material flows in livestock product...

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

1.1. INTRODUCTION

Defra commissioned MLC Consulting in 2007 to undertake a project whose objectives were to:

- Review the scale of ‘waste’ in the Meat, Milk and Egg industries, - Review the reasons for this ‘waste’, - Review the possibilities for reducing this ‘waste’. - Estimate the effect of any proposed changes to reduce ‘waste’. - Assess the additional research and investment required to exploit

any such proposed changes.

1.1.1. DEFINITION OF WASTE

‘Waste’ in the context of the project, was defined as:

Any product produced as a result of the activities of the Meat, Milk and Egg Industries - that had either:

a) No economic value, or in many cases a negative value, in that it had to be disposed of and this involves a cost of disposal; it may even result, in economics terms, in an additional externality cost, in that its disposal has an impact on the economy and society greater than the cost of disposal to the industry (e.g. the impact of its disposal may have an effect on the environment and in extreme cases be a cause of pollution).

b) Very low economic value (e.g. particularly were the economic return for the raw or processed product compared to the cost of processing/disposal was such that its status as a good with economic value or as a pure waste product was marginal).

The study was not concerned with ‘farm waste’ and the ‘waste’ from such as unsold (past sell by date) of food at supermarkets, except where the waste disposal processes that deal with such product are linked to that of the processing sector.

1.2. METHODOLOGY

1. The study has reviewed the information available (from published literature and other available information) on the waste creation and disposal activities of the Meat, Milk and Egg industries. It has taken account of the economic and environmental issues and impacts, the effect of legislation (at a sectoral and industry level) and assessed the current state of knowledge as regard to ways to reduce the economic and environmental impact of waste, and tried to

DEFRA Project FO 0203

identify the barriers that may exist in preventing the take up of new ideas and processes (including the attitudes of consumers in certain areas).

2. In order to verify the information obtained from the review of available information, improve understanding (e.g. regarding the impact of legislation), gauge reactions to new techniques and processes, assess what is feasible and the barriers that prevent the take up and exploitation of ideas, contact was then made with:

a) A representative group of companies within the key supply chain sectors in the meat, milk and egg industries

b) Key waste disposal operatives and processing companies

c) Experts within the key representative organisations (e.g. such as in the meat sector UKRA)

d) Key experts in academia and research institutes to aid understanding of the issues.

3. The information obtained was then used to:

a) Review the scale of the waste

Review the amount of waste produced by the Meat, Milk and Egg Industries, and how it is currently disposed of (e.g. as a product with no/negative economic value, and as product with a low economic value) and the cost of such disposal. Where relevant this was considered from the perspective of both major supply chain sectors and at end point disposal.

In order to have a common basis for the assessment of waste we have used the statistics from Defra Agriculture in the UK 2006 to provide the basic information on production and import/exports. Common to the three industries is the issue of packaging waste (e.g. plastic used in vac-packing and over-wrap as well as normal and treated cardboard/paper).

b) Review the reasons for this waste

Review the reason for the waste identified (e.g. is it a result of the process; is it product that is produced out of specification; is there no current use for the product), and investigate how and why reasons have changed over recent years, including the impact of legislation and where

MLC - Industry Consulting 2


applicable the attitudes of consumers (e.g. to the consumption of edible offal).

c) Review the possibilities for reducing this waste

Review the possibilities for reducing the economic and environmental impact of waste through either:- Decreasing the amount produced through improving techniques

and efficiency (e.g. to changes in processes and specifications to reduce the amounts of waste produced – based on current knowledge and technology).

- Increasing the exploitation of what is currently considered as waste at both the sectoral level and on the industry level, in both the domestic and export markets; consider the barriers to exploitation.

- Better economic and environmental means of end point disposal for the remaining waste.

d) Estimate the effect of any proposed changes to reduce waste

Estimate the effect that any changes proposed would have the on the economic and environmental footprint of each industry, taking into account the secondary economic and environmental impact of any such proposed change (e.g. ones that are only possible with greater energy use), including realistic targets for industry take-up.

e) Assess the additional research and investment required

Consider the areas for further research that will help to reduce the economic and environmental impact of waste (e.g. in technical improvements to produce less, to overcome barriers to exploitation and to improve the end point disposal). Provide views as to the capability of identified UK institutions to undertake any proposed research, estimates of resource requirements and targets for research outcomes.

1.3. VISITS/CONTACTS

1.3.1. RED MEAT AND POULTRY

In order to verify the knowledge obtained from the review of available information, contact was made with a representative group of companies within the key ‘sectoral supply chains’ of the red meat and poultry industries, plus key waste processors and experts within their representative organisations (e.g. such as UKRA).



The main sectoral supply chains were defined as:

1. Large abattoirs/processors supplying the large supermarkets and food service companies.

2. Larger abattoirs supplying mainly the export or ethnic market (particularly in the sheep sector)

3. Larger and medium sized abattoirs/processors supplying the residual domestic market (e.g. retail butchers, independent shops, caterers – frequently via secondary wholesalers and processors).

4. Small abattoirs/cutting plants, many with own retail outlets

Structured interviews were carried out with the contacts in these sectors, either on a ‘face to face’ basis during site visits, or by telephone as necessary.

1.3.1.1. Initial contacts

The initial round of contacts was with the following companies/organisations:

Red Meat and Poultry –sectors

Abattoir/wholesalers – 3 companies 1. T Lang (Ashburton, Devon). 2. R Agar (Ilkley, W Yorkshire. 3. Paul Flatman (poultry)

Cutting plants/portion control – 2 companies1. B. Etherington (Scorrier, Cornwall). 2. Randall Parker (HQ Towcester, Northamptonshire – Wholesale

business plus large mid Wales abattoir; Andover, Hampshire – cutting plant/processor))

Large integrated abattoir/cutting/packing plants – 2 cattle and sheep specialist companies, 1 specialist pig company, 6 poultry companies.1. ABP (HQ Birmingham). 2. Farmers Fresh (Kenilworth, Warwickshire) 3. Bowes (Watton, Norfolk)4. Grampian (poultry)5. Bernard Matthews (poultry)6. Moy Park (poultry)7. Two Sisters (poultry)8. Faccenda (poultry)9. Cherry Valley (poultry)



Large meat manufacturing – 3 companies1. Midshire Foods (Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire)2. Geo Adams3. Wessex Foods

Waste disposal and secondary processing: `Rendering - 2 companies1. Prosper De Mulder (PDM)2. John Pointon and Sons

Incinerator – 1 company1. J Lord (Grantham)

Bio plant – 2 companies1. Biogen (Bedford)2. Sustainable Bio-Systems (Kent)

Bio fuels1. Argent (Scotland)

Pet Food1. Pet Food Manufacturers Association

Others companies:

1. Nestle Purina Pet food2. Pacific Proteins

1.3.1.2. Additional contacts

It was clear following the round of ‘initial contacts’ with three of the larger companies interviewed (e.g. those supplying the major supermarkets and large food service sector companies), that although these large companies had certain common characteristics (e.g. a reliance on the renderers for much of their waste disposal), some new approaches were also being developed that were not identified in the literature review (e.g. such as new blood disposal techniques, use of tallow for bio-diesel).

The ability of these larger companies to invest in new processes, is a reflection of their ability to utilise the greater surplus of funds from the profits they can generate than is available to the smaller plants in the other chains. In addition new concerns about the environmental challenges they now face and the attitude of their customers are driving this activity, in addition to the need to reduce costs (e.g. the



large supermarkets in looking to improve their competitive advantage are keen to work with suppliers that demonstrate green credentials).

As a result it was agreed with Defra that the range of the contacts be extended to cover more of the large companies in the red meat sector, including:

Cranswick Country FoodsWoodhead (Neerock)Tulip (Dalehead)Grampian (St Merryn, McIntosh Donald, Malton BF,)ScotbeefRWM (Southern Counties)DunbiaDawn (Highland Meats)Dovecote ParkChitty Wholesale LtdKepakLinden Foods (NI) (Whitley Bay Meats)

(Note: those in brackets in the above group denote subsidiary abattoir/processors operating under different names)

1.1.1.3. Other contacts

Abattoir/processors:

Melton Meats (Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire)Romford Halal Meats (Upminister, Essex)WM PerryKen Ballard (Kent)Isle of Man Meat CompanyEnsors (Cinderford)

All of these companies were contacted by telephone with the objective of conducting an interview to establish if (like the three primary contacts), if they have developed or are developing new techniques and strategies in any area (e.g. to minimise waste sent to rendering, and if so what these are).

The response rates from the companies were mixed influenced unfortunately by the problems caused by the foot and mouth and blue tongue outbreaks that occurred during the consultation period (summer/autumn2007). Those with which we had good contact are highlighted in bold; the remaining were all willing to discuss the issues and promised information but little was received.



1.3.2. DAIRY

In order to verify the knowledge obtained from the review of available information (namely from Dairy UK, DEFRA, MDC and the Sustainable Consumption and Production task force), contact was made with a representative group of companies within the key supply chains of the dairy industry, plus key waste processors and experts within their representative organisations (e.g. such as Dairy UK).

Dairy UK were also contacted; they chaired the SCP task force and constructed the liquid milk roadmap, (see: http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/milk/supplychainforum/taskforce.htm )

The main supply chains were defined as:

1. Farm – milk broker - milk broker/primary processor/ milk broker/secondary processor – customer

2. Farm – milk broker - independent primary processor /independent secondary processor – customer

3. Farm –independent primary processor /independent secondary processor – customer

4. Farm – on-farm processing - customer

Structured interviews were carried out with the contacts in these supply chains, either on a ‘face to face’ basis during site visits.

1.3.2.1. Contacts

Contact was made with the following companies/organisations:

Milk producer:1. Goss Brothers (Bicester, Oxon)

Smaller dairy processors:1. Lodge Farm Dairy (on-farm liquid milk processor – N Crawley,

Bucks)2. Upper Norton Jersey Cream (specialist cream processor – Witney,

Oxon)

Large integrated dairy processors:1. Robert Wiseman and Sons Ltd2. Arla foods Ltd


http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/milk/supplychainforum/taskforce.htm


Companies accepting milk and milk products for disposal:1. PDM2. John Pointon and Sons3. Biogen

Meetings were also held with Dairy UK.

1.3.3. EGGS

In order to verify the knowledge obtained from the review of available information, contact was made with a representative group of companies within the key sectoral supply chains of the Egg industries, plus key waste processors and experts within their representative organisations.

Structured interviews were carried out with the contacts in these sectors, either on a ‘face to face’ basis during site visits, or by telephone as necessary. In most cases the industry was reluctant to provide details of the waste produced.

1.3.3.1. Contacts

Contacts was made with the following companies/organisations:

Large egg packing:1. Nobel Foods/Deans

Egg processing and manufacture:1. Nobel Foods/Deans2. Joyce & Hill3. James Hook

Waste Disposal:1. PDM2. Pointons



SECTION 2. WASTE ARISINGS

2.1. INTRODUCTION

The amount of waste produced overall and within selected supply chains in each of the sectors depends in the first instance on the primary source, which is:

a) The number of animals being produced (or product produced from) in the UK.

b) The amount of meat/other animal product imported into the UK for usage/processing.

The secondary source of waste will be derived from the substances used at the slaughter, processing and distribution stages to assist the process (e.g. water, packaging materials – some of which will form pure waste for disposal and some of which will be treated and recycled).

2.2. RED MEAT

2.2.1. RED MEAT PRODUCTION AND SUPPLIES - SLAUGHTERINGS

In order to estimate waste, the number of animals being utilised for red meat production in the UK for 2006 is taken from the Defra definition, as total home fed marketings. A comparative figure for marketings in 1995 - 1997 has been included to demonstrate how home-fed marketings has changed. The term ‘home fed’ is defined as including imports and exports of non-breeding animals.



Table 2.2.1: Total home-fed marketings of red meat, 20062006

(000 head)

Average dressed carcase weight kg

1995-97average(000)


Steers, heifers and young bulls

2,221 335 2,295 305

Calves 138 * 28 203 49Cows and bulls 391 316 335 280

OTM Prime cattle 1 221 Cull cows 49 770OCDS 150 0

Clean sheep and lambs 14,296 ** 19 17,018 18Ewes and rams 2,245 28 2,338 28

Clean pigs 8,538 75 14,460 68Sows and boars 208 153 368 140Source: Defra Agriculture in the UK 2006

Notes: * This figure includes calf slaughter for human consumption, which was only 51,000 in 2006 plus live exports; in addition MLC estimates suggest there were 115,000 unrecorded calf slaughter (mainly diary bull calves culled soon after birth), out of total calf disposals of 250,000.** Of which it was estimated by MLC that in 2006, 50,000 head were exported live.

2.2.1.1. Primary Source

The scale of waste from the primary source A (home fed), in the red meat sector can be estimated by using total slaughterings in 2006, as given in the table below, adjusted to take account of various factors. This gives totals of the following contributing to the primary source of ‘waste’:

Table 2.2.1.1: 2006 total slaughterings (‘000 head)Main usage 000 head

Cattle * Human food chain 2,612Disposal (condemned, OTM, etc) 200

Sheep** Human food chain 16,491

Pigs Human food chain 8,746Source: MLCNotes: * excluding calves

** Adjusted to take account of live exports



2.2.2. RED MEAT SUPPLY CHAINS

The analysis of supply chains in the red meat sector carried out in recent years by such as the Supply Chain Centre and the Red Meat Industry Forum, has shown that there are a wide variety of routes whereby the meat derived from farm animals (and imports) can reach the consumers plate, and each one of these share the total volume of ‘waste’ produced from the primary source. When explaining supply chains the term ‘agent’ is used to describe any party within the chain that interacts with others in the chain, both up and down the chain.

This report takes a simplified approach as used in a recent report on supply chains, to make basic sectoral estimates (Cox et al., 2007).

