Material flows in livestock product utilisation
Table 3.2.3.5: Waste collection charges, 2005 – 2007
Yüklə 0,86 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Table 3.2.3.7: Cattle hide prices (p/Kg), 2005 - 2007
Table 3.2.3.5: Waste collection charges, 2005 – 2007
Source: Meat Trades Journal (MTJ) / MLC analysis 3.2.3.6. Gut contents The most common disposal route for gut contents (if removed) is spreading on the land. Some small and medium abattoirs will leave it intact within the stomach and dispose of it as waste for rendering. 3.2.3.7. Hide and skin – from cattle and sheep, salted and sold to hide and skin merchants/fellmongers Most abattoirs outsource the disposal of hides and skins to specialist companies. The hides and skins are salted at the abattoir and stored in a separate room to await collection by the specialist hide and skin merchants. The quality of the hide or skin can vary depending on how it is removed from the carcase. Many mechanical removal systems impose considerable strain on the product causing stretching and other damage that is often impossible to detect until part way through the tanning process. At one time ‘hand’ removed hides and skins could demand a premium but this has been removed due to easily obtainable imports and reduced markets. The hide and skin industry is reviewed in detail in Appendix 4 of the EBLEX report, (MLC, 2006). Hide and skin prices are notoriously volatile as a result of demand and supply conditions that are heavily influenced by global market forces. The available markets for hides and skins can be very specialist. One of the largest cattle slaughtering companies interviewed as part of this study, indicated that following the closure of UK leather manufacturers (such as Pittard), most of its hides are now iced/chilled and exported to Italy. The earlier report indicated that hide and skin prices were poor with sheepskins attracting an average price of £1.50 each in 2006. One of the largest sheep slaughterers interviewed as part of this study indicated that prices in 2007 varied between this and £2.00 The following table gives hide prices in pence per kilo. Table 3.2.3.7: Cattle hide prices (p/Kg), 2005 - 2007
Source: MTJ * Prices remained depressed due to the weakness of the dollar ** Market struggling because of the effects of FMD For collagen production the pulled hide is traditionally salted, handled and stored by the by-products staff and more care is needed in handling and storage if the hide is intended for collagen production 3.2.4 DISPOSAL ROUTES The information in the previous reports indicated that the disposal of ‘waste’ materials varies considerably between plants. There are some similarities (e.g. most plants will dispose of cattle hides to specialist hide and skin companies), but also many differences (e.g. in the extent of harvesting of edible products and co-products for sale or their consignment to the waste skip for rendering). Many plants are interested in improving their returns from the ‘waste’ material (as defined in this report), and hence the interest in such as the late autumn 2007 RMIF workshop on these issues. The potential of the export market as set out in the 2006 report for EBLEX and subsequent work by the MLC Export Development section, is also of increasing interest. However, the volatility of the markets for many of these products, means that many companies, particularly the small and medium sized ones prefer the certainty and convenience of the waste skip even at a high charge, rather than have the bother of marketing/selling what they see as low value material (compared with meat), the harvesting of which has cost implications (particularly additional labour) which may negate the additional revenue that may be generated. As remarked earlier some plants even contract out their gut room operations to specialists (such as Harder Bros), in effect outsourcing what they see as a problem area. The interviews conducted as part of this study confirmed that this picture of the ‘waste’ market and attitudes of the industry still persist. Because there is no survey information on how each company in the red meat sector is disposing of this waste i.e. what current disposal routes it is using, it is impossible to be certain about the amount that is being harvested for sale as product with even low returns and what is purely waste for disposal. Clearly if we are discuss ways in which so-called ‘waste’ could be reduced, some benchmark is needed. To provide this we have developed an approach that was used in the 2006 report for EBLEX (MLC, 2006), and present two scenarios: Scenario 1, Worst case – which refers to a situation where the whole of the industry was only doing what we believe is the minimal amount of harvesting/processing of ‘waste’ materials, which we have observed in some plants. This would be: Cattle - apart from the carcase, half of all kidneys and one third of livers were being harvested for edible, with the remainder being consigned to pet food. All other waste, except hides, was to be collected by renderers. Sheep - similar to cattle Pigs - in addition to the Carcase 1 (as defined in table 2.2.4c), plants would routinely harvest; flare fat, kidneys, feet, heads, caul fat and half the livers for edible, and the remaining half for pet food. All other waste was to be collected by renderers. Scenario 2. Best possible case – which refers to a situation where the whole of the industry was harvesting /processing ‘waste’ materials better, using existing techniques and standard technology, which we have observed in some plants. This would be: Cattle - as with Scenario 1 for kidneys, livers and hides, but with:
