Material flows in livestock product utilisation


Table 2.3.2: Meat used by cutting/boning plants and secondary processors



Yüklə 0,86 Mb.
səhifə7/15
tarix07.04.2018
ölçüsü0,86 Mb.
#36454
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   15

Table 2.3.2: Meat used by cutting/boning plants and secondary processors





000 tonnes dressed carcase weight

All poultry




2006

1995-97 average


Home fed production

1,544

1,478

Imports

455

270

Exports

229

183

New supply

1,769

1,565

Source: Defra Agriculture in the UK 2006. Note: excludes offal



Unlike the red meat industry the poultry industry was very reluctant to reveal what they consider to be confidential data. As a result, only broad data collection was possible. Only specific information on carcase composition was available from 4 sources. Mostly business regarded materials as only “edible” or “inedible”. There were few exceptions, where full characterisation was made.
2.3.3. WEIGHT OF BODY COMPONENTS AND TISSUES
Table 2.3.3a: Average composition by % (by weight) in poultry species







Grouping

Broiler




Broiler

Turkey Stag






















Source data







A




B

























Live weight, Kg







2.12




2.1

14.3






















Yield (%)








































feathers







5.79




9.62

4.1






















blood







2.63




3.05

4.1






















feet







2.62




3.1

2.5

head







2.36




2.61

2.4






















neck







2.14




2.52

3.4

heart

Potential

0.52




0.71

0.52

liver

Edible

1.88




2.2

1.22

kidneys




0.22

































spleen







0.13































neckskin







1.41










leaf fat

Fats & Skin

1.65







1.5

gizzard fat




0.58































windpipe







0.17

11.31

7.29




lung







0.63







0.76






















crop







0.53







0.89

proventriculus

Gastro

0.49










gall

Intestinal

0.1










gizzard

Tract

1.15







2.02

intestine




3.13







3.67

caecae




1.12































Total "ABP" %







29.25




31.1

27.1






















% Prepared for Human Consumption







70.75




68.9

72.9

Using data from this table, and applying the proportions attributed to human consumption or to by-products, calculations were made to assess the overall amounts of each category. A reference with respect to human consumption (AVEC) and to by-products (UKRA), is also included in the next table. The reference data actually confirms the data made by calculation, therefore lending significant credibility to the data.


Table 2.3.3b: Proportions and weights as human consumption and as by-product (2005/6)

Species


Proportion as Human Consumption

Human Consumption thousands tonnes pa

Proportion as By-Product

By-Products thousands tonnes pa
















Broiler

0.71

1,343

0.29

548.7
















Turkey

0.75

159.4

0.25

53.12
















Duck

0.8

43.2

0.2

10.8
















Total




1545.6




612.62

Reference

Data


[source]




1589
[AVEC]




620
[ UKRA]

Source: UKRA

2.3.4. VALUES AND CHARGES


Effectively most respondents considered this to be commercially confidential information. However, a variety of different answers were received. These are summarised below.
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.
Table 2.3.4: Summary of By-product utilisation and range of value-charges


By-Product (Waste) and destination

Value/Charge

Collected [£/tonnes]









Gizzards Edible


Value 120-150

Carcase Edible


Value 25-55

Necks Edible


Value 25-45

Skin Edible


Value 0-15

Heads & Feet Pet food


Value 5-15

Viscera Pet food


Value 0-10

Blood ( Cat 3 ) Render

Bio-Comp


Charge 45-65

Feather (Cat 3 ) Render

Bio-Comp


Charge 58- 72

DoA ( Cat 2 ) Render

Incin


Charge 65-85

Hatchery (Cat 2) Render

Incin


Charge 65-85

Farm Dead (Cat 2) Render

Incin


Charge 110-155

Source: UKRA


The lack of a clear Category 3 protein market (for animal feeding) was given as the main reason why there is no “driver” for segregation between Category 2 and 3 materials, and why sometimes materials are “down graded” to Category 2 ( with subsequent higher charge), to achieve simple lower cost actions at the slaughterhouse.



Yüklə 0,86 Mb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   15




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©genderi.org 2024
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə