WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
12060ECF04/70
Current Practice in Seafoods
Processing Waste Treatment
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WATER QUALITY OFFICE
-------
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES
The Water Pollution Control Research Series describes the
results and progress in the control and abatement of pollu-
tion of our Nation's waters. They provide a central source
of information on the research, development, and demon-
stration activities of the Water Quality Office, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, through inhouse research and grants
and contracts with Federal, State, and local agencies, re-
search institutions, and industrial organizations.
Inquiries pertaining to the Water Pollution Control Research
Reports should be directed to the Head, Project Reports
System, Office of Research and Development, Water Quality
Office, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, B.C. 20242.
-------
Current Practice in Seafoods Processing Waste Treatment
M. R. Soderquist, Instructor, Food Science and Technology;
K. J. Williamson, Instructor, Food Science and Technology;
G. I. Blanton, Jr., Research Associate, Food Science and Technology;
D. C. Phillips, Professor, Civil Engineering;
D. K. Law, Associate Professor, Food Science and Technology; and
D. L. Crawford, Associate Professor, Food Science and Technology
Department of Food Science and Technology
Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
for the
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER QUALITY OFFICE
Project 12060ECF
April, 1970
-------
EPA Bevlew Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Water Quality Office,
EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does not signi-
fy that the contents necessarily reflect the views and poli-
cies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention
of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
-------
ABSTRACT
This report contains discussions of the processing of the major
United States seafoods species, the resultant wastewater strengths
and flows, solid wastes magnitudes, current treatment and by-product
recovery methods, and current and recommended research in water
pollution abatement. The geographic distribution of fish and
shellfish landings and products is described. The report is based
on a comprehensive literature review and extensive on-site investi-
gations of current research, processing and treatment activities in
the major seafoods centers of the United States.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project 12060ECF under
the partial sponsorship of the Federal Water Quality Administration.
Key Words: By-product, canning, characterization, disposal, fish,
food processing, freezing, industrial wastes, processing,
research, seafoods, shellfish, state of the art,
treatment.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Conclusions and Recommendations for Further Research 1
Recommendations for Solid Wastes 2
Solids Removal 2
By-product Utilization 3
Disposal Methods 3
Recommendations for Wastewaters 3
Untreated Discharge U
Reduction of Water Use h
Characterization k
Treatment Processes k
Priorities 5
Introduction 6
The Industry by Species 10
Bottom Fish 10
Processing 10
Recent Catch and Product Quantities 12
Projected Catches 13
Waste Quantities 13
Catfish lU
Processing 1^
Recent Catch and Product Quantities 16
Projected Catches l6
Waste Quantities 17
Crabs and Lobsters 17
Processing 17
Recent Catch and Product Quantities 18
Projected Catches 18
Waste Quantities 23
Halibut 2k
Processing 2U
Recent Catch and Product Quantities 25
-------
Projected Catches 25
Waste Quantities 25
Menhaden
28
Processing 2£
Recent Catch and Product Quantities 28
Projected Catches 30
Waste Quantities 30
Oysters, Clams and Scallops 30
Processing 31
Recent Catch and Product Quantities 31
Projected Catches 33
Waste Quantities 33
Salmon 3^
Processing 3^
Recent Catch and Product Quantities 3£
Projected Catches 3°
Waste Quantities 36
Sardines, Mackerel, Anchovies, Herring and Alewives 38
Processing 3"
Recent Catch and Product Quantities nO
Projected Catches j^2
Waste Quantities ^2
Shrimp ^3
Processing 7*3
Recent Catch and Product Quantities **6
Projected Catches p>
Waste Quantities H?
Tuna ^
Processing ^
Recent Catch and Product Quantities Ho
Projected Catches ^°
Waste Quantities 51
The Industry by Region 52
Alaska 52
Recent Landings and Product Quantities 52
Projected Catches 52
-------
Waste Magnitudes 5^
Present Waste Disposal Methods 56
Oregon and Washington 57
Recent Landings and Product Quantities 57
Projected Catches 58
Waste Magnitudes 58
Present Waste Disposal Methods 59
California 59
Recent Landings and Product Quantities 59
Projected Catches 6l
Waste Magnitudes 6l
Present Waste Disposal Methods 6l
Great Lakes Region 62
Recent Landings and Product Quantities 62
Projected Catches 63
Waste Magnitudes 63
Present Waste Disposal Methods 63
Mississippi River Basin 63
Recent Landings and Product Quantities 6^
Projected Catches 65
Waste Magnitudes 65
Present Waste Disposal Methods 65
Gulf States 65
Recent Landings and Product Quantities 66
Projected Catches 67
Waste Magnitudes 68
Present Waste Disposal Methods 68
South Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay States 69
Recent Landings and Product Quantities 69
Projected Catches 70
Waste Magnitudes 71
Present Waste Disposal Methods 71
North- and Middle-Atlantic States 71
Recent Landings and Product Quantities 71
Projected Catches 72
Waste Magnitudes 73
Present Waste Disposal Methods 73
-------
By-product Utilization 7^
Fish Meal 7^
Methods of Manufacture 7^
Equipment 75
Packaged Fish Meal Plants 75
Driers 75
Characteristics of Fish Meals 75
Shellfish 76
Anchovies, Herring, Menhaden, Sardines, and Mackerel 77
Tuna 78
Visceral Meals 78
Fish Oils 79
Methods of Manufacture 80
Characteristics of Fish Oils 8l
Use of Fish Oils 82
Condensed Fish Solubles 83
Methods of Manufacture 83
Characteristics of Fish Solubles 83
Stickwater Qh
Pretreatment of Stickwater 8k
Stickwater Evaporation Qk
Other Stickwater Concentration Methods 85
Fish Protein Concentrate 85
Methods of Manufacture 86
Characteristics of FPC 88
Present and Future FPC Production 88
Animal Feed 89
Fish Meal 89
Condensed Fish Solubles 90
Fish Oils 90
Fish Silage 90
Animal Feeds by Species 91
Bottom Fish 91
Catfish 91
Herring and Anchovies 92
Menhaden 92
Salmon 92
Shellfish 93
Tuna 93
Miscellaneous Fishery Products 93
-------
Protein Hydrolysates 9^
Fats and Lipids 9^
Enzymes 95
Hormones 95
Vitamins 95
Shell Products 96
Chitin and Glucosamine 96
Fertilizers 97
Lime and Limestone 97
Glue 97
Fish Roe and Caviar 98
Miscellaneous Roe Products 98
Wastewater Strengths and Volumes 99
Bottom Fish 100
Herring, Menhaden and Anchovies 101
Salmon 103
Sardines 105
Shellfish 106
Tuna 106
Standard Waste Treatment Methods 108
Screens 108
Centrifuges 111
Clarifiers, Gravity 111
Clarifiers, Flotation 112
Aerobic Biological Treatment 115
Anaerobic Biological Treatment 116
On-going Research 117
Harvesting and Processing Modifications 117
Waste Strengths and Volumes 118
Waste Treatment 118
-------
Acknowledgments 119
Literature Cited 120
APPENDIX I - Summary of Water Quality Standards for the
States with Seafoods Processing Industries
APPENDIX II - Synopsis of Charges to Industries Served
by Municipal Treatment Systems
APPENDIX III - Tabulation of ON-Site Seafood Processing
Center Survey Results
INDEX
-------
FIGURES
Page
1 World Catch, by Leading Countries, 1958-1968 (4) 7
2 U.S. Total Supply of Fishery Products, 1958-1968 (4) 8
3 Bottom Fish Filleting (10) 11
4 Catfish Processing (20) 15
5 Crab Canning (27) 19
6 Crab Freezing (27) 20
7 Lobster Canning (25) 21
8 Halibut Fillet Freezing (27) 26
9 Whole Halibut Freezing (27) 27
10 Menhaden Rendering (36) 29
11 Oyster Packing (40) 32
12 Salmon Canning (27) 35
13 Sardine, Anchovy, and Mackerel Canning (47) 39
14 Shrimp Handpicking (27) 44
15 Mechanical Shrimp Peeling (27) 45
16 Tuna Canning (10) 49
17 Rotary Screen (232) 109
18 Tangential Screen (232) 110
-------
TABLES
No._
1 Recent Bottom Fish Catches (U) 12
2 Packaged Bottom Fish Products, 1968 (11) 13
3 Recent Catfish Catches (21) l6
U Projected Catfish Production (21) 17
5 Recent Lobster and Crab Catches (U) 22
6 Crab Meat and Lobster Tail Products (h, 29) 22
7 Calculated Quantities of Crab Waste, 1968 23
8 Typical Crab Waste Composition (32) 2U
9 Recent Halibut Catches (U) 25
10 Recent Menhaden Catches (U) 28
11 Menhaden Products, 1968 (37) 30
12 Recent Oyster, Clam, and Scallop Catches 31
(excluding shell weight)
13 Clam and Oyster Canned Products, 1968 (29) 33
Ik Calculated Clam and Oyster Waste Magnitudes, 1968 2k
15 Recent Salmon Catches (h) 37
16 Salmon Products, 1968 (ll) 37
17 Calculated Salmon Waste Quantities, 1968 37
18 Composition of Salmon Waste (^5) 38
19 Proximate Analyses of Salmon Wastes (U6) ^0
20 Recent Catches of Sardines, Mackerel, Herring, ^1
Alewives, and Anchovies (U)
21 Oily-fish Products, 1968 (29, 37) ^1
22 Calculated Quantities of Wastes from Sardines, ^2
Anchovies, Herring, Alewives, 1968
23 Recent Shrimp Catches (U) ^
-------
2k Shrimp Products, 1968 (29) Ll-6
25 Composition of Shrimp Waste (32) Ii7
26 Recent Tuna Catches (k) 50
2? Tuna Products, 1968 (29) 50
28 Major Alaskan Landings and Calculated Waste 53
Quantities, 1967 (55)
29 Major Alaskan Products, 1967 (56) 53
30 Alaskan Salmon Wastes, 1966 (57) 5!+
31 Alaskan Shrimp Wastes, 1967 (57) 55
32 Alaskan Crab Wastes, 1967 (57) 56
33 Major Landings and Calculated Waste Quantities in 57
Oregon and Washington, 1967 (55)
3^ Major Products in Oregon and Washington, 1967 (56) 58
35 Major California Landings and Calculated Waste 60
Quantities, 1967 (55)
36 Major California Products, 1967 (56) 60
37 Major Great Lakes Region Landings and Calculated 62
Waste Quantities, 1967 (68)
38 Major Great Lakes Region Products, 1967 (56) 63
39 Major Mississippi River Landings and Calculated 6k
Waste Quantities, 1967 (73)
kO Major Mississippi River Basin Products, 1967 (56) 65
Ul Major Gulf States Landings and Calculated Waste 66
Quantities, 1967 (7*0
^2 Major Gulf States Products, 1967 (56) 67
^3 Presently Utilized and Latent Fishery Resources, 68
Gulf of Mexico
Major South Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay Landings, 69
and Calculated Waste Products, 1967 (77, 78)
-------
U5 Major South Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay Products, 70
1967 (56)
U6 Present Production and Fishery Resource Potentials, 70
South Atlantic Region
^7 Major North- and Middle-Atlantic Landings and 72
Calculated Waste Products, 1967 (79, 80)
kQ Major North- and Middle -Atlantic Products, 1967 (56) 72
1*9 Shrimp Meal Proximate Analyses (98) 76
50 Analyses of Shrimp Meal Made from Fresh and Spoiled Heads 76
(100)
51 Average Proximate Analyses of Some Oily Fish Meals (98) 77
52 Composition of Press Cake and of the Corresponding 77
Meals in Different Dryer Types (101, 102)
53 Composition of Catfish Wastes, Scrap and Meal (23) 78
5U Amino Acid Content of Various Fish Meals, 79
g/l6g N (113)
55 Vitamin A Concentration in Salmon Oils (USP units 82
per gram), (118)
56 Fish Oil Characteristics (llU) 82
57 Typical Analysis of Condensed Fish Solubles (131) 8U
58 Methods of Preparation of Fish Protein Concentrates 87
(1*7)
59 Summary of Vitamin A and D Assays of Fish Wastes (199) 96
60 Vitamin A Content of Fish Oils (35) 96
6l Fish Processing Wastewater Characteristics (8) 99
62 German Fish Processing Wastewater Characteristics (215) 100
63 Bottomfish Processing Wastewater Characteristics 101
6k Fish Meal Processing Wastewater Characteristics (215) 101
65 Salmon Processing Wastewater Characteristics 1C4
-------
66 Sardine Packing Wastewater Characteristics (229) 105
67 Sardine Packing Plant Water Usages (229) 105
68 Tuna Wastewater Characteristics (105) 106
69 Solids Removal (g/l) from Salmon Wastewater by 108
Screening (232)
70 Gravity Clarification Using F-FLOK Coagulant (232) 112
71 Effects of Flotation with Coagulant Aids on Salmon 11^
Processing Wastewaters (2l8)
72 Effects of Flotation with Coagulant Aids on Salmon Ilk
Processing Wastewaters (232)
73 Wastewater Characteristics of a Japanese Fish Sausage 115
Plant (21*5)
7k Activated Sludge Pilot Plant Results (2^5)
75 Treatment Charge Parameters (258) Appendix II
-------
CONCLUSIONS AMD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The survey of the seafoods industry and the concomitant literature
review demonstrated generally that the water pollution problems
generated within the industry are, with a few isolated exceptions,
not as critical as those of some other industries. There are two
basic reasons for this conclusion. First, seafood processing plants
generally discharge their wastes into estuaries or open waters, which
often results in considerable dispersion and dilution. In those marine
environments which are well mixed, the soluble pollutant levels are
quickly reduced. Secondly, in many cases the processing plants are
located in sparsely populated areas where other industrial wastes and
domestic wastes are of limited magnitudes, minimizing the competition
for the assimilative capacities of the watercourses. This is not to
say that seafoods processing pollution problems can be justifiably
ignored; it is to say rather that it is possible, indeed advisable, to
attack the problems directly and develop reasonable solutions
systematically and in a rational manner.
In the opinion of the authors, based on personal experience and the
concensus expressed in the literature, seafoods wastewaters are readily
amenable to biological treatment and should present no special
difficulties from the standpoint of toxicity. The problem with
treatment and/or utilization, therefore, remains basically one of
economics, not of technology.
Economics also seems to be the major concern in the disposal of solid
wastes. Solid wastes, unlike most liquid wastes, are of potentially
significant economic value and this potential should be recognized and
exploited wherever possible in future research and development efforts.
The seafoods industry consists of a myriad of processing centers located
along United States coastlines. The plants are frequently autonomous,
intensely competitive, and notably lacking in cooperative spirit. Common
problems are seldom handled jointly. Organizations such as the National
Canners Association, National Fisheries Institute, Pacific Fisheries
Technologists and others are striving to reverse this trend, but with
only limited success to date. One outstanding exception to this pattern
is the current cooperative effort being mounted by the crab processors
of Kodiak, Alaska. This undertaking involves the common collection of
solid wastes followed by utilization and disposal at a single sanitary
landfill. Hopefully, this activity is indicative of a developing awareness
within the industry of the advantages of attacking in concert the water
pollution problems common to all.
The lack of geographic concentration of the industry will tend to influence
the types of research undertaken. Solutions which rely on combining the
effluents (or solid wastes) from several plants or that from a single
plant with the wastes of a sizable municipality, will not always be
-------
appropriate. Many of the major offenders are remotely located, with few,
if any, other industries near at hand, and with only a handful of
residents nearby, most of whom are employed by the cannery. This situation,
of course, is not always the case, but nonetheless, is common enough
to warrant consideration.
The diversity of the industry is an added factor which must be considered
when planning waste utilization and treatment research. Unlike some of
the single-commodity food processing industries, the seafoods processors
produce wastes which, while all highly organic and nitrogen-rich (excluding
cooling waters), vary from negligible quantities to staggering volumes.
Funding alternatives, both for research and for the ultimate full-scale
utilization of the research findings, are an especially important
consideration in this case. The industry, as most of the foods industry,
is a characteristically low profit margin enterprise. This fact,
compounded by the current stationary production posture and increasing
pressures from foreign competitors has already forced many small plants
to discontinue operation. Significant increases in expenses, whether
for in-house research or water pollution control, are likely to be
untenable to many of the remaining smaller processors. Public research
and demonstration project funding and treatment facility subsidies (in
the form of tax credits or similar arrangements) will probably be
necessary to permit the industry to survive in its present form.
Recommendations for Solid Wastes
Waste solids probably present the most serious pollution problem to the
seafood industry. Disposal into estuarine environments can produce
serious esthetic, physico-chemical and ecological damage, an extreme
case being the Kodiak Harbor example (see page 55). Dictates of pollution
control agencies in the near future will undoubtedly limit discharge of
solids in areas now using this method of disposal. Therefore, research
is required on solids removal, by-product utilization and disposal methods.
Solids removal. Past research has shown that the most effective on-site
solids removal systems are screening and flotation; flotation is
undoubtedly the more expensive. However, with biological treatment
requirements to be imposed ultimately, the higher BOD removals attainable
with flotation may offset the added expense. More pilot plant or full-
scale unit operation data from these two processes, including removal
efficiencies and cost comparisons, are required.
The ideal solution to the solids problem is disposal at sea, as is
commonly practiced in some areas for scallops, halibut viscera, and
shrimp heads. Floating canneries are just now being placed into operation
(59). Other possibilities of dressing fish and shellfish on-board ships
should be encouraged by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the FWQA
jointly. The economic advantages of these systems from the standpoint
of wastes reduction should not be overlooked when their performances are
-------
analyzed. These advantages definitely should be analyzed with an eye
to future, more stringent water pollution control standards; not simply
those regulations now being enforced.
By-product utilization. The manufacture of by-products from solid
residues has been extensively researched, especially with regard to
salmon. An evaluation of these methods as potential waste reduction
techniques leads to the conclusion that only those which utilize all or
most of the solids are helpful. Animal feeding and other whole-waste
utilization methods should be stressed.
Work with flesh separators, for instance, has indicated, at least in a
preliminary fashion (26), that significant solids recoveries can be
realized. Perhaps full-scale demonstration of this concept should be
encouraged. Similarly, the high-speed meal plant data discussed on
page 117 (57) could be applied to fish waste utilization and the economics
compared with those of conventional disposal methods.
Perhaps more basic by-product development work is needed in the crab and
shrimp industries, but, in general, the economic aspects of the operations
should be emphasized. Market surveys are needed and transportation
alternatives should be evaluated to determine the economic feasibilities
of various approaches.
Disposal methods. Landfill of waste solids will undoubtedly become the
most common method of disposal because of its lower costs. The isolated
locations of many seafood processors will encourage this method. No
technical problems are foreseen for areas where suitable land is
available.
Deep sea disposal by barging will probably be another popular choice.
This method is sometimes used in coastal communities for digested sewage
sludge disposal. Due to the short seafood processing seasons, the possibility of
harm to the marine ecology would be minimized. Direct disposal, either
in a landfill or at sea, should only be considered as a last resort, but
in instances in which deep sea disposal is the only acceptable alternative,
perhaps investigations of methods, economics and consequences should be
carried out.
Incineration could effectively reduce waste solids volumes, but cursory
economic considerations indicate that this method would be prohibitively
expensive.
Recommendations for Wastewaters
Wastewater disposal for the seafoods industry will be a difficult problem
in the future. To solve this problem research is required on environmental
effects of partially-treated waste discharge, reduction of water usage,
wastewater characterization and evaluation of treatment processes.
-------
Untreated_discharge. Wastewaters from seafoods processing are currently
discharged untreated in all geographic regions of the United States. In
many cases these discharges create no visible signs of adverse effects
on the environment; in others the effects are serious. It is the opinion
of the authors that the discharge of wastewaters should be allowed if
solids are removed, domestic treatment is not available, and serious
problems do not result.
Most states' water quality standards are phrased in terms such as
"...water quality shall not be impaired to the detriment of legitimate
existing or forseen water uses...". Since a treatment facility design
is based on anticipated efficiencies (in terms of BOD and suspended
solids removals), the level of treatment must be pre-defined. This
requires a thorough knowledge of the effects of the wastes on the aquatic
environment. Therefore, studies of the effects of seafood plant wastes
on marine and estuarine environments should be conducted. In-depth
investigations of dissolved oxygen depletion, temperature effects,
benthic disturbances, tidal effects, effects on primary and secondary
productivity, effects of highly variable and shock loadings, degree of
and rate of off-season recovery and many other variables should be
conducted.
Reduction of water use. The seafood industry uses large quantities of
water, especially sea water. When, in the future, treatment of these
wastewaters in municipal plants is required, the sea water flows will
usually necessarily be eliminated and fresh water quantities reduced.
Detailed studies should be undertaken to recommend processing alterations
necessary to implement these requirements.
Characterization. Before demonstration-scale projects can be intelligently
designed the designer must be familiar with the characteristics of the
wastewaters with which he is dealing. Definitive studies of seafoods
processing wastes are scarce, especially for shrimp and crab processing.
Further work in this area should be supported.
Treatment processes. The applicability of standard treatment methods is
generally well accepted, but has not been sufficiently demonstrated; nor
have the optimum operational characteristics been defined for each major
type of primary and secondary process. This should be done at full
(demonstration ) scale for sedimentation, flotation, biological filtration,
perhaps activated sludge and ultimately aerobic and anaerobic digestion.
Joint municipal-industrial waste treatment should be utilized whenever
practical, for the same advantages inherent in joint treatment of other
industrial wastes apply here: dilution, equalization, the economies of
size, etc.
Innovative techniques and new treatment methods, while not critical to
the immediate solution of the problem, should nonetheless, be encouraged.
-------
Priorities
The authors have rated the recommended research projects listed in the
preceding section in the following order of importance:
1. Determination of removal efficiencies and economic factors of
flotation and screening for on-site solids removal.
2. Characterization of seafood processing wastewater flows.
3. Evaluation of and/or development of process alterations to reduce
wastewater flows.
h. Determination of economics of various methods of solid waste
disposal (such as landfill, deep sea disposal or incineration.)
5. Demonstration of applicability of standard treatment methods.
6. Investigation of the effects of seafood wastes on the estuarine
environment.
7. Determination of economics of various solid waste utilization
techniques and markets available.
-------
INTRODUCTION
The present fish, mammal and shellfish harvest from the ocean is
approximately 60 million tons per year (l). Ninety percent of this
catch is comprised of fish, the remainder being whales, crustaceans
and mollusks. From 1850 to 1950 the world harvest increased at an
average rate of 2.5 percent per year. During the 1950' s and 1960' s
this rate jumped to 5 percent per year (1). Some observers believe
that even with present methods of fishing, the yield can be increased
5 to 10 times. Other more conservative analysts estimate a possible
increase of 2 to 3 times the present yield (2).
The recently increased catches were distributed among several nations,
mainly Peru, Japan, and the Soviet Union, as shown on Figure 1.
However, the annual catch in the United States has been declining;
since 1962 a 20 percent decrease in U.S. fish harvests has been
realized. The reasons given for this decrease include low harvesting
efficiencies, inadequate and expensive labor supplies and governmental
restrictions (3). Thus, based on recent performance, this industry is
not expected to expand rapidly in the near future.
The annual U.S. catches (cleaned) average approximately U billion
pounds (U). These fish are utilized as follows: 35 percent are
rendered, 30 percent are marketed fresh, 20 percent are canned, 10
percent are frozen, 1 percent are cured and the remaining U percent
are handled by miscellaneous means (5). Frozen fish products have
been increasingly popular items and a 150 percent increase in frozen
fish sales in the next 15 years has been predicted (6).
The U.S. consumption of fishery products has continued to rise, as
shown on Figure 2. However, this increase has been supplied by imports.
The increase in consumption has been almost totally due to the
population increase; the U.S. per capita consumption of seafood products
has remained at approximately 11 pounds per year for the past 20
years
Significant portions of the fishes and shellfishes processed are
wasted. These percentages of wastage range from zero for whole-
rendered fish such as menhaden to 85 percent for some crabs. The
average wastage for all fish and shellfish is about 30 percent. In
addition to the large volumes of solid wastes, large wastewater flows
result from the butchering, washing and processing of the product. The
volumes of solids and wastewater vary widely with species and processing
method.
Using the average 30 percent wastage value, one can calculate the total
annual volume of solid wastes generated to be roughly 1.2 billion
pounds. A large portion of these wastes is rendered for animal feeds;
the remainder is discarded to municipal or private disposal sites or
to adjoining waters. The pollutional strength per pound of fish waste
solids has been estimated as 0.2 pounds of five-day biochemical oxygen
-------
28
26
24
22
20
v 18
H
5 |4
i 12
*
LU 10
8
6
-
+
'-'
t
1
sr^*^-s'7
f
-X ""
f
+
1 T" I I
i^y
\!
/
/
-'X-
m
«»
^
_^
/
/
_
.X
\
\
\
f
^
i
f
PERU /
/
/" JAPAN
/ x
""
x^'
'
/
U.S.&R../
^
JJNITED STATES
r-
NORWAY
X
X
7^
^ "
=;
1 1 1 1 1 1
\
.
-
1958 '59 '60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 '66 '67 1968
YEAR
FIGURE I. WORLD CATCH, BY LEADING COUNTRIES, 1958-1968 (4).
-------
20
S
16
H
10
H
i s
UJ
i i
i
1958 '59 '60 '61 52 fe3 '64 '65 '66 '67 1968
YEAR
FIGURE 2. US. TOTAL SUPPLY OF FISHERY PRODUCTS 1958-1968(4).
-------
demand (801)5), or approximately 1 daily population equivalent (7).
Thus, assuming that 50 percent of the fish wastes are rendered, the
population equivalent of this industry is two million people. The
population equivalent of fish processing wastes, solid and liquid,
has been estimated by another source to be from 66 to 1020 per ton of
fish (8). On a national basis, the population equivalent (based on
these figures) can be calculated to be 0.23 to 3.6 million. These
figures are deceptively conservative, for a major segment of the U.S.
seafoods production takes place during short seasons, intensifying
the problems. The industry is not typified by a constant output month
after month.
The fish processing wastes problem has become serious in certain
areas. Waste treatment will often be necessary in the future to meet
federal and state water pollution control regulations. The purpose
of this report is to evaluate the present state of the art of fish
processing waste treatment and by-product recovery and to suggest
research necessary to advance this technology to meet future needs.
-------
THE INDUSTRY BY SPECIES
Bottom Fish
The most important bottom fish species are listed by Slavin and Peters (9)
as haddock, cod, ocean perch, whiting (silver hake), flounder, hake and
pollock. Halibut are regarded technically as bottom fish, but will be
considered separately. Approximately 80 percent of the industry is
located in the North Atlantic region.
Processing
The fish are usually caught in otter trawls. In a typical operation the
fish are spread upon the trawler deck, sorted and iced. Perch, flounder
and whiting are stored whole, whereas cod, haddock and pollock are
sometimes eviscerated on deck. The viscera and blood are washed overboard.
At the wharf, unloading is usually accomplished by pitching the fish into
a basket that has been lowered into the hold. The fish are then weighed,
washed and iced in tote boxes. In some larger plants, mechanized unloading
methods are used to maintain quality.
In small plants, the fish are processed by hand. The fillets are cut on
a wooden board next to a sink, washed and immediately iced in boxes for
distribution.
Most plants processing fillets use mechanized equipment. First, the fish
are washed by water sprays in large rotating tumblers. Next the fish pass
to filleting machines or hand-filleting tables. Filleting machines only
operate on certain fish sizes and shapes, but considerably reduce labor
costs and increase yields, over hand-filleting. The skin is removed from
the fillet by hand or machine. The solid wastes from filleting and
skinning operations are usually rendered for pet food or animal meal.
Figure 3 outlines a typical bottom fish filleting operation. On this
figure (and subsequent flow sheets) the product is depicted (in black)
as flowing through the unit operations from the top of the page to the
bottom. The water, wastewater and solid waste flows are depicted on the
diagram as flowing from left to right. The liquid flows are shown in red;
the solid in black. Where one flow is indicated as dividing and moving
in two different directions, as are the cases with liquid wastes and with
some solid wastes, this is meant to illustrate that either route (or, in
some cases, both) may be followed. Wastewaters from a bottom fish filleting
process, for example, may be treated or may pass directly to the receiving
waters.
The skinned fillets are transported by conveyor belt through a washing
tank and, in some cases, a brining tank. After inspection the fillets
10
-------
PROCESS
WASTES
DISPOSAL
RAW
.PRODUC1
RECEIVE
GRADE
ICE
SOLIDS
WASH [( SOLIDS, SLIME .WATER )
SOLIDS, OFFAL.WATER \
SOLIDS, SKINS, WATER
WASH |( SOLIDS, WATER
IIA^.I^LS^r\ll^\Jf
FIGURE 3.
BOTTOM FISH FILLETING (10).
11
-------
are packed into containers by hand or frozen and then packed.
are marketed frozen (fresh or breaded), chilled, or fresh.
Fillets
Steaks are cut from the eviscerated fish perpendicular to the backbone.
These steaks are marketed frozen or fresh.
Recent Catch and Product Quantities
The Bureau of Comaercial Fisheries listed recent U.S. catch statistics
for several bottom fish species as shown on Table 1. In 1968 the catch
exceeded 465 million pounds with a value of 46 million dollars. The
Atlantic yield contributed 192 million pounds or 4l percent of the total
catch.
Table 1. Recent Bottom Fish Catches (4).
1967
Species
Bass, striped
Blue fish
Butter fish
Codj Atlantic
Croaker
Cusk
Flounder
Haddock
Mullet
Ocean perch,
Atlantic
Pollock,
Atlantic
Porgy
Sea Bass,
Atlantic
Snapper, red
Whiting
Quantity
(Ibs x 106)
10.5
4.3
5.3
44.4
2.5
1.7
112.5
98.5
34.3
71.4
7.3
19.8
4.7
12.9
69.5
Value.
($ x 106)
1.7
0.5
0.5
3.6
0.2
0.1
13.7
11.1
2.4
2.8
0.4
3.2
0.8
4.3
2.2
1968
Quantity^
(Ibs x 10b)
11.2
5.3
3.4
48.6
4.6
1.5
112.9
71.3
30.5
61.5
6.4
14.5
4.2
11.5
77.9
Value,
($ x 106)
2.3
0.8
0.4
3-5
0.4
0.09
13.9
9-3
2.6
2.4
0.3
2.5
0.8
3.7
2.7
5-Year
Average
(1962-1966)
Quantity
(Ibs x 10°)
8.7
5.3
8.2
41.6
3.1
2.1
124.1
131.6
41.4
97.3
12.9
38.2
8.1
13.4
93.0
TOTAL
499.6
47.5
465.3
45.7
628.9
12
-------
The same agency listed the production of packaged fillets and steaks
from certain species of bottom fish in 1968 as shown on Table 2. No data
were listed for the quantities marketed fresh.
Table 2. Packaged Bottom Fish Products, 1968 (11),
Species
Cod
Cusk
Flounder
Haddock
Ocean perch
Atlantic
Pacific
Perch, Pacific
Pollock
Sea bass
Snapper, red
Whiting
TOTAL
Quantity/:
(Ibs x 10°)
13.9
0.5
U3.5
22.3
15.6
3.7
O.U
2.7
0.3
O.U
2.0
105.3
Value (
($ x 106)
5.3
0.2
20.6
11.2
k.O
1.1
0.1
0.7
0.2
0.5
O.U
U4.3
Projected Catches
The domestic supply of bottom fish fillets and steaks has been steadily
declining since the 19UO's (U). Production was at a low of 55,000,000
pounds in 1968 after a steady decrease from 1^0,000,000 pounds in 19^9-
During this same period imports rose from 1*8,000,000 pounds to 390,000,000
pounds. This happened during a period of expanding markets; several new
products were successfully introduced. The major reason for the drop
in domestic production seems to be lower fishing yields in Atlantic Coast
waters.
Waste Quantities
In most filleting operations, the fish are not eviscerated. The unfilleted
portions are discarded or recovered for by-products. Water is used
continuously in the spray washers and during filleting and skinning for
bacteriological control. Blood and small pieces of fish flesh are entrapped
in this flow. Other waste flows include the packing ice and the cooling
water (see Figure 3)'
The Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality estimated the bottom
fish solid waste fraction to range from 35 to ko percent by weight (10).
13
-------
Using the ^0 percent value and noting that cod, haddock and pollock are
eviscerated at sea, the total waste quantity for bottom fish in 1968 was
calculated to be lUo million pounds, based on the data of Table 1.
Thurston (12) determined the composition of waste from sole and flounder
processing. Composite samples were prepared from the nonedible parts
of 21^ fish. The average composition was: moisture, 77.^ percent;
oil, 5.68 percent; protein, 13.6 percent; ash, 3.8k percent; sodium, 0.16
percent; and potassium, 0.22 percent. Although the nonedible parts of
sole and flounder had lower values for protein and ash than did those of
other salt-water species, they were judged to be of high enough quality
for by-product utilization. The fish analyzed averaged 72 percent waste.
Needier (13) estimated filleted haddock to contain 51 percent waste.
Landgraf (lU) found the composition of pollock fillet wastes from a spring
Alaskan catch to be 79.7 percent moisture, l**.l percent protein, 2.6 percent
oil and U.3 percent ash. The essential amino acid content was quite
similar to that of beef liver.
Catfish
Since 1965 the production of farm catfish has increased steadily. Four
species (channel catfish, blue catfish, white catfish, and brown bullhead
catfish) have been grown and managed successfully in ponds. Catfish are
considered a delicacy in the southern and south-central states and markets
are continuing to expand.
Processing
Several authors (15, 16, 17, 18) have described in detail the raising of
catfish in ponds. The process involves planting six-inch fingerlings
which are fed a conmercial feed ration until maturity. The fish are
harvested by draining the ponds and are shipped alive in tank trucks to
processing plants. Live hauling eliminates the need for meat preservation
before processing, but generates the problem of disposal of the feces-
contaminated holding water.
Figure k depicts the processing method and the wastes resulting. The fish
are held in live tanks until processing, which results in more feces-
contaminated water.
The fish are first stunned, conoonly with electric shock, and then butchered.
The butchering process, which includes skinning, beheading, and eviscerating,,
can be either manual or mechanical. Catfish traditionally have been skinned
before marketing. Research has shown this process to be necessary to reduce
off-flavors in river catfish, but unnecessary in cultured catfish (19).
-------
PROCESS
WASTES
DISPOSAL
FECES
FECES
|( SKINS
BLOOD, WATER .HEADS
|EVlSCERATtj (BLOOD, WATER, VISCERA )
DOWN (
FIGURE 4.
CATFISH PROCESSING (201.
15
-------
Butchering machines remove only the outer layer of pigmented skin for
esthetic reasons. This process results in solid wastes containing skins,
heads and viscera and wastewaters containing blood, slime and flesh.
The processed fillets or steaks are marketed fresh and frozen (breaded
or plain). Recently, liquid nitrogen freezing has proven successful
in producing meats with improved quality (20).
Recent Catch and Product Quantities
The production of faxm catfish has increased significantly in recent
years, while the catch of "wild" catfish has declined slightly, as shown
on Table 3. In 1968, the total harvest exceeded 6k million pounds (21).
Table 3. Recent Catfish Catches (21).
1967
1968
5-Year Average
(1962-1966)
Type of
Catfish
Wild
Farm
Quantity,
(Ibs x 106)
Ul.3
13.7
Quantity
(Ibs x 10°)
Ul.3
22.9
Quantity,
(Ibs x 106)
U6.8
5-9
TOTAL
55-1
6U.2
52.7
The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (ll) listed the 1968 total packaged
production of catfish fillets and steaks at 133,000 pounds. In addition,
considerable quantities of catfish were sold fresh locally or alive to
conmercial sport fisheries.
Projected Catches
Jones' projections of the catfish harvests of 1970 and 1975 (Table U)
indicate that catfish farming is a profitable industry and should increase
in importance. Greenfields' economical analysis listed a lU percent return
on catfish farm investments for the central Mississippi delta states (17).
The return, however, was very sensitive to price fluctuations.
16
-------
Table U. Projected Catfish Production (21).
1968 1970 1975
Type of Quantity Quantity Quantity,-
Catfish (Ibs x 10°) (Ibs x 106) (ibs x 10 )
Wild
Farm
Ul.3
22.9
U5.0
U8.0
U7.5
93.8
TOTAL 6U.2 93-0 lUl.3
Waste Quantities
Jones (21) estimated ^5 percent of the whole catfish to be waste and
the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (22), UO percent. Using the 1*5 percent
value, the total waste quantity in 1968 was calculated to be 29 million
pounds.
Several methods have "been suggested for catfish offal disposal (20), and each
should be considered on its economic merit. These methods include:
rendering for pet food, catfish feed, fish meal and burial. Catfish offal
has been rendered to a meal containing over U5 percent protein (23).
Crabs and Lobsters
The blue crab, which comprises 70 percent of the U.S. crab production, is
harvested on the Atlantic Coast, principally in the Chesapeake Bay area
(2k). The remaining harvest takes place mainly on the Pacific Coast,
where Dungeness crab is the leading species, followed by Alaskan king
crab.
The lobster fisheries include the catch of the northern lobster of the
North Atlantic region and the spring or rock lobster of the South Atlantic
and Gulf states.
Processing
Crabs are harvested from shallow water in baited traps. Rapid and careful
handling is necessary to keep the crabs alive; dead crabs must be discarded
because of rapid decomposition.
At most plants, the whole crabs are steam cooked in retorts for 20 to 30
minutes (2*0. Pacific Coast Lungeness crab operations first butcher the
17
-------
crabs (remove the backs), and then cook them for 12 minutes or less.
Cooked crabs are marketed in the shell, butchered or whole, or the
meats, picked from the shell, are marketed fresh, frozen, or canned.
The majority of the Atlantic blue crab meat is marketed fresh or
frozen, but the majority of the Pacific Coast crab meat is canned (25).
A large quantity of Dungeness crab is sold in the shell and large
quantities of king crab are butchered at sea (26); both practices
minimize the quantity of butchering wastes to be handled at the pro-
cessing plant.
The crabs are water cooled after cooking to facilitate handling. The
backs are removed if the crabs were not butchered before cooking , and
the remaining viscera are washed free. The cooking, cooling and
washing waters contain considerable solids and organic pollutants (see
Figures 5 and 6). The meat is picked from the shells by hand with a
small knife. Mechanical methods have only recently been developed to
extract the meat from the shells (28).