All other waste was to be collected by renderers. Sheep – as with Scenario 1 for kidneys, livers and fleece, but with:
All other waste was to be collected by renderers Pigs - as with Scenario 1 for flare fat, kidneys, feet, head, caul and livers, but with:
All other waste was to be collected by renderers. The detailed figures for these scenarios are set out in the Appendix. Note that for cattle in these tables for both scenarios, all the spinal cord is shown as under SRM. For cattle less than 24 months of age this is removed at a later stage and is not SRM, and this has been taken account of in the table below. 3.2.4.1. Estimated weight of material through the main disposal routes If we add to the waste from the above scenarios from the additional material from Primary Waste A and Primary Waste B (as defined in Section 2.2/5), the following estimates can be made: Cattle – Waste remaining after final de-boning and trimming - Meat, to retail, food service, tonnes – 315,134 (under 24 months) + 257,678(over 24 months) = 572,812
Note – figure check: the sum of b+c, less a, plus the sum of either Scenario 1 or 2, plus the remaining meat 572,812 = 1,566,887 ( the total number of cattle x the total liveweight – 2,612,000 x 599.88 Sheep – Waste remaining after final de-boning and trimming - Meat, to retail, food service, tonnes – 227,936 (clean sheep and lambs) + 35,830(over 24 months) = 263,766 3.2.4.1b:
Note – figure check: the sum of b+c, less a, plus the sum of either Scenario 1 or 2, plus the remaining meat 263,766 = 694,931 (the total number of sheep x the total liveweight – 16,491,000 x 42.14 Pigs – Waste remaining after final de-boning and trimming - Meat, to retail, food service, tonnes – 447,533
Note – figure check: the sum of b + c, less a, plus the sum of either Scenario 1 or 2, plus the remaining meat 447,533 = 886,407 (the total number of pigs x the total liveweight – 8,746,000 x 101.35 3.2.5. USE OF RENDERED MATERIAL After the normal rendering process and the tallow has been extracted, the remaining material is known as greaves and this was traditionally processed into meat & bone meal for animal feed. With the current restrictions on feeding animal protein to animals this is no longer possible and most meat & bone meal is now incinerated. It was indicated by the large companies interviewed as part of this study that greaves from high quality tallow rendering are sometimes worth more than tallow as pet food. The extracted tallow still has a number of industrial and chemical uses but it has to compete against the global market. As a result of competition from man-made alternatives and natural options, soya, palm oil etc., the favoured route has been to use the tallow as a fuel for the rendering process. It was indicated by the large companies interviewed as part of this study that were there was a market, high quality tallow could be worth £200 to £300 a tonne. The ability of the rendering companies to burn tallow to fuel the rendering process, is one factor that has helped to stabilise ‘waste’ collection charges in recent years. Even ABP and MacIntosh Donald often use the material derived from their rendering of category 3 materials in the plant boilers. Tallow has been used in this way for over ten years but there is now a problem, as following the EU Waste Incineration Directive (WID), DEFRA and the EA tallow is now classed as a ‘waste’ and can only be burnt in equipment complying with the WID. This issue is subject to extensive debate between the renderers and meat industry representatives, DEFRA and the EU, with the renderers arguing that tallow should not be regarded as a waste and falls outside of the WID and also the use of tallow rather than using fossil fuels is environmentally beneficial. The rendering industry has estimated that having to purchase fuel will result in an increase of £25 to £50 per tonne to the cost of collection depending on the type of waste, the volume and the location. This increase is partly due to the burning restrictions and partly due to the fall in the global value of tallow. There has been an industry wide decision to defy the legislation (pending further legal confirmation of the position) and continue to burn tallow but collection charges have already increased by approximately £8 per tonne as a result of the drop in the market value of tallow. This resulted in most plants paying between £60 and £97 per tonne depending the grade of waste, volume and location. Should DEFRA and the EA decide to take legal action against the renderers the collection charges could increase dramatically. This is now being discussed at Government and EU level and it is hoped the problem can be resolved before the industry is faced with another increase in collection charges. The industry is awaiting the review of the Waste framework Directive (which could take until 2009) and the review of the Animal By Products Directive, which they are hoping will reclassify animal by products as products, which have further use as energy (i.e. tallow as potential fuel rather than waste). SRM materials to be stained and disposed of to SRM rendering; The main rendering companies have what is in effect a legal monopoly on the disposal of this material. 