Using this approach the red meat sector can be thought of as consisting of six major chains:

1. Large abattoir/cutting plant/ meat processors – supplying supermarket/large food service and export

2. Large abattoirs (some with cutting plants)– supplying mainly export and domestic ethnic specialist markets (particularly for sheep meat)

3. Medium abattoirs (some with cutting plants) – supplying mainly domestic market

4. Small abattoirs – supplying domestic (many with own retail shops)

5. Other cutting plants/ meat wholesalers

6. Meat processors

In supply chains, 1, 2, 5 and 6 the primary source of waste consists of both that derived from animals from

a) ‘Home fed marketings’, and also;b) That derived from imported supplies of meat (although the

amount of waste from the latter is far smaller than that from the former).

The process of producing and slaughtering cattle, sheep and pigs, followed by de-boning, and the further cutting to provide beef, lamb and pork for use as fresh meat or processed products for human consumption, can be thought of as the main meat supply chain. This process also generates what can be thought of as a offal and by-product supply chain for ‘waste’ as defined in this report that consists of both edible and inedible ‘by products’ and other waste material.



The quantity of such ‘waste’ for cattle and sheep immediately after slaughter, equates to between 45 to 55% of the weight of the live animal and for pigs 20 to 30% (depending on the animal i.e. size/weight/conformation/fatness/breed).

However, the total amount of waste will increase as the carcases are broken down into cuts, diced and minced product by agents further up the primary supply chain (e.g. cutting plants, butchers and catering butchers). They will produce further quantities of bone, fat and meat trimmings that also have to be disposed of. In addition to that derived from home produced animals will be that from bone in carcases imported (and to be exact less that from bone in carcases exported).

All of this is in one sense a ‘waste’ product from the principal business of producing meat, but after further processing some has an economic value.

In addition a small amount of ‘waste’ from red meat cutting/processing activities will also be derived from the customers they supply i.e. the supermarkets, catering outlets, independent shops, and independent butchers (who in a small number of cases will be linked to an abattoir).

Table 2.2.2: Meat Used by Cutting/Boning Plants (both stand alone and co-located with abattoirs) and Secondary Processors000 tonnesDressed carcase weight Beef and veal Mutton and lamb Pig meat

2006 2000 2006 2000 2006 2000Home fed production 847 707 330 361 680 * 691Imports 291 188 129 123 378 ** 299Exports 51 - 87 99 101 ** 91New supply 1,086 930 372 390 856 ** 793Source: MLC UK Yearbook 2007 (does not include meat offal’s or trade in preserved or manufactured meat. Boneless meat has been converted to bone in weights)

Notes: * includes pigs to be used for pork and bacon ** excludes bacon (assumes that all waste from pork imported for cutting for bacon and from bacon will be incurred at the retail level)

Between 2000 and 2006 the proportion of imported meat processed in cutting plants has increased.

2.2.3. PROPORTION OF WASTE PRODUCED BY THE MAIN SUPPLY CHAINS

2.2.3.1. Primary waste A

The table below shows an estimate from information available to MLC of the proportionate number of domestic animals being slaughtered by the four main red meat supply chains involving abattoirs. These proportions can be used as proxy for the amount of primary waste A, being derived from domestic animals produced by these chains.



Table 2.2.3.1: The proportions of cattle, sheep and pigs slaughtered within each supply chain in 2006Supply chains Cattle

%Sheep %

Pigs %

1. Large abattoir/cutting plant/ meat processors – supplying supermarket/large food service and export

55.9 40.0 71.2

2. Large abattoir (some with cutting plants)– supplying mainly export and domestic ethnic specialists (particularly for sheep)

2.6 24.7 4.2

3. Medium abattoir (some with cutting plants) – supplying mainly domestic market

38.3 31.8 22.3

4. Small abattoirs – supplying domestic (many with own retail shops)

3.2 3.5 2.3

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0Source: MLC

The abattoir/cutting plant agents in the above supply chains would be responsible for all of the waste material resulting from the edible and inedible by products of animal slaughter, and some of the smaller quantities of bone, fat and meat trimmings that result when the carcases are broken down into cuts, diced and minced product.

Other agents in the two remaining chains

5. Other cutting plants/ meat wholesalers

6. Meat processors

will be responsible for some of the bone, fat and meat trimmings (that result when the carcases are broken), and agents further up the primary supply chain (e.g. retail butchers and catering butchers), will be responsible for the remainder.

2.2.3.2. Proportions of bone, fat and trim

As no precise information is available on the total amount of carcase meat processed by the main supply chains, it is not possible to be as specific as to the proportions of bone, fat and trim waste which these chains are responsible for.



2.2.3.3. Beef

Estimates by MLC made to support work for the FSA in 2005, were made of the size of the bone-in beef supply chain in Great Britain (which can be used as a UK proxy), these indicated that the proportion of carcases leaving the agents in the main chains (as defined above) as bone in or bone less were:

Table 2.2.3.3: The proportions of carcases leaving the key supply chains as bone-in and bone-less, 2005Beef * % Sold Into Supply

Chain As ‘Bone-In’% Sold Into Supply Chain As ‘Boneless’

1. Large abattoir/cutting plant/– supplying supermarket/large food service and export

1.0 99.0

2. and 3. Large abattoir (some with cutting plants)– supplying mainly export and ethnic, and Medium abattoir (some with cutting plants)

40.0 60.0

4. Small abattoirs 100.0 0

* Notes: In practice most of this ‘bone-in’ beef would not be moving into the supply chain as whole sides, almost all would be traded as hind quarters, fore quarters or other large bone-in primals, and within these categories the proportions moving into the ‘bone-in’ supply chain referred to previously would vary (e.g. more hind’s than fore’s, with a larger proportion of the latter going to specialist cutting plants for breaking down for the manufacturing market).

2.2.3.4. Sheep meat

MLC estimate that all sheep meat derived from supply chain 1, would be boned apart from that exported as carcases. For supply chain 2, 3 and 4 the majority of sheep meat would be sold as bone in carcases to be broken down by the other agents in the chain.

2.2.3.5. Pig meat

MLC estimate that all pigmeat derived from supply chain 1 would be boned to some extent – broken down into retail cuts or large primals for further processing e.g. middles for bacon. For supply chain 2, 3 and 4 the proportion of cut to bone in carcase sale would probably be similar to beef, with exports of larger pigs going as whole carcases



2.2.3.6. Primary waste B

In addition to the primary waste A, derived from home produced animals will be primary waste B, derived from bone in carcases imported (less that from bone in carcases exported)

Table 2.2.3.6. Estimated amounts of bone in and boneless meat derived from the imports (and exports) identified above - 2006 of meat used by cutting/boning plants (both stand alone and co-located with abattoirs) and secondary processors

Imports Exports000 tonnes dcw

*Bone in *Boneless Total *Bone in *Boneless Total

Beef and veal

47 244 291 0 Majority 51

Mutton and lamb

9 120** 129 74 13 87

Pig meat 30 348** 378 38 63 101

Source: * estimated from product weight percentages table 7.3 MLC UK Yearbook 2007

Notes: ** includes bone in cuts (assumed to be mainly retail cuts)Dcw = Dead Carcase Weight

2.2.4. WEIGHT OF BODY COMPONENTS AND TISSUES

These numbers (of animals contributing to primary waste A and meat contributing to primary waste B) can be multiplied by the average weights of body components and tissues to give an estimate of the total volumes of material (including that defined as low value or negative value product) derived from these animals.

The Red Meat tables in Appendix 1, give the average weight of the components and tissues for average cattle, sheep and pig body, (as set out in column 1 Appendix 1) in physiological detail. They are derived from updates of work originally carried out by MLC for MAFF in 1997 (Hart et al., 1997).

These weights are best understood as estimates across a population of cattle, sheep and pigs, taking a weighted mean of carcase weights for clean beef and mature cattle, clean lambs and ewes and clean pigs for the period circa 2003-2005 (MLC 2006A).

In order to produce estimates of the total volume of material derived from cattle, sheep and pigs, in the following tables the individual components are combined into ‘main groupings’



Table 2.2.4a: Cattle - Weight of products – estimated weight of main groupings of materials derived from the slaughter of cattle Main groupings Cattle

a) Kg per beast

Weight of material tonnesa) x 2,612,000Carcase * Offal & By

products +Totals

Carcase- ex KKCF 318.00 830,616 830,616

KKCF & caul fat 25.72 67,181Kidneys 1.12

2,925Gut contents 74.45 194,463Stomachs 15.65 40,852Intestines (including fill), intestinal fat, pancreas, spleen

46.46 121,353

Heart, lungs, trachea 8.83 23,064Liver, gall, gall bladder 8.39 21,915Head 15.65 40,879Hide 42.49 110,984Feet 11.18 29,202Tail 1.12 2,295Skirt 1.23 3,213Blood 20.13 52,580Other (including udder/reproductive organs/lymph nodes and other waste)

9.46 24,710

Sub total 736,271 736,271Total 599.88 1,566,887Source: Derived from Tables in Appendix 1 and animal numbers from Table 2.2.1.1

Notes: * Weight of material sold to mainly enter the human food chain, but waste material can be removed at source or at other stages in the supply chain (e.g. bone and fat in cutting plants); rounded to nearest tonne+ Rounded to nearest tonne



Table 2.2.4b: Sheep - Weight of products – estimated weight of main groupings of materials derived from the slaughter of sheep Main groupings Sheep

a) Kg per beast

Weight of material tonnesa) x 16,491,000Carcase * Offal & by

products +Totals

Carcase- ex KKCF 20.00 329,820 329,820

KKCF & caul fat 1.42 23,417Kidneys 0.11 1,814Gut contents 5.11 84,269Stomachs 1.13 18,635Intestines (including fill), intestinal fat, pancreas, spleen

2.15 35,456

Heart, lungs, trachea 1.14 18,800Liver, gall, gall bladder 0.73 12,038Head 1.71 28,200Fleece and pelt 4.66 76,848Feet 0.82 13,523Skirt 0.23 3,793Blood 1.93 31,828Other (including reproductive organs, and other waste, tail)

1.00 16,941

Sub total 365,111 365,111Total 42.14 694,931Source: Derived from Tables in Appendix 1 and animal numbers from Table 2.2.1.1

Notes: * Weight of material sold to mainly enter the human food chain, but waste material can be removed at source or at other stages in the supply chain (e.g. bone and fat in cutting plants); rounded to nearest tonne+ rounded to nearest tonne



Table 2.2.4c: Pigs- Weight of products – estimated weight of main groupings of materials derived from the slaughter of pigs Main groupings Pigs

a) Kg per beast

Weight of material tonnesa) x 8,746,000Carcase 1. *

Carcase 2 **

Offal & by products +

Totals

Carcase- ex flare fat, kidneys, feet, head, caul

66.02

577,411 577,411 577,411

Flare fat 1.21

10,583

Kidneys 0.31

2,711

Feet 2.42

21,165

Head 6.04

52,826

Caul fat 0.13

1,137

Sub total 88,422 88,422

Gut contents 10.15

88,772

Stomachs 0.66

5,772

Intestines (including fill), intestinal fat, pancreas, spleen

4.47

39,095

Heart, lungs, trachea 1.45 12,682Liver, gall bladder 1.81 15,830Skirt 0.42 3,673Blood 4.11 35,946Other (including hair scrapings, hooves, bladder, reproductive organs, lymph nodes and other waste)

2.15 18,804

Sub total 220,574 220,574Total 101.3

5886,407

Source: Derived from Tables in Appendix 1 and animal numbers from Table 2.2.1.1.



Notes: * Weight of material sold to mainly enter the human food chain from pigs sold ex, ex flare fat, kidneys, feet, head, caul, but waste material can be removed at source or at other stages in the supply chain e.g. bone and fat in cutting plants); rounded to nearest tonne** Weight of material sold to mainly enter the human food chain from pigs sold as traditional carcase (including head, feet etc), but waste material can be removed at source or at other stages in the supply chain (e.g. bone and fat in cutting plants); rounded to nearest tonne+ Rounded to nearest tonne

2.2.5. VOLUME OF WASTE

In summary therefore from the above analysis the slaughtering of cattle (excluding older cattle for disposal and calves) sheep and pigs, produces the following tonnes of primary waste A material.

Table 2.2.5: The volumes of primary waste A produced Tonnes Carcase Waste – defined as low or negative value

offal and by productsCattle 830,616 736,271Sheep 329,820 365,111Pigs 577,411 (carcase 1.) 308,996Total 1,410,378

2.2.6. ADDITIONAL WASTE

In addition to the 1,410,378 tonnes of waste identified above, additional waste material will also be removed from that identified as carcase material, either at source (at the abattoir) or further along the supply chain during the process of cutting and breaking down the meat.

At the minimum for beef this will include the spinal cord (SRM) and vertebral column (SRM in animals over 24 months of age); for sheep this will include the spinal cord (SRM in animals over 12 months of age).

The remaining carcase material broken down in a physiological detail for the three species includes:

Lean meatBone and waste Subcutaneous fatIntramuscular fat

and for cattle cod fat, and for pigs the skin.



The cod fat for cattle will in general be sold with the carcase (although this does depend on the dressing specifications – standard MLC terms leave the cod fat on, some others remove it), and this is how it has been treated for this analysis.

Some pigs will be skinned but we have no information on what proportion, so for the purposes of this analysis this has been left with the carcase.

