Material flows in livestock product utilisation
Yüklə 0,86 Mb.
|
|
Source: Optimum Egg Quality Handbook 3.5.3. EGG SHELLS The most common cause of down grading the egg is a cracked or broken shell and a number of studies have been carried out to monitor breakages in each production chain and examine if the different housing systems, battery cages, furnished cages, aviary and free range, produced shells of differing strength. One study by the University of Leuven and the Glasgow Veterinary School showed some interesting results. Both caged systems showed the highest percentage of breakages at the point of laying (approx 9%) and the aviary (barn) and free range systems showed much lower breakage rates (1.94 for aviary 9 and 1.99% for free range). The eggs produced under the aviary system had the strongest shells and the free-range eggs were shown to have the weakest shells. The process of grading and packing the eggs also resulted in high percentage of breakages (from 1.5 to 2.65%) and transportation resulted in similar breakage rates. Most shells are disposed of via landfill but increasing charges (between £25 to £55 per tonne) and landfill taxes (approx £15 per tonne) are prompting alternatives uses to be investigated. The shell is primarily calcium, magnesium carbonate and protein but they can create odour problems caused by the microbial action following removal of the contents. Waste eggs and shells from hatcheries are also controlled by the ABPR, because the shells contain animal tissue. This results in collection charges being levied by the rendering industry. The shells can be incinerated which creates calcium/magnesium oxide creating lime but this is an expensive option, as the process must be done separately from other wastes. As a result of these restrictions this process is rarely used. It has been reported that membrane from the shell produces two valuable products. The powdered shell could be used as a calcium supplement or in the paper industry. The membrane has potential high value uses in the medical industry and an American company called Ovogen has patented the process see – WO 98/41326. This high tech process is very specialised and unless the economics enable Ovogen to set up collection and processing facilities it is unlikely to be widely used. A French company called Actini (see annex 6.12) has developed an Egg Shell Drying machine to overcome the problems of odour associated with waste shells and to produce animal feed (in France) and fertiliser. 3.5.4. PACKAGING It is now permitted for egg packaging to be re-used providing it does not compromise food safety. See Cope of Practice by DEFRA - http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/poultry/pdfs/eggstorage.pdf. This has resulted in the amount of waste being considerably reduced. 4. THE POSSIBILITIES TO REDUCE WASTE 4.1. INTRODUCTION Previous sections outlined the scales of wastes produced within each industry and how they are currently disposed of. This section considers the current methods the individual industries have adopted in an effort to reduce waste, and alternative possible methods to reduce waste. 4.2. RED MEAT 4.2.1. INTRODUCTION The previous sections reviewed the potential scale of waste in the red meat sector and the disposal routes that are most commonly used at the moment by the majority of the industry. For a number of years the amount of material that was consigned to be disposed of as what could be considered ‘pure waste’ (i.e. product that had a zero or negative value to the sector from which it originated, such as SRM material) has increased for all the various reason previously set out. Even the products, which for one sector (e.g. abattoirs) was such a waste, but could be processed into a by-product (e.g. the various ‘green offal’s, processed by the rendering sector into fats and meals), have in many instances become a ‘pure waste’ even after processing (e.g. much of that derived from ruminants). While the demand for product that was previously harvested, albeit at low returns (e.g. many of the edible offal and co-products), has also declined (and prices have fallen). As a result many plants in recent years have opted for the easiest disposal route, whereby much was consigned to the rendering skip, or where possible incinerated on site. In other case particularly for the smaller companies further up the supply chain, the municipal authorities were relied on to undertake the waste removal service for much of the product (with the material going to landfill or in some instances incinerated). Similarly for the effluent waste, the municipal sewers have been the main disposal routes for many companies. However, as the ‘pure waste’ disposal costs have increased, for both economic, legislative and environmental reasons, the need to re-consider both ‘pure waste ‘ disposal policy and the possibilities from improving returns from even the low value waste is now of greater interest to many companies. At the same time many still consider that they should devote their main energies to improving returns from their main product i.e. meat and meat products, as this is where the greatest improvements to profitability can be made, and as a result are still less inclined to devote too much time or energy to the ‘waste’ issues, except where they have to. For some the easiest / most convenient disposal route for their ‘waste ‘ products will be considered the best. For those companies looking to ease the waste disposal problem there are two main options: 1. To reduce the costs of disposal, either by reducing the amount produced through improving techniques and efficiency (so there is less for waste disposal operatives to collect, or less that remains to be disposed of by other routes), and/or by reducing the cost of processing to achieve this. 2. To improve returns, by better exploiting that product which is currently considered as low value waste in both the domestic and export markets. 