3.2.5.1. Blood Blood disposal falls within disposal routes d) and e) (see 3.2.3) depending on the species. Blood from cattle and sheep has to be incinerated or sent for rendering or treatment before final disposal. There is a company called Regal in Northern Ireland that also makes pet food additives out of heat-treated cattle blood. Up until the time Regulation 1774/2002 came into force the majority of blood from cattle, sheep and pigs, with the exception of OTMS blood, was spread or injected into land, as raw blood is a very valuable source of organic nitrogen. The new regulation bans this practice and requires that all cattle blood must undergo a heat treatment cycle. In smaller plants blood was sometimes mixed with abattoir wash down water and put down the drain or spread on land (often mixed with wash down water to form the ‘trade effluent). Many large slaughterhouses already had blood storage facilities and approved disposal routes in place, but many smaller and rural plants had never had to collect blood and did not have the systems in place to store blood prior to collection and treatment. Today many of the smaller abattoirs for expediency will be using the SRM skip as a means of disposing of their blood. About 30,000 tonnes of pig blood is being taken to the Nortech (part of PDM) plant in Doncaster for drying and separation into materials than can be used in the feed for farmed fish and as a valuable binder in pet food. This leaves only a small amount of pig blood to be rendered or incinerated. The EBLEX report in 2006 indicated that collection charges for disposal of blood before the Animal By-Products Regulations came into effect were as low as £6 per tonne but have increased. It was indicated by companies interviewed as part of this study that they are now as high as £90 per tonne (less if collected in bulk), and a range of £0 to £10.00, for pig blood if collected for pet food. 3.2.6. MAIN SECONDARY WASTE PRODUCTS 3.2.6.1. Effluent The waste liquid from the plant is known as ‘trade effluent’ and is a mix of water, blood, faeces, urine, wash water from the gut room and wash down water from the cleaning operations. In the literal sense it is not a ‘by-product’ but the content, and hence disposal cost, is influenced by the amount and type of processing carried out on the traditional by products. For example, the process of ‘dewatering’ the by-products will increase the strength of the effluent and hence the disposal charges. In many cases this can be discharged direct to sewer and the water company will levy a treatment charge depending on volume, suspended solids and the chemical or biological oxygen demand. This treatment charge is calculated using the Mogden Formula (for full details, MLC, 2006). Where it is not possible to discharge the effluent to sewer, or where the effluent is ‘to strong’ the plant can pre-treat it to reduce its strength before discharge and before the Mogden Formula is applied thus reducing the water company charges. If the water company are unwilling to take any effluent the liquid can be collected and stored for later removal by tanker. Before the restrictions on spreading blood this liquid effluent together with the blood was often spread on land as a ‘soil improver’ but with out the blood fraction it is difficult to argue that the remaining effluent has any nutritional value and the Environment Agency see the spreading of effluent as a waste disposal process and not a soil improvement process. As a result of this effluent disposal can be a major problem and many smaller plants continue to spread. Our investigations confirmed that this whole area is causing increasing problems for the industry, where new plants are proposed (either abattoirs or cutting plants) , with the EA increasingly demanding more pre treatment facilities that add further cost to the industry. Established plants are increasingly reluctant to raise any issues in this area, even where there may be new opportunities (e.g. in macerating guts) as they fear that if there is perceived to be a change the type/volume of what they are disposing of under current arrangements, they will be subject to unwanted scrutiny that may lead to increased costs. 