Crab meat quickly degrades in quality and must be chilled, frozen or
canned. Chilled meats can be stored for only a few days; even frozen
meats lose texture and flavor qualities rapidly. Canning of crab
meat results in additional wastewater flows: retort and can cooling
waters.
Lobsters are caught in large traps and must be kept alive until pro-
cessed. Many lobsters are marketed alive. Some are shipped alive
thousands of miles, carefully packed in moist seaweed and sawdust.
Lobsters are cooked, cooled and butchered in a manner similar to crabs.
The cooking, cooling and washing waters are normally highly polluted
(see Figure 7). A small number of cooked lobsters and meats are frozen
for later marketing. Low storage temperatures and quick turnovers are
necessary for maintenance of high quality. Little lobster meat is
canned because of the rapid degradation of texture and flavor quality
of the canned product.
Recent Catch and Product Quantities
Tables 5 and 6 list, respectively, the crab and lobster catches and the
crab and lobster packs as reported by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.
The total crab catch in 1968 exceeded 238 million pounds. By comparison
the lobster catch was approximately ^5 million pounds. The values of
the crab catch in 196? and 1968 demonstrated an instability in market
prices. With a decrease in catch of 2U percent, the total value
actually increased hj percent from 196 7 to 1968.
Projected Catches
Catches of the three main crab species seem to have reached a plateau.
Production appears to be determined by the extent of the previous years'
hatch. Future harvests should continue at levels dependent on survival
of offspring.
18
-------
PROCESS
WASTES
DISPOSAL
SHELL.MEAT, WATER
SOLIDS, WATER
FIGURE 5.
CRAB CANNING (27).
19
-------
PROCESS
WASTES
DISPOSAL
BUTCHER [{VISCERA. SHELL .WATER
SOLIDS, WATER
WATER
VISCERA
WATER
SHELL.MEAT, WATER
WATER
WATER
SOLIDS, WATER
FIGURE 6.
CRAB FREEZING (27).
20
-------
PROCESS
WASTES
DISPOSAL
(TREATMENT)
WATER
WATER, ORGANICS
WATER \
0
SHELLS, VISCERA )
WATER \
MEAT
WATER
WATER
SOLIDS, WATER
/RECEIVING
I WATER )
FIGURE 7.
LOBSTER CANNING (25).
21
-------
Table 5, Recent Lobster and Crab Catches (U)
fV>
ro
1967
Species
Crabs
Blue
Dungeness
King
TOTAL
Lobsters
Northern
Spiny
TOTAL
Quantity
(Ibs x 106)
1^5.0
kz.k
127.7
315.1
26.7
M
31.6
Value
($ x 106)
8.6
6.7
15.0
30.3
22. U
3-1
25.5
1968
Quantity,-
(Ibs x 10b)
109-5
WKO
85.0
238.5
32.3
7-5
39-8
Value^
{* x 106)
10.8
8.2
25.5
M*.5
25.2
5-2
30. k
5-Year Average
(1962-1966)
Quantity
(Ibs x 106)
159.8
28.0
101.8
289.6
30.1
*.7
3U.8
Table 6. Crab Meat and Lobster Tail Products (k, 29).
Quantity
Species
Crab
Crab
Crab
Lobster,
spiny
Product
Canned
Meat specialities
Frozen
Frozen
1967 ,
(Ibs x 10b)
9.7
6.6
0.3
1968
(Ibs x 10b)
3.8
0.9
6.7
0.5
-------
Production of king crab may increase slightly due to stricter controls
by the Alaska Board of Fish and Game (k). The controls established a
king crab fishing season from five to seven months long in Alaskan waters.
In 1969> all areas were closed from February 15 to August.
Tanner crab have been increasingly harvested in recent years as the king
crab catch has declined. Abundant stocks exist off the northern Pacific
Coast and production should rapidly increase (30).
Lobster utilization in the U.S. has apparently also reached saturation.
Imports, furthermore, have been constant for the past five years at
approximately 69 million pounds annually (k). A constant demand seems
to exist, leading to stable market conditions.
Waste Quantities
The major portion of the crab is not edible, and, as a result, is wasted
in processing. This waste consists of the shell and entrails, amounting
to approximately 80 percent of the crab by weight. Large quantities of
water are necessary for cooking, cooling and washing of the entrails from
the body. The wastage of the total crab has been listed for blue crab
as 86 percent (2*0; king crab, 80 percent (27); and Dungeness crab, 73
percent (31). Using these figures, the solid waste load from crabs in
1968 was calculated to be 190 million pounds as shown on Table 7« The
actual waste volume from the processing plants would be less since some
crab, especially Dungeness, are marketed whole or butchered to remove
only the backs and entrails. As tanner crab harvests rise, the percentage
wastage figures will increase proportionately in the North Pacific area,
since the species yields less meat than the king and Dungeness crabs.
Table 7. Calculated Quantities of Crab Waste, 1968.
Waste Waste Quantity
Species Fraction (ibs x 10")
Blue 06% 9k
Dungeness 73$ 32
King 80$ 68
TOTAL 190
The composition of shellfish waste is largely determined by the exoskeleton.
The exoskeleton is composed primarily of chitin (a polysaccharide structural
material), protein bound to the chitin, and calcium carbonate. While
the major portion of the waste generally consists of exoskeletal materials,
23
-------
varying significant amounts of attached or unrecovered flesh and visceral
materials are included.
The Ketchikan Technological Laboratory of the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries listed typical compositions of these wastes as shown on Table 8.
The protein concentration is considered low compared to visceral fish
wastes, discounting possible use as an animal feed.
Table 8. Typical Crab Waste Composition (32).
Composition
Protein Chitin
Source (*) (*) (*)
King crab
Tanner crab
Tanner crab
Picking line
Leg and claw shelling
Body butchering and
shelling
22.7
10.7
21.2
U2.5
31.U
30.0
3U.8
57.9
148.8
Hoalihan (33) reported the cleaning loss of lobsters to be 80 percent.
However, only a small percentage of the lobsters are cleaned before
marketing; most are sold alive or cooked in the shell.
Halibut
The halibut is a large fish; the coamercially-landed sizes vary from 20
to 50 pounds. They are caught near the sea bottom using baited longlines.
The major halibut fishery is centered in the Pacific Northwest with the
connercial season extending from April or May through October.
Processing
After being landed on the vessel, the halibut are dressed by removing the
viscera and cutting away the gills. The halibut are then packed in ice
in the hold. Halibut are ordinarily processed in relatively small plants.
The fisherman usually unload and behead the fish before sale to the
processors.
If the fish are not to be processed immediately, they are re-iced in the
fish house (some are sold fresh, but most are marketed frozen). A
continuous belt washer sprays the fish before freezing. The fish are
-------
frozen with a glaze protection at approximately -20°F. The filleting
and freezing operations are diagrammed on Figures 8 and 9«
Halibut are cut into fletches (boneless and skinless pieces produced
from fresh fish). This process divides the halibut into four or more
trimmed meaty portions weighing from 5 to 20 pounds. The fletches are
frozen and either glazed or packaged in moisture-proof wrapping. Other
forms of fresh or frozen halibut include packaged fillets, roasts, and
breaded fillets.
Recent Catch and Product Quantities
The halibut catch in 1968 was approximately 26 million pounds, off
sharply from 1967, as shown on Table 9. The quantities of halibut
fillets processed (in millions of pounds) were listed as 15-6 for 1967;
18.1 for 1968; and 22.3 for the 1962-1966 5-year average (U).
Table 9. Recent Halibut Catches
5-Year Average
1967 1968 (1962-1966)
Quantity, Value Quantity Value, Quantity
(Ibs x 106) ($ x 10°) (Ibs x 106) ($ x 10°) (Ibs x 106)
39.8 6.U 25.7
Projected Catches
Jensen (27) estimated that halibut production in the near future will
remain approximately at the 1968 level. This estimate was based on consumer
demand, biological requirements for growth, and limits imposed by the
International Pacific Halibut Commission.
Waste Quantities
Jensen (27) also estimated that 35 to UO percent of the halibut is wasted.
The viscera and gills are usually disposed of at sea; Dassow (3*0 estimated
the remaining waste to be approximately 8 percent of the total weight. This
included heads, skins, and fins. Using this 8 percent figure, the total
waste in 1968 was calculated to be 2.0 million pounds. Stansby (35)
estimated viscera to account for 2.5 to 5 percent of the total weight.
-------
PROCESS
WASTES
DISPOSAL
BACKBONE, TAIL
SKINS
WATER,MEAT
WATER, SOLIDS
HEADS )-
WATER }
WATER \
FIGURE 8.
HALIBUT FILLET FREEZING (27).
26
-------
PROCESS
RAW
.PRODUCT/
WASTES
DISPOSAL
RECEIVE
BEHEAD [ {
HEADS
WATER
WATER
WATER
WATER
FINS, BONE, ME AT
WATER
WASH DOW(44 WATER .SOLIDS
i . J \
FIGURE 9.
WHOLE HALIBUT FREEZING (27).
27
-------
Menhaden
The menhaden is a small, oily fish of the herring family. This fishery,
largest in the United States, is located mainly in the Middle Atlantic and
Gulf states. Fishing normally takes place during the summer and fall.
Menhaden are used primarily for the manufacture of fish meal, fish solubles
and oil. The process is (in most cases) highly mechanized.
Processing
Menhaden are caught in purse seines and loaded into the holds. Ice or
refrigeration i s used to preserve the fish if the trips exceed one day.
The fish are pumped from the holds, washed, automatically weighed and
conveyed into the plant. Continuous steam cooking is normally employed.
The fish are then pressed to remove the oil and most of the water. This
press water is screened to remove solids and centrifuged to separate the
oil. The remaining water, called stickwater, is discharged or evaporated
to produce condensed fish solubles. The solid residual from which the
water and oil have been pressed is known as pressed cake.
The pressed cake is dried to about 10 percent moisture and then ground
for fish meal (36). Figure 10 shows the process as described.
Recent Catch and Product Quantities
The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries listed recent catches and production
as shown on Tables 10 and 11. The catch volumes were large, over a
billion pounds per year, but the unit price was low, approximately
$0.13 per pound.
Table 10. Recent Menhaden Catches
5-Year Average
1967 1968 (1962-1966)
Quantity^ Value. Quantity, Value Quantity
(Ibs x 106) (* x 106) (Ibs x 106) ($ x 106) (Ibs x 1Q6)
1,163.7 1U.U 1,380.9 18.7 1,753.5
28
-------
PROCESS
WASTES
DISPOSAL
SLIME, WATER
OIL, WATER
STICKWATER
i
EWORATORj
WASH DOWN)/ WATER, SOLIDS \ =
1 i » /
[RENDERING]
FIGURE 10. MENHADEN RENDERING (36).
29
-------
Dried scrap and meal are the most highly valued products from menhaden,
although oil production was the initial reason for processing. Most of
the scrap and meal is used as an animal feed supplement.
Table 11. Menhaden Products, 1968 (37).
Quantity,- Value
Product (Ibs x 10b) ($ x 106)
Dried scrap
and meal 286.5 19-5
Oil 152.0 6.2
Solubles 106.5 2.7
TOTAL 5^5.0 28.1
Projected Catches
The menhaden fishing areas are largely fully exploited at present and the
catch volumes in future years will depend on reproduction and survival
factors.
Waste Quantities
In a properly managed menhaden processing plant, the quantities of waste
should be small. The only inherently troublesome wastewaters are the fish
pumping water and stidewater. The other wastes, listed by Paessler and
Davis (38), result from spills and leakage which can be minimized.
In the past, stickwater was often discharged intotiie receiving waters,
but now this practice is usually forbidden by law. Paessler and Davis
listed the average BODc of stickwater as ranging from 56,000 to 113,000
mg/1 with solids concentrations to 5 percent (38). Fortunately, the fish
processing industry has found the recovery of fish solubles from stickwater
to be at least marginally profitable.
Oysters, Clams and Scallops
Oysters, clams and scallops are all bivalve mollusks. Harvesting results
in large quantities of wastes and small quantities of highly-valued meat.
30
-------
Processing
Oysters are marketed shucked or unopened (39). If marketed unopened,
only washing, packing and chilling of the shellfish are required. Prior
to shipment, the oysters may be stored in chlorinated water to minimize
bacterial growth.
Most oysters are sold as shucked meats. The meats, when removed from
the shells, are aerated in water to remove the sand and silt. After
washing, the meats are graded and then packed into tins or glass containers
(see Figure 11).
Before cleaning, clams must be washed free of sand and silt. Cleaning
involves removing the shell, the visceral portion and trimming dark
portions from the siphon tips. Clam meats are marketed canned as whole
meats or minced clams or fresh as whole meats.
Scallops are shucked on board the fishing vessel and the large adductor
muscles are removed. The adductor muscle is the only portion marketed;
the remaining portions are discarded at sea. Scallops are marketed frozen,
chilled or precooked.
Recent Catch and Product Quantities
More clams were harvested than oysters or scallops in 1968, with over
65 million pounds harvested. However, the lowest unit price was paid
for clams: approximately $0.30 per pound. The scallop catch was the
smallest, but brought the highest unit price: approximately $1.10 per
pound as calculated from Table 12. The statistics listed on Tables 12
and 13 show that clams are mainly canned, whereas only a small segment
of the oyster catch is canned.
Table 12. Recent Oyster, Clam, and Scallop Catches (excluding shell
weight) (U).
1967
Species
Clams
Oysters
Scallops
Quantity,
(Ibs x 10b)
70.8
60.0
10.2
Value,
(* x 106)
20.1
32.3
7.8
1968
Quantity,
(Ibs x 10b)
66.2
55-6
lU.l
Value,
« x 106)
20.1
29-8
15.7
5-Year Average
(1962-1966)
Quantity
(Ibs x 106)
52.1
56.2
19.5
TOTAL
60.2
135.9
65.6
127.8
31
-------
PROCESS
WASTES
DISPOSAL
RECEIVE |<( WATER, GRIT
CLEAN
SORT
^SHELLS, VISCERA, WATER'
^ t
( WATER, SOLIDS
INSPECT
PACK
SOLIDS
WASH DOWN}{ WATER, SOLIDS
FIGURE II. OYSTER PACKING (40).
-------
Table 13. Clam and Oyster Canned Products, 1968 (29)
Quantity Value
Species [lbs_jc 106) ($ x 10b)
Clams
Oysters
TOTAL
Projected Catches
The present clam, oyster and scallop harvesting areas seem to be fully
exploited and new areas or new species must be developed to substantially
increase production. Therefore, it is expected that harvests in the near
future will approximately parallel the 1968 values.
Alverson (30) stated that latent resources of clams and scallops exist
in sufficient quantities to support commercial harvesting for weathervane
scallops and for seven species of clams. Bullis and Carpenter (kl)
stated that clams and scallops constitute a major latent resource of the
South Atlantic and Gulf regions. Particular interest was expressed in
the calico scallop, sun-ray clam and hardshell clam.
Waste Quantities
The Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality (10) estimated oysters
to be 75 percent waste by weight. However, this waste consists mainly of
shells and can be used for several by-products. In most cases, the oyster
is not eviscerated and thus the organic portion of the waste is small.
The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (31) estimated clams to be 65 percent
waste. This waste also includes the shells, but contains a much higher
organic content than oysters because clams are totally eviscerated in
processing. Liquid clam and oyster wastes could be used in the making of
broth.
Scallop wastes present no terrestial disposal problems since they are
discharged at sea. Utilization as fish food or crab bait could be
considered if the solids were to be brought to the cannery.
Based on the above percentages, the total clam and oyster waste quantities
were caiulated to be as shown on Table 1^. For each species these
quantities exceeded one hundred million pounds annually.
33
-------
Table lU. Calculated Clam and Oyster Waste Magnitudes, 1968.
Quantity
Species (ibs x 10°)
Clams 120
Oysters 1?0
TOTAL 290
Salmon
The only significant commercial anadromous fishery in the United States
is the salmon fishery. The five main species found in this country are
chinook (king), sockeye (red), silver (coho), pink and chum. The major
portion of the catch is canned.
Processing
The fish are caught fairly close to the canneries and are often stored
in the boats without refrigeration. Canning operations are conducted for
the most part employing standard cannery equipment in a conventional
manner. The principal exception is the use of the "iron chink". The
iron chink performs several functions in one operation by mechanically
removing heads, fins, and viscera. During all the steps a strong stream
of water continuously washes the blood away.
The remaining canning operations are somewhat standard, as shown on Figure
12. The fish are washed, inspected and cut into con trolled-length pieces.
These pieces are cut into can-length portions and the cans are filled
mechanically. Finally, the cans are automatically sealed and retorted.
A Canadian firm markets a fish paste made from what would otherwise be
waste salmon meat (U2). The collar flesh (immediately below the head)
is completely removed either by hand or with a specially-shaped knife on
the iron chink. This meat is washed, inspected and ground and then
canned as a paste. Spoilage can take place rapidly; therefore careful
inspection and quality control are required.
Recent Catch and Product Quantities
The 1968 salmon catch, 300 million pounds, was substantially greater than
those of immediately preceding years, but was still below the 1962-1966
-------
PROCESS
WASTES
DISPOSAL
BLOOD, SLIME
VISCERA .WATER
HEADS, WATER
BLOOD, FINS,
SLIME, WATER
MEAT
MEAT
MEAT
WATER
WATER
SOLIDS .WATER
(RECEIVING)
V WATER /
FIGURE 12.
SALMON CANNING (27).
-------
average value of 335 million pounds, as shown on Table 15. Pink salmon
comprised over one-third of the domestic catch, closely followed in
volume by chum salmon. The most highly valued species was the chinook,
with a price of approximately $0.^0 per pound. The average value of
all species was approximately $0.18 per pound.
Table 16 Indicates that over 98 percent of the production was canned. The
canned product is a relatively high value product, priced in 1968 at
.72 per pound. The smoked fish had the highest value: approximately
.80 per pound.
Projected Catches
The Pacific salmon fishery is now advancing, after a general failure in
1967 (1»). The future of this industry is largely dependent on market
conditions, pressure from foreign competition and conservation practices.
A major expansion of the domestic salmon industry is not anticipated;
production at or near current levels is expected.
Waste Quantities
The quantities and possible uses of salmon wastes have been rather
thoroughly researched. Magnus son and Hagevig (U3) found salmon to consist
of 31* percent waste. Other estimates include Brody's (UU), 33 percent;
Jensen's (27)> 37 percent; and the Oregon State Department of Environmental
Quality's (10), 30-35 percent. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (31)
listed waste fractions by species as follows: chinook, 30 percent;
sockeye, 33 percent; silver, 33 percent; pink, 35 percent; and chum, 33
percent. Using the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries values, the waste
volumes for 1968 were calculated to be as shown on Table 17. The estimated
total waste volume for 1968 was about 100 million pounds.
Salmon waste is composed of the various body portions excluding the flesh.
The relative amounts of each portion for the five species are shown on
Table 18. Each portion has distinct by-product possibilities and recovery
value. The quantities of milt and roe vary with the time of year (U3).
-------
Table 15. Recent Salmon Catches (U).
Species
Chinook
Chum
Pink
Sockeye
Silver
TOTAL
Table 16.