4.2.2. REDUCING THE COSTS OF DISPOSAL 4.2.2.1. Reducing the rendering load The discussions carried out with the industry as part of this project confirmed that (MLC, 2006), there was still a great deal of variation in the extent to which different companies are handling their waste materials. Some still choose the most convenient disposal route, and are not prepared to devote resources to the most basic ways to reduce the rendering load. Others, particularly many of the larger plants are devoting more resources to reduce the load of material sent for rendering, and thus offset the increasing disposal charges and in some cases enhance the income stream to the abattoir. This can be principally achieved through a combination of:
Separation of Fats - Many of the larger abattoirs are devoting more resource to separating the fats that could be used for edible rendering (with many selling them onto specialist companies) rather than consigning them to low-grade rendering. De-watering and Drying - De-watering or drying is in theory a useful means of reducing the weight of the product in the by-product skip. This has two advantages, it reduces the weight and hence the collection charges and it reduces the energy use of the rendering plant by reducing the water content. This can be achieved by using mechanical presses or centrifuges / choppers to remove the moisture and gut content. Suitable equipment is made by Mecanipol of Portugal and sold in the UK by ADL Ltd. Alternatively heat can be applied to dry the product but this can be expensive to run. However, the legislation does not permit the product to be macerated, dewatered / dried and then rendered where the process is not carried out on the same site. The system is permitted with pig waste and trials are underway with a German equipment supplier called Vogelsang (UK) Ltd. At the same time such a process that uses pressure will also result in a ‘higher strength’ effluent that will also have to be treated before being disposed of . Emptying and Cleaning of Stomachs - Stomachs can be emptied and washed and disposed of for pet food with lungs and trachea. The equipment on the market designed to do this costs in the region of £12,000. Its success depends in part on the willingness of the local water company to accept the higher output of waste effluent to sewer. Alternatively a water treatment plant can be installed at the abattoir to pre-treat the wash water prior to discharge to sewer. The Gut contains full and partially digested food and this can be spread on farmland in accordance with the Animal By Product Regulations. The Economics of Separation - The separation of fats for edible rendering and the investment in gut/stomach washing equipment provided, appears to be a cost effective way that more of the industry should utilise to combat the rising cost of by-product disposal. Such measures could be achieved with relatively little monetary and labour investment. This approach also leaves companies with a greater degree of flexibility to respond to changes in the rendering industry. Anecdotal reports from some in the industry indicate that the removal from the rendering load of clean fats and also pet food materials can be achieved without incurring net costs of these operations. However, the more widespread this practice becomes could in turn affect the end values of the by-products. The 2006 report concluded that that the better removal of fats (and also pet food materials) and the emptying and cleaning of stomachs should be the first step in reducing by product disposal cost, and this is still the case. 4.2.3. REDUCING THE VOLUME OF SPECIFIC PRODUCTS 4.2.3.1. Blood Filtration - Following the changes in legislation restricting the disposal routes for blood the collection and disposal of blood has become a greater problem for many small to medium abattoirs. Most large plants were already collecting and disposing of blood via the rendering industry. Blood can be incinerated on site but this is often not viable due to the high cost and planning problems. An alternative is to filter or ‘thicken’ the blood to about 10% of its original volume and then add this thickened porridge to the Category 1 waste bin for processing. Millenniumpore Ltd of Sunderland developed the membrane filtration system. This mechanical filtration system is supported by MLC and AIMS because it can be easily turned ‘on’ and ‘off’ unlike a biological treatment plant. This is a very important feature for smaller plants that may only operate two or three days per week. Unfortunately Millenniumpore Ltd ceased trading and although the main designer is still offering the technology it is very low key and trade have not shown any significant interest. Microwave and Plasma - A company called Advanced Microwave Technology is currently looking for funding to launch a new blood treatment system based on microwaves and plasma. The company claim to be able to completely destroy all harmful pathogens and prions and a trial plant has been constructed in Scotland. It is claimed that the combination of microwaves and plasma can transform the blood into a harmless product making it suitable for other uses and this can be done without any environmental impact. The trials have been successful and SEPA has granted an operating license. The technology was developed in Russia and full details can be found in a paper provided by the company contained in Appendix 6.12 at the back of this report. 