Environmental Resources for Meat

General

Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Meat Processing
The Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines are technical reference documents with general and industry specific examples of Good International Industry Practice (GIIP)1. When one or more members of the World Bank Group are involved in a project, these EHS Guidelines are applied as required by their respective policies and standards. These industry sector EHS guidelines are designed to be used together with the General EHS Guidelines document, which provides guidance to users on common EHS issues potentially applicable to all industry sectors. For complex projects, use of multiple industry-sector guidelines may be necessary.

Environmental Guidelines for Meat Processing and Rendering

Multimedia Environmental Compliance Guide for Food Processors
As food processors, you are regulated by a variety of federal laws administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that impact human activities and the environment. Noncompliance with these regulations can damage human health and the environment, and result in significant financial liabilities for clean up costs or fines. Environmental compliance may be difficult for some food processors that do not have the time, staff, or other resources necessary to determine their responsibilities. Also, environmental regulations and laws can be complicated, and information on environmental compliance may be difficult to locate. Adding to these complexities, you must be aware of and meet stringent food safety requirements. To assist you, EPA, with special assistance from the American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI), the American Meat Institute (AMI), the National Food Processors Association (NFPA) and the Food Industry Environmental Council (FIEC), has developed this guide to address these issues.

Air

Decontamination of Airborne Bacteria in Meat Processing Plants
Air has been established as a source of bacterial contamination in meat processing facilities. Airborne bacteria may affect product shelf life, and have food safety implications. The effectiveness of reactive oxygen species (ROS) generating AirOcare equipment on the reduction of airborne bacteria in a meat processing environment was determined. Bacterial strains found in ground beef were used to artificially contaminate the air using a 6-jet Collison nebulizer. Airborne bacterial populations in the meat processing room were monitored every 24 h at multiple locations using a Staplex 6 stage air sampler. Total aerobic, Gram-negative, and lactic acid bacterial populations were determined by sampling on R2A agar, MacConkey agar and Lactobacilli MRS agar, respectively. Approximately 3 log reductions of lactic acid bacteria and Gram-negative bacteria were observed after 24 hours of treatment (P <0.05) compared to ~1.5 log reduction in the control treatment. Further exposure with ROS significantly reduced lactic acid bacteria and Gram-negative bacteria in the air at 48 and 96 h sampling intervals. These findings reveal that reactive oxygen species treatment using AirOcare unit significantly reduces airborne contamination in a meat processing environment.

Water/Wastewater

Reduction in Waste Load from a Meat Processing Plant—Beef
Randolph Packing Company is a beef slaughterhouse and boning operation located in Asheboro, N.C. The plant discharges its wastewater to the Asheboro publically owned treatment works. This study is a review of the plant’s water use and waste load. It examines the technical and economic feasibility of incorporating training programs and process modifications to reduce the waste load. The plant was surveyed to identify sources of waste and water use. Methods are suggested to reduce water use and waste load by increasing the efficiency of byproduct recovery. Pretreatment options were also examined.

Meat Processing: Waste Reduction Assessment Centering on COD Reduction
In a continuing effort to reduce wastewater disposal surcharges, as a part of the city pretreatment program, a meat processing facility requested technical assistance from the N.C. Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance. This division is a non-regulatory state agency offering free environmental technical assistance and is part of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. A DPPEA team made a waste reduction inspection visit to the plant. The plant manager gave a detailed synopsis of the facility's operations and provided a plant tour. The waste assessment team concentrated mainly on the reduction of COD in the facilities wastewater discharge.

Energy

Energy efficiency in the slaughter and meat processing industry—opportunities for improvements in future energy markets
In the study presented in this paper different energy efficiency measures that can be carried out in a slaughter and meat processing (SMP) plant were evaluated both in terms of economy and CO2 emission reduction for four different future energy market developments. It was found that it is economically interesting to invest in an increased heat exchanger network or heat pumps in the fictitious non-integrated plants studied and that between 5% and 35% of the total CO2 emissions can be saved. The most cost effective way of reducing CO2 emissions was found to be switching fuel from heavy fuel oil to natural gas or wood chips. For the studied plants that are already heat integrated it was shown that investing in a new heat pump can be economically interesting and can reduce CO2 emissions. The profitability of investing in a combined heat and power (CHP) unit for the SMP plants was also investigated and found to be smaller than extended heat recovery or new heat pumps in the studied plants. However, the payback period for CHP units installed at an ecocyclic industrial park, consisting of an SMP plant and for example a Swedish dairy, was found to be short enough to be interesting.

Energy Savings in Meat Processing

• 20% reduction in natural gas consumption with potential savings of $270,000/yr with overall payback of less than one year
• 15% reduction in electrical consumption with potential savings of $400,000/yr with overall payback of 3 years
• On-site cogeneration with potential savings of $1.4 million/yr
• Implementation of all energy saving measures would reduce GHG emissions by 8,900 tonnes/yr