Product
1967
Quantity-
(Ibs x 10b) ($
26.2
2U.5
51.7
66.0
38.3
206.7
Salmon Products,
Quanta tv
*v£i*a a* u a. vj
(Ibs x 10b)
. /*
Value
x 106
9.5
3.9
6.3
16.1
12.7
U8.5
1968
1968
Quantity-
) (Ibs x 10b)
(H).
2k.6
80.0
105.0
55.3
36.5
301. b
Value-
(4 x 106
9.5
9.0
11.5
13.2
11.7
5^.9
Table
5 -Year Average
(1962-1966)
Quantity-
) (Ibs x 10b)
27.5
50.6
lkl.0
81.8
3^.2
335.1
17. Calculated Salmon
1968.
Waste Quantities,
V W^MC
($ x 106)
Frozen fillets u.o
Steaks
Canned
Smoked
Specialities
1.1*
163.0
0.1
o.ofc
_ ^ _ ^
0.5
1.3
117.2
0.2
0.03
Waste
Species (%)
Chinook 30
Chum 33
Pink 35
Sockeye 33
Silver 33
Quantity
(Ibs x 106)
7
26
37
18
12
TOTAL
165.2
119.2
TOTAL
100
-------
Table 18. Composition of Salmon Waste (U5).
Percent of Total Salmon Cannery Waste by Species
Portion Pink Red Chum King Coho
Head and collar
Tail and fins
Liver
Roe
Milt
Digestive tract
Heart
57
16
5
8
5
9
0.8
6l
1^
5
9
5
6
0.8
5U
11
5
16
6
8
0.7
50
11
3
15
U
18
0.7
60
11
U
8
6
11
0.7
Table 18 shows that the major portion of the waste is composed of heads
and collar sections. If the collar flesh were recovered, the value of
the remaining waste would decrease substantially. Specific portions,
such as the roe, are of high value, but segregation of these portions
can amount to large added expense.
The analysis of salmon waste varies with canning operation, species, and
degree of spoilage, as shown on Table 19. Animal feed can be readily
made from the offal and viscera because of their high protein and
vitamin levels.
Sardines, Mackerel, Anchovies, Herring and Alewives
Sardines, mackerel, anchovies, herring, and alewives are all classified
as small, oily fishes. Sardines, anchovies and mackerel are used mainly
for human consumption, whereas herring and alewives are most frequently
used in oil and fish meal rendering and for bait. Herring are sometimes
canned in the North Atlantic region as "sardines".
Processing
Sardines, anchovies, and mackerel are stored in water in the hold of the
fishing vessel and are unloaded by pumping. The catch is then weighed
and transferred to dockside holding tanks.
From the receiving tanks the fish are pumped onto the cutting tables,
where the workers insert them into the slots of a conveyor belt. Revolving
knives trim and slit the fish, and the viscera are removed by a suction
process. The cleaned fish are then washed and canned (see Figure 13).
38
-------
PROCESS
WASTES
DISPOSAL
SLIME, ORGANICS
BLOOD, VISCERA, WATER
MEAT )
WATER
WATER
WATER.SOUDS
FIGURE 13. SARDINE .ANCHOVY, AND MACKEREL CANNING (47).
39
-------
Table 19. Proximate Analyses of Salmon Wastes (U6).
Proximate Analysis
Vitamin Content
(micrograms per gram,
wet basis)
Waste Water Protein
Columbia River
salmon viscera
Alaska pink
salmon viscera
Alaska pink
salmon offal
Spoiled Alaska
pink salmon offal
Puget Sound pink
salmon viscera
AVERAGE
75.1
76.U5
73.75
Ik.k
6H.O
72.9
20.0
18.05
15.25
16. 2k
28.5
19.6
Ash
1.8
1.5
2.9
3A
2.2
2.U
Fat Thiamine Riboflavin
k.k
U.6
8.1
8.9
6.7
6.5
OA5
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.35
0.5
11
5
3
2.5
k
5
Niacin
31
25
2k
25
11
23
The majority of the herring and alewives are rendered in a manner similar
to the menhaden process.
Recent Catch and Product Quantities
Of these five species, herring were harvested in the greatest numbers
in 1968 exceeding 107 million pounds, as shown on Table 20. The catch of
Pacific sardines was only 100,000 pounds, having been taken incidently
while the fishermen were fishing for other species. All species except
sardines had a low value, ranging from $0.02 to $0.05 per pound.
Table 21 lists the product quantities for 1968 for the five species.
The largest volumes were canned Maine sardines, totaling about ^0 million pounds
at a price of approximately $0.50 per pound.
1*0
-------
Table 20.
Recent Catches of Sardines, Mackerel, Herring, Alewives,
and Anchovies
1967
Species
Alewives
Anchovies, Calif.
Herring, sea
Mackerel
Mackerel, jack
Sardines, Pacific
TOTAL
Quantity,
(ibs x 10b)
101.1
69.6
88.2
9.7
38.2
0.1
306.9
Value
($ x 106)
1.6
0.7
2.1
0.5
1.4
0.03
6.3
1968
Quantity
(Ibs x 106)
88.0
29.3
107.5
2.0
57.4
0.1
284.2
Value,
($ x 106)
1.3
0.3
2.7
0.5
2.3
0.03
7.1
5-Year
Average
(1962-1966)
Quantity ,-
(Ibs x 10b)
68.3
16.1
143.3
29.5
76.5
7.7
341.4
Table 21. Oily-fish Products, 1968 (29, 37).
Species
Alewives
Alewives
Anchovy
Anchovy
Herring
Herring
Mackerel
Maine sardines
Quantity,
Product (Ibs x 106)
Canned
Scrap and meal
Oil
Scrap and meal
Oil
Scrap and meal
Canned
Canned
3.4
3.3
0.9
5.5
9.5
30.8
22.3
4o.o
Value,
($ x 106)
0.5
0.2
32.0
0.3
376.0
2.1
4.1
19.3
TOTAL
115.7
434.5
4i
-------
Projected Catches
The Pacific sardine industry was recently subjected to a two-year
moratorium on harvesting in an effort to revive the fishery. Initiated
by the California legislature, the embargo was scheduled to end in 1969.
Sardine catches taken during the harvesting of mackerel were allowed,
up to 19 percent of the catch (k). The 1970 catch will reflect the
success of this legislated conservation. Alverson (30) stated that the
decline in sardines was due to overfishing, environmental conditions
and increased competing anchovy populations.
The U.S. mackerel catch has been recovering in recent years from a sharp
decline suffered in 1966 (k). However, the canned pack is only 5 percent
of the present U.S. market, revealing considerable foreign influences.
The herring production has been relatively constant in recent years,
foreign competition having absorbed increased markets (k). Present
U.S. production should only increase through improved international
fishing cooperation.
The anchovy catch is limited by a California quota (U) and therefore
should remain constant in the near future.
Waste Quantities
The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries estimated sardines and anchovies to
be 15 percent waste; and mackerel, alewives and herring, 30 percent (31)
The quantities of wastes listed on Table 22 were based on these figures
as applied to the total canned product. There is virtually no solid
waste from the rendering process.
Table 22. Calculated Quantities of Wastes from Sardines,
Anchovies, Herring, Alewives, 1968.
Quantity
Species (ibs x 106)
Alewives 1.5
Mackerel 9-6
Sardines, Maine 7.1
Sardines, Pacific Insignificant
TOTAL 18.2
-------
Shrimp
The shrimp industry is the most important seafoods industry of the Gulf
of Mexico and South Atlantic areas. Shrimp are also found off the
Pacific Coast in significant numbers. The season runs from April to
early June and again from August to early October (U8).
Processing
Shrimp are caught commercially in otter trawls to a distance of approx-
imately 50 miles offshore. The shrimp are separated from the trash
fish and stored by various methods. When short storage times will
suffice, no preservation methods are used; the shrimp are taken directly
to a processing plant or to a wholesale marketing vessel. When longer
storage times are necessary, the shrimp are iced in the holds and
re-iced every 12 hours. In some cases, notably the Gulf states, the
shrimp are beheaded at sea and the heads discarded. Since the heads
contain most of the active degradive enzymes, this practice retards
spoilage. If the shrimp are beheaded within 30 minutes after being
caught, the intestinal vein is readily removed with the head. This
increases the value of the product.
The shrimp are unloaded from the vessel into a flotation tank to remove
the packing ice, conveyed to a rotatory drum to remove surplus water
and bits of debris, and then weighed. In some areas (Texas and the
South Atlantic states), the shrimp are iced after the initial preparation
to optimize peeling conditions.
Next the shrimp are peeled and picked, if the head is still attached,
manually or by machine. Machine peeled shrimp are used mostly for
canning (27). The machine-peeled shrimp are paler in color, and have
poorer flavor and texture than the hand-picked product. By hand, a
picker can peel from 100 to UOO pounds of shrimp per day as compared
to a machine's capacity of UOOO to 12,000 pounds per day (H8).
After peeling, the meats are inspected and washed. They are then blanched
in a salt solution for about 10 minutes and dried by various methods to
remove surface water. Again the shrimp are inspected and then canned.
The process is outlined on Figures Ik and 15-
Shrimp are marketed fresh, frozen, breaded, canned, cured and as
specialty products. An increasing amount is sold breaded or fresh-frozen
(U9), whereas the quantities of canned shrimp produced in recent years
have been relatively constant. About Uo percent are sold frozen in
the shell (50).
-------
PROCESS
WASTES
DISPOSAL
WATER
SHELL
SOLIDS
WATER
WATER, SOLIDS
(TREATMENT)
FIGURE 14.
SHRIMP HANDPICKING (27).
-------
WASTES
DISPOSAL
SHELL.WATER
SHELL, WATER
MEAT, WATER
SHELL
MEAT
MEAT
MEAT
WATER
WATER
WATER
SOLIDS, WATER
FIGURE 15. MECHANICAL SHRIMP PEELING (27).
-------
Recent Catch and Product Quantities
Shrimp are an important United States fishery in terms of both tonnage
and value. In 1968 the catch exceeded 290 million pounds with a value
of more than 110 million dollars, as shown on Table 23.
Table 23. Recent Shrimp Catches (k).
1968
5-Year Average
(1962-1966)
Quantity Value, Quantity,- Value
(Ibs x 106) ($ x 106) (Ibs x 10b) ($ x IP6)
307.8
103.5
291.6
113.8
Quantity
(Ibs x IP6)
225.2
The most important finished products are frozen and breaded shrimp, as
shown on Table 2k. Both of these products were successfully developed
during the 1950's and markets apparently are continuing to expand.
Table 2^. Shrimp Products, 1968 (29).
Product
Breaded
Canned
Frozen
Speciality products
Quantity
(Ibs x 106)
103.7
18.9
127.0
0.1
Valuex-
($ x 10b)
98.5
27A
(not reported)
O.U
Projected Catches
Except in Alaska, the fishing areas are apparently full exploited. Yearly
variations in catch seem to be dependent on annual survival rates. The
Alaskan catch, now about one-sixth of the national total, could expand
substantially with further development 00. Alverson (30) predicted
that the Alaskan stocks are capable of producing a catch equal to or
exceeding 260 million pounds annually, or five times the existing
catches.
h6
-------
Waste Quantities
Jensen (2?) estimated that 78 to 85 percent of the shrimp is wasted in
mechanical peeling and 77 to 8k percent in hand picking. The Oregon
State Department of Environmental Quality (10) estimated 75 percent
wastage for hand picking and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries listed
a cleaning loss of 55 percent (31). The low value of the Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries was apparently due to ignoring the blanching loss,
which ranges from 30 to 35 percent of the picked weight (1*8). Using a
value of 80 percent, the quantity of shrimp wastes generated in 1968
was calculated to be 233 million pounds.
Vilbrandt and Abernethy (51) mentioned that the shrimp heads comprise
^3 to U5 percent of the whole raw shrimp. Thus the estimated total
shrimp waste would be reduced to approximately 132 million pounds, if all.
the catch in the Gulf and South Atlantic states were beheaded at sea.
The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries listed the composition of shrimp
waste as shown on Table 25.
Table 25. Composition of Shrimp Waste (32).
Composition (<$,)
Source Protein Chitin CaCO-
Hand Peeling
Mechanical peeling
27.2
22.0
57.5
1*2.3
15.3
35.7
Tuna
Tuna ranks as the "number one" seafood in the United States; Americans
consume over one billion cans of tuna per year (52).
Tuna are large, migratory fish. They feed on whatever small sea
animals are most abundant and easiest to catch. Their distribution in
the oceans is still nearly completely unknown, although research in
this field is underway. The major runs are found off the Pacific coast.
Processing
Most tuna which are canned in the United States are caught in distant
waters. A modern tuna vessel can hold from 150 to 300 tons of fish and
has a range of 1,000 miles (53). Because of the long transport times,
-------
the fish are normally frozen aboard the fishing vessels.
The fish usually are unloaded (while frozen) by mechanical hoists and
conveyed to the weighing station. After weighing the fish are inspected
and thawed.
Tuna are eviscerated by hand in several steps. The body cavities are
flushed with fresh water and all adhering viscera carefully removed.
The viscera are used for fish meal or pet food and the livers are
sometimes recovered for oil and vitamins.
After butchering, the fish are precooked in large, open chambers. The
time of cooking varies with the body size, but is usually about 3 hours.
Weight loss during cooking (attributable to oil and moisture loss)
averages 22 to 26 percent (53).
The cooked fish are cooled for approximately 12 hours to firm the flesh.
The meat is separated by hand from the head, bones, fins and skin. All
dark meat is removed and usually recovered for pet food. The meat to
be canned is placed on a conveyor belt and transferred to the "Pak-Shaper"
machine.
The tuna slices are arranged lengthwise in the Pak-Shaper. This device
molds the loins into a cylinder, fills the cans and trims the meat
after filling. The machine can fill from 125 to 150 cans per minute
(53).
Salt and vegetable oils are next added to the cans and they are vacuum
sealed and retorted by standard procedures. The entire process is
diagrammed on Figure 16.
Recent Catch and Product Quantities
The annual tuna catch averages approximately 300 million pounds, as
shown on Table 26. The value averages approximately $0.15 per pound,
or $1*5 million annually.
Most tuna are canned; the 1968 pack exceeded 290 million pounds with
a value of $26? million (see Table 27). The bulk was canned as "chunk
style".
Projected Catches
The tuna catch in the United States has failed to meet increased domestic
demands. Import quotas have been regulated to 20 percent of the previous
year's domestic catch (U), thereby stabilizing the domestic market.
U8
-------
SOLIDS, WATER
VISCERA, BLOOD, WATER
|{ BLOOD, OIL, SLIME
SOYBEAN OIL
CONDENSATE
WATER
WASH DOWN-<
TUNA CANNING (10).
-------
Table 26. Recent Tuna Catches
Species
Albacore
Bluefin
Little
Skipjack
Yellowfin
Unclas s i i iea
19
Quant ity/-
(Ibs x 10 )
U8.U
18.7
0.06
119.3
1U2.0
OAO
\JC.
67
Value,-
(* x 106)
9.5
2.5
0.01
12.5
19.6
Om
.UJ.
19
Quantity,
(Ibs x 10b)
56.0
15.1
o.oU
68.8
153.9
68
Value,
($ x 106)
n.U
2.5
0.01
9-3
2U.1
5-Year
Average
(1962-1966)
Quantity,
(Ibs x 10b)
U5.8
3U.2
0.05
90.0
135. U
0.08
TOTAL
328. k
293.8
305.6
Table 27. Tuna Products, 1968 (29).
Product
Canned, solid pack
Canned, chunk style
Canned, grated
Quantity,
(Ibs x 10°)
99-3
272.0
20.8
Value,
($ x 106)
75.8
181.2
10.2
TOTAL
392.1
267.2
Further use of scientific methods to follow fish migrations should
increase future catches and enable the domestic market to expand;
a slight upward trend has been evident for the past six years (5*0
and should continue.
50
-------
Waste Quantities
The Oregon State Department of Environmental Quality (10) estimated that
65 percent of the tuna is wasted in the canning process. Using this
figure, the 1968 quantity of waste was calculated to be 190 million
pounds. The degree of wastage probably varies somewhat with species.
-------
THE INDUSTRY BY REGION
Alaska
Nearly half of the 36,000 mile coastline of Alaska is icebound most
of the year. The remainder borders more productive temperate to sub-
arctic seas. The continental shelf width varies considerably in these
areas.
Salmon have historically dominated the fisheries of Alaska, but the
harvest has declined in recent years, for reasons largely unknown.
Halibut, herring, shrimp and crab comprise most of the remainder of
the state's fisheries. Several fish species caught off the Alaskan
coast are landed not only in Alaskan ports, but also in Oregon,
Washington, and British Columbia. Therefore the discussion of Alaskan
landings which follows does not include all the seafoods harvested in
Alaskan waters, but only those which were received in Alaskan ports.
Recent Landings and Product Quantities
The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (55) estimated the 1967 fish and
shellfish landings in Alaska to be 361 million pounds, valued at $U8
million. The 1968 statistics were k& million pounds and$72 million
(U). The record year for Alaska was 1936, in which 932 million pounds
were harvested. The 1968 figures represented 11 percent of the total
U.S. landings by weight and 15 percent by total dollar value.
The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (55) cited the landings in 1967 by
species as shown on Table 28. The quantities of wastes listed on
Table 28 were computed from average waste values, giving a total of
190 million pounds.
The markets were dominated by canned salmon and fresh and frozen king
crab, as shown on Table 29. Both products had relatively high values:
approximately $0.75 per pound for crab meat and $0.60 per pound for
salmon.
Projected Catches
Alverson (30) assessed in detail the future of the seafood industry in
the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea regions. For bottom fish the maximum
sustainable yield was estimated to far exceed the present utilization
level. Shrimp stocks were estimated to be capable of yielding catches
equal to or exceeding 260 million pounds annually. Currently, shrimp
52
-------
Table 28. Major Alaskan Landings and Calculated Waste Quantities,
1967 (55).
Species
Crab
Dungeness
King
Tanner
Halibut
Herring, sea
Sable fish
Salmon
Chinook
Chum
Pink
Red
Silver
Shrimp
TOTAL
Landings,
(Ibs x 10°)
139. U
11.6
127.7
0.1
27.2
11.5
2.1
138 A
11.6
31.5
28.8
53.5
13.0
ia .8
360. U
Waste ^
(%)
73
80
80
12
0
Uo
30
33
35
33
33
80
(Ibs x 10 )
8.U
100
0.1
3.3
0
0.8
3.5
10
10
18
U.3
33
190
Table 29. Major Alaskan Products, 1967 (56).
Species
Crab
Dungeness
King
Halibut
Herring
Salmon
Shrimp
TOTAL
Product
Fresh and frozen
Fresh and frozen
Canned
Fresh and frozen
Frozen bait
Canned
Caviar
Fresh and frozen
Canned
Quantity,-
(Ibs x 10°)
6.2
32.1
7.8
1.0
6.7
80.3
6.3
6.3
2.5
1^9.2
Value,-
($ x 105)
2.6
23.7
13.2
0.7
0.2
52.1
7.3
U.8
3.0
107.7
53
-------
harvests average approximately Uo million pounds per year. Both king
and Dungeness crab were estimated to be approaching full utilization
and higher yields were not expected, barring the harvesting of new
stocks. The Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands for king crab and the
southern Gulf of Alaska for Dungeness crab were said to hold some
potential as fishing grounds. The report predicted greatly increased
harvests of tanner crab in the future. It was furthermore concluded
that a large population of scallops exists off the coast of Alaska
and that it could support commercial harvesting operations. Actual
quantities were not estimated.