4.2.3.2. Bone and trim waste Enzyme treatment - A company called Prozyme has developed a system for digesting clean, healthy bones to produce a protein for use in Soups and other processed products. It also produces a white bone meal and the company is currently exploring possible markets for this product. The system will work with any bones but Prozyme are planning to build a 1000 tonne per week plant in the UK for treating pig bones direct from the cutting plant. A sister company is planning to build a similar unit in Denmark for treating poultry bones. We are awaiting full details of how the system works but it has been briefly described as using enzymes to break the proteins down into peptides. The company is suggesting that any “edible” bones would be suitable, even those left by a careful skilled boner. It is suggesting that they would be able to offer a free collection service and they hope to be able to offer a small payment in the region of £5 per tonne. It is hoped that the system could be used for bovine and ovine bones if suitable relaxations are made to the TSE legislation. During discussions with Prozyme it was discovered that the system works equally well with any tissue provided it is macerated before treatments. The technical director confirmed that any part of the carcase could be treated but their research had highlighted the bones as a disposal problem. The MLC described how some traditionally eaten parts of the carcase were no longer popular and that this is particularly true of offal. The public has moved away from eating offal as tastes have changed and disposable income has increased and it would be good to find an acceptable way of changing the appearance and texture of the offal to make it more acceptable to today’s consumer. (See recommendations). 4.2.3.3. Reducing packing waste One key way in which many large abattoirs to supermarket supply chains reduce cardboard waste is to distribute product through the supply chain in returnable/washable plastic trays and dolavs. There are opportunities to encourage many smaller companies to adopt such practices, particularly with domestic product. 4.2.4. ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS A number of alternative disposal systems have been proposed and tested in the past but unfortunately in many cases the high capital cost of equipment has usually resulted in the projects being abandoned as too costly. Some systems were unable to process the complete range of by products produced and others failed to meet the processing requirements of the legislation. Where these systems resulted in a by-product there has often been resistance to its use because of the source of the raw material (i.e. if coming from Category 3 animal by products). For example the digestion and composting processes (discussed below) yielded high quality solid and liquid fertilisers but the experience of those that have tested this process is that they were unable to even give the product away when it was revealed it came from slaughterhouse waste. While everyone agrees that it would be good to have alternatives to the rendering process it has been difficult to find willing industry research partners due to the relationship between the meat industry and renderers (with their monopoly position). Many plants will complain bitterly about the high cost of collection but are unwilling to try any alternative systems until it can be demonstrated that it is reliable and cost effective, and will not affect their relationship with the rendering company that they will still rely upon to remove the remainder of their waste material. 4.2.4.1. Incineration Incineration provides a total solution, and the question is sometimes asked, when the returns for products derived from collected waste materials are so low – why bother with such collection, why not incinerate. There are a number of approved commercial units available, details of which are available from the FSA. They are largely very simple, as, unlike chemical and clinical incinerators, they do not need gas cleaning or grit attesters because the waste does not contain toxins or heavy metals. The by-product material is approximately 70% moisture and therefore has a low calorific value. This means that fuel has to be added to ensure an efficient incineration cycle making the operation expensive. Carcase and offal incineration does not produce any harmful pollutants but care must be taken to remove any plastics or chemicals i.e. disinfectant. The local authority deals with plants with a throughput under 1,000 kg/hr. Above this throughput the Environment Agency will be involved. In all cases, a number of conditions must be agreed: hours of operation, operating plan showing waste disposal, cleaning, emergency procedures, plant monitoring etc. As with any new large piece of plant, planning and building regulations must be complied with. Obtaining planning permission has always been the biggest problem for those intending to install an incinerator and this has resulted in many schemes being abandoned often resulting in the continuation of costly by product collections. Most planning authorities, and many potential neighbours, are against new incinerator developments because they only know of the bad publicity that surrounded old badly maintained and badly run units. These invariably created a nuisance because of smoke and smells but technology has moved forward and modern well designed and well operated incinerators are much more acceptable neighbours. The smaller 50kg/hr units have helped to create this poor image of incineration. These were often operated without afterburners creating considerable air pollution and thus increasing the publics concern about harmful pollution. The newer units are fitted with afterburners but it is reported that poor operator training and maintenance often results in pollution problems even with new units.
The Composting Association describe composting as: ‘the controlled biological decomposition and stabilisation of organic substrates, under controlled conditions that are predominately aerobic and that allow the development of thermophillic temperatures as a result of biologically produced heat. It results in a final product that has been sanitised and stabilised, is high in humic substances and can be beneficially applied to land’. The composting of animal by-products and their application to land is controlled by the Animal By-Product Regulations 2005 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption. Category 1 materials may not be treated in a composting plant under any circumstances. Category 2 and 3 materials may be composted but Category 2 materials must be pre-sterilised under specific temperature, time, pressure and size conditions. The traditional compost heap is limited to about 1.5m in height. Above this height the weight of the material tends to force air out of the heap and the process turns anaerobic. When this height has been reached it should be extended lengthways to make what is known as a ‘windrow’. The size of the windrow depends on the material and the machinery available for turning it. For example, to ensure sufficient aeration through a manure rich heap the maximum height should be limited to one metre. Lighter mixtures can be up to four metres high if the machinery is available to turn it. The width is dictated by the size of the turning machinery and the length as long as the site will allow. Smaller windrows are not advisable as they lose heat very quickly. As windrows reduces in size they are often combined to help retain heat and free space on the site. The site must be on hard standing so that any leachate can be collected and treated. The windrow must be turned sufficiently frequently to ensure the maximum sanitation and degradation of the heap and to keep the process fully aerobic. The volume of the windrow is normally reduced by approximately one third during the composting process as a result of water loses. The slaughterhouse waste can be macerated and mixed with straw or another bulking agent, e.g. waste paper. This bulking agent stabilises the heap and creates a matrix to allow air to be blown through it. Heat is generated by the decomposition of the organic mass and uncontrolled the temperature can reach 70oC. In this system the internal temperature is reduced by blowing cold air through the compost heap. Trials with this system have shown that an internal heap temperature of 50-55°C gives the most efficient composting cycle. Temperature sensors are located in the heap and these control air fans via suitable control switchgear. In this system the composting process reduces the weight of the heap by approximately 50% and full composting takes approximately four weeks. Where sealed composting vessels are used the exhaust air can be collected and filtered prior to discharge to atmosphere, thus reducing odours. Heat can also be recovered from the exhaust air to pre-heat the incoming process air if this is necessary during winter operating conditions.
Digestion is often thought of as a complicated form of composting that can be used to break down the waste into gaseous, solid and liquid wastes that are more easily disposed of than normal by-products. The industry flirted with anaerobic digestion in the 1980s when a company called Farm Gas sold digesters as the ‘complete solution’ to the abattoirs waste problem. The abattoir managers didn’t realise they were buying a ‘living machine’ and were often under the impression that the unit would be fully automatic and run itself. As a result of this misconception many digesters were handed over to the by-products staff to operate resulting in the digester ‘dieing’ and being used as a storage tank for liquid waste prior to collection. These Anaerobic digesters developed a colony of mesophillic bacteria that needed to be maintained in an oxygen free environment at a temperature of 35oC. At lower temperatures the bugs would become dormant and at higher temperatures they would die. At the optimum temperature the digestion process would produce methane and in theory this would be used in a boiler to heat water that would be used to maintain the digester temperature. In practice these digesters failed to produce enough gas to heat themselves and additional heat had to be added making them expensive to operate. The digesters were of a labyrinth design to ensure that undigested product could not short circuit the system and appear at the discharge point. The process time was in the order of 30 days and the unit was continually fed via an auger that discharged new waste below the internal waste level. This was done to ensure that oxygen could not enter the digestion chamber. As new waste was added, a corresponding amount of digested waste would be discharged at the other end of the chamber, again via an air lock. The digested waste would be about the consistency of porridge and the liquid would be separated using a belt press. The separated liquid was high in nitrogen and because of its nutritional value it was often compared to ‘Baby Bio’. The resulting solids were allowed to compost in the open air for three or four weeks before being spread along with the gut contents and blood from the slaughterhouse. In 1990 the MLC commissioned an internal report on the nutritional value of the products of digestion. The report was produced by the then MAFF at Wolverhampton and despite very favourable nutrient reports all attempts to sell or give away the products failed. Based on the MAFF report, the City of Birmingham Parks Department agreed to take ‘as much as you have got’ but they