The detailed information in Appendix 1, gives the average weight of the above materials as:

Table 2.2.6a: Average weight of remaining carcase materialAverage weight per beast kg Cattle Sheep PigsLean 192.54 11.70 41.08Bone and waste 37.03 3.58 4.75Subcutaneous fat 24.39 2.44 11.72Intermuscular fat 41.37 2.23 3.53Cod fat 4.49Skin 4.83Sub total 299.82 19.95 65.91

Vertebral column 18.00Spinal cord 0.18 0.05 0.11

Sub total 18.18 0.05Total 318.00 20.00 66.02

The amount of additional waste material removed from the carcases directly entering the human food chain after slaughter, can be estimated using the average weights of the carcases above:

Cattle under 24 months 317.82 (299.82 + 18.0)Cattle over 24 months 299.82Clean sheep and lambs 20.00 Ewes and rams 19.95 (20 – 0.05)Pigs 66.02

Adjusted by the typical proportion of bone fat and trim that is removed at the cutting plant, catering or retail butchery level in the supply chain before the meat is sold to consumers. MLC standard figures for retail presentations estimate that this constitutes for beef 31% of the carcase weight, for lamb 20% and for pork 22.5%.

These figures assume that a great deal of fat and some bone is left on cuts sold to consumers (e.g., bone in cuts of lamb and pork, but all beef is assumed as boneless – since 2005 a small proportion of such as ribs of beef have been sold once again as bone in, but the proportion is unknown). After cooking and eating,



some of this will constitute waste at the consumer level (but this study has not attempted to estimate the amount).

Table 2.2.6b: Estimated Additional Waste from Carcase at Source or after Cutting

1).Number000

2) Vertebral column &/ spinal cord

Tonnes(1 x 2)

3) Remaining carcase weight

4) Bone fat & trim kg/ beast

Tonnes(1 x 4)

Cattle – under 24 months

1,437 0.18 259 317.82 98.52 141,573

Cattle over 24 months

1,175 * 18.18 21,362 299.82 80.52 + 94,611

Clean sheep and lambs

14,246 20.00 4.00 56,984

Ewes and rams

2,245 0.05 112 19.95 3.99 8,958

Pigs 8,746 66.02 14.85 ** 129,878Total 21,733 432,004Source: Note * estimated at 45% of total numbers – taken from (ref - Economic Analysis Of The Forthcoming Changes In Specified Risk Material (SRM) Controls- Undertaken For The Food Standards Agency - MLC Industry Consulting December 2005)+ (98.52 – 18.00)** Bacon is more heavily trimmed and would be nearer 32% if a whole carcase were processed – but today most bacon from British pigs is processed from cuts and so this figure is assumed to be a reasonable proxy to take account of the bacon issue.

Based on the above estimates the total tonnes of primary waste A material.Waste identified earlier increases to:

Table 2.2.6c: Total volume of primary wastes A materialWaste from TonnesOffal’s and by-products 1,410,378Vertebral column and spinal cord 21,733Bone, fat and trim 432,004Total 1,864,115The amount of primary waste B material can be estimated from the information on the waste derived from imports of bone in and boneless meat, less exports (in that the meat and the waste derived from it is being exported) given in Section 2.2 (2 and 3) in this report, applying the MLC standard figures for retail presentations percentages to the bone in cuts and a factor of 15% additional trimming for beef and 10% for lamb and pig meat (on average) to boneless cuts (estimate derived from interviews with selected plants).



Table 2.2.6d:

Tonnes 1) Imports 2) Exports TotalBone in Boneless Bone in Boneless Waste

(1- 2)Beef - carcase weight

47,000 244,000

% Bone fat, trim 31% 15%Waste 14,750 36,600 51,350

Lamb- carcase weight

9,000 120,000 74,000 13,000

% Bone fat, trim 20% 10% 20% 10%Waste 1,800 12,000 14,800 1,300 -2,300

Pigmeat - carcase weight

30,000 348,000 38,000 63,000

% Bone fat, trim 22.5% 10% 22.5% 10%

Waste 6,750 34,800 8,550 6,300 26,700

Total 75,750Source: MLC

Based on the above estimates the total tonnes of waste material (identified earlier) increases to:

Table 2.2.6e:Waste from tonnes Primary A Primary BOffal and by-products 1,410,378Vertebral column and spinal cord 21,733Bone, fat and trim 432,004 75,750

Total 1,864,115 1,939,865Source: MLC



2.2.7. RED MEAT MAIN SECONDARY WASTE PRODUCTS

The following are recognised as ‘secondary’ waste products. Detailed information regarding the volumes generated was not available.

Effluent Packaging Cardboard – clean & contaminated Plastic Lairage waste

2.3. POULTRY

2.3.1. POULTRY INDUSTRY PRODUCTION AND SUPPLIES SLAUGHTERINGS

In order to estimate waste, the number of birds being utilised for poultry meat production in the UK for 2006 is taken from the Defra definition, as slaughterings; these are a primary source of waste in the poultry sector:

2006

(million)

Production carcase weight000 tonnes


1995-97Average(000)


Fowls 844 1,315 1.56 765 1.50 Turkeys 17 185 10.88 38 7.74Ducks and geese

19 44 2.32 16 2.31

Total 1,544

Source: Defra Agriculture in the UK 2006 Note: due to improvements in census methodology the figs for 1995 to 1997 are not directly comparable with 2006.

As with red meat these numbers can then be multiplied by the average weights of body components and tissues to give an estimate of the total volumes of material (including that defined as low value or negative value product) derived from these birds.

2.3.2. POULTRY SUPPLY CHAINS

Because of the greater degree of horizontal and vertical integration in the poultry sector the chains can be simplified to two:

1) Large integrated poultry slaughter/processors2) Small niche plants



As with the red meat chains the primary source of waste also consists of both that derived from birds slaughtered for poultry meat production, and also that derived from imported supplies of meat (although the amount of waste from the latter is far smaller than that from the former).

In addition a small amount of ‘waste’ from poultry cutting/processing will also be derived from the customers they supply i.e. the supermarkets, catering outlets, independent shops, and independent butchers.

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 1,478Imports 455 270Exports 229 183New 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 speciesGrouping 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 2.5head 2.36 2.61 2.4

neck 2.14 2.52 3.4heart Potential 0.52 0.71 0.52liver Edible 1.88 2.2 1.22

kidneys 0.22

spleen 0.13

neckskin 1.41leaf fat Fats & Skin 1.65 1.5gizzard fat 0.58

windpipe 0.17 11.31 7.29lung 0.63 0.76

crop 0.53 0.89proventriculus Gastro 0.49



gall Intestinal 0.1gizzard Tract 1.15 2.02intestine 3.13 3.67caecae 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 1545.6 612.62ReferenceData [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-chargesBy-Product (Waste) and destination

Value/ChargeCollected [£/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.

2.3.5. BY-PRODUCT DESTINATIONSThere are several destinations for poultry by-products accorded by the ABPR, and these are permitted according to the assigned Category. Only Category 2 (i.e. dead stock) and Category 3 (i.e. slaughtered in a slaughterhouse “fit for human consumption”) are relevant here.

According to data available from UKRA members the amount of poultry by-product detailed above is processed as follows.



Table 2.3.5: Current destinations for poultry based ABP’s

Destination ABP Blood Feather Dead stock & Hatchery

Direct Incineration

Co-Incineration 5,000

Rendered as Cat 2 then Fertiliser or Incinerate 20,000 25,000

Rendered as Cat 3 #(Main uses Pet food* or fertiliser **) 340,000* 55,000 **

Use in Pet Foods (as Raw Category 3) 150,000

Composting (estimated)5,000 15,000

Biogas(estimated) 5,000

Total 510,000 15,000 70,000 25,000

Note - # Potentially useable in animal feeds if feed ban lifted

The amounts processed according to destination, agree with the overall totals shown above. However due to the reluctance of the industry to provide the data caution should be taken when using the information.

Approximately 900 million broilers per year are produced in the UK, of which a significant proportion, (approximately 45%), are not eaten directly as food. As a result, Poultry by-products are produced, amounting to approximately 900,000 tonnes per year.

Outside of the UK/EU, legislative controls on all aspects of by-products from handling, and processing to environment and use restrictions are far less onerous.

As a result of these differences, the value of Poultry by-products in the USA and Thailand are significantly higher than the UK. This difference may close in the



future if there are changes to agriculture/ feed / food legislation in these countries which brings them more in line with the UK/EU.

However, social and cultural differences in Thailand (and the rest of the far-East) with regard to food ensures that their poultry industry will probably always receive higher values for what we in the UK/EU consider to be Poultry by-products.

2.4. DAIRY

2.4.1. MILK PRODUCTION IN THE UK

In order to estimate wastes and by-products, the quantity of milk being utilised in the UK for 2006 is taken from the Defra definition, as that being utilised by dairies (production, plus imports and minus exports). A comparative figure for milk production in 1995 - 1997 has been included to demonstrate changes in production. Table 2.4.1a: Milk production in the UK, 2006Million litres 2006 1995-97 averageProduction 13,945 14,312Imports 43 140Exports 627 216New supply 13,361 14,236Source: Defra Agriculture in the UK 2006

Of the 13,361 million litres processed in 2006 (1995/97 average – 14,236), the main usage was:

Table 2.4.1b: Milk flow in the UK, 2006Volume

% Million litres 000 tonnesConsumed on farm 0.22 29.39 30.28Direct Sales 1.315 175.70 180.97Delivered to dairies 98.46 13155.24 13549.90Of which: Consumed as a liquid 51.19 6839.50 7044.68

Used in manufacture 48.53 6484.09 6678.62Dairy wastage and stock change 0.28 37.41 38.53

Source: MDC, 2007Notes – Volumes are based upon the 2006 ‘new supply’ of milk, 13,361 million litres (table 2.4.1a)1 litre of milk = 1.030 kg



2.4.2. MILK WASTE/BY-PRODUCTS

Table 2.4.2 estimates milk wastes and by-products that occur during milk processing (excluding water). These figures are based upon the availability of 13,155.24 million litres/13549.90 thousand tonnes of milk to dairies. Without reliable information on the volume of waste generated through direct sales and on-farm consumption, milk waste from total milk processing was not accounted for. To this figure of 13549.90 thousand tonnes, information received from companies interviewed as part of this study was applied (shown in table 2.4.2). The information received may not have applied to all 148 milk processing plants (excluding those processing <1 million litres/year), but it is thought that this information was representative of the largest milk processing companies.

Based upon Defra and MDC figures (see table 2.4.1b) an estimated 38.53 thousand tonnes of milk waste was generated in 2006. However, as can be seen in table 2.4.2, we estimate that 280 thousand tonnes of milk waste was generated in 2006. The following are suggested as reasons for these differences:

Many assumptions have been made for each figure (and considerable ‘rounding-up’ may have affected end figures), and whilst we view the information given by our contacts as being correct, this information may not apply to all milk accounted for

Variations in what is defined as a waste – what may be considered as (low value) by-products by stakeholders within the dairy industry, may be defined as wastes within this report

To be able to work out the volumes of waste generated more thoroughly, information would need to be obtained from every processor.

It must also be noted, that with regards to Category 2 waste; we received considerable variation in volumes from our contacts. From information from one contact we estimate that 1315.52 tonnes of Category 2 waste occurs. However, using information from another contact, we estimate that 8119.52 tonnes of antibiotic contaminated milk is generated in a year. This variation is expected to be attributable to one processing company accounting for only milk on the processing site that meets Category 2 specifications, as category 2 milk; and the other accounting for milk collected from producers – i.e. all milk contaminated with antibiotics in tankers and on the processing site.

2.4.2.1. Calves

The Milk Development Council (MDC Breeding+) estimates that in 2006, 100,000 male dairy-bred calves were disposed of (see Annex for calculations). It must be noted that the number of calves estimated to have been disposed of at birth varies considerably depending upon the information source;



Beyond Calf Exports Stakeholders Forum estimate that in the years leading up to the lifting of the export ban in May 2006, an estimated 250,000 – 350,000 bull calves per annum (44% to 61%) were killed shortly after birth (BCESF, 2008)

A Compassion in World Farming report in 2006 estimated that of the male dairy calves born, 300,000 were reared for beef, 50,000 were exported live and 218,000 were killed at birth (BCESF, 2008)

MLC estimate 135,000 head (unrecorded calves) (MLC, 2007).

Given that a thorough break down has been given by the MDC, and it is viewed to be correct, their figure for 100,000 calves disposed of at birth was used in this report. It is thought that the number of calves disposed of at birth would have been lower in 2006 due to the re-opening of the export market, despite this, figures of 250,000 are viewed by many in the industry as being unrealistically high.

It must be noted that any changes in exporting of calves (i.e. the closure of the export market during FMD restrictions in 2007), has a profound affect upon the number of calves registered (and therefore kept alive), i.e. during August 2007, there was a significant drop (by 11%) in the numbers of registration applications.

2.4.2.2. Packaging Waste

The following are the types of packaging waste expected to be incurred/generated through milk processing:

HDP (High Density Polythene) bottles Tetra-pack cartons Chemical drums/containers Shrink-wrap Cardboard Pallets

Of the packaging wastes that were measured in the Dairy Roadmap, table 2.4.2 states the estimated volumes produced in 2006. More detailed information than this was not available. These figures are based upon expected wastes from a generic liquid milk processing plant.

Table 2.4.2.2: Plastic and steel waste occurrence, 2006


Volume (tonnes)Plastic 240234.8Steel 5354.73


Table 2.4.2: Milk wastes generated in 2006

Source: MLC; based upon information received from companies interviewed.

MLC - Industry Consulting

Milk waste/by-product type, and reason (million litres) Estimated Volume TotalCategory 1 ABP tonnes tonnesMilk could be contaminated with prohibited substance*Milk contains environmental contaminantsCategory 2 ABP / OtherContains residues of veterinary drugs (antibioitcs)From animals showing signs of diseaseCategory 3 ABP / ProcessFormer foodstuffs fit for HC/derived from production of products for HC Of which: Sludges 78931.44 Retentate 65776.20 Washings 39465.72 Desludge 11181.95 Fat Skims 657.76 Customer returns 11839.71 207853Category 3 ABP / Specification Milk Diluted - FPD 1782.33 High Bacterial Levels in raw milk 2970.55 Other including taints and environmental contaminants 594.11 5347Category 3 ABP if not used for human Rework 65776.20 Unsold…. 78.93 65855

280370

Disposal / Use *

?