The marine fishes in Alaskan waters that are commonly harvested include
salmon and herring. The total salmon catch has declined steadily
since the 1930's. Populations of mackerel, saury, anchovies, smelt
and rock fish are known to exist. The potential for expanded yields
from these species is obvious, but such activity in the foreseeable
future appears doubtful.
Waste Magnitudes
The utilization of Alaskan salmon wastes has been thoroughly researched.
The majority of the projects have been carried out by the Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries in their several technological laboratories.
The National Canners Association (57) listed the major Alaskan salmon
processing areas and estimated waste quantities from the 1966 pack.
These data and the average canning seasons are summarized on Table 30.
Alaska salmon processing generates about 100 million pounds of waste
annually. In a highly productive year this figure may be doubled.
Disposal problems are intensified by the short canning seasons, varying
from ten days to two months. It has been estimated that from one-
third to one-fourth of the salmon wastes are processed and sold each
year (58).
Table 30. Alaskan Salmon Wastes, 1966 (57).
Region
Norton Sound
Bristol Bay
Aleutian Islands
Kodiak Island
Cook Inlet
Prince William Sound
Southeastern Alaska
TOTAL
Number of
Canneries
U
lU
3
7
9
3
18
58
Typical
Season
June 10-20
June 25-July 20
June 10- Aug. 20
July 15- Aug. 20
July 5 -Aug. 15
May 15 -June 20
July 15 -Aug. 15
July 5 -Aug. 15
Waste Quantity
(Ibs x 106)
6
1.3
20.6
.5
13.8
9.7
8.9
39.5
100.3
-------
When commercial shrimp production began in Alaska over ^5 years ago,
handpieking vas the basic peeling method used, in 1958, automatic
peelers were introduced. The tremendous expansion experienced by this
industry in the last decade can be attributed mainly to the introduction
of these mechanical peelers.
Table 31 lists the Alaskan shrimp processing regions and wastes
generated in 1967. The shrimp season extends throughout the year, but
the operation peaks from May through June. Over 10 million pounds of
wastes are generated annually in Alaska by this industry, the major
share in the Kodiak area.
Table 31. Alaskan Shrimp Wastes, 1967 (57).
Number of Waste Quantity
Region Canneries (ibs x 10°)
Aleutian Islands 1 0.9
Kodiak Island 3 7.8
Southeastern Alaska 2 1.6
TOTAL 6 10.3
The Alaskan crab production is also centered around Kodiak Island. The
expansion of this industry has caused serious pollution problems in
Kodiak harbor. Dumping of the wastes directly into the harbor over
the years has led to high microbial populations and low dissolved
oxygen (D.O.) concentrations, in spite of the low ambient temperatures.
The problem has become so acute that, presently, inner harbor waters
cannot be used in the processors' live crab holding tanks without
serious mortality levels. The Alaskan Department of Fish and Game (7)
reported D.O. levels during September, 1966 in Kodiak harbor below
3 mg/1. Normal D.O. levels in the live tanks vary from saturation to
a low of 6.0 mg/1. To alleviate the problems, plans are being
formulated by the crab processors for the development of a cooperative
by-product development-landfill operation (59)« Simon (60) described
a total industrial and domestic waste inventory of Kodiak harbor
showing 63 million pounds of waste discharged in 1967.
Table 32 lists the Alaskan crab processing centers and estimated waste
quantities for 1967. Over 21 million pounds of waste were discharged,
mainly in the Kodiak area.
55
-------
Table 32. Alaskan Crab Wastes, 196? (57).
Number of
Region Canneries
Aleutian Islands
Kodiak Island
Prince William Sound
Southeastern Alaska
k
9
1
5
Waste Quantity
(Ibs x 106)
5.7
13.9
1.0
0.9
TOTAL 19 21.5
Present Waste Disposal Methods
Since its inception, the Alaskan seafood industry has generally
practiced the "hole in the floor" method of waste disposal. All solid
and liquid wastes were discharged directly into the adjoining waters;
often no outfall was used. Several factors have discouraged the
utilization of these wastes. The isolated locations of most canneries
seem to preclude consolidation and centralized processing. The short
canning seasons appear to make justification of large capital expenditures
for waste processing equipment difficult. The latter argument becomes
less persuasive when one notes that the actual seafood processing
equipment must be Justified on the same basis. Other factors
affecting waste utilization decisions include the variability of the
raw product volumes, the highly perishable nature of the wastes and
the high operating costs in Alaska (6l).
Because of recent regulations instituted by the state government,
some of the Alaskan canneries have installed equipment for grinding
offal before discharging this material into the receiving waters (62).
This process makes the waste more available for bottom fish and other
scavengers. The process also adds considerably to the soluble and
colloidal organic level and increases the surface area-to-volume ratio
of the solids and therefore increases BODjvalues and degradation rates.
In some cases, this practice may actually reduce dissolved oxygen levels
and further threaten the indigenous species of the area.
In a few cases, canneries have tended to become concentrated rather than
dispersed. The most notable example of this is in Kodiak. This
tendency is evident to a lesser degree in Wrangall and Ketchikan.
Where such conditions exist, the concepts of consolidation of effluents
and solid wastes and of joint treatment facilities become more
attractive. To date, the only applications of these principles among
Alaskan seafoods processors have been the Kodiak landfill project and
a proposed by-products development project, both of which at this
writing are still in the planning stages.
56
-------
Oregon and Washington
The fisheries of Oregon and Washington are important to the economies
of these states. Leading processing centers include Astoria, Oregon
and Seattle and Bellingham, Washington.
The fishery economies of the two states are based largely on the
five commercially-harvested species of salmon. Tuna and halibut are
also landed in significant numbers. The Pacific oyster makes an
important contribution to Washington fisheries and the production of
Dungeness crab in both states is substantial.
Recent Landings and Product Quantities
The landings of fish and shellfish in 1967 were 92 million pounds in
Oregon and 175 million pounds in Washington for a total of 267 million
pounds. The corresponding values of these catches were $l6 million
and $25 million, respectively (55). The total landings decreased in
1968 to 220 million pounds, having a total value of $38 million
As shown on Table 33, the largest landings included salmon, tuna, hake,
and Dungeness crab. The hake is rendered for meal and oil; the
remaining three species are large waste contributors.
Table 33. Major Landings and Calculated Waste Quantities in
Oregon and Washington, 1967 (55).
Species
Cod
Dungeness crab
Flounder
Hake
Halibut
Ocean perch
Oysters
Rockfish
Salmon
Shrimp
Tuna
Landinscs
(Ibs x 10°)
9.2
19.1
25.8
28.8
12.6
15.*
7.0
12.1
70.7
11.2
30.7
(*)
1+0
73
1*0
Rendered
12
ho
75
UO
33
80
65
Waste
(Ibs x 10°)
3.7
Ik
10
0
1.5
6.2
5.2
*.8
33
9.0
20
TOTAL 2*2.5
The most highly valued products are derived from salmon and tuna,
especially the canned products, as shown on Table 3*. A variety of
products is marketed fresh, including several species of bottom fish,
crab, shrimp and oysters.
57
-------
Table 3*+. Major Products in Oregon and Washington, 1967 (56).
Species
Cod
Dungeness crab
Flounder
Halibut
Ocean perch
Oysters
Rockfish
Salmon
Shrimp
Tuna
Product
Fresh and frozen
Fresh and frozen
Canned
Fresh and frozen
Fresh and frozen
Fresh and frozen
Fresh and frozen
Canned
Fresh and frozen
Fresh and frozen
Canned
Salted
Smoked
Caviar
Fresh and frozen
Canned
Canned
Animal food
Quantity
(Ibs x 10°)
3.*+
3.0
0.05
6.3
6.5
5.U
5.0
0.7
3.5
1.7
29.2
1.7
0.7
0.5
l.U
0.7
31.7
2.3
Value
($ x 106)
0.9
3.7
1.1+
2.7
3.7
1.5
3.7
1.0
0.9
1.1+
2U.O
1.6
0.5
O.U
1.8
0.8
22.7
1.1+
TOTAL 103.7
Projected Catches
The major species now harvested along the Oregon and Washington coast
appear to be fully exploited. The harvest of salmon has shown a slow
decline in recent years, even with the increased utilization of
hatchery systems. Alverson (30) stated that the Dungeness crab has
also reached full utilization. He concluded that to achieve a large
increase in landings, other species must be utilized. These under-
utilized species include smelt, jack mackerel, pomferts, Pacific suary,
squid, scallops, ocean pink shrimp, and several forms of rockfish and
bottom fish.
Waste Magnitudes
The estimated waste quantities for Oregon and Washington were calculated
to be 110 million pounds, or 1+1+ percent of the total landed weight,
as shown on Table 33. In Oregon, 35 seafood processors were estimated
to produce 1+7 million pounds of waste annually (10).
Washington's 18 seafoods processors were listed as having an average
wastewater volume of 0.19 mgd, with a range of 0.06 to 1.2 mgd (8).
Based on the total landings in 1967, the water consumption of fish
processors in Washington was calculated to be ll+60 gallons per ton of
58
-------
raw product. This value is low compared to other food processing
operations, which have an average water usage of 3000 to 8000 gallons
per ton of raw product (63).
Present Waste Disposal Methods
Generally, the larger seafood processors recover the solid wastes for
rendering. The Oregon State Department of Environment Quality (10)
estimated that 60 to 70 percent of the solid wastes from fish processing
in Oregon are recovered and 30 to ho percent are discharged untreated.
The only Oregon rendering plant is located at Warrenton. Several
outlets for mink feed do exist, but these are decreasing in number.
Land disposal is used at Garibaldi and Newport, Oregon, but this method
poses the potential problems of odors and leachates. Nunnallee and
Mar (8) stated that the fish processing solid wastes at Anacortes
and Bellingham, Washington, are sent to reduction plants. One such
plant is located at Westport, Washington. This plant handles mainly
crab shell. The shell is ground, dehydrated and sold as a fertilizer.
Many small processors discharge all wastes untreated. All of the crab
wastes from Pacific City to Brookings, Oregon, are discharged directly
to adjoining waters (10).
California
The bottom habitat of the narrow shelf off the 700-mile California
coast is only moderately productive (6k). The surface environment,
however, supports a variety of marine species.
Until recently, the major component of the California fishery economy
was sardines. A record 1.5 billion pounds were harvested annually in
the mid-thirties, followed by gradual reductions in catches to a low
of 9 million pounds in 1953.
Recent Landings and Product Quantities
The California seafoods industry is based primarily on tuna, as shown
on Tables 35 and 36. Other important species include bottom fish,
Dungeness crab, anchovies, and jack mackerel. In 1967 the total
California landings were approximately 507 million pounds and were
valued at $51 million (55). A lU percent decline in landings was
reported in 1968, the total being UU6 million pounds (k). The four
species of tuna accounted for over 56 percent of the total 1967 landings,
representing 69 percent of the total seafoods value.
59
-------
Table 35. Major California Landings and Calculated waste Quantities,
1967 (55).
Species
Anchovies
Bonito
Dungeness crab
Flounder
Jack mackerel
Pacific mackerel
Rockfish
Sablefish
Salmon
Sea bass
Shrimp
Tuna
Landings
(Ibs x 106)
69.6
21.2
11.7
3.3
38.2
1.2
10.0
H.O
7.U
1.5
1.1*
281*. 0
Waste
(%}
Mostly rendered
65
85
IK)
30
30
1*0
1*0
33
140
80
65
**
(Ibs x 10°)
0
Ik
10
1.3
11
0.1*
i*.o
2.0
2.1*
0.6
1.2
19^.0
TOTAL
Tuna also dominates the finished products market. The tuna is sold
canned and in most instances the waste products are rendered for
animal food, meal and oil. Canned mackerel and fresh and frozen
flounder and shrimp are also significant contributors to the seafood
markets, as shown on Table 36.
Table 36. Major California Products, 1967 (56).
Species
Anchovies
Dungeness crab
Flounder
Jack mackerel
Pacific mackerel
Rockfish
Sablefish
Salmon
Sea bass
Shrimp
Tana
Product
Meal
Oil
Fresh and frozen
Fresh and frozen
Canned
Canned
Fresh and frozen
Smoked
Fresh and frozen
Fresh and frozen
Fresh and frozen
Canned
Animal food
Meal
Oil
Quantity,
(Ibs x 106)
11.2
1.0
1.1*
6.1
12.6
0.2
2.1*
0.2
0.5
0.1
8.8
188.2
35 .U
28.2
l*.l
Value,:
($ * 106)
0.7
0.0k
1.6
2.3
2.3
0.03
0.7
0.2
O.lf
0.07
9.9
116.3
18.8
1.6
0.2
TOTAL
300.3
155.1
60
-------
Projected Catches
Smith (65) and Clemens (66) agree that the future of California
fisheries is based on consumer demand, not on the supply of seafoods.
The annual per capita consumption of seafoods in California is
approximately 17 pounds, which requires approximately 32 pounds of
Whole fish to satisfy (65). This value is considerably higher than
the national average of 11 pounds per year (U), so an increase in
demand due to increased per capita consumption is not expected. However,
assuming a continued population expansion in California and adjacent
states and the continued ability of this state's fisheries industry to
compete with foreign supplies, the industry should continue to grow.
Bell (6k) stated that continued processing of fish mainly as a canned
product in California, with the consumer demand increasing for easily
prepared frozen products, has hampered the growth of the industry. A
heavier emphasis, therefore, on frozen seafoods products should be
evidenced in the future.
Clemens (66) has found no indication of over-fishing of tuna stocks,
even though catches have decreased in recent years. The tuna catch
seems to depend on the survival of the young and on their migratory
habits, which may possibly be dependent on surface temperatures.
Ahlstrom (6?) examined the growth potential of the California fisheries.
He concluded that both the Pacific sardine and the Pacific mackerel
are being over-harvested. Continued exploitation of the Pacific
mackerel should bring decreased catches. Yellow fin tuna, shrimp,
Dungeness crab, halibut and salmon populations were judged as being
fully utilized and therefore catches should remain at present
levels or may decline. Albacore, bluefin and skipjack tuna could
withstand a moderately increased catch (less than double the present
catch) and rock fish, sable fish, jack mackerel, bonito and anchovies
were judged to be considerably under-exploited.
Waste Magnitudes
The total calculated solid wastes for 196? are listed on Table 35 as
2*K> million pounds. Most of these wastes were from tuna processing,
which can yield valuable by-products. Assuming complete utilization
of the tuna scrap, the remaining waste to be handled would be about
50 million pounds, much less than the calculated value shown on
Table 35.
Present Waste Disposal Methods
The general waste management practice in California is to remove the
solids by screening the waste streams. The solids are ground and
rendered for meal, oil and animal feed. Wastewaters from the various
61
-------
processing systems are usually discharged untreated to the adjoining
waters. In some cases wastewater discharge regulations are enforced
by the local governmental agencies.
Great Lakes Region
The U.S.-owned waters of the Great Lakes yield approximately 70 million
pounds of fish annually. The various species include lake trout,
whitefish, walleye, blue pike, yellow perch, ciscoe, alewives, hake,
herring and sheepshead.
Recent Landings and Product Quantities
The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (68) listed the total U.S. 19&7
Great lakes landings as 81* million pounds, with a value of only $6
million. The alewife was the species taken in largest numbers, as shown
on Table 37. At 1*2 million pounds for 19^7, this species comprised
50 percent of the total catch in the region. Alewives are rendered
for meal and oil and thus yield low-value products.
Table 37. Major Great Lakes Region Landings and
Calculated Waste Quantities, 1967 (68)
Species
Alewives
Carp
Chub
Lake herring
Silver salmon
Sheepshead
Smelt
Whitefish
Yellow perch
Landings
(Ibs x 10)6
1*1.9
6.7
11.3
3.8
1.5
2.6
2.8
1.6
5.8
Waste
(*)
rendered
1*0
1*0
15
33
1*0
15
1*0
1*0
c
(Ibs x 10U)
0
_ s-
2.6
_ /"
0.6
0.5
1.0
r\ )i
0.**
0.7
2.3
TOTAL 77.9
12.6
The major products destined for human consumption are processed from
chub, herring, salmon, whitefish, and yellow perch (see Table 38). A
considerable quantity of fish is sold fresh and therefore is not
listed on Table 38.
62
-------
Table 38. Major Great Lakes Region Products, 1967 (56).
Species
Chub
Herring
Salmon
Whitefish
Yellow perch
TOTAL
Product
Smoked
Salted
Smoked
Fresh and frozen
Smoked
Fresh and frozen
Quantity,
(Ibs x 106)
u.u
5 A
0.5
0.3
0.08
2.U
13.1
Value,-
($ x 106)
2.3
2.0
0.8
0.3
0.05
1.6
7.0
Projected Catches
The quantity of fish harvested annually from the Great Lakes should
not increase notably in the future. Species and harvesting areas are
limited by the geographic isolation of the region, hampering expansion,
The alewife catch could decline due to the growing numbers of the
predator silver salmon.
Waste Magnitudes
Total solid wastes volumes were calculated (and are listed on Table
37) as about 13 million pounds for 1967. Because the alewives are
rendered, they do not significantly contribute to the solid wastes
problem. The stickwater from alewife rendering plants has an extremely
high BOD and can result in serious water pollution problems and odors.
Kempe, et al. (69) listed an average stickwater BOD* of U7,000 mg/1
at a flow oT 120 gallons/ton of fish processed.
Present Waste Disposal Methods
Billy (70) stated that the solid wastes from the fresh fish markets
are directly discharged into the lakes. This waste contribution to the
Great Lakes was judged to be negligible when compared to the total
industrial discharge.
None of the fish meal plants in the state of Michigan discharge their
effluents into Lake Michigan (70). One plant in the State of Wisconsin
does presently discharge stickwater into Lake Michigan, but plans are
presently being prepared for treatment facilities (71).
Mississippi River Basin
The fish in this twenty-states region are taken both from the rivers
63
-------
and from the many small lakes. Catfish, buffalofish, carp, sheepshead,
and missels are the principal species harvested (6k). The annual
production averages about 50 Billion pounds (72).
Recent Landings and Product Quantities
The 196? landings, listed on Table 39, were somewhat evenly divided
between several species. Carp and buffalofish were the predominant
species. The landings for 1967 totaled over 80 million pounds, but
had a value of only approximately $8 million (73). Spread over 20
states, the economic contribution per state was very small.
Table 39. Major Mississippi River Landings and Calculated
Waste Quantities, 1967 (73).
Species
Buffalofish
Carp
Catfish and
bullhead
Crawfish
Mussel
Sheepshead
TOTAL
Landings,-
(Ibs x 10°)
18.0
23.5
11.9
2.9
13.5
7^.3
Waste
(*)
140
llQ
JtC
85
75
UO
(Ibs x 10C)
7.2
9.*
5.1*
2.5
10
1.8
36
The seafood production is considerably larger than the landings due
to large imports from the Great Lakes and the Gulf States. ALL
Mississippi River Basin fishery products in 1967 had a value in excess
of $13 million (56); the major products are listed on Table hO. The
single most valuable product was shrimp, worth over $2.6 million.
-------
Table UO. Major Mississippi River Basin Products, 196? (56).