changed their mind when they found out it was from a slaughterhouse. During the few years these digesters were in operation the MLC was never able to find any commercial venture willing to take the products of digestion except the MAFF Gardening Club who would queue up to fill their car boots whenever the composted solids were available. Further work commissioned by MLC and carried out by Manchester University and later by the University of Southampton, showed that the digestion process was slowed down by trying to digest all the waste components together. A laboratory scale trial plant showed that having a separate digestion vessel for fats enabled digestion to be carried out in a more controlled and stable manner. The possibility of using digestion has returned following MLC sponsored work carried out by Sustainable Bio-Systems Ltd. (SBS). The company has developed an aerobic thermophillic digestion system that can operate at up to 98°C by adding air to the waste mixture via powerful pumps. The added oxygen helps develop a colony of thermophillic bacteria that are able to digest the waste in approximately 36 hours instead of 30 days using mesophillic bacteria. A large-scale installation is already operating and the MLC has helped the operator to obtain a DEFRA licence to process abattoir waste.. SBS are planning to construct more plants throughout the country. Commercial digestion to energy plants is beginning to appear around the country and a good example is Bio-Gen near Bedford. Bio-Gen has located the digester next to an existing intensive pig unit and all of the pig waste forms the basic feed stock to which they add other commercial wastes including waste food, milk and vegetables. Although it is technically possible for the unit to accept meat industry by-products the managers have decided not to, in case the inclusion of these items “puts off” the users of the digested solids and liquid. Although digestion has become very popular with the multiple retailers as it “pushes all the green buttons” its long term sustainability and true environmental impact is now being questioned. The main question of “why was the waste produced in the first place” has been forgotten as many environmentalists enthuse about the products of digestion and how useful they are. 4.2.4.4. Pyrolysis Pyrolysis is not a new process and plants have been operating in Europe for over 15 years. The process heats the waste in an oxygen free chamber so that the waste does not ‘burn’ in the conventional incineration sense. Pyrolysis is often also referred to as ‘gasification’ but there is a subtle difference. Pyrolysis is the thermal degradation of waste in the absence of air to produce char, pyrolysis oil and syngas, e.g. the conversion of wood to charcoal. Gasification is the breakdown of hydrocarbons into a syngas by carefully controlling the amount of oxygen present e.g. the conversion of coal into town gas. (Syngas is a generic term for a man made mixture of gases that can be used as a fuel). The intense heat breaks down the waste into base components – oil, ash and combustible gases. The syngases, oils and solid char from pyrolysis and gasification can be used as a fuel and can also be purified and used as a feedstock for petro-chemicals and other applications. The process operates without the need for ‘process air’, and therefore does not require a chimney and does not produce any airborne pollution. It is hoped that the lack of a chimney will ease the problems of planning control and reassure the public that the process is environmentally friendly. Plants do require a ‘flare stack’ to enable excess syngas to be burnt off but most of the time the syngas is used to fuel the process. To overcome this potential problem manufacturers are currently investigating gas storage options. A planned example of this technology is to be constructed by Banham Poultry to dispose of all its waste products from poultry production. The company has set up a new division called Banham Power to operate the equipment in partnership with a Danish company called DDH Contractors. The proposed plant will cost approximately £10 million to complete and the local council and the Environment Agency have already given their support to the plans. The plant is being designed to process approximately 1,200 tonnes of waste material per week and this will be delivered via a pipeline system from the Banham Poultry production facilities thus reducing the number of waste vehicles visiting the sites. The plant will be capable of generating 5.5 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 7,000 homes, and this will be distributed via the national grid. It is planned that the plant will also offer a disposal service for other meat processors in the area but details of gate fees or collection charges are not available. Planning permission was granted in 2005 but little progress has been made on the project as funding is still being arranged and Banham have been concentrating on other parts of their business. Yorkgreen Power Ltd is currently planning to build four plants throughout the country and their first is planned for South Wales. The plants will be relatively small and they see these working alongside the renderers rather than in competition. They see their initial customers as being the supermarkets and are planning to collect waste, outdated products and ‘returns’ direct from the stores. They would also like to process animal by-products and are keen to approach the meat industry when their first plant is operational. We have explained that they must be able to offer a full collection service for all of a plant’s waste as the meat industry prefers to deal with one waste contractor, the ‘one stop shop’ concept of waste management. When plants have previously found alternative routes for some items they have found that the collection charges for the remaining items have been increased by the rendering company, thus cancelling out any advantage. Following our initial discussions Yorkgreen have decided to concentrate on other wastes and leave the meat industry until the plants are more established. 