1315.52

minimal in average year

1316 (sporadic occurrence)

KEY

Food - directIncineratedRenderedBiogas - Anaerobic DigestionEffluent treatment plantLandAnimal FeedFood - IndirectManufacture

33


2.5. EGGS

2.5.1. EGG PRODUCTION AND WASTE IN THE UK

Contacts from the egg industry were very reluctant to give details of the amount of waste arising from the different parts of the process but we do know that these resulted in disposal charges of between £65 - £85 per tonne (from UKRA). In order to estimate the volume of waste produced, the number of laying hens and the number of eggs being produced in the UK for 2006 is taken from the Defra statistics.

Table 2.5.1a: Egg industry production and supplies – all units = million dozen2006 1995–97 average

Laying hens 30 million 33 millionTotal Egg production 855 884

Eggs for human consumption 738 781

Eggs for hatching (home and export) 110 95

Waste 7 8

Source: Defra Agriculture in the UK 2006

Table 2.5.1b: Egg supply and use – all units = million dozen2006 1995–97 average

Production for human consumption: of which: 738 781

Eggs sold in shell 557 663Eggs processed 181 118

Imports 103 70Exports 12 12

Consumption 829 830Source: Defra Agriculture in the UK 2006

Note: Imports and exports include shell egg equivalent of whole (dried, frozen, liquid), egg yolk and albumen.

Table 2.5.1c: Estimated volumes of waste produced per annum by the egg production industrySpent Egg laying birds 360 tonnesMale Chicks (Egg laying strain) 30 million (3000 tonnes)Egg Shells from Processors 10,000 to 11,000 tonnes

Source: ADAS report 2002



2.5.2. BACKGROUND TO EGG PRODUCTION

2.5.2.1. Egg production systems

The most common commercial production system is laying cages and these provide approximately 66% of all egg production. Free-range production provides approximately 27% and Barn production a further 7%.

All systems operate with strict welfare controls and the Farm Animal Welfare Councils 1997 report details the pros and cons of each system.

2.5.2.2. Markets

The retail market for “shell eggs” is the biggest at 48% with “egg products” taking 29% and wholesale/catering “shell eggs” taking the remaining 23%. The retail market is dominated by the multiples selling 83% of the total. In 2005 DEFRA recorded a total of 1,409 egg packing stations.

Table 2.5.2.2: The retail market and shell egg market share (%)

Multiples 83Co-ops 3Market stalls 3Independents 2Butchers 2Milkmen 2Other (direct etc) 5Source: BEIS, 2007



SECTION 3: REASONS FOR WASTE OCCURRENCE

3.1. REVIEW OF LEGISLATION

The usage and disposal of ‘animal by products’ from the red meat sector as defined by the MHS is controlled to ensure:

They do not compromise the hygienic production of products They are not inadvertently or fraudulently diverted away from the

disposal route and back into the food chain Human and animal health is protected and pathogens are not

inadvertently spread They are safely and suitably handled and disposed

The handling and disposal of such ‘animal by-products’ are governed by a number of pieces of legislation, chief of which are:

3.1.1. TERMINOLOGY

It is important to define the terms used in the legislation and this report.

Animal

Animal Products Dead stock

Edible Co-Products Food Animal By-Products

Animal means the live animal - all species

Animal products means the animal after slaughter at a slaughterhouse

Dead stock means the dead animal, either on farm or in transit to slaughterhouse

Food means meat that is harvested from the animal after slaughter directly produced in accordance with food legislation.

Edible co-products mean non-meat materials that are used in production of foods for humans if they are treated in accordance with food regulations. If they are not, they become animal by-products



3.1.2. ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS REGULATION

This covers “Animal by-products NOT intended for human consumption”. The materials are categorised into 3 groups,

Category 1 refers to SRM material, that from related TSE sources, wild animals suspected of being infected with communicable disease, products derived from animals treated with dangerous substances;

Category 2 refers to material that may pose a risk to human or animal health (e.g. products containing residues of veterinary drugs or other contaminants, sludge, manure and digestive tract contents, animals that die other than being slaughtered including those killed for disease control purposes, post mortem rejects -currently under review- spoiled meat;

Category 3 refers to parts of animals that have been slaughtered for human consumption but are not intended for such (i.e. can be used as pet food, blood from animals that have passed inspection, animal by-products resulting from the production of food for human consumption).

All three categories of animal by-products must be kept separate from the point where they arise. If materials from two categories are mixed, that mixture must be downgraded to the higher risk category e.g. a mixture of Category 2 and 3 materials must all become Category 2 material.

The main European Animal By Products legislation is EU 1774/2002 and this is implemented in the UK by The Animal By-Products Regulations 2005 – SI 2347. These are currently being reviewed but no significant changes are expected that would impact on waste reduction other than removing the word “waste” wherever possible. It is expected that new options for “disposal”, other than rendering into protein meal, will continue to be approved but the economics of these alternative processes may become questionable should Category 3 materials be allowed back into animal feeds.

Table 3.1.2: Disposal of Animal By-Products

Rendering Incineration or Co-incineration

Pet food

Compost or biogas Landfill

AB

P

Categ

1 yes yes no no no2 yes yes no ? no3 yes yes yes yes no

Note: All processing options refer to the processing of raw material? - Pre-processing is required: Pressure process 133oC, 3 bar pressure, 20 mins.

3.1.3. FOOD AND EDIBLE-CO-PRODUCTS

This designation is relatively new and covers products that were though of as inedible at the slaughterhouse but are later processed into edible products. This area of legislation has been comprehensively updated and consolidated in the last two years. There is primary legislation in the form of three separate EU



regulations EC 852/ 2004, 853/2004, 854/2004 together with two UK Industry guides covering “Meat Industry” and “Edible Co-Products and animal by-products”, see http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/guidancenotes

In principle, food or edible co-products have to be harvested, processed and packaged in accordance within the food hygiene regulations and as such, any possible upgrading from animal by-product to food or edible co-product must adhere to these regulations. Specific examples of materials that could be either food / edible co-products OR animal by-products depending on which route is followed are: Fats for production of rendered fat, intestines for casings, rumen for tripe, pig & chicken feet for blanching & freezing, edible carcases for recovery of mechanically separated meat (MSM) (except Ruminant) or use in producing soup stock.

3.1.4. TSE REGULATIONS

The TSE regulation applies to all animal by-products and processed animal by-products in relation to the use or possible use in animal feeds. It is therefore complimentary to the ABPR and must be read as a conjoined document when considering what is possible. The current legislation governing the production of all animal proteins, including poultry proteins, and the limitations regarding the placing on the market of poultry proteins for use in animal feeds, can be traced back to the desire of the EU to prevent, control and eradicate certain Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE)

The earliest case of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) epidemic was first confirmed in the UK in 1987. The scientific and epidemiologic evidence that was gathered to understand and explain the disease pointed to meat and bone meal as being the most probable vector of the disease. The EC, determined to eradicate BSE in Europe, thus introduced legislation to control the production and use as a feeding stuff of animal proteins. This legislation, although directed at the use of protein derived form mammals, nonetheless has necessarily incorporated protein from other animals including poultry, which in themselves are not implicated or directly linked to the incidence of TSE in Europe.

The Regulation EC 999/2001 was the first key piece of legislation that was brought to bear on the issue. This regulation had as some of its features:

The introduction of the control of the production and placing on the market of products of animal origin

The prohibition of feeding to ruminants of protein derived from mammals. The principle of “zero tolerance” of prohibited animal constituents in

feeding stuffs

The legislation, acting on the scientific evidence that meat and bone meal was a key vector in the disease, sought to create the framework within Europe whereby protein derived from mammals could not be fed to ruminants. Eliminating this vector was seen as a primary method of controlling and then eradicating TSE. By introducing the concept of “zero-tolerance”, the EC also


http://www.food.gov.uk/foodindustry/guidancenotes


created the framework of control to ensure that feedstuffs fed to ruminants not only should not, but did not, contain mammalian protein.

The link between the ABPR and TSER came about in October 2002, when the ABPR was published. This comprehensive regulation set out to define the conditions under which all animal by-products could be converted into feedstuffs, to control the methods and systems whereby these feedstuffs were “placed on the market”, and to define more closely the permitted usage of these feedstuffs.

The legislation addressed the processing of the by-products of all animals, including poultry. It also introduced the concept that feeding of animals with processed proteins from the same species was prohibited, thus banning intra-species feeding.

The primary legislation 999/2001 has continued to be addressed, and has to date been modified by twenty-five amendments. One important amendment, EC 1234/2003 was issued in July 2003. This amendment stated that although the EC accepted that there was no evidence of natural occurrence of TSE in non-ruminant farmed animals such as pigs or poultry. Nevertheless the prohibitions and restrictions on animal proteins from such non-ruminant farmed animals, which had been introduced under Decisions 2000/766/EC and 2001/9/EC, would continue because they still could not be differentiated from prohibited ruminant proteins by current tests.

In addition, these prohibitions and restrictions would continue in place until as and when the necessary control tools, and reasonable evidence that the implementation of the current provisions is satisfactory in all Member States, became available. Only then would the prohibition on the use of fishmeal to ruminants, the use of avian protein to farmed animals other than ruminants and the use of porcine protein to farmed animals other than ruminants be reviewed, ( while respecting the intra-species ban ).

These derogations were extended further in amendment EC 1292/2005 issued in August 2005. This amendment modified Annex IV of EC991/2201 as regards animal nutrition by allowing the feeding of non-ruminant blood meal (PAP) to aquaculture species, as well as relaxing the restrictions on feeding to farmed animals of blood products and hydrolysed proteins derived from non-ruminants.

Commission Regulation EC 1292/ 2005 also referred to a “risk based” approach vis a vis “bone spicules” ( in root crops such as sugar beet). Furthermore, Commission Regulation EC 1923/2006, introduced the concept of “tolerance” or threshold limits.

In the UK, the relevant legislation is 2006 No. 1228 ANIMALS, ENGLAND ANIMAL HEALTH, The Transmissible Spongiform Encephalophathies (No. 2) Regulations 2006, with parallel legislation for Wales and Scotland, and Northern Ireland. SI 2006:1228 came into force in May 2006. SCHEDULE 5 deals specifically with feedingstuffs.



DEFRA have issued a guidance Note on Feed Controls in the Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies Regulations 2006 http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/legislation/index.html

The EU issued a TSE Roadmap in July 2005, a document that is still under active discussion. This document sets the framework for the way forward on TSE in Europe. In this discussion document, the strategic goal for the Feed Ban is defined as: “A relaxation of certain measures of the current total feed ban when certain conditions are met.”

In particular, when considering the lifting of the ban on the use of protein from non-ruminants, the roadmap states that further improvement in differentiating animal proteins specific to certain species may result in an amendment of the provisions with regard to the use in feeding stuffs of animal products, in particular non-ruminant proteins taking into account the prohibition on intra-species recycling in Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (e.g. poultry PAP to pigs).

3.1.5. ENVIRONMENT

Within the Environmental legislation the definition of “waste” is vitally important and this is currently under review. The Waste Framework Directive determines what is and what is not “waste”. This has major implications for the food industry, as it will influence the future cost of the disposal or treatment of by-products.

The following regulations do not directly affect the ability of materials to enter to food chain as value added products, but they may cause materials to be down graded to “waste” by cause of the definition of waste. In EU terms “waste” is regarded as anything that is discarded, or is intended to be discarded or has to be discarded because of a legislative reason.

Some countries, including the UK, consider that animal by-products are “discarded” at the slaughterhouse, as they are not the primary product. As such government consider that some or all of the materials dealt with by the by-products industry have to be treated as waste in any case. Some of the environmental legislation, such as the Integrated Pollution Prevention Control regulations (IPPC), and parts of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations (WMLR) do not require double regulation.

However some parts of the WMLR and most of the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) are problematic because they still assume that processed products such as Products of Animal Protein (PAP) or rendered fat are still waste and have to be treated as waste if used as fertiliser or fuel respectively. If this issue is unresolved, even materials that are considered by industry to be “recovered” [accepting that they might be waste at some point earlier], such as fertiliser or fuel will still have very low values or even still require a charge for disposal.3.1.6. LEGISLATION OVERVIEW


http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/bse/legislation/index.html


In terms of this report there are four main areas of legislation that need to be considered (i)

1. Food and Edible Co-Products Food Hygiene Regulations FHR2. Animal by-Product Regulations [not intended for human consumption]

ABPR3. TSE {Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Regulations} TSER4. Environment

a. Integrated pollution controls IPPC

b. Waste Incineration Directive WID

c. Waste management licensing (UK) regulations (ii) WMLR

(i) All of the legislation above is a direct EU regulation or is an EU origin and then transposed into UK except (ii) above.

Table 3.1.6: Summary of Legislation pertaining to the Animal products sectors

Legislation Food Edible Co-Products Animal By-Products

Food & ECP

ABP

TSE

IPPC

WID ? ?

WMLR ? ?

Legislation applies Legislation does not apply? Legislation may or may not apply depending on circumstances



3.1.6.1. EC Regulation

3.1.6.1: EC Regulations as they affect the feeding of processed animal proteins to different species

Feeding Processed Animal Protein to:Processed Animal Protein from

RUMINANTS PIGS POULTRY FISH

RUMINANTS EC999/2001 EC1234/2003 EC1292/2005

EC1234/2003 EC1292/2005

EC1234/2003 EC1292/2005

PIGS EC999/2001 EC1774/2002 EC1234/2003 EC1292/2005

EC1234/2003 EC1292/2005

POULTRY including feather meal

EC1234/2003 EC1292/2005 EC1234/2003

EC1292/2005 EC1774/2002 EC1234/2003 EC1292/2005

FISH EC1234/2003 EC1292/2005 EC1774/2002

Hydrolysed proteins derived from non-ruminants

Allowed, subject to controls on process and usage

Subject to controls on process and usage



Egg and egg products





Key

Intra species feeding prohibited; it is very unlikely that this ban will ever be relaxed

Currently banned. Some inter species feeding could be allowed, but only when controls are in place that prevent contamination of feed with banned substances, according to the principle of zero tolerance

Non-ruminant feedstuff allowed, but Intra species feeding prohibited

Food and Edible Co-Products (Food Hygiene Regulations)Official Journal of the European Communities, 2004. L226/3Official Journal of the European Communities, 2004. L226/221Official Journal of the European Communities, 2004. L226/83

ABPROfficial Journal of the European Communities, 2002. L273/1Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council,

layingdown health rules concerning animal by-products not intended for human

consumption

TSER Official Journal of the European Communities, 1999 L147/1



Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down rules for the prevention, control and eradication of certain transmissible spongiform encephalopathy’s.

Main Amending regulations to Regulation (EC) 999/2001Regulation (EC) 1234/2003 – amends Annexes I, IV & XIRegulation (EC) 1292/2005 – amends Annex IV and- refers to a “risk based approach” Regulation (EC) 1923/2006 - includes concept of “tolerance” threshold limits.UK SI 2006/1228 The Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy’s (No. 2) Regulations

EnvironmentIPPC Regulation UK SI 2000/1973WID EC Directive 200/76 L332/91WMLR UK SI 2005/1728



3.2. RED MEAT

3.2.1. BACKGROUND

Pre-1996, offal and by-products from cattle, sheep and pigs were still often referred to as the ‘fifth quarter’, because the harvesting and sale of these materials produced extra revenue for the abattoir in addition to the four carcase quarters. In recent years the profit available from the ‘fifth quarter’ has been substantially eroded, and much of the material from which once a great deal of value could be derived now fits the definition of ‘waste’ as used for this study.

With the advent of new pathogens within the meat sector and the resulting increase in hygiene and sanitary control, many of the fifth quarter products have been consigned to the dangerous waste category, and the income available from many has been turned into a disposal cost. Similarly many of the ‘meat sector service companies’ that used some of the ‘by-products’ as raw materials to produce derived products (e.g. such as the rendering industry), were in themselves turned into ‘waste disposal’ operatives, particularly after the BSE crisis in 1996.

In recent years the waste disposal industry has faced increasing regulation from the EU Animal By-Product Regulations, the Waste Incineration Directive. This trend looks likely to continue, as environmental issues remain high on the socio/political agenda.

Since the BSE outbreak there has been considerable pressure on animal by-products, especially after meat and bone meal was banned from all livestock rations and derivatives of animal by-products failed to retain their market share. The policy groups in Brussels decided that only by-product materials that had been passed fit for human consumption should be used for animal, bird and fish feed and it was also agreed that intra-species recycling should not be permitted.

These views were expanded and explained in EU Regulation 1774/2002, which also introduced controls on blood, intestinal contents, manure, slaughterhouse effluent and catering waste. It also introduced controls and processing standards on both aerobic and anaerobic (biogas) digestion and a community procedure for the approval of new processing methods e.g. biofuels.

3.2.2. DEFINITIONS OF RED MEAT OFFAL & BY-PRODUCTS

The definition of ‘animal by-products’ used by the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS, 2007) in its control manual for the industry:

‘Is the entire body, part of an animal or product of animal origin which is not intended for human consumption. Material becomes ABP when it is not intended for human consumption or is no longer intended for human consumption. For example, material may still be fit for human consumption but have no commercial value or not be intended for use on aesthetic grounds. Once material becomes ABP it cannot later revert to being a foodstuff.’



In addition to the output from slaughterhouses, included within another definition of animal by-products are also all those products of the livestock and meat using food industries, including animals that die on farm and a range of surplus or rejected foodstuffs. This also includes catering waste (i.e. waste food originating from restaurants, catering facilities and kitchens) that contains products of animal origin, whether cooked or uncooked.

For the purposes of this report the definition of waste as ‘offal and by-products’ is inclusive of the non carcase meat residuals of the slaughtering process, that include both edible and inedible products that have a low commercial value (before or after processing), or represent a disposal cost.

(ref - MHS Manual for Official Control. Chapter 2.8. Animal By-products)

3.2.3. MAIN PRODUCTS PRODUCED AND DISPOSAL ROUTES

The disposal of the various materials identified as constituting ‘waste’ in Section 2.2 can vary in its sophistication. Probably the most basic is for:

a) Edible by-products to be sold for human consumption; b) Edible co-products, sold for use in products for human

consumption e.g. edible fats and greaves, casings and tripes.c) By-products suitable for petfood to be sold to petfood

manufacturers d) Waste materials for rendering Category 3.e) Category 1. SRM materials to be stained and disposed of to SRM

rendering; Category 2 materials for rendering.f) Gut contents.g) Hide and skin – from cattle and sheep, salted and sold to hide and

skin merchants/fellmongers

3.2.3.1. Edible by-products to be sold for human consumption

Edible offal can come from both the internal body systems of cattle, sheep and pigs and from external parts.

Internal: Those from within the carcase, items such as liver and kidney are still relatively widely utilised by consumers. Some used to be more widely used, but are now difficult to find (such as, hearts, lungs and trachea, sweetbreads) and others that are now banned e.g. the brains from ruminant animals. Such offal’s are sometimes referred to as ‘red offal’ from the carcase such as liver, and ‘green offal’ referring to the digestive tract and associated organs.

Some pig’s blood is still used for manufacturing black and white puddings



Where permitted, blood for human consumption must be collected in a way that eliminates contamination (e.g. by use of the hollow ‘Vampire’ knife). It must remain identified with the carcase until the conclusion of its inspection and it must not be stirred by hand, only with instruments that meet hygiene requirements. Subsequent storage must be in clearly identified, non-corroding containers with close fitting lids, and it must be kept under refrigeration at a maximum temperature of +3°C. These containers must not be used for any other purpose.

External: External offal includes pig heads, head meat from eligible cattle, feet, oxtail and collagen.

Of the external and internal offal’s for human consumption; some are collected and processed for sale in some plants e.g. liver, hearts; some will sell this material onto pet food manufacturers; some will dispose of it as a waste product. There is also a specialist trade for certain glands and other specialist offal’s, high quality fats, that some abattoirs/cutting plants take part in and others do not (depending on whether the cost of collection is higher than the return).

If the offal’s are intended for human consumption or pet food they must be handled hygienically after inspection and chilled to +3oC or below prior to dispatch.

Such edible offal’s form the basis of many well-known British dishes such as liver and onions, steak and kidney pie, stuffed heart, tripe and onions. In addition bones yield marrow and can be used to produce stock, and intestines can be used as the skins for sausages., black and white pudding, With changing lifestyles and tastes they are less widely utilised by British household consumers today than in the past.

The home and export market for such edible offal’s was set out in more detail in a report for EBLEX in 2006 (MLC 2006a). It describes a market that has been in decline for a number of years, with the usage of red and white meat offal’s falling by almost 50% since 1980 and only representing an estimated 2 to 3 % of total meat consumption Taylor Nelson Sofres household food panel consumption figures over a similar period were reported as indicating however, that that households only consumed a small proportion of this.

However, this report indicated that there has been a renewed interest in certain sections of the catering market such as the higher quality restaurants in putting offal dishes on their menus, with the hope that this could lead to a revival in the frequency of use by households (recent experience has shown that new/revived use of various foods in recipes in the food service sector can now be a trigger to their uptake in the household sector).

In addition the report also indicates, that of the small amount of edible offal that is consumed, much does not come from home produced livestock but from the large tonnage of edible offal is imported into the UK



Almost all of this will come into the country in a frozen form and some such as the lamb offal’s from New Zealand are in consumer packs and are a common sight in the freezer cabinets in most supermarkets. Unfortunately the import statistics do not give a reliable figure on the amount of offal that is consumed in the UK that comes from imported sources.

The discussions with the industry carried out as part of this study, confirmed the view from earlier studies that the extent to which such products are harvested by the abattoir industry varies considerably from plant to plant.

3.2.3.2. Edible co-products, sold for use in products for human consumption e.g. edible fats and greaves, casings and tripe’s.

Edible co-products can be defined as those other materials derived from internal and external animal offal’s that have to be processed in some way (i.e. which for some may only mean washing), before being used wholly or as ingredients in products for human consumption They include products which as with other edible offal’s, form the basis of some well known British dishes, which are today consumed much less widely than in previous times (e.g. tripe and onions).

The main edible co-products are derived from:1. Stomachs – in cattle and sheep the rumen and reticulum – processed

for tripe’s for domestic consumption or export (less so sheep); in pigs the stomach (maw) – processed today mainly for the export market (when harvested with the large intestine they are sometimes referred to as chitterlings and can be cooked and used as food on their own, or processed with other material in traditional meat products such as faggots.

The other part of the stomachs of ruminant animals the omasum and abomasums are very rarely processed for human consumption today

2. Intestines – derived from the small intestines of sheep and pigs, processed primarily for use as natural casings. In cattle they are classified as risk materials and cannot be used for any purpose.

The competitors to natural casings are artificial ones made from such as collagen, cellulose and even plastic. Collagen is largely derived from the inside of a small percentage of cattle hides and removed by specialist processors and used for producing man made natural sausage casings.

3. Edible fats and proteins (greaves) – derived from various fat sources from carcases which have been passed as fit for human consumption.

Detail on the processing of such edible co-products and the issues was recently set out in a report for EBLEX in 2007 (Scudamore, 2007).



This report indicated that although there is an increase in interest from the industry to better utilise such materials (and also the edible offal’s as identified in 3.2.3.1), rather than dispose of them as an animal by –products, the current extent of such harvesting varies from plant to plant. This was confirmed during the discussions held with the industry carried out as part of this study.

The specialist nature of the processing market was also indicated by the earlier study for EBLEX (MLC 2006a). This indicated that a major factor determining usage was the accessibility to this specialist market, in that for small and medium sized abattoirs in some parts of the country the convenience of disposal through an animal by-products collector (together with the rest of the ‘waste’ material), was greater then the small and fluctuating returns that was available from devoting time and labour to harvesting the material.

The later point was also confirmed in autumn 2007 at the workshop conducted by the RMIF as a follow up to industry interest and to review how to improve ‘gut room’ practices to produce better material.

Tripe’s - These reports showed that in tripe sector only three main processors remain, Heys of Dewsbury, Scragg of Liverpool and Fishers of Newark, and these usually purchase their raw material ready blanched and trimmed from Scotland, Ireland and the Isle of Man. The low demand has forced many of the smaller processors out of business.

The larger pig abattoirs either blanche pig maws or wash, pack and freeze fresh products for export to China, France and Italy. Unfortunately most of the medium sized and smaller abattoirs lack the facilities to either wash, pack or freeze their maws so this potential market is lost.

Casings - The market for natural casings has also declined and in recent years the above reports estimated that only 15% of sausages were made with natural sheep casings mainly derived from the UK sheep flock and 10-15% used pig casings. Many of the sheep and pig casings produced in Britain are it was maintained by these reports, exported (64% for sheep casings), with some being re-imported (after further processing in China – which also dominates the pig casings market in the UK).

Many small abattoirs sell their washed casings to local butchers and processors, but there are twelve independent casing processors who will purchase the casings washed and ready for final processing, the main ones being Harder Brothers, Oris, Asco, Weschenfelders. The main one of these collects from forty plus slaughterhouses, in eight of which they also manage the gut room. Some of the larger abattoirs will harvest and process the casing themselves e.g. Woodheads.

The main UK competition to the natural casing market is Devro who manufacture casings from collagen. The advantage is that the Devro casing has a consistent quality and size, unlike natural casings, and many types of filling machinery will only accept man made casings. Because of this the market for



hand prepared natural casings is increasingly limited to the local butchers and the low volume quality sausage manufacturer.

Edible Fats - Fat extraction is a major part of the rendering process, with the production of fats and proteins for human consumption divided by the 207 report into those governed by:

Hygiene Regulation (EC) 853/2004 – for human consumptionAnd Animal By Products Regulation (EC) 1774/2002 – which governs the

processing of Category 3 animal by –products derived from animals fit for human consumption but not to be used for human consumption.

The structure of the industry varies from two fat melters co-located with large slaughterhouses e.g. Woodheads, to two standalone plants one of which – Nortech – is part of the PDM Group and reported to derive 85% of such fat from cattle, 10% from sheep and only 5 % from pigs (pig fat is in short supply and much is imported). A further large standalone plant in Northern Ireland – Duncrue Food Processors – is a leading producer of beef dripping.

In addition there are an unknown number of small food businesses that will purchase high quality fat (e.g. suet and cod fat) from local abattoirs and cutting plants for processing into such as dripping.

The industry depends on sourcing a quality raw material and the returns for the sale of the raw material can be such that all of the abattoirs and cutting plants interviewed as part of this study were separating such materials to a greater or lesser extent. But the market is volatile, and Scudamore reported that in 2007, the price for non-human consumption was higher than that for human consumption.

In addition as energy costs increase the incentive to use all fats and tallows as a fuel grows (but there are issues here that will be raised in the rendering section).

3.2.3.3. By-products suitable for pet food to be sold to pet food manufacturers

Edible offal for animal consumption e.g. pet food – can include some/all of the edible offal’s and edible co-products described above, particularly those used less for human consumption today (e.g. lungs, stomach runners/gut, green tripe- refers to unwashed tripe –etc) However, today as was indicated by an MLC confidential report prepared for Defra in 2006 a great deal of pet food also utilises the lower value prime cuts of meat, as well as meat trimmings (Defra 2006b).

The pet food market collection is dominated by the main collectors - PDM, Tony Fear, Stafford By Products, Asco, Oakley, Alba, Anglia Canners, Durham Animal Feeds and to some degree Midland Meats. In addition to these companies there are numerous small manufacturers supplying frozen and



cooked products with the largest being Forthglade. These small companies supply specialist pet food outlets, small super market groups and market traders.

The finished pet food market is dominated by Nestle, Masterfoods (Mars UK) and Midland Meats. All the production at the Masterfoods (Pedigree) Melton Mowbray site is now for the UK market and this has opened the door for UK beef products to be used. Unfortunately Nestle produce for a worldwide market and therefore do not use UK beef products.

Prices paid to abattoirs by the larger collectors are generally poor and the specifications given by certain collectors are high. PDM and Forthglade insist that any tripe and paunch purchased must be machine washed and cut to a specific specification and this eliminates many UK abattoirs as suppliers as they do not possess any type of cleaning machine. Some companies, such as Tony Fear, will take rough washed product but this has very little value (if any) although it does save on collection charges. Many of the larger collectors also insist on product being chilled to plus 3oC prior to collection.

3.2.3.4. Waste materials for rendering

As will be seen in the following tables that estimate the main disposal routes the majority of red meat industry ‘waste’ (as defined by this report) is collected by companies involved in rendering the waste materials, into bone meal, fats and tallow. Prior to the BSE crisis of 1996, much of the product produced from this waste had a commercial value. Today much of it from ruminant animals, and even from non–ruminants, has to be disposed of as pure ‘waste’ product with no value.

The rendering process involves the crushing and grinding of animal by-products, followed by heat treatment to reduce the moisture content and kill micro-organisms. Separation of the melted fat (tallow) from the solid (bone and protein) is achieved through spinning and pressing.

The solid fraction is then ground into a powder, to become meat and bone meal (MBM). Once used in animal feed, mammalian MBM is now land filled (to be reduced by 2010), or incinerated and used as a fuel in cement kilns and power stations.

The oil (tallow) resulting from the rendering process is used in a wide range of industries depending on its quality and grade:

Best quality (e.g. lard, beef dripping, that comes from fats from carcases that have been passed fit for human consumption) is rendered separately and can be used in human food, animal feeds, pet foods, and soap manufacture – this was discussed in Section2.3/ 4 B.

High-grade tallow is used in soap manufacture, animal feeds and pet foods and by the oleo-chemical industry.



Low-grade tallow, used mainly by the oleo-chemical industry for technical production such as paint and tyre manufacture. It can also be burnt as a low grade fuel oil if plants are equipped with the required emission cleaning equipment (the rules on this have recently been tightened – see references)

The structure of the rendering industry and its development in recent years is set out in detail in Appendix 3 of the previously referred to report for EBLEX (MLC, 2006).

To all intents and purposes the rendering industry can be regarded in economic terms as an oligopoly i.e. an industry dominated by a small number of companies, the chief one of whom is PDM, if not a monopoly. As such it has been the subject of a number of reports by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission over the years (as set out in the above report) and exonerated for various reasons, the chief one being that no one else wants to do the job!

The subsidiaries of this company and the small numbers of others (e.g. Pointons in the Midlands and William Forest in Scotland (a subsidiary of Argent), charge for the collection of ‘waste’ material from those companies producing it i.e. the abattoirs, cutting plants, meat processors, butchers. A small number of abattoir companies such as ABP Shrewsbury and MacIntosh Donald have co-located rendering plants, but these are for Category 3 materials only.

The prices which they charge tend to be remain fairly stable over long periods (the monopolistic nature of the rendering sector is one reason for this); they change periodically but are unlike hide and skin prices where the demand and supply is heavily influenced by global and market forces and price fluctuations are common.

3.2.3.5. Waste collection charges

Table 3.2.3.5: Waste collection charges, 2005 – 2007

Material Type £ Per tonne10 to 50 tonnes per week

Over 50 tonnes per week

Oct 2005 Jan 2006 Oct 2007 Oct 2005 Jan 2006 Oct 2007Best fat

10 7 1 59 60 43Other fat

-4 -8 -4 10 7 12Bones

-84 - 92 -92 -64 -70 -67Offal

-85 -92 -94 -56 -62 -62SRM

-82 -90 -90 -55 -62 -61



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 - 2007Hide Weight w/e 11/12/04 * w/e 30/09/05 w/e24/10/06 w/e 24/9/07 **

36 > kg 82 81 88 71

31-35.5 kg 85 85 89 8126 – 30.5 kg 86 91 100 9322 – 25.5 kg 91 98 105 9921.5 < kg 91 98 103 99Source: 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: KKCF and caul harvested as edible co-products Stomachs washed to remove gut content A proportion of tripe’s removed for edible co-products and a proportion

for pet food Intestinal fat to edible co-products A proportion of hearts, lungs and trachea to edible, edible co-products

and pet food A proportion of head (e.g. cheek meat) to edible and to pet food A small proportion of the feet to edible (the market is limited and will not

take all, -although there may be export opportunities) All tail and skirt to edible

All other waste was to be collected by renderers.

Sheep – as with Scenario 1 for kidneys, livers and fleece, but with: -KKCF and caul harvested as edible co-products; Stomachs washed to remove gut content All intestines for edible co-products A small proportion of the feet to edible (the market is limited and will not

take all, -although there may be export opportunities); Skirt to pet food

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:

Stomachs washed to remove gut content All stomachs to pet food A proportion of intestines to edible co-products A proportion of hearts, lungs and trachea to edible, and pet food Skirt to pet food

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

Table 3.2.4.1a: Main EdibleOffal

Main Edible Co-Products

Likely Pet Food Use

Waste For Rendering SRM Gut

Contents Hide CheckTotal

PrimaryWaste AUnder 24 month

Spinal cord 259

Bone, trim, waste

141,573

Over 24 monthSpinal cord 21,362

Bone, trim, waste

94,611

.Primary waste B 51,350 (a)

Sub total 287,534 (b) 21,621 (c)

Scenario1Worst

8,776 0 14,601 495,653 106,256 0 110,984 736,270

Scenario 2Possible

27,636 130,573 44,247 122,111 106,256 194,463 110,984 736,270

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:Main EdibleOffal


Likely Pet Food Use

Waste For Rendering SRM Gut

ContentsFleece/skin

Check Total

PrimaryWaste AClean sheep and lambsSpinal cordBone, trim, waste

56,984

Ewes and ramsSpinal cord 112

Bone, trim, waste

8,958


Sub total 68,242(b) 112(c)

Scenario1Worst

6,596 0 7,256 244,397 30,014 0 76,848 365,110

Scenario 2Possible

14,017 62,666 19,459 77,838 30,014 84,269 76,848 365,110

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

Table 3.2.4.1cMain EdibleOffal


Likely Pet Food Use

Waste For Rendering

SRMGut Contents Skin

Check Total

PrimaryWaste ABone, trim, waste

129,878


Sub total 156,578(b)

Scenario1Worst

96,293 0 7,959 204,744 0 0 0 308,996

Scenario 2Possible

127,517 8,833 27,345 56,499 0 88,772 0 308,996

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-chargesBy-Product (Waste) and destination

Destination Value/ChargeCollected [£/tonne]

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 5-15Viscera Pet food Value 0-10Blood ( Cat 3 ) Render

Bio-compostCharge 45-65

Feather (Cat 3) RenderBio-compost

Charge 58- 72

DoA (Cat 2 ) RenderIncineration

Charge 65-85

Hatchery (Cat 2) RenderIncineration

Charge 65-85

Farm Dead (Cat 2) RenderIncineration

Charge 110-155

Source: UKRA

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 WASTEThe 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:

As a result of legislation As a result of process As a result of specification

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.

Category 1Reasons for milk being classified as a Category 1 ABP are:

a) When milk and milk products are derived from animals to which substances prohibited under Directive 96/22/EEC have been administered (e.g. thyrostatic substances, beta-agonists)

b) When milk and milk products contain residues of environmental contaminants and other substances listed in Group B3 of Annex 1 of 96/23/EC (e.g. organochlorine compounds, dyes).

It has already been outlined that Category 1 waste occurrence is rare. Reason a) for waste occurrence is unlikely due to the substances enlisted being



prohibited throughout the UK and the EU. Through our contacts made during the course of the study it was indicated that, Category 1 waste by reason b) has occurred within the last five years. However it requires substantial human error for this waste to occur. Volumes of the waste would increase if Category 1 milk contaminated other milk.

Current Disposal - As a Category 1 ABP, milk waste resulting from either of the above reasons must be disposed of by incineration or in an approved Category 1 rendering plant. Each of these disposal routes incurs a cost (£35/tonne suggested for incineration).

Category 2Milk and milk products become Category 2 when:

a) When milk and milk products contain residues of veterinary drugs listed in group b(1) and (2) of Annex 1 to Directive 96/23/EC (e.g. antibacterial substances) and residue levels exceed those set in community legislation

b) When milk and milk products are derived from animals showing clinical signs of disease communicable to humans and animals via milk (TB, Brucellosis).

Raw milk contaminated with veterinary drugs is common on-farm, but this on-farm waste/by-product is not included within the ABPR. A significant, but immeasurable volume of this occurs each year. Category 2 raw milk, (by reason a)) occurs sporadically for the processor. It is caused by cows treated with veterinary drugs commencing/continuing lactation prior to completion of the drug’s withdrawal period. The most common sources of antibiotics are from dry-cow therapy, and in the treatment of mastitis. The majority of this milk is kept separate from the milk collected by processors, and is utilised as a calf feed, or fed through the farm slurry system and used as a fertiliser.

Through human error milk contaminated with veterinary drugs may enter the tank of milk to be collected by the processor (bulk tank). It is when this milk is collected, and mixed with uncontaminated raw milk that significant volumes of this waste occurs. Whilst the processor disposes of this waste, it is at a cost to the producer.

The occurrence of Category 2 milk by reason b) is directly related to herd health status. The FSA states that milk for human consumption must come from animals that are in good health, and that milk from animals deemed to show a positive reaction to Bovine Tuberculosis (bTB) or Brucellosis tests must not be used for human consumption. Milk from animals suffering from other diseases (e.g. Foot and Mouth) can still be used for human consumption, provided it is processed. However the milk must still meet specifications in place from the processor. Cattle suffering from particular diseases would be culled, and as such cause a waste not only in terms of milk waste, but also in terms of dead stock.



The most common reason for Category 2 waste is mastitis. Mastitis is the predominant reason for antibiotic treatment of cows (and therefore contamination of milk), cows are classified as being of poor health, and may cause for milk to be out of specification. Whilst the volume of Category 2 waste is minimal, there is a significant volume of on-farm waste that is generated that meets the criteria of Category 2 milk and milk products.

Current disposal - Category two milk and milk products must be disposed of through the following means:

Disposed of by incineration or treated in an approved Category 1 or 2 rendering plant

In the case of milk and colostrums it may also be: Treated in an compost or biogas plant approved under the ABPR and

licensed in accordance with WMLR Used as a fertiliser and soil improver (in accordance with Regulation

181/2006 and WMLR)

The processor historically always disposed of Category 2 milk by incineration or rendering. More recently, our contacts have moved toward disposing milk in biogas plants, primarily Anaerobic Digestion plants. Disposal via this route is at a similar cost to incineration (£35/tonne). Little is thought to be composted or applied directly to land (i.e. not through anaerobic digestion), as the production of category 2 milk is often sporadic.

Milk and milk products become Category 3 when:a) They are former foodstuffs fit for human consumption but no

longer intended for that purpose;b) They are derived from the production of products intended for

human consumptionc) In the case of raw milk they originate from animals that do not

show clinical signs of any disease communicable to humans or animals through the milk

a) and b) are concerned with the processed milk or milk product. c) is concerned with the unprocessed, raw milk product. Milk with blood, taint or extraneous water,(assuming these come from animals which do not show clinical signs of any disease communicable through that product to humans or animals) are examples coming into category 3.

Table 2.4.2 outlined the levels of Cause a) - The main source of milk and milk products fit for human consumption, but no longer intended for it, is retailer returns. Retailer returns occur because of the following:

Faulty packaging Mislabelling Short shelf life Over-ordering Milk separation



Retailer returns due to milk holding a short shelf life, and over-ordering (by the retailer) are the most significant in terms of volumes. This may be a problem caused by the retailer, but is dealt by the processor.

Cause b) – This type of milk by-product occurs as a result of the physical processing of raw milk into a product. Section 3.4.1.2 considered why these by-products occur, and the variation of by-products between products produced. One thing is common between all by-products of milk processing (regardless of the product produced):If the by-product is not intended for human consumption it is ‘down-graded’ and classified as Category 3. Few by-products of milk processing, e.g. fat skims, sludges, are actually used for human consumption; therefore the majority of by-products are classified as Category 3. However, some by-products such as whey do have a use for human consumption (it may be concentrated for use as a food extender or additive) but is commonly ‘downgraded’ and fed to pigs as a Category 3 ABP.

In the case of raw milk they originate from animals that do not show clinical signs of any disease communicable to humans or animals through the milk

Raw milk, that is not classified as a Category 1 or 2 ABP, but is unsuitable for human consumption or is not intended for it, would be classified as a Category 3 ABP. The key reason for this type of milk is that if it does not meet the specifications set by the processor (e.g. tainted milk), or those requirements set by the Food Hygiene Regulations, in terms of temperature. Section 3.4.1.3 considered the processor specifications that commonly result in the production of milk unsuitable for human consumption.

As with milk generated from cause a), the ABPR place restrictions upon how this milk can be disposed of.Current disposal – Category 3 milk and milk product must be disposed of according to the ABPR, in the following ways:

Disposed of by incineration or treated in an approved Category 1 or 2 rendering plant

Treated in an compost or biogas plant approved under the ABPR and licensed in accordance with WMLR

Used as a fertiliser and soil improver (in accordance with Regulation 181/2006 and WMLR)

In the case of milk and colostrums applied to land in accordance with article 5.2 (e) under the ABPR and the WMLR

Treated in accordance with Regulation 79/2005 to be used in animal feed (when milk or milk products are sourced from premises approved under FHL)

Up until 1st October 2007 a large proportion of Category 3 milk caused by retailer returns was disposed of to landfill. This represented a waste in terms of economical and environmental cost. Through our contacts we have established that the following are key disposal routes as of 1st October 2007:

Animal feed: Pigs – primarily wastes generated through processing, and supermarket returns. The milk is used, and packaging recycled at



little cost. This is considered as a waste in this report because the processing costs may exceed its value

Treated in on-site, effluent treatment plants – wastes generated through milk processing (wash water). This disposal route will reduce the cost of disposal. The water collected is useable for vehicle washing

Anaerobic Digestion – All forms of category 3 milk and milk products. Explained under Category 2

Rendered and incinerated – Primarily milk waste caused by a). Some issues regarding the acceptation of raw milk.

3.4.1.2. Milk waste as a result of process

The processing of milk generates products both suitable and unsuitable for human consumption. These products vary depending upon the edible product processed. Liquid milk represents roughly 51% of the milk usage in the UK and due to the availability of data; the waste produced from liquid milk processing was focussed upon. Note - Cheese making is recognised as being less efficient than liquid milk processing in terms of volumes of product used and wasted. The types and reasons for these wastes/by-products generated were not considered in great detail (see section below), as reliable data could not be obtained.

Liquid milk processing - There are multiple phases of processing raw milk to produce liquid milk, many of which generate some form of by-product. The following are the phases of the process that produce the particular by-products outlined in table 2.4.2:

Clarification/centrifugation – removes impurities from milk– sludge, retentate, desludges (from bactofuge/clarifiers)

Separation – of skim milk and cream – sludge, fat skims Cleaning in practice – milk washings, wash-down water contaminated

with milk Effluent treatment – of milk washings – sludges

Of the wastes produced from these processes, it is not common practice for any of these to be used for human consumption. Sludges and desludges are unsuitable for human consumption because of their nature, e.g. sludges and desludges are typically high in bacteria, or may contain foreign material (straw etc).

These are all disposed of by the means outlined in section 3.4.1 according to the ABPR. Some plants currently reuse the water element of milk washings, (once cleaned – in effluent treatment plant) as a vehicle wash. This concentrates the waste – i.e. the sludge, and therefore reduces the volume for disposal. Note - This water cannot be used elsewhere in the process because of legislation.



Cheese and dairy product manufacture48% of milk utilised by dairies is for the manufacture of the following key dairy products:Butter, Cheese, Full cream powder, Skimmed milk powder, Condensed milk, Cream, Yoghurt

Of these products, cheese manufacture utilises 60% of the raw incoming milk. Cheese making generates a significant volume of whey (90% of the volume of the raw milk input). This has a use for human consumption, and may be powdered for this. Alternatively it is ‘downgraded’ to a Category 3 ABP and fed to pigs. It is not a waste, unless it is disposed of in a way that costs the processor or environment.

3.4.1.3. Milk waste as a result of specification

Individual processing companies set specifications that ensure that raw milk meets the standards as set by the FHR, and The Dairy Products (Hygiene) Regulations 1995. These specifications ensure that defective raw milk that cannot be improved through processing is rejected. The specifications that result in significant volumes are as follows:

Residues such as antibiotics and pesticides must not exceed levels specified in legislation – antibiotics used to treated infections or ailments. Pesticides from feed.

Extraneous water must not be added to raw milk A bacterial standard of 100,000 per ml for all milk intended for human

consumption – due to poor milking methods, inadequate cleaning of milk equipment and poor cooling (and mastitis in some cases).

A Somatic Cell Count standard of 400,000 per ml for all milk intended for human consumption – caused by a bacterial infection of the udder (primarily mastitis)

Milk must be of normal appearance, smell and taste – including taints that may arise due to feed type.

This milk must be disposed of according to the ABPR, with all but antibiotic milk treated as a Category 3 milk product. Our contacts suggested that they have moved toward biogas plants for the disposal of this waste raw milk, as few plants; incinerators etc, are willing to accept un-processed, raw milk.

3.4.2. PACKAGING

Section 2.4.2.1 outlined the following as the predominant types of packaging waste expected to be incurred/generated through milk processing:

HDP (High Density Polythene) bottles Tetra-pack cartons Chemical drums/containers Shrink-wrap Cardboard Pallets



The reasons for these wastes are: As a result of incoming-product, i.e. chemical containers As a result of faulty packaging, machine malfunction, human error As a result of returns from customers (generally as a result of date) As a result in packaging changes Plastic from labels Film Dirty plastic

The largest proportion of milk packaging occurs as a waste in the consumers home. High packaging costs have already led to major reductions and the waste is recycled whenever possible – currently 11,000 tonnes is recycled.

The largest source of packaging waste is that of cartons/bottles etc the customer has returned that. Generally it is not the dairy processor that deals with this waste, but is dealt by the renderer/incinerator/anaerobic digester. These outlets for this type of waste generally have to deal with a large volume of packaging waste, and wash and recycle the majority of it.

Faulty packaging from customer returns may still be within date so the milk can be recycled, for cheese making or pig feed.

The types of waste has been reduced significantly, for example as a result of the move away from using pallets there is no longer any need to shrink wrap thus saving miles of wrapping.

The amount of bottle waste can be reduced by making them and recycling them onsite as most damage to empty bottles occurs during transit.

The future is to reduce weight of packaging – thus saving in raw materials but at the cost of thinner more easily damaged bottles. This process has already reduced the bottle weight by 3.5%.

3.4.3. DEADSTOCK

Milk production also results in the production of bovine animals that have a low or negative economic value, and may not be used for human consumption. These incur both an economic cost to the producer and a loss to the beef industry of potential meat animals.

Section 2.4.2.1 considered that calves (primarily those less than 36 hours of age) were the key dairy dead stock waste in 2006.

With OTM cattle eligible to enter the food chain, un-productive females are no longer a true waste, as they do generate a return. However, it is well recognised that by improving the longevity and fertility of dairy females (conception rates considered to have declined to levels now less than 40% (Sinclair & Webb, 2005)), the dairy industry could be considerably more efficient



in terms of the number of females needed to produce a similar volume of raw milk.

3.4.3.1. Calves

To enable lactation to commence, the cow/heifer must produce a calf. Calf production alone results in unavoidable mortalities, resulting in a waste that has a negative economic value; i.e. the cost of conception (bull hire/artificial insemination (AI) costs on average £27/cow, Nix, 2007) and then collection and disposal of calves generally incurs a cost (£10 as quoted from a registered fallen stock collector).

Unavoidable mortalities between birth and rearing represent an insignificant proportion of calve losses when considering that an estimated 100,000 dairy-type bull calves were disposed of in 2006 (MDC Breeding+, 2006; See Annex 6.10 for how this has been calculated).

The value and demand for a calf depends entirely upon its sex, breeding and market. With low market demand and returns, dairy-type bull calves may be uneconomical to rear. In many cases it is more economical for a producer to dispose of a calf at birth, incurring a minimum of an estimated £37 costs, than it is to rear the calf for sale.

With the re-opening of live calf exports (May 2006), the value of dairy-bred bull calves increased – auction market value increased from £15.35 to £25.85 between March and May (MLC). In 2006 it is expected that fewer calves were disposed of at birth than in previous years.

With the prospect of EU wide shortages of beef in the next few years, there are now moves by sectors of the industry to re-establish the use of dairy-bred bull calves as the raw material for specialist beef units that would finish the calves to a commercial beef weight. Unless there is a major change in consumer preferences the use of calves in veal production is unlikely.

Current disposal – Dead calves are commonly collected and disposed of via incineration or via the knackers yard or hunt kennels. Calves (as with other fallen stock) may also be disposed of by rendering.

3.5. EGGS

The wastes that occur through egg production were outlined in section 3.2. This section considers the reasons for these wastes, and the current methods by which these are disposed of.

3.5.1. HATCHERY WASTE

Approximately 50% of chicks produced are male and these are of no use to the egg business, and because they are produced from an egg laying strain of bird



they are not acceptable as meat birds. The male chicks are disposed of on farm and specialist companies with hatcheries in an attempt to reduce the disposal cost. For example Honeybrook Animal Foods work with some of the larger hatcheries to provide the gas slaughter equipment and market the chicks to zoos and specialist reptile breeders. Obviously this is a very small limited market but it has proved successful.

With the current restrictions on recycling protein it is unlikely that any of the hatchery waste will be used as feed. One possible use is to convert it into a fuel but the initial equipment cost is seen as prohibitive.

3.5.2. EGG QUALITY

The best quality egg is Grade A and these are sold as “shell eggs”. They must be clean, without cracks and have an air sack not exceeding 6mm in depth. Washing eggs is prohibited in the by legislation unless they are destined for use in egg products.

Any eggs not meeting this standard become Grade B and are broken, pasteurised and sold on the liquid egg market. Any cracks also increase the risk of bacterial contamination of the broken egg and of other eggs when leaking, creating food safety problems.

Any eggs not fit for human consumption but not condemned due to disease are classed as “industrial eggs” and are sold for alternative uses such as shampoo and soap. The following table gives the reasons and the proportion of eggs downgraded from Grade A.

Table 3.5.2: The reasons for downgrading eggs from Grade A 61 % pressure cracks13.6 % pimpled9.81 % thin shell cracks6.8 % body checks5.1 % toe holes2.13 % stained shell0.85 % blood spots0.85 % meat spotsSource: 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.


http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodrin/poultry/pdfs/eggstorage.pdf


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:

Better separation of fats for edible or inedible rendering Emptying of stomachs and cleaning them for sale for pet food

manufacture together with lungs and trachea Emptying and disposal of intestinal contents to reduce weight of SRM

material

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.

4.2.4.2. Composting

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.

4.2.4.3. Digestion

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: Make sugar production for bioethanol eligible for both the non-food

regime on set-aside land and the energy crop premium; Assess the opportunities for additional processing of cereals from

existing intervention stocks into biofuels, to contribute to reducing the amount of cereals exported with refunds;

Assess the implementation of the energy crop scheme by the end of 2006;

Monitor the impact of biofuel demand on commodity and by-product prices, their availability for competing industries and the impact on food supply prices, in the EU and in developing countries;

Finance a campaign to inform farmers and forest holders about the properties of energy crops and the opportunities they offer;

Bring forward a forestry Action Plan, in which the energy use of forest material will play an important part;

Review how animal by-products legislation could be amended in order to facilitate the authorisation and approval of alternative processes for the production of biofuels;

Implement the mechanism proposed to clarify standards for the secondary use of waste materials.

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:

‘Biodegradable fraction of products, wastes and residues from agriculture (including vegetal and animal substances), forestry and related industries, as well as the biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal waste.’

And Biodiesel could be:

‘A methyl-ester produced from vegetable oil, animal oil or recycled fats and oils of diesel quality for use as a biofuel.’

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:



1. Combustion in a steam raising boiler and the use of steam directly in a process or used to feed a turbine which then generates electricity.

2. Direct as fuel in an engine, generating electricity.3. Conversion to fatty acid methyl ester (FAME), which is then used

as a vehicle fuel [Bio-diesel].

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 MarketSince 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:

packing, presentation availability (in quantity)

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:

Ox and lambs liver Ox and lambs kidney OX and lambs heart Ox and lambs tongue Oxtail

They also describe the even less commonly available ones:

Lambs sweetbreads (the thymus and parathymus glands) Lambs fries (testicles) Tripe Suet Cow heel (feet)

The market for edible pig offal is thought to be less of a problem by BPEX than that in the ruminant sector.

Wholesale PricesThe 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.

Range p per kg or each -e Cattle Sheep PigsLow High Low High Low High

Kidney 100 140 30 70 30 90

Liver 30 70 40 70 30 90

Heart 30 100 36 80 30 90



Other:Tongue 25 e nq nq

Skirt 30 70

Tail 100 120

Intestines- cleaned 35 e 55 e

Feet 62 e 12 e

Pluck ( lungs and trachea 5 10Table4.2.5.1: An indicative level of returns from edible offal and co-products, 2007

Source MLC. Note – This table does not show a representative sample of prices nq=no quoteImported offal prices were observed to be at the top end of these ranges for the main items.

The EBLEX reports referred to, give examples of retail prices, which in most instances are 100 to 150% higher than those above.

ExportAccording to the MLC Export Development team, there are now good opportunities to export more edible offal’s and co-products to the EU and further a field, particularly to China. The trade in such materials was reported in detail in the 2006 reports Chapter 6 (MLC, 2006).

Since then it has been the subject of further review by EBLEX, however, compared to European and North American abattoirs many edible offal and edible co products (from the gutroom) are neglected due to lack of facilities, skills and available markets.

In the EU for example, France has a thriving market for prepared tripe dishes that also use the bible/manifold e.g. Andouillette, and the rest of Europe have similar dishes and high demands for gutroom products. The Spanish have a pork blood dish that is simply pig blood with a setting agent added at the abattoir. The blood sets in trays and is then cut like a cake, this is very popular in Madrid.

In the USA the abattoirs tend to have there own rendering facilities normally with a railhead leading into the plant. Currently the bulk of the ‘green offal’s’ are turned into animal feed, the pig offal into chitterlings for the ethnic trade and tripe is blanched and sold to Mexico. Plants that do not have their own rendering facilities are served by renderers who are willing to travel vast



distances to collect product, 700 mile trips are common place with several vehicles in the loop to clear the high throughput abattoirs. The export trade for by-products is of major importance for the USA plants and they all have full facilities for further processing by-products, unlike the bulk of the UK abattoirs.

Japan is currently a major market for beef straps from cattle feet along with the mountain chain from the tripe.

4.2.5.2. Managing the abattoir gut room

A key prerequisite for improving the return from many edible co-products is in improving the efficiency and hygiene of operations in the gut room.

Traditionally in abattoirs the management of the gut room has always taken a second place to the other areas in the plant. Because of the working condition it has always been difficult to find staff to work in the gut room. An efficient gut room operation requires a practical approach to make sure product quality is maintained in what is often seen as ‘rubbish’ and it also requires someone able to market the product to ensure maximum returns or, as is often the case, minimum loses.

Because finding suitable staff is often difficult many plant operators will employ a company to manage the gut room operation on their behalf. This has a number of advantages to the plant operator. The management company is responsible for providing and training staff and as specialists in this area they are knowledgeable in best practice techniques to maximise yield and quality. The management company can also negotiate favourable deals with customers on the basis of larger volumes, brought together from a number of plants, and better quality as a result of specialisation.

Many plant operators have chosen this option and with an efficient and trustworthy gut room operating company, costs can be minimised and in some cases small profits returned.

The opportunities for abattoirs in improving their gut room operations were the subject of a RMIF industry forum in 2007.



4.2.5.3. Progress towards lifting of the feed ban

Regulation EC 1234/2003 defines the framework in which any substantive legislative changes will be made. The EC believes that changes can be made without endangering the health or the policy of eradicating BSE, and provided that the positive trend continues and scientific conditions are in place.

However, only when the analytical methods and tools for the detection of the presence of species-specific animal proteins in animal feed are developed and validated, will the scientific conditions exist to permit the re-evaluation of the total feed ban. The science must lead before legislation can follow. Work to improve the existing methods of identifying species-specific animal proteins is essential in order to lead to the lifting of the total ban but continuing to implement the anti-cannibalism ban.

To this end, a collaborative European project to provide this scientific evidence, SAFEED-PAP, has been now been agreed with the European Commission and DG Research. The SAFEED-PAP proposal has three main objectives that should lead to solve the problematic of the species-specific detection of MBM in compound feeds:

1. Development of suitable validated methods for the species specific detection and quantification of animal protein in compound feed in order to allow the amendment of the extended total ban;

2. Development of tools and analytical kits for the correct implementation of the methods in the laboratories;

3. To set up the appropriate environment for using the tools, including training.

The SAFEED-PAP website is available at. http://safeedpap.feedsafety.org

The provision of the scientific evidence is of course only the first, if essential step. Thereafter this evidence must be presented and accepted by the EC. There will be due discussion and consideration before the preparation of proposals. These proposals then need to be drafted into legislation. In principle, Commission Regulation EC 1923/2006, which introduced the concept of “tolerance” or threshold limits will be of significant assistance when completing these important discussions.

However, even if the SAFEED-PAP project is completely successful at providing the scientific evidence that will underpin the lifting of the total ban, it is likely to be at least 2010 before the necessary legislation is passed to allow the feeding of non-ruminant PAP’s to farmed animals. A more immediate proposal by the European Fat Processors and Renderers Association (EFPRA) is expected in December 2007. This proposal will focus on the re-authorisation of non-ruminant PAP specifically for use in Aqua-feeds, using existing controls throughout the whole supply chain.


http://safeedpap.feedsafety.org/


4.3 POULTRY and EGGS

Previous sections outlined the scale of the waste and the possibilities for reducing waste in the Poultry sector mirror those of the Red Meat sector while disposal is strictly controlled by legislation.

While there are specific breeds for each section of the industry i.e. food producing breeds and egg laying breeds, it will be impossible to use the waste male chicks from the egg laying breeds for food production. If it were possible to produce a general ‘all purpose’ bird this would be ideal, but unfortunately the economic pressures and specific needs of each sector of the industry will not allow this to happen

4.4. DAIRY

It is recognised that, because of the efficiencies already carried out and the financial pressure to eliminate waste it is difficult to see any areas of production where further savings could be made.

The recent move to recycling has pleased the multiple retailers and created a green image for the milk processors but the economics of the process do not make it a viable process and it is carried out for other reasons than pure cost savings.

Both live dairy bull calves, and the meat of adult dairy-type cattle is demanded in Europe. With further development in exporting meat to the continent, there is the potential for more male dairy calves to be reared, and finished in the UK as opposed to being disposed of or exported as calves. The UK is currently not self-sufficient in beef production, with much of the manufacturing quality beef being imported. With sufficient returns to cover costs of production producers could be encouraged to produce beef to displace these imports.

To encourage producers to dispose of fewer calves, it is essential that improvements in the market value, whether it be for the live calf or meat, reflects increasing feed costs and is fed back through the supply chain.



4.5 PROPOSAL FOR LEGISLATIVE CHANGES THAT WILL ASSIST IN REDUCING PRODUCTION OF WASTE

This section will consider each area of legislation separately and make recommendations for any actions by industry that might expedite faster actions in that particular legislative sector.

4.5.1 Food & Edible Co-Poducts

No real changes are considered to be needed to assist in the project objective. However, the development of industry guides (to the EU hygiene regulations), are expected to assist in optimising the use of materials that could be used in these sectors.

4.5.2 Animal By-Products Regulation

The ABPR is being reviewed at the current time, and the expectations will be that the principles laid down in the current version will be retained. It is intended that there will be a “lighter touch” with regard to the implementation while maintaining a low risk to animal and human health and the environment. However, one key change will hopefully see the removal of the requirement to “dispose of (certain) processed products, as waste, according to the waste incineration directive”. It is expected that processed products will be re-termed “derived products” which may then be considered as outside of the scope of the ABPR. Determination that certain derived products are “fuels”, may then lead to the control of emissions according to the general IPPC legislation, rather than specifically the WID.

4.5.3.Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy Regulations

The TSER will be the actual vehicle for re-entry of certain products back into the food chain via animal feeds. This area includes the TSE roadmap, the SAFEED project and all associated areas of control tools, but most specifically that of species identification in processed proteins. Developments in this area will lead to further amendments to the TSE regulation, which could lead the way forward to re-entry of certain products. An already approved product “Hydrolysed Protein” is already approved but the testing method is complex and is interpreted in different ways in some member states to the other. Clarification by acceptance of a common standard could lead to an immediate re-entry of Hydrolysed feather meal (if it is accepted as a “true” Hydrolysed protein).

4.5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL

IPPC: Some aspects of this legislation are under review, including the scope for emissions monitoring when emissions to air are made (in context of combustion).WID and WMLR issues: These should be considered to be part of the more holistic discussion on the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). The WFD is currently under review and discussion within the European Commission and the Parliament.



4.6 THE ESTIMATED EFFECT OF PROPOSED CHANGES ON WASTE REDUCTION

There are a number of alternative waste treatment schemes being proposed but they are mainly aimed at reducing the cost of disposal to the industry rather than addressing the problem of reducing the amount of waste as currently produced.

Two changes in the meat industry would have a major effect on the amount of food waste produced by the Red Meat, Poultry, Dairy and Egg sectors as defined in this report

1 Change the existing feed ban

2 Develop novel conversion processes to enable less attractive waste to be converted into acceptable products.

4.6.1 Feed Ban

The first would be change the existing feed ban to enable unwanted protein to be used as animal feed. Obviously this could not be permitted within the same species but cross species feeding is possible and would result in major changes to both the economics of the food industry but also the position of the UK food industry within the world market.

4.6.2 Protein conversion

The second change would be to develop initiatives and processes that would enable more of the carcase to be consumed by the population. This would not necessarily mean that fewer carcases would be produced because the feed stock for the process would be the less popular by-products that are not consumed in their natural form. As the population becomes more affluent the consumption of the cheaper, less attractive products is reduced and the demand for what is perceived as the “best quality” products increases. This can be clearly seen by the amount of offal currently consumed in the UK. This is not the case in other countries where cultural differences have helped to maintain a more a wider appreciation of all parts of the carcase.

One possible way to over come this problem would be to change the appearance, taste and texture of the less attractive items in a way that makes them more attractive to the public. With the current strict labelling requirements the opportunities for “hiding” these products within other more popular products is very small and many products could only be included by first converting them into their base primary components.

The conversion of muscle to protein is not a new process and Prozyme is mentioned earlier as developing a system for converting bone and muscle into protein and other useful products. During discussions with Prozyme we discovered that they have carried out lab scale trials to see how effectively their



system would convert unwanted and unattractive muscle and offal into protein powder for inclusion in soups and other food products. Should this prove viable it would provide the industry with an acceptable disposal route for the huge amounts of unwanted muscle and offal and it would ensure that the maximum amount of the carcase is consumed for human consumption even though not in a readily identifiable form.



5. ADDITIONAL RESEARCH REQUIRED

5.1. INTRODUCTION

If we ignore the cost of disposal, a number of the alternative schemes become less attractive and we are left with better utilisation and reduced waste as the main aim.

Discussions with each sector has resulted in a “wish list “ of problems and possible solutions.

5.2. RED MEAT

The meat industry is keen to reduce disposal costs and do not see better usage of the carcase as a way of reducing the number of carcases needed. However two things that would improve usage would be the lifting of the feed ban and converting waste muscle and offal into protein.

Much of the science required to justify lifting the feed ban is already in place and the change in legislation is based on a political rather than a scientific decision. The industry is already lobbying the UK and EU governments to take the next step and allow limited use of animal and poultry protein in animal feed. It is therefore unlikely that any additional funding would accelerate this decision.

The conversion of muscle and offal into protein requires some basic research to be undertaken. This can be focused research using the existing knowledge of bone conversion but it needs to be done to ensure the acceptability and wholesomeness of the final product.

5.3 POULTRY

Harper Adams University College hosted a Poultry Industry * meeting on July 17th 2006, to reprise the Temperton 12 report and consider the wishes of the UK Industry. At the end of the meeting a voting system was used to prioritise the “aspirations” of the industry. The headings of the subject groups under discussion were arbitrary, so the following summary shows the main findings by subject area.

5.3.1. SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS, (showing % votes cast)

35% a) Influence regulators and food chain members to re-authorise and approve the use of Poultry [PPP]** in feedingstuffs for farmed food producing animals.

[** PPP = Processed Poultry Protein]31% b) Determine the benefits of re authorisation of PPP including a scientific assessment of all beneficial properties of poultry by-products.



14% c) Establish method of local/ on-site processing systems to minimise environmental impact, maximise compost and /or energy (CHP).

13% d) Develop alternative uses of hatchery waste, including egg shell.

The aspirations a) to d)(above) are not prioritised in a chronological order, so projects need to be developed to coordinate all of these activities in a logical order.

5.3.2. POULTRY INDUSTRY PROPOSALS

1. Update Temperton 12 (2004) to 2006/7, particularly reference legislation

2. Appraise the technical and scientific aspects of subject areas b),c),d) including proposals to assist with subject area a).

3. Use appraisal above to develop a strategy to deliver subject area a).

5.3. DAIRY INDUSTRY

During the completion of this study we have found that the Dairy Industry is very efficient and is already doing a lot to reduce waste and ensure production costs are kept to a minimum. This is especially true with the larger companies that are being pushed into more efficient production and reduced waste by the large multiple retailers.

At the smaller end of the industry the dairies and creameries complained about the cost of chilling the product and the need for a simple “quality kit” that could be used on farm so that the farmers would be aware of the quality of the product they are sending to the large processors. Unfortunately neither improved chilling nor local testing will result in reduced waste but both would enable the small producers to feel that they are more in control of their own destiny.

Trying to investigate the cost of either problem proved very difficult. The refrigeration companies contacted all suggested that solutions using existing technology would be suitable but these could only be costed on a site-by-site basis.

The “quality kit” proved equally as elusive because the instrument companies contacted were reluctant to get involved when they realised the potential sales would be a few farmers who are notoriously famous for not wanting to spend money.

Everyone contacted raised the issue of male calves and their disposal, as the current veal market is uneconomic. All suggested that a proper veal industry within the UK would enable these calves to be produced and reared with a



small profit. Whether the demand for veal would enable all these calves to be finished is a difficult question but everyone felt it would be worth developing a market and industry to make use of the calves. It was also felt that with the more humane production methods this veal could have an export market into the more “caring” countries. The option of specialist ‘finishers’ taking the male calves on to a commercial beef weight to supplement any forecast beef shortage is very appealing and should be possible using existing conventional rearing techniques without the need for any further research using

5.4. EGG INDUSTRY

The Egg Industry had two main areas of concern. The disposal of shells and the disposal of male day old chicks.

Many mentioned the separation of shell and membrane as the ‘holy grail’ but all soon admitted that the reported “gold rush” hasn’t happened and is unlikely to happen until the process becomes easier and cheaper. The process would provide an additional income to the egg producers and some even suggested it might prompt them to produce more eggs, and throw away the contents, if the return on shells was high enough. Hardly helping efficient production…….

The waste of day old male chicks is one that on the face of it looks criminal – just as the disposal of male calves in the dairy industry. But the egg laying strain has proved to be unsuitable for meat production and the cost of rearing does not justify the return obtainable on a poor quality carcase. It was suggested that a move to a more general purpose strain would satisfy both needs – a good layer for egg production and good male carcase for food use.

Unfortunately no one made any suggestion as to how this should be achieved and the general view was that it’s a problem for the scientist. It was also suggested that any compromise on the egg laying ability of the existing hens would result in higher production costs that would not be tolerated by the multiple retailers.

5.4.1. INDUSTRY VIEWS

Most of the respondents referred to the Harper Adams University College meeting in July 2006 and the Temperton Fellowship report No 14 of 2006, “The future challenges facing the UK Egg Industry”.

The main problems raised by the industry is finding better and cheaper solutions for using or disposing of hatchery waste and finding better and cheaper solutions for using or disposing of egg shells produced arising from the processed egg industry. Although highlighted as the major industry problems those contacted were reluctant to provide details of the costs involved – again this information was seen as confidential.


material flows in livestock product...

Documents