Species
Carp
Catfish
Crawfish
Salmon
Shrimp
Whitefish
Whiting
Yellow pike
Product
Smoked
Smoked
Fresh
Smoked
Frozen
Smoked
Smoked
Fresh and frozen
Quantity/-
(Ibs x 10 )
0.188
O.OlU
0.15U
0.013
U.I
0.076
0.053
0.05^
Value
($ x 106)
0.06
0.01
0.270
0.01
2.6
0.025
0.02^
0.0^2
TOTAL U.8 3.0
Projected Catches
Because of the limited access to productive waters, future catches in
this region should remain approximately at present levels, with the
probable exception of farmed catfish. Jones (21) estimated that
catfish production could double present levels by 1975, if economic
incentives remain at the current high levels.
Waste Magnitudes
The percentages of wastage listed on Table 39 for all the species
except catfish were estimated by fish or shellfish type. Buffalofish,
carp, and sheepshead were considered as bottom fish; mussels as oysters;
and crawfish as crabs. No waste quantities for these species were
found in the literature. Using these crude waste estimates, the total
annual waste quantity was calculated to be 36 million pounds.
Present Waste Disposal Methods
Seagran (72) described this fishery as being made up of many small
processors with limited capital. Waste disposal is usually accomplished
by discharge to the adjoining waterway. Increased catfish farming
could provide a ready market for fish viscera meals if consolidation
of this fishery were sufficient to justify the purchase of fish meal
equipment.
Golf States
The Gulf states region includes the llfOO-mile coastline of Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and the west coast of Florida. The
65
-------
large shelf sustains shrimp fisheries of high value and menhaden
fisheries of large volume.
Recent Landings and Product Quantities
The 1967 landings in the Gulf States were 1.2 billion pounds with a
value of $127 million (71*). The 1968 landings increased slightly to
1.3 billion pounds, but the value decreased somewhat to $125 million
The two most important species processed, shown on Table Ul, were
menhaden and shrimp. These two species comprised 78 percent of the
total landings volume and value. Blue crab and oysters both contributed
significantly to the fishery markets.
Table Ul. Major Gulf States Landings and Calculated Waste Quantities,
1967 (7*0.
Species
Catfish and bullhead
Blue crab
Grouper
Herring
Menhaden
Xysters
Mallet, black
Red snapper
Shrimp
Landings
(Ibs x 10°)
3.8
27.5
7.0
10.0
700.0
21.8
28.2
11.9
225.7
Waste
(%)
^5
86
ko
15
Rendered
75
ho
ho
80
(Ibs x 10W)
1.7
23
2.8
_ /
1.6
0
lU
11
1^8
rx _
180
TOTAL 1036.0
The fishery products market was dominated by fresh and frozen shrimp,
as shown on Table h2. The menhaden products were large in volume,
but had low values: approximately $0.05 per pound.
66
-------
Table U2. Major Gulf States Products, 196? (56).
Species
Blue crab
Grouper
Menhaden
Oysters
Red Snapper
Shrimp
Product
Fresh and
Fresh and
Meal
Oil
Solubles
Fresh and
Breaded
Fresh and
Fresh and
Canned
Meal
frozen
frozen
frozen
frozen
frozen
Quantity,
(Ibs x 10°)
2.8
0.1*5
11*. 5
6l.6
1*8.8
11.6
0.9
0.2
217 .H
13.2
O.U
Value ,
(Ibs x 106)
U.o
0.7
9.5
3.0
1.8
10.8
0.8
0.2
20U.O
19.9
0.01
TOTAL
501.8
25^.7
Projected Catches
The Gulf states' fisheries are dominated by shrimp production, which is
basically a domestic fishery; no foreign vessels fish for shrimp along
the U.S. coast. Longnecker (75) stated that the U.S. domestic shrimp
fishery may be reaching the limit of sustainable yield. The domestic
production has been relatively stable for the past 10 years.
Bullis and Carpenter (Ul) estimated that the present menhaden landings
are one-fifth to one-third of the maximum sustainable yield. The
bottom fish industry, too, has large stocks that could accommodate
expanding markets. The blue crab fishery has wide areas for future
expansion along the Gulf Coast. Table 1*3 lists the presently utilized
and latent fishery resources of this region. The general conclusion of
Bullis and Carpenter was that catches could increase substantially if
expanded markets could be developed.
67
-------
Table U3. Presently Utilized and Latent Fishery Resources,
Gulf of Mexico
Present Latent
Quantity Quantity
Resource
Bottom fish
(food)
Bottom fish
(industrial)
Coastal marine
fish
High seas
marine fish
Midwater fish
Shellfish
Major Species
Snapper, grouper
Croaker, sea trout
Herring, sardines,
anchovies
Sharks, tuna, flying
fish
Butterfish, bumper,
scad
Scallops, squid,
lobsters, crab
(Ibs x 10b)
50
90
1,060
0
0
260
(Ibs x 10°)
1,000
5,700
8,1*00
900
2,100
2,800
TOTALS l,ltf>0 20,900
Waste Magnitudes
The calculated waste quantities for 1967, as listed on Table Ul,
totaled 2kO million pounds. Seventy-five percent of this waste was
contributed by shrimp processing.
The on-site survey segment of this study was limited by hurricane
Camille (1969) to only one plant in the Gulf states area. This plant
processed shrimp and oysters; shrimp were being processed at the
time of the visit. The shrimp are usually beheaded at sea to remove
most of the degradive enzymes. This procedure allows the boats to
remain out of port for more extended periods. Removing the heads at
sea reduces the waste quantities at the processing plant by 56 percent
(51). This would reduce the shrimp waste estimate mentioned earlier
(page 660 to 80 million pounds.
Present Waste Disposal Methods
Shrimp processing yields large volumes of solid wastes and wastewaters.
In most cases the liquid wastes are discharged untreated to adjoining
waters. Some solids are recovered by screening the wastewater, but
this practice is not prevalent. The screenings are processed into
meal which is sold as feed or fertilizer. The solids from mechanical
picking contain less than 30 percent protein, resulting in a relatively
low-quality meal (76). Approximately 10 pounds of meal are produced
from 100 pounds of solid waste.
68
-------
South Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay States
This area includes Chesapeake Bay, which is bordered by Virginia and
Maryland, and the coasts of North and South Carolina, Georgia, and
the east coast of Florida.
Most of the nation's lobster and blue crab harvests take place in this
area. Menhaden processing for oil and meal results in the largest
product volumes. Shrimp and catfish are two minor species utilized.
Recent Landings and Product Quantities
The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (77, 78) reported the 1967 fish and
shellfish landings in Chesapeake Bay and the South Atlantic states to
be 7^0 million pounds, valued at $59 million. The 1968 landings were
772 million pounds with a value of $66 million
The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries cited the landings in 1967 by major
species as shown on Table Mt. Over 56 percent of the landings consisted
of menhaden; 16 percent was blue crab. Shrimp, oysters and alewives
also yielded significant catches.
Table kk . Major South Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay Landings,
and Calculated Waste Products, 1967 (77, 78).
Species
Alewives
Blue crab
Catfish and bullheads
Herring
Menhaden
Oysters
Shrimp
Landings^
(Ibs x 106)
51.7
120.2
15.0
8.9
1*17.0
29.0
20.6
Waste
(%)
30
86
1*5
Rendered
Rendered
75
80
(Ibs x 10^)
15
100
6.8
0
0
21
16
TOTAL 662. k 159
The seafood product markets were dominated by blue crab, shrimp and
oysters as shown on Table kk. The products from these three species
had a combined value of over $77 million in 1967. Menhaden rendering
yielded large volumes of meal, oil and fish solubles, but was valued
at only $7 million.
69
-------
Table ^5. Major South Atlantic and Chesapeake Bay Products,
1967 (56).
Species
Alewives
Blue crab
Menhaden
Oysters
Shrimp
Product
Salted
Fresh and frozen
Meal
Meal
Oil
Solubles
Fresh and frozen
Fresh and frozen
Quantity
(Ibs x 10°)
8.9
17.6
6.7
76.5
32.H
39.7
19.6
36.2
($ x 10*
1.3
20.2
0.2
It 7
1 ^
ll2
20.1
37.1
5)
TOTAL 237.5 86.2
Projected Catches
Bullis and Carpenter (Hi) listed present utilization and the latent
fishery resources for the South Atlantic region as shown on Table H6.
The totals show that a considerable increase in catch could be realized
under proper market conditions.
Table U6. Present Production and Fishery Resource Potentials,
South Atlantic Region
Resource
Bottom fish (human consumption)
Bottom fish (industrial)
Coastal marine fishes
High seas marine fishes
Midwater fishes
Shellfish
Present Production
Quantity
(Ibs x 10b)
18
9
222
1
1
80
Latent
Quantity
(Ibs x 10°)
500
2,800
2,800
1,100
500
H,500
TOTAL 331 12,200
The shrimp, lobster, stone crab and oyster yields are considered to be
near i>mximi"> at the present time (Hi). Clams and scallops are believed
to offer the greatest potential for increased production.
70
-------
Waste Magnitudes
The estimated waste quantities from the major species in this region
were calculated to be l6o million pounds as shown on Table kk. The
majority of the waste is generated by blue crab processing, because
of the high volumes processed and the high percentage of wastage.
Present Waste Disposal Methods
The present waste disposal methods are similar to those practiced in
the Gulf states region. Liquid effluents are discharged untreated or
to municipal treatment facilities. Solids are recovered in some cases
and processed for meal. The production statistics for meal from blue
crab wastes, shown on Table ^5, imply that the wastes are being
partially utilized. The value of this meal was only 2.6 cents per
pound in 1967.
North- and Middle-Atlantic States
This region stretches from Maine to New Jersey. The important fishing
centers include Gloucester, Boston, and New Bedford in Massachusetts;
Portland, Rockland, and Eastport in Maine; Lewes, Delaware; Port
Monmouth, New Jersey; and New York City. This region has a wide
continental shelf and close proximity to fishing areas off the coast
of Canada (6k). Furthermore, a large local market for fishery products
exists.
The region's main products are lobster, cod, haddock, flounder and
ocean perch. New Jersey is the nation's major clam-producing state.
Sea scallop production has grown to be an important regional industry
in recent years.
Recent Landings and Product Quantities
The North- and Middle-Atlantic fisheries yield substantial quantities
of fish and shellfish. In 196? the total landings exceeded 788 million
pounds and had a value of approximately $jk million (79, 80). The
landings increased slightly in 1968 to 8l9 million pounds and $101
million (U). These landings were significantly less than those of
1960, 1.6 billion pounds (U).
The landings in this region were widely diversified by species as
shown on Table V7. Cod, flounder, haddock, perch and whiting were the
major fishes and lobsters, clams and scallops were the major shellfishes
harvested. Approximately 30 species were harvested for industrial
fishery products, the most important being the black flounder.
71
-------
Table 1*7. Major North- and Middle-Atlantic Landings and
Calculated Waste Products, 1967 (79, 80).
Species
Alewives
Clams
Cod
Flounder
Haddock
Lobster
Menhaden
Ocean perch
Scallops
Scup
Whiting
Landings
(Ibs x 10°)
7.3
61.7
^3*9
103.2
98.H
26.5
H6.5
71.1*
9.3
1H.6
69.1*
Waste
(*)
30
65
to)
to>
30
80
Rendered
UO
Discarded at sea
to)
30
(Ibs x 106)
2.2
to)
18
Hi
29
21
0
29
0
5.9
21
TOTAL 552.1 210
The major finished products were fillets from the several species of
fish mentioned, and fresh and frozen lobsters and clams (see Table
Lobsters had an extremely high market value: over $U per pound; the
market was affected by limited product availability (approximately one
million pounds annually).
Table H8.
Species
Clam
Cod
Flounder
Haddock
Lobster
Ocean perch
Whiting
TOTAL
Major Mbrth- and Middle-Atlantic Products, 1967 (56).
Product
Fresh and frozen
Canned
Fresh and frozen
Fillets
Fillets
Fresh and frozen
Fillets
Meal
Oil
Fresh and frozen
Quantity.
(Ibs x 106)
26.8
6.9
10.6
28.1
35 A
1.0
21.H
11. H
0.5
30.1
161.2
Value
($ x 106)
10.3
6.2
H.5
13.H
16.2
U.3
6.0
0.8
0.03
3.6
65.2
Projected Catches
Edwards (8l) stated that the North Atlantic area is being intensively
exploited. Serious overfishing of haddock was noted. The yields of
72
-------
some species such as redfish and herring can probably be increased,
but an overall increase in catch volumes would not exceed 20 percent.
Carlson, Knudson, and Shanks (82) stated that in the last few years
the population of shrimp off the New England coast has been increasing
rapidly. Many of the plants are making equipment changes to handle
this new product.
Waste Magnitudes
The calculated waste quantities from the major species landed are
listed as 210 million pounds on Table U?. The actual waste quantities
may have been up to 30 percent higher, based on the total landings, or
270 million pounds. Bottom fish and clams contributed significantly to
these waste magnitudes.
Present Waste Disposal Methods
In the majority of cases the solid wastes are utilized in animal feed
and meal plants. The flume waters, scales, blood, fish cuttings, and
wash waters are discharged to municipal sewers (83). Generally,
municipal treatment along the coast consists of only solids removal.
The pollution from the seafoods industry is considered by local
authorities to be small when compared to the total water pollution
problem of the area.
In certain localities, however, the pollution from fish wastes is
acute. The Clean Water Act of 1965 required fish processing plants to
treat their wastewaters. In Gloucester, Massachusetts, court action
to force compliance has been initiated by the Massachusetts Division
of Water Pollution Control (82).
73
-------
BY-PRODUCT UTILIZATION
Fish Meal
Fish meal is one of the products of fish rendering; the others are
fish oils and solubles. In 1968, 12? plants produced over 1*69 million
pounds of fish meal and scraps with a value of $30 million (37).
Fish meal was used primarily as a fertilizer prior to the 1930's,
when research showed its possible value in feed rations (8l|). Fish
meal has been shown to be a source of concentrated protein with
essential and non-essential amino acids, B-vitamins, an unidentified
growth factor, and trace elements, including phosphorus.
The most common species used for fish meals include menhaden, alwives,
anchovies, Pacific and Jack mackerel, herring, and wastes from ground-
fish, crabs and shrimp.
Fish meal markets are dependent on the markets of all the fish rendering
products. Lee (85) concluded that the production of fish meal is
dependent on oil prices, not on fish meal prices.
Methods of Manufacture
Kempe, et al. (69) listed four classes of currently-used rendering
processes: wet, dry, solvent extraction, and digestion. The wet
process is over one hundred years old and is still the most prominent.
The dry process is used only in small operations. The solvent and
digestion processes are not used extensively.
Kempe, et al. (69) listed several new processes that have been developed
to rlnd^FTish. These include the Pravia process, Titan process, Harberger
Eisen and Brouzewerke process, Kingan continuous rendering process,
Chayen-Sharples process, DeLaval process, Corver-Greenfield process,
Marsh process, Battelle-National Renderers Association process and the
U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries solvent extraction process. Most
are still in the experimental stage.
in the wet rendering process, shown on Figure 10, (page 29) the fish
or fish waste is removed from the boat, weighed and cooked by steam.
This material is then pressed to give a solid press cake and liquid
press liquor. Processing of press liquor is described in the Fish
Oil" section (page 79).
The press cake is dehydrated in one of several different types of
dryers to a meal containing about 8 percent moisture (69). The dried
meal is then sold directly or further ground and powdered prior to
marketing.
in the dry rendering process, the fish are first dried in large steam-
-------
heated dryers. The dried product is then pressed to release the oil
and the press cake sold as a fish meal.
The solvent and digestion processes are used to obtain a fish protein
concentrate with a protein concentration exceeding that of the normal
fish meal value (i.e., UO-50 percent).
Equipment
Packaged fish meal plants. Packaged fish meal plants are designed to
be used on board ship or in small operations. Several companies make
units of varying sizes and capacities up to 60 tons per day (86, 8?).
Auxiliary equipment can be purchased to recover oils and stickwater.
Mexico has been a forerunner in developing on-board fish meal plants.
de Sollano (88) reported on a dry-rendering process to produce fish
meal with a high protein concentration. The weight of the fish is
reduced by 80 percent, significantly reducing transportation costs.
Lopez (89) noted several uses of these plants on shrimp trawlers to
utilize the fish caught in the shrimp nets. The machines cost approxi-
mately $lU,000 and process about 1,000 pounds of fish per day.
Two Scandanavian firms are constructing special fish meal plants for
both large and small boats. The units have capacities of from 10 to
60 tons per day for trawlers and 150 to 600 tons per day for factory
ships (90).
One Danish firm markets (especially for research purposes) a fish meal
plant with a capacity of 55 pounds per hour (91).
Driers. A variety of drier types can be used in fish meal processing.
Peruvian factories use fire gases, but this method has proven to be
uneconomical and non-uniform (92). Air pollution is excessive.
Beatty (93) stated that small operations usually use vacuum drying
ovens. Larger operations use vacuum belt-driers, vacuum propeller-
driers, and vacuum cylinder-driers. One corporation makes rotary coil
evaporating equipment to reduce the load on the hot air driers (9*0
In the menhaden reduction industry, the press cake is fed to large
rotary, direct-flame or steam dryers (95). The resulting material has
a moisture level of about 6 to 10 percent.
Dyer (96) stated that the driers are the major source of odor in fish
reduction plants. In some plants, the air is recycled after passing
through a cyclone and a water scrubber. Venturi scrubbers also are
used in some plants on all odor sources.
Characteristics of Fish Meals
75
-------
Shellfish. Brown (97) listed the protein concentration of shrimp meal
as approximately 50 percent; oil, lk percent; and ash, 20 percent.
Thurston and MacMaster listed the calcium carbonate and ash contents of
shrimp meal as shown on Table ^9. Peniston, et al. (99) concluded that
shellfish waste meals have limited markets due to the high concentra-
tions of minerals and chitin. These concentrations limit the amount
that can be fed to animals.
Table ^9. Shrimp Meal Proximate Analyses (98)
Raw Material
Peeler waste
Shells
Whole shrimp
CaC03
W)
9.U-23.2
2U. 8-27.1
5.3
Ash
<*)
19.0-20.3
27.5-29.9
17.7
Khandker (100) studied the possibility of making shrimp meal from
fresh or soiled shrimp heads. Proximate analyses are listed on Table
50. The protein concentrations were lowered by enzymatic and bacterial
action during spoilage. The meals from the spoiled heads had an
offensive odor.
Table 50. Analyses of Shrimp Meal Made from Fresh and Spoiled Heads
(100).
Raw Material
Fresh heads
Spoiled heads
2k hours*
Total
Protein
<*)
U7.95
U2.68
Protein
from Chitin
»)
3.60
3.1*5
Crude
Protein
(*)
tt.35
39.23
Moisture
<*)
U.75
7.75
Ash
tt)
20.90
20.61
U8 hours*
72 hours*
3.00
3.30
39-51
38.19
6.75
7.0U
21.72
23.10
The lapse of time between removal from ice and beheading at the packing
plant.
Vilbrandt and Abernathy (51) stated that steam cooking at atmospheric
pressures is not adequate to preserve shrimp wastes. They recommended
a water, acid, or brine cook which yielded a meal with protein
concentrations exceeding kO percent (dry weight basis). These pro-
cesses would generate strong liquid wastes.
76
-------
Anchovies, Herring, Menhaden, Sardines, and Mackerel, Thurston and
MacMaster listed the proximate analyses of various oily fish meals as
shown on Table 51. These calcium carbonate values are significantly
less than those of the shellfish meals and would not limit the
allowable quantities in animal feeds.
Table 51. Average Proximate Analyses of
Some Oily Fish Meals (98).
Species
Anchovy
Herring
Mackerel
Menhaden
Sardines
CaCOo
(%)
1.53
O.H5
1.30
0.85
1.05
Ash
W)
21.9
9.7
23.2
18.9
17.8
Karrick, Clegg, and Stansby listed the composition of sardine and
mackerel meals and press cake as shown on Table 52. The meals made
from canning scraps were quite similar in oil and moisture content to
the whole fish meals.
Table 52. Composition of Press Cake and of the Corresponding
Meals in Different Dryer Types (101, 102).
Dryer Type
Direct
flame
dryer
Indirect
flame
dryer
(250°F.)
Air-lift
dryer
(175°F)
Raw
Material
Pilchard
and
mackerel
canning
scrap
Whole
pilchard
Pilchard
scrap
Processed
Material
Press cake
Meal
Press cake
Meal
Press Cake
Meal
Moisture
(*)
56.5
8.U
53.6
7.5
U9.5
13.3
Oil
(*)
5.55
8.57
U.80
7.85
U.ll
6.96
77
-------
Grau and associates (103) found that menhaden meal is capable of
being stored at room temperature up to six months without onset of
rancidity.
Turn. Tuna meals are a highly nutritional animal feed (1CA-). However,
they can be quite variable in quality because of the use of various
waste portions for other products. For example, the diversion of
dark meat for pet foods alters the composition of the tuna meal.
Thurston and MacMaster (99) listed calcium carbonate contents of 1.^5
percent for albacore and 0.98 percent for skipjack, similar to oily
fish meals. Tuna meals are high in mineral content and contain
approximately 60 percent protein (105).
Visceral meals. The Fisheries Research Board of Canada (106) determined
that visceral meals are high in protein and contain all the essential
amino acids and vitamins necessary for good nutrition. Rapid
enzymatic and bacterial decomposition were noted. The meal tasted
like bouillon, but was not considered suitable for human consumption.
Olley, Ford and Williams (107) stated that viscera are difficult to
process due to autolysis. The viscera were difficult to handle in
screw conveyors. Visceral meals were found to be similar in composition
to whole herring meals and were judged rich in soluble nitrogen. The
authors concluded that, given efficient processing, fish viscera could
provide fair quality meals.
A continuous pulp press is commercially available that will produce
(from fish waste) a press cake of U5 to 55 percent moisture and remove
1*0 to 70 percent of the oil (108).
Meal and oil have been produced from catfish wastes (23). The dried
meal contained U7 percent protein at a yield of 21 percent, as shown
on Table 53-
Table 53. Composition of Catfish Wastes, Scrap and Meal (23).
Material
Wet waste
Dried scrap
Meal
Moisture
(*)
6k
3*
6.2
Total Solids
(*>
36
96.6
93.8
Fat
(*)
ho
20.1
Ash
(*)
15.3
23.2
Protein
(*)
35.6
1*6.8
Lantz (109) reported a fish meal made from a 1:1 mixture of offal and
whole trash fish that contained 66 percent protein, 13 percent oil and
7 percent moisture. A solvent extraction process was used to remove
the oil.
78
-------
Finch (110) stated that large tuna canneries process ground entrails,
cooker water, and scrap to give meal, oil and fish solubles. The tuna
meal he analyzed contained 55 to 62 percent crude protein and approxi-
mately 22 percent ash. The ash consisted mainly of calcium and phos-
phorus from the bones.
Carpenter and Olley (ill) studied various methods of offal preservation
for meal processing. A dipping method in a solution of 1 percent
formaldehyde and 1 percent nitrite was found to be satisfactory, although
loss of protein was reported, (it should be noted that nitrite has
been found by some investigators to be carcinogenic).
Kawada and associates (112) studied the nutritional value of viscera
from cottlefish, octopus, mackerel and pollock. They reported a
relatively uniform distribution of amino acids, high B-vitamin levels,
and a higher methionine content than in muscle protein.
The amino acid content of viscera meals is comparable to whole fish
meals, as shown on Table 51*. The viscera meals would therefore pro-
bably be competitive as an animal feed, because their initial cost is
lower.
Table 51*-. Amino Acid Content of Various Fish Meals, g/l6g N (113).
Amino Acid
Alanine
Arginine
Aspartic acid
Available lysine
Cystine
Glutamic acid
Glycine
Histidine
Isoleucine
Leucine
lysine
Methionine
Hienylalanine
Proline
Serine
Threonine
Tyrosine
Valine
Herring
6.35
6.25
9.22
7.0^
1.03
12.73
6.26
2.13
U.Uo
7.15
7.59
2.98
3.83
U.09
3.88
k.29
3.18
5.35
Raw Material
Eviscerated
Cod Offal
5.86
5.68
7.^8
5.^0
0.66
11.10
10.97
1.56
2.87
^.97
5.W-
2.Ul
2.63
5.93
U.38
3.25
2.01
3.36
Shrimp
Offal
5.^2
5.98
8.50
5.30
0.88
11.65
8.18
2.0^
3.57
5.62
5.6^
3.52
5.50
U.83
3.9^
2.37
5.29
If. 05
Fish Oils
Fish oils are the most valuable of the fish rendering products. Fish
79
-------
oils in food products are currently prohibited by the Food, Drug and
Cosmetics Act of 1938 (H^-) They are considered non-edible because
the raw material from which the oil is extracted is not completely
edible. Fineberg and Johanson (11^) estimated that 75 percent of the
fish oils produced outside the U.S. are used for human consumption.
The major oil-producing species are menhaden and anchovies. In
73 plants produced 173 million pounds of oil with a value of $7
million (37). The largest production takes place on the Atlantic
Coast.
Sanford and Lee (8k) listed three characteristics of fish oils which
distinguish them from vegetable oils: (l) they contain a high degree
of unsaturation, with (2) longer fatty acid molecules and (3) are
typified by increased chemical reactivity. Considerable research
has been devoted to methods of fractionating the various oils (115).
Methods of Manufacture
Fish oils are obtained from the press water in the wet reduction process
(described in the "Fish Meal" section) as shown on Figure 10 (page 29).
The press water is screened to remove any solids and then passed through
a gravity separator or a centrifuge. The sludge from this process is
returned to the press cake and the clarified press liquor is passed
to an oil centrifuge. The oil centrifuge yields two products; the
fish oil and the stickwater. The oil is marketable in the centrate form.
In the dry-rendering process, the liquid from the presses is fish oil;
no recovery steps are necessary.
The press liquor yield and composition vary; an average yield is 5 to
10 pounds of oil per 100 pounds of press liquor (9).
Anderson (ll6) described an alkaline digestion method of manufacturing
commercial oil from salmon wastes. The wastes are ground and added
to a 3.5 percent sodium hydroxide solution. The mixture is then stirred
and heated to 180° to 200°F for 30 minutes. Next, the solution is
diluted with twice the original volume of hot water. The oil and one-
quarter of the water are then drawn off and centrifuged.
Ejrck, Magnusson and Bjork (117) studied this method further. They
found an optimum combination of process variables at 1.5 parts of
sodium hydroxide per 100 parts of waste, a digestion temperature of
2000F and a digestion time of from 35 to UO minutes. The production
was found to yield approximately 6 pounds of oil per 100 pounds of
pink salmon wastes.
Butler and Miyauchi (118) determined that the alkaline digestion process
was adaptable to produce oils bearing vitamin A from total salmon
80
-------
cannery wastes.
Presently, oil is manufactured from ground heads and in some cases,
ground offal in some Alaskan salmon canneries (U2). The recovered oil
is added back to the low oil content sockeye salmon pack when
necessary. Only fresh heads and wastes are used and the quality of
the oil is carefully monitored. The method of manufacture is as
follows (U2):
a. 'Vertical retort-type pressure cookers are 3/U filled
with ground salmon heads. This takes about 25 minutes
with good quality sockeye from one iron chink (Model K).
b. One scoop of salt is added (3-U Ibs).
c. The lid is closed and steam admitted with the main vent
open.
d. Steam is allowed to flow until the internal temperature
of the cooker reaches 212°F (15 minutes) at which time
the vent is closed and the pressure raised to 12 psig
and the temperature to 2U2°F (15 minutes).
e. The heads are cooked at 12 psig for kO minutes at
which time the steam is shut off and the pressure
allowed to drop to 5 psig before opening the vent
(15 to 20 minutes).
f. When ambient pressure is reached, the cooker is opened
and the contents allowed to settle for 5 minutes.
g. Cold water is added from the bottom of the cooker to
float the oil up to the decanting spout from which it
flows to the heated settling tank where it is allowed
to settle for 15 to 20 minutes.
h. The oil is then centrifuged. The oil may be either
bulk stored or held in smaller containers."
Brocklesby and Denstedt (119) stated that due to the freshness
criterion, the recovery of oil from waste is not feasible if the
waste must be transported. For small, isolated plants which cannot
afford their own rendering equipment, the travel time will result in
the oil becoming partly decomposed.
Hilert (120) holds a U.S. patent on an enzyme degradation method of
producing fish oil and meal. No large-scale enzyme recovery operations
were noted in the literature.
Characteristics of Fish Oils
Butler and Miyauchi (118) stated that of the salmon viscera oils, the
Vitamin A concentration was highest in that from chum salmon, as shown
on Table 55.
81
-------
Table 55. Vitamin A Concentration in Salmon Oils (USP units
per gram), (118). ________
Heads and Viscera
Species Heads (less gonads) Total Viscera
Chum
Coho
King
Pink
Red
175
5^0
270
257
335
7,319
2,126
1^,960
2,515
5,218
66,820
6,079
20,182
2,8U1*
13,907
The viscera of various bottom fish contain large amounts of Vitamin A,
but small amounts of oil (121). An alkaline digestion or solvent
extraction process is generally used. The stomachs, liver, milt and
roe are removed before processing.
Fineberg and Johanson (llU) listed several chemical characteristics of
the oil from anchovies, herring, sardines and menhaden, shown on
Table 56.
Hannewi-jk (122) stated that tuna oils are of a somewhat low
This is caused by the poor condition of the waste materials at the
time of rendering.
Table 56. Fish Oil Characteristics
Constant
Menhaden Herring Sardine Anchovy
iodine value 190 150
Saponification value 190 195 w -""
Free fatty acid (*) 3 5.0 13 0.2
Moisture and 0 5
insolubles (£) 1 J ,"
Unsaponifiables (*) 0.6-1.6 2-3 0.5-2 3
Use of Fish Oils
«st^^^ T^xiStir LSalf
££ ^2LTU^.D^\IIS5^^
?nS ^ n^m^ial Fisheries Review (lA) noted that menhaden oil
could be used as a plasticizer suitable for blending into resins.
A high percentage of the fish oils consumed in the United States is
used in^nimal feeds. Advantages include growth-promoting effects,
82
-------
low cost, and high vitamin A and D contents (125). Oxidized fish oils
with high peroxide values should not be fed because peroxides are
toxic. Disadvantages include increased vitamin E requirements for
most animals when fish oils are added to their diets and fishy flavors
in animal meat.
Fish oils have excellent coherence characteristics for the emulsion
application of insecticides. The Commercial Fisheries Review (126)
noted the effectiveness of fish oils to control nematodes. Lee (12?)
reported that the advantage of fish oils as fungicides was their lack
of human toxicity. Fungicides prepared from fish oil are relatively
expensive.
Mattel and Roddy (128) noted that leather could be fatliquored with
perch, herring, salmon, menhaden and cod oils. The oil produces an
internal lubrication which gives leather the familiar soft texture.
Stansby (129) and Olden (130) reported that fish oil can be highly
Effective as an ore flotation agent. No commercial application was
reported in the literature, however.
Hannewijk (122) described in detail the processing required to produce
fish oil for use in margarine and shortening. Federal laws prohibit
this use in the United States
Condensed Fish Solubles
Condensed fish solubles are the by-products produced from the stick-
water generated in fish meal and oil plants. In 1968, 32 plants
yielded over 1^3 million pounds of solubles with a value of approximately
k million dollars (37).
Methods of Manufacture
Fish solubles contain mainly water-soluble substances from stickwater.
The stickwater is transferred from the holding tanks to an evaporator
(see Figure 10-page 29). The evaporator reduces the water content
from 95 percent to 50 percent (131) Solubles are produced in the form
of a brown, somewhat viscous liquid with a mild, fishy odor. They may
be sold in the feed trade, but normally are dried as press cake for meal.
Characteristics of Fish Solubles
Lassen listed the proximate composition of fish solubles as shown on
Table 57. The protein level is high, for a material which is 50 percent
water; fish solubles therefore make an excellent animal feed.
83
-------
Table 57. Typical Analysis of Condensed Fish Solubles (I3l)<
Parameter Value
Total solids 5C
Ash 8.86$
Fat U.8 $
Crude protein
(N X 6.25) 33.85<£
Sp. gr. at 20°C 1.20
PH *.5
Stickwater
The stickwater from the centrifuge contains from 0.5 to 0.9 percent oil
(131). This oil is highly dispersed and intimately tied to the
proteinaceous material and thus is not removed in the centrifuge. Prior
to 1938, stickwater was discharged to local watercourses after the
removal of the oil. Serious pollution problems resulted in many cases,
leading to the institution of solubles-recovery techniques.
The volume of stickwater generated can vary from 150 to 220 gallons per
ton of fish (131). Kempe, et al. (69) estimated a flow of 120 gallons
per ton of anchovies. Paessler and Davis (38) reported the BOI^ of
sardine stickwater to be U7,000 mg/1. Luneburg (132) described stick-
water as containing large quantities of suspended and dissolved organic
and inorganic materials.
Pretreatment of Stickwater. Stickwater can be stabilized by proper pH
adjustment (l3l). In this stabilization, small amounts of coagulable
proteins are precipitated and a change in the collodial properties of
the remaining solids results. After this change, the stickwater can be
centrifuged to yield additional oil, resulting in better solubles-
drying characteristics.
Stickwater Evaporation. There are several evaporation processes that
are used to concentrate stickwater. These include multiple effect
evaporation, submerged combustion, submerged evaporation, Vincent
evaporation and drum drying (69).
Multiple effect evaporators are steam heated and operate under vacuum.
More than a pound of waste can be handled per pound of steam applied.
They are best used in high volume plants because of the high capital
costs, the need for trained operators and the necessity for continuous
operation. Gallagher (133) described in detail a plant using multiple
effect evaporators. With proper operation the pure condensate is
returned to the feed water circuit, eliminating the need for discharge
(92). Nachenius (13*0 stated that three of the most common problems
encountered in the process are scale formation, corrosiveness of the
8U
-------
product, and unstable product quality due to poor operation.
Submerged combustion and submerged evaporation systems and Vincent
evaporators are direct fired; that is, the heat present in the combustion
gases is used directly to evaporate the water. Submerged evaporators
and submerged combustion systems have been used in several cases to
evaporate stickwater (69). Gray and black particles develop in the
solubles from the submerged combustion method, but the necessary
equipment is simple and inexpensive. Several other disadvantages
include the production of noxious odors, lower heat exchange
efficiencies than multiple effect evaporators, maximum soluble solids
concentrations of 30 to 35 percent and the possibility of foaming.
Drum driers are simple and reliable to use. However, the heat exchange
efficiency is low and the steam pressure required is quite high.
Other Stickwater Concentration Methods. A number of other chemical
and/or physical processes could be used to concentrate stickwater. At
present, however, evaporation has proved to be the most practical.
Gunther and Sair (135) hold a U.S. Patent on a process by which the gel
point of the stickwater is reduced by addition of enzymes. The water
is then driven off until the concentrate contains 70 percent solids.
Tschekalin (136) reported on a simple method of gravity separation to
produce a raw product to be made into an adhesive.
Several firms make equipment that operates on the ultrafiltration and
reverse osmosis principles (137, 138, 139). Ultraf iltration is the
term applied to separation of high molecular weight solutes and
colloids; whereas, reverse osmosis is applied to low molecular weight,
high osmotic pressure solvents (l^K)). These units have been designed
to concentrate whey, but could possibly be economically used for
stickwater concentration.
One Danish firm makes pilot plant scale stickwater concentrators for
research use (91)*
Fish Protein Concentrate
The development of fish protein concentrate (FPC) has led to claims of
the discovery of the answer to the world's shortage of animal protein.
FPC is an inexpensive, stable, highly nutritive, quality product pre-
pared from fresh fish or fish wastes.
FPC has not been fully exploited in the U.S. because of l) incomplete
experimental data, 2) the lack of a ready market and 3) governmental
restrictions. In several foreign countries the process has been
studied and exploited
85
-------
Advantages of this product include its high protein content and
reportedly low cost. Several possible disadvantages exist which may
limit its ultimate use. These include rapid spoilage if the oil
content is high, adverse consumer reaction to strong fishy tastes,
and the large weight loss of the fish during processing (approximately
80 percent) (141). The cost would be approximately $0.40 per pound
The composition of FPC is strictly defined by Federal regulations (143)
These regulations require the product to be not less than 75 percent
protein, less than 10 percent moisture and less than 0.5 percent fat.
The material shall have no more than a faint, characteristic fishy
odor and taste. No allowance is made for utilizing fish offal; only
whole fish may be used.
Although this product is sometimes called fish flour, it does not
exhibit the hydrative, adhesive, and gel-forming properties of starch
flours (144).
Research has conclusively demonstrated that FPC can make an acceptable
and nutritious product for human consumption. Presently the economics
of fortifying food are unknown, although no insurmountable problems
are forecast (145).
Methods of Manufacture
FPC is manufactured by three general types of methods; chemical,
biological and physical. These are briefly described by Knobl (146)
and Bertullo (147) and are summarized on Table 58.
86
-------
Table 58. Methods of Preparation of Fish Protein Concentrates
Raw
Material
Used
Anchovies
Cod
Method
Chemical
Chemical
Solvent or
Biological
Agent Used
Hexane
Polyphosphoric acid
isopropanol
and
Commercial fish meal
Fresh fish
Fresh fish
Fresh fish
Fresh fish or fish
meal
Fresh haddock
Hake, pilchard
Herring
jack mackerel
Red hake
Red hake
Sardines and fatty
fishes
Whiting
Whiting
Chemical
Chemical
Biological
Chemical
Physical
Chemical
Physical
Biological
C hemical
Biological
Chemical
Biological
Chemical
Ethanol or acetone plus
NaOH, KOH, HC1
Ethylene dichloride
Enzymes
Secondary or n-butanol,
isopropanol
Ethanol
Enzymes
Isopropanol
Enzymes
Mixture of hexane, ethyl ace-
tate, and isopropanol
Yeast
Hexane and hexane plus
ethanol
Knobl (lU6) stated that chemical methods remove the water, lipids,
and odor-causing compounds without dissolving the proteins. Biological
methods result in a mixture of protein breakdown products and thus
facilitate physical removal of water and lipids through filtration and
centrifugation. Biological methods are relatively simple and give a
more flavorful product than chemical extraction methods.
Listen, etal. (1^8) reported on a chemical process using an acidified
brine solvent to extract the protein from whole fish. Much lower
production costs were predicted using this method.
