure: typically a batch number includes the production date, a line or plant code and a sequential number for that day. The key is defining precisely when a new batch begins — a new mixing cycle, a recipe or shift change, or a set time or quantity limit.

Companies without a clear starting point often end up with "blurred" batches spanning an entire shift regardless of recipe changes. The larger the batch, the larger the volume covered by a recall — a genuine risk issue, not just an organisational one. Set numbering rules as part of the wider system described on the GMP+ requirements page.

Tracking batches through production

A finished product's batch number means little if it can't be linked to the specific raw material batches used. That's why production documentation — recipe card, mixing log, dosing record — should show, for every product batch, which raw materials, from which batches and in what quantities were used. A simple pattern works best: a batch card on which the operator records each ingredient's batch number as it is added to the mixer.

A finished product batch often comes from several batches of the same raw material — for example, when a silo is topped up with new deliveries before the previous stock is used up. Documentation should then show every raw material batch that could theoretically be in a given product batch, not just the most recent one.

Storage and dispatch — closing the chain

The final link is tying the dispatched batch to a specific customer. For every dispatch, the delivery note or transport document should include the batch number(s) shipped, the customer's details, the dispatch date and the quantity. Without this, a company may know exactly what it produced and from what, but won't be able to say who a batch was sent to — precisely the information needed at the moment of an actual recall.

In trade-and-storage companies without their own production, this stage is essentially the whole traceability system — the only thing that matters is precisely linking receipt to dispatch. See the GMP+ for trade and storage page for more.

Special challenges: batch consolidation and flushing batches

Two scenarios most often cause trouble here. The first is consolidating batches from different suppliers in a single silo — typical when storing grain, where new deliveries top up an already-stored stock of the same raw material. One-to-one traceability isn't physically possible then — work on the principle that a batch from such a silo may come from any combination of deliveries held since it was last emptied. A practical fix is a register of silo fillings and emptyings, plus the rule that a suspected problem is investigated across all deliveries from the relevant period, rather than narrowing scope unreliably.

The second is flushing batches, produced when switching products on the same line — for example, from a medicated feed to one without that additive. Material made right after the switch may carry trace residues of the previous product. Mark such batches clearly, direct them to uses where trace contamination poses no risk, and document the line's production sequence.

Mock recall — a test simulation of a batch withdrawal

The best way to check whether a traceability system actually works is a mock recall — an exercise-only simulation of withdrawing a batch from the market, with no real quality problem involved. This means picking a random finished batch and checking how quickly and accurately the company can establish, from its own documentation: which raw material batches it came from, which customers received it and in what quantities, and whether any of it remains in the warehouse.

Treat a mock recall as a regular exercise, not a one-off audit test — ideally at least once a year, alternating products and scenarios (sometimes one step back, sometimes one step forward). The result, including the time needed to reconstruct a batch's history, is worth documenting and using to fix weak links before a real crisis exposes them.

Spreadsheet or dedicated software

There is no single right answer to whether traceability requires dedicated software. For a small company with few batches, suppliers and customers, a well-designed spreadsheet — separate tabs for receipts, production and dispatches, linked by a shared batch number — can be sufficient, given regular backups and clear responsibility for keeping it current.

Signs that software is worth the investment: a growing number of daily batches, many suppliers and customers, or increasing difficulty finding the right data during mock recall tests. Software doesn't replace well-designed procedures — it automates the links between data and cuts the risk of manual re-typing errors. The scale of any IT investment should follow a risk and cost analysis, not a trend toward digitalisation — worth discussing alongside a review of certification costs.

The most common gaps found during audits

Audit experience keeps turning up the same weaknesses: no link between the transport document and the internal receipt number, an unclear definition of when a new batch starts (batches "stretched" across an entire day), no register of silo fillings and emptyings where different suppliers' batches are consolidated, and incomplete delivery notes missing the batch number — breaking the chain exactly where it's needed most.

A fifth common gap is external transport — when hauliers don't keep documentation linking the load to the route and vehicle, it's hard to show continuity during transport. More on the GMP+ for transport page.

Traceability and product labelling

Traceability and labelling must work closely together. The batch number on the label is the only link between what a customer or auditor is holding and the company's internal documentation. If it doesn't match the production documentation and delivery note exactly, all the effort put into traceability is wasted. See the feed labelling page for the marking rules.

Summary

Traceability in the feed chain is not a one-off project but a daily discipline — linking every delivery, production batch and dispatch to the right documents and numbers. The "one step back, one step forward" principle gives a simple framework, and regular mock recall tests show whether it actually works, not just on paper. A good first step is reconstructing one randomly chosen batch's history using only existing documentation — the places where you have to guess are an accurate map of the gaps to close first. Whichever tool a company uses, one thing matters: answering quickly and reliably where a batch came from and where it went.

Glossary

Traceability

The ability to establish a raw material's or product's origin and onward movement at every stage of the supply chain.

The "one step back, one step forward" principle

The obligation on every operator to identify their immediate supplier and immediate customer for a given batch.

Production batch number

A unique identifier for a batch of raw material or product, linking receipt, production and dispatch documentation.

Mock recall

An exercise-only simulation of withdrawing a product batch from the market, testing the traceability system without a real quality problem.

Flushing batch

Material produced right after a product change on a line, which may carry trace residues of the previous product.

Batch consolidation

Material from several deliveries or supplier batches ending up in a shared silo or tank, making one-to-one traceability difficult.