4.2.4.5. Bio fuels The EU strategy on Biofuels is laid out in a communication reference ‘COM92006) 34 final’ and this details the current position within the EU and the areas thought worthy of further investigation. Transport and power generation is estimated to be responsible for a large percentage of all greenhouse gas emissions and it is thought that this figure is rising. To meet the emission levels agreed under the Kyoto Protocol it is therefore essential to reduce the emissions from transport and power generation. Biofuels are processed from biomass and can be used as a direct replacement for fossil fuels. Although most biofuels are currently more costly than fossil fuels their use is increasing around the world and their development is expected to offer new opportunities to diversify income and employment in rural areas. Although the feedstock has always been growing crops, sugar, etc., it is also possible to use Animal By-Products as the biomass. To enable a wider range of feedstocks to be considered the EU is suggesting the following (taken from EU Strategy document): The Commission will:
The EU document goes onto say that the organic waste from the paper industry, animal fats and by-products, recycles cooking oils and many other sources are underused as an energy resource. The proposed strategy suggests that Biomass could be:
And Biodiesel could be:
As stated above tallow’s lend themselves to the production of biofuels but they can be used as a fuel without converting to Bio-diesel. Energy recovery can be split into three broad options:
All of these options have the capability of attracting “renewable energy” premiums (directly in the first two examples, the bio-diesel would gain a discount in road fuel tax). The market place in the UK is relatively stable and fuel costs are known and can be used in forecasting options for use. Should animal fats be allowed in animal feed again it is likely that this would give a much better return than conversion into fuel. The world market for fats and oils has a major influence on how tallow is used within the UK. For example, during the latter part of 2007 and early 2008 Bio-diesel development throughout the world was brought to a halt by the rapid increase in the world price of vegetable oil making its use within the Bio-diesel industry uneconomic. 4.2.5. IMPROVING RETURNS FROM LOW VALUE WASTE PRODUCTS 4.2.5.1. Develop the market for edible offal and co-products Home Market Since the 2006 report, EBLEX have held a number of workshops with the industry in 2007 to raise the profile of the edible offal market and the opportunities in the cattle and sheep sectors. The information presented at these workshops is available on DVD from EBLEX. Two main pieces of analysis for these workshops reviewed the information that was available on the market for edible offals at the final consumer level: This indicated that the market although small, is showing signs of growth. In many parts of the country the final consumer market for edible offal is still mainly serviced by the independent butcher. The small number of butchers, multiples and meat processor users of home produced offal were all fairly consistent with their comments on their suppliers, in that compared to what could be obtained from importers the:
of the home produced product left much to be desired (EBLEX, 2007a). The second analysis was on the potential EU market, where (using figures that built on those in the 2006 report) it was maintained the opportunities were very good, if the British industry could address the same issues outlined above (EBLEX, 2007b). See further comments on Export below. EBLEX believe that encouraging the re-development of the consumer market for edible offal provides important additional help to an industry that survives on low profit margins. To this end they also published a new consumer guide to ‘offal’ – ‘Its all about offal’, in which they describe how to prepare, recipes for and the nutritional value of the main edible offal’s more commonly (or is it less commonly) available:
They also describe the even less commonly available ones:
The market for edible pig offal is thought to be less of a problem by BPEX than that in the ruminant sector. Wholesale Prices The potential returns from edible offal for the abattoir – the wholesale price – vary considerably because of the nature of the market i.e. which often comes down to whether the abattoir has a customer for the product or not; unlike meat, most offal is not easily tradable on the ‘spot’ wholesale market unless well packed (frozen). As a result there are no regularly reported price series available, only the reports from various ‘wholesale markets’ for a limited range of (mainly imported) items e.g. lambs livers, kidneys and hearts (the import and possibly a great deal of the home consumer market for which is dominated by the frozen New Zealand product. The table below gives a range of the typical prices that were quoted by the companies contacted as part of this study. This is not intended to show even a representative sample of prices (as in some cases quotes were only obtained from one company, such as for cows feet), but is indicative of the level of returns in this sector of the market as of summer/autumn 2007.
Yüklə 0,86 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||