3.2.6.2. Packaging With the increase in the packing of meat and its distribution in sealed boxes (which contain many legal labels and marks as well as the company brand) to many customers, both abattoir/ processors, cutting plants/catering butchers, meat processors and retail butchers have in recent years had an increasing volume of clean and contaminated cardboard boxes to dispose of, as well as plastic. There are no figures available on the quantities involved. 3.2.6.3. Clean cardboard All of the plants we interviewed have had to arrange for the collection of clean cardboard for recycling (e.g. by such as ACM, Waste Management, BIFA); some companies charge for this service others will collect for free (it depends on the economics of the waste paper market). Many companies will have to compact their cardboard before collection (we were quoted a price for compacter hire for large volumes of £70 a week). One the large national wholesale companies we interviewed maintained that it cost them £35,000 a year to dispose of uncontaminated waste cardboard. 3.2.6.4. Contaminated cardboard Cardboard that has been contaminated will blood drip, oil or other substances, has to be disposed of usually using the LA dirty refuse service, or incinerated. 3.2.6.5. Plastic Plastic waste has become a growing problem for various sections of the industry. For example, those buying packed meat for breaking down or processing (e.g. wholesalers, catering butchers, processors), will have volumes of some clean but much contaminated (with blood drip) plastic packing (from vac pack and over wrap) to dispose of. If recycled, all has to be segregated by plastic type and cleanliness (it can be washed) and there are specialist firms (e.g. Peter Hull) that will take some of it. For meat processors and cutting plants there will be quantities of thermo formed plastic and losses of film from setting up reels and changing labels that also have to be dealt with. At the consumer level with the sale of over 75% of meat in supermarkets of which an estimated 70 to 80% of fresh meat is sold in a packed form (and a similar proportion of processed meat), a large amount of thermo formed plastic and card over wrap is left fro consumers to dispose of. 3.2.6.6. Lairage waste Most lairage waste from both large and small plants is collected for spreading onto the land, either on land owned by the abattoir or by arrangement with local farmers. Discussions with small/medium plants in some areas revealed that there is also a demand from local gardeners and allotment holders to take the material. In some instances the material is stored in manure/compost piles for some time before collection. 3.3. POULTRY 3.3.1 Background and Definitions The situation for Poultry waste and by- has mirrored the Red Meat Industry and although not connected with the BSE outbreak it has suffered from having similar controls imposed on the uses of its products. Therefore the sections on disposal system given in 3.2 above are equally applicable to Poultry products. 3.3.2 Main Products Produced and Disposal Routes The following table gives details of the main Poultry products, the usual destination and the disposal charge or value. Table 3.3.2: Summary of By-product utilisation and range of value-charges
The figures shown are ranges according to Category or type of by-product, and should be considered as “approximations” that can be used to give a feel for the economics of the industry rather than being totally accurate. Note: This table also includes data from the egg industry, including eggshells and hatchery waste. 3.4. DAIRY The by-products and wastes that occur as a result of milk processing have been outlined in section 2.4. This section considers the reasons for these by-products, and the current methods by which these are disposed of, resulting in some to be considered as a waste. 3.4.1. MILK WASTE The by-products that arise as a result of milk production are considered as wastes in this report because of the project definition of waste. All milk or milk products that are considered as a waste are not, normally, intended for human consumption but in some cases they may be used for this. These by-products may be low value, or generate a cost in their disposal (environmental and economic), causing them to be considered as a waste in this report. As table 2.4.2 outlined, there are three fundamental reasons for by-product/waste occurrence:
3.4.1.1. Milk waste as a result of legislation The Animal By-Products Regulation (ABPR) (EC) no. 1774/2002 and the Food Hygiene Rules (FHR) for Food of Animal Origin (EC) no. 853/2004 are the key regulations that cause for milk/milk products to no longer be suitable for human consumption, and places restrictions upon their uses and disposal. The ABPR takes into consideration all milk waste that may arise from the FHR, and therefore the FHR shall not be discussed. The ABPR - The ABPR classify milk and milk products not intended for human consumption under the Categories 1, 2 and 3. Depending upon what happens to the milk producing animal or the milk product, influences to which category it is classified under. Reasons for the occurrence of each of the categories of ABP are outlined separately. Yüklə 0,86 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||