Peniston and associates (99) have developed a rendering process for
shellfish wastes. The protein is extracted with a dilute sodium
hydroxide solution. The liquid sodium proteinate extract can be
refined by any of several methods. Possible by-products from the solid
residue include chitin, lime, and a soil conditioner.
Kornberg (1^9) discussed the economics of a 50-ton per day isopropanol
extraction process. The plant would cost under $1 million and could
produce 7.5 tons of FPC per day at a cost under $0.20 per pound.
87
-------
Characteristics of FPC
The isopropanol extraction method for red hake yields FPC of the
following approximate composition: protein, 80 percent; volatiles,
7 percent; ash, 13 percent; and lipids, 0.20 percent (150).
Guttmann and Vandenheuvel (151) reported on the production of FPC from
cod and haddock offal. The yield of FPC was 10 percent by weight and
the approximate composition was 2-3 percent moisture, 2-5 percent ash,
negligible lipids, and 9^-98 percent protein. The process included an
acid treatment of the offal followed by an isopropanol extraction of
the press cake.
Power (152) reported on FPC produced from whole codfish, beheaded and
eviscerated codfish, cod trimmings (fillet wastes), cod trimmings
press cake, and whole herring. The procedure used was the same as that
of Guttmann and Vendenheuvel. All protein concentrates made were
Judged to be satisfactory except the one from whole hake. The protein
level in the concentrate from cod trimmings was 87 percent; from cod
trimming press cake cooked by indirect heat, 77 percent; and from cod
trimming cake cooked in live steam, 71 percent. All the proteins were
relatively high in lysine.
Present and Future FPC Production
Russo reported that two future FPC plants are planned in the U.S. (153).
The Cape Flattery Co. will have an FPC plant completed by the fall,
1970 in Seattle, Washington. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries has
just dedicated a pilot plant operation in Aberdeen, Washington which
will process whole hake.
Cardinal Proteins, Ltd. of Canso, Nova Scotia will have a plant
completed in 1970. The capacity is expected to be 200 tons of fresh
fish per day with an output of 30 tons of FPC per day (151*). Thg
estimated cost is $5 million (155).
The Viobin Company built the first U.S. FPC plant in New Bedford,
Massachusetts and it is now operated by Alpine Marine Protein Industries
(156). A floating FPC factory* owned by Marine Protein Concentrates
Ltd. of Canada, was operated out of Neah Bay, Washington during 1968
and 1969 (157). The ship, named Cape Flattery I, uses the Viobin
process and has a production capability of 40 tons of FPC per day (200
tons of fish). Two other ships have been purchased for conversion to
FPC plants.
Olden (1^1) reported on the successful production and marketing of fish
protein concentrate in South Africa. The FPC is used as an essential
animal amino acid source in foods such as bread, biscuits, ice cream,
mayonnaise, and Pharmaceuticals.
-------
Animal Feed
The use of whole fish and fish scraps for animal feed has been studied
thoroughly. The fresh wastes or whole fish are usually processed into
fish meal, fish oil, or cooked and canned pet food. In addition to
meal and oil, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (37) listed, for the
U.S. in 1968, 10 plants producing crushed shells for poultry feed, U
plants producing miscellaneous animal feeds, and 2 plants producing
pelletized fish hatchery feed; all using fish wastes and whole fish.
Jones (158) discussed the possible species and wastes that could be
used for pet food in several geographic areas of the United States.
He concluded that now-discarded fish and fish wastes will be needed
in the future to meet expanded raw material demands. Several species
of presently non-utilized fish were listed.
Fish Meal
Fish meals with high protein content can be manufactured from most
commercial species. Fish meals produced from some wastes are as high
in protein as those from whole fish (159). However, meals from other
wastes may be of considerably lower quality and protein levels because
of higher bone protein and non-protein nitrogen contents.
Fish meals can be an excellent protein and amino acid source, being
especially rich in lysine and methionine (l60). Fish products are
also rich in phosphorus, calcium, manganese, iodine, vitamin B]^,
riboflavin, niacin and choline.
Grau and associates (103) found that the excellent growth characteris-
tics of fish meal were absent in spoiled, cooked fish, but that room-
temperature storage of the meal did not affect these characteristics.
An article in Feedstuffs (l6l) described broiler rations containing up
to 10 percent fish meal. Fish meals were described as a desirable
supplement because of higher coefficients of digestibility, higher
levels of amino acids (especially lysine and methionine) and the
presence of an unidentified "growth factor", when compared to less
expensive protein supplements, such as soybean meal.
Research has shown that the percentage of fish meal that can be used
in the total feed varies from 2.5 to 5 percent during the finishing
periods to 10 percent during growth periods for chickens, turkeys and
swine. Greater usages during finishing may result in off-flavors in
the pork or poultry (160). Baelum (l62) reported that the addition of
fish meals to poultry diets resulted in higher egg production and
increased growth rates. Braude (163) stated that swine have been
successfully fed fish wastes and fish meal as protein, mineral and
vitamin supplements.
89
-------
Substantial amounts of fish and fish wastes have been used for years
in mink food. In general, the response of the mink has been good.
Variability in composition and nutritive value of the feeds (a function
of the seasonal nature of the catch) has resulted in differences in
feeding results. Sanford (l6U) reported on a now-defunct fish waste
mink feed operation in northern Oregon. In Astoria and Newport,
Oregon, the wastes were ground, placed into paper bags, and frozen.
Not all fish and fish wastes can be used for feeding mink; wastes
that are spoiled, contain thiaminase, or are highly oily can cause
several diseases
Condensed Fish Solubles
Winchester (165) added condensed fish solubles to the list of excellent
animal feeds from fish. Condensed solubles contain B-vitamins and are
a source of the fish growth factor. This factor increased growth by
6 percent in chickens. A combination of meal and solubles seemed to
optimize this effect. The fish meal counteracted the methionine and
lysine deficit of corn-soybean oil meal.
A note in Commercial Fisheries Review (l66) also listed the nutritional
value of condensed fish solubles and added that increased "hatchability"
of eggs was evidenced when the solubles were added to the diets of
laying hens.
Fish Oils
Fish oils contain a broad spectrum of fatty acids that are utilized
by animals. When used properly, fish oils enhance growth rates,
contribute to significant increases in metabolizable energy and
increase digestibility. Oxidized fish oils with high peroxide values
should not be used for animal feeds, however (125). The vitamin E
requirements for most animals are increased when fish oils are added
to their diets.
Fish Silage
Fish and fish wastes used for an-ijna.1 feed are preserved as a fish
silage in several foreign countries. Hansen (l6?) described the process
used in Denmark. Offal with a protein content of about 15 percent is
treated with sulfuric and/or formic acid. Acidification causes a
gradual breakdown of the tissues and forms a slurry. A solid silage
mixture is made by adding dried vegetable feedstuffs. A pH of 3.5 to
U.O is common for the final product.
Prater and Montgomery (168) described a process used in Wales. The
process involves first acidifying the fish with 95 to 97 percent
sulfuric acid, then grinding the fish or fish offal and adding fresh
90
-------
water at the rate of 1-1/2 to 2 gallons per 100 pounds of pulp. Next
sulfuric acid is added to reduce the pH to approximately 2. This
mixture is stirred, the oils removed and then it is stored in cooled,
air-tight containers. Before the ensilage is fed, limestone is added
to raise the pH to approximately k.
Freeman and Hoogland (169) prepared a fish silage from cod and haddock
offal in the above manner. The proximate composition ranged from 20
to 26 percent dry matter and 13 to 15 percent protein when preserved
at a pH of 1.9 to 2.5.
Krishnaswamy, Kadkol, Revankar (170) described a fermentation procedure
used to produce a fish silage. The final product contained 7 percent
moisture, 72 percent protein, k percent ash and included several
essential vitamins.
A variety of acids is used in a process described by Majewski (171).
The fish material is treated with hydrochloric acid to pH 6.5, sulfuric
acid to pH 5, and formic acid to pH k. After 2k to U8 hours, formic
acid is added to bring the total acid concentration to approximately
2 percent. This liquid feed is stable for periods as long as one year.
Animal Feeds by Species
Bottom Fish. In one research project, rats were used to test the
digestibility and protein quality of dried portions of cod and haddock
viscera. The digestibility was judged to be good, but the metabolic
utilization of nitrogen was judged to be poor (172).
Freeman and Hoogland (169) stated that chickens grew well on a 20 to
25 percent addition of cod and haddock acid silage to their diet.
Hogs fed a 50 percent addition to their diets of this fish silage (as
the only source of animal protein) also grew well. A fishy taste in
the meat was noted if the ration was not discontinued at least three
weeks before butchering.
Anderson, Wisutharom and Warnick (173) reported on nutrition tests
using hake meal fed to chickens. The meal proved to have a balanced
amino acid content. However, the growth characteristics of the chickens
fed meals of hake, herring, anchovy and tuna varied widely.
Snyder and Nilson (17*0 found that rats could use pollock fish scales
as a protein source.
Jorgensen (175) concluded that 20, Uo, or 60 percent additions of cod
trimmings to a mink ration gave a satisfactory diet.
Catfish. The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (22) listed two methods
of catfish waste disposal: (l) processing for pet food, and (2) cooking
-------
and feeding the wastes to catfish. Deyoe (176) presently is conducting
research in this area. A process is feeing developed that will convert
catfish wastes to a supplement for animal diets. Results to date have
shown the wastes to have a high nutritional value.
Herring and Anchovies, Thurston, Ousterhout, and MacMaster (177)
determined the composition of herring meal. The meal averaged
approximately 80 percent protein and 10 percent ash. Chickens fed
this meal averaged 6 percent weight gain per day with 96 percent
digestibility of protein.
Breirem, et al. (178) reported that herring meals gave higher weight
gains in young cattle than oilseed meals. The high contents of
minerals and vitamin D in the herring meal were thought to be
responsible. Anderson, et al. (173) also reported on chicken nutrition
tests using herring and anchovy meals. The growth characteristics
varied widely between the various meals.
Fladmark (179) holds a U.S. patent for a process to make a cattle feed
containing 50 to 70 percent solids from herring-oil factory waste-
waters. The water is evaporated under pressure to concentrate the
solids.
Menhaden. Crude menhaden oil fed at a 5 percent level gave superior
growth performances in Berkshire pigs, one investigating team noted
(180). A fishy taste, however, was detectable in the meat.
Leong and associates (l8l) found that for chickens, a 5 percent diet
of menhaden oil was equal in nutritive value to the same level of corn
oil. A fishy flavor in the poultry was reported.
Salmon. Landgraf, MLyauchi and Stansby (l82) reported on the
feasibility of the use of Alaskan salmon trimmings for animal feed in
the state of Washington. In their study the wastes were packed in
plastic bags in Alaska and frozen for shipping to Washington. The
process proved, in the opinion of the investigators, to be economically
feasible in 1950. Fins and heads were excluded. The viscera were
marketed mostly as hatchery feed. Kyte (183) cited research by the
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries indicating that salmon viscera
produced a growth in hatchery fish superior to any meat product
tested.
Leekley, et al. (l8U) stated that mink can use frozen salmon offal as
a major portion of their diet.
Wigutoff (185) examined the economics of transporting Alaskan salmon
wastes to hatcheries and fur-farms in the contiguous states of the
U.S. The prospect was determined to not be profitable in 1952 due to
high transportation costs and low costs of competing feeds. The same
shipping methods described by Landgraf, et al. (l82) were assumed
92
-------
for this study.
Burrows and Karrick (186) determined the nutritional value of salmon
wastes for hatchery feed. Their general conclusion was that salmon
viscera would make an excellent feed. They concluded that neither
dehydration nor freezing had detrimental effects on nutritional value.
Shellfish. Meiske and Goodrich (18?) reported on research using oyster
shells as a replacement for alfalfa-breme hay in the finishing rations
for cattle. The use of shells in the feeds proved feasible, but
considering the rate of weight gain and feed costs, the diet with a
7.5 percent ground alfalfa-breme hay supplement was superior.
Marvin and Anderson (188) described a method to convert clam wastes to
an animal food. A 2 percent solution of pectin was made from the clam
wastes by heating to l60°F. The thick liquid was then canned.
Tomiyama and associates (189), studying shellfish wastes, found that
autolyzed shellfish viscera could supplement a vegetable protein diet
in chicks; the adsorbate from the autolyzed viscera on activated
charcoal promoted growth in chicks, while the non-adsorbed portion did
not promote growth. The autolyzed viscera also promoted egg production.
Peniston and associates (99) stated that shellfish meals have equal or
superior nutritional value to soya protein. These meals were judged to
be readily usable in pet food, other animal feed and possibly for making
protein concentrate for human consumption. Jensen (27) stated that
shrimp waste would be a desirable hatchery feed because the natural
pigment would result in more brightly colored fish. Rousseau (190)
also noted this possible advantage of shrimp wastes.
Tuna. Thurston, Ousterhout, and MacMaster (177) reported a. proximate
analysis of tuna meal as 6 percent moisture, 60 percent protein, and
22 percent ash. The pepsin digestibility exceeded 90 percent and chick
growth averaged approximately 5 percent per day.
Anderson, et al. (173) studied the relative nutritional values of tuna,
herring, anchovy and hake meals. No definite conclusions were reached
due to a high variability of the data.
Stansby (10U) stated that tuna wastes used for animal feeds can cause
nutritional problems such as steatitis. Tuna meals were considered a
premium poultry feed.
Miscellaneous Fishery Products
Extensive research has been undertaken to develop new and useful
products from whole fish and fish waste. However, it is the opinion of
the authors that most of the methods developed thereby would not solve
the problems of solid wastes disposal. These methods usually consume
93
-------
only a small part of the waste and the new waste generated in the
process (in many cases) is more noxious and less biodegradable than
the original waste. If any of these methods could be developed into
profitable processes, the revenues realized from these operations
could conceivably be used to at least partially defray the expense
of disposing of the remaining wastes.
Protein Hydrolysates
Protein hydrolysates are a combination of proteins that have been
chemically degraded to smaller molecules by hydrolysis. Digestion with
acid, alkali or enzymes is the normal procedure. Peptones, amino
acids, proteases, and polypeptides are four of the major product
groups
Several authors noted the amino acid content of fish and fish wastes.
Seagran (191), and Seagran, Morey and Dassow (192) listed the essential
amino acid content of the roe of each of the five major salmon species.
The relative distributions were found to be uniform. Pottinger and
Baldwin (193) listed the arginine, histidine, lysine, tryptophan and
cystine contents of the edible portions of 26 species of fish and U
species of shellfish. The values compared favorably with those of
casein, beef and egg albumin. Jones and Carrigan (1*5) concluded that
utilization of salmon wastes for preparation of protein hydrolysates
is possible, but that the economic potential is questionable. Various
enzymatic digestion methods have been investigated (1*5, 19** » 195).
The various protein hydrolysates have several uses which include
bacteriological culture media, antibiotics, food flavoring and various
treatment and diet supplements for hospital patients. Entry into
these markets seems unlikely due to the economics of the situation 0*5 )<
Fats and Lipids
Fats and lipids are a group of organic compounds classified by their
solubility in organic solvents and insolubility in water. This class
includes oils, but fish oils are considered elsewhere in this report
(page 79).
Specific fats are used in a variety of industries including food
processing, cosmetic and soap production, and chemical production.
Fats, lipids, and cholesterol are recovered from a wide variety of
animal and vegetable tissues.
Jones and Carrigan (1*5) concluded that salmon cannery wastes could be
economically used for speciality fat and lipid production. Jones,
Carrigan and Dassow (196), after further studies, concluded that
salmon eggs could be utilized for their lipid and phospholipid fractions,
but the extraction of cholesterol did not appear feasible.
-------
Enzymes
Enzymes are complicated organic catalysts produced by living organisms.
Commercial uses include incorporation into Pharmaceuticals, leather
treatments, and food preparations. At present, animal rendering
constitutes the largest source of commercial enzymes. Jones and
Carrigan (1+5) reported on the possible recovery of pyloric ceca, a
digestion enzyme, from salmon wastes. The enzyme has several industrial
applications, such as meat tenderizers or leather conditioners.
Hormones
Hormones are substances secreted by the endocrine glands which control
various bodily functions. The most important industrial hormonal
process is the isolation of insulin.
Cooke and Carter (197) stated that the Halifax Experimental Station
has produced a very pure insulin from fish and some has been manufac-
tured commercially on the Canadian east coast. Jones and Carrigan
(U5) concluded that it would be difficult to recover the salmon pancreas
to isolate insulin, considering the mechanical processing methods
now being used.
Vitamins
Vitamins are organic compounds essential to living organisms. They
play essential roles in metabolism, usually in enzyme systems. A
commercial market exists for vitamin supplements and vitamin additives
for foods.
Fish oils have been used extensively for their vitamin content, the
most common example being cod liver oil. Pottinger and associates
(198) found that haddock liver oil contains fewer vitamins than cod
liver oil. Also in many cases the iodine number of the haddock liver
oil exceeded the maximum U.S.P. recommended values.
Harrison and associates (199) examined the vitamin contents of fish
oils obtained from salmon waste. Oil was removed from the various
parts of the waste and assayed (see Table 59). These tests showed the
oils of Chinook to be the best source of vitamin A, but poorest in
vitamin D. Pink and chum salmon were high in vitamin D, but low in
vitamin A. Sockeye and silver salmon were good sources of both
vitamins.
Stansby (35) listed the vitamin A content of fish oils extracted from
the liver and viscera of 8 species of fish as shown on Table 60. Fish
liver oils were judged to be the best commercial source of vitamin A
and in the case of tuna, for vitamin D. Fish flesh was a good source
of both thiamine and riboflavin.
95
-------
Table 59. Summary of Vitamin A and D Assays of Fish Wastes (199).
Raw Material
Estimated Vitamin A
Potency
(units/gram)
Estimated Vitamin D
Potency
(units/gram)
Chinook backbones
and collars
Chinook eggs
Chinook heads
Chinook livers
Chinook total wastes
Chinook viscera less
livers and eggs
Chum total waste
Pink total waste
Silver total waste
Sockeye total waste
Steelhead viscera
Much less than 500
Much less than ^500
Much less than ^500
U,000-8,000
About 500
1,300-2,000
Much less than 500
Less than
500
About UOO
About 500
More than 150
Less than 150
Less than 150
150-1*00
150-200
200
300
Over 300
Over 300
300
Very low
Table 60. vitamin A Content of Pish Oils (35).
Raw Material
Vitamin A Content
(units/gram of oil)
Halibut, viscera
Herring, whole
Ling cod, viscera
Menhaden, whole
Rockfish, viscera
Sablefish, viscera
Sardine, whole
Swordfish, viscera
70,000-700,000
50-300
10,000-175,000
500
15,000-125,000
90,000-250,000
50-300
2,000-30,000
Shell Products
The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (37) listed several commercial
shell products including marine pearl shell buttons, colored chips,
mussel shells and crab shells for deviled crab meat. Marine pearl
buttons produced in 1968 had a value of over $1 million.
Chitin and Glucosamine
Prawn shells and wastes have been used to produce chitin and glucosamine
(200). An acetone extraction and acid digestion were used to yield
27 percent chitin and 10 percent glucosamine from the waste. Peniston
-------
and associates (99) reported on an extraction method to yield chitin
from shellfish wastes. Crab waste ranged from 30.0 to U2.5 percent
chitin and shrimp wastes ranged from U2.3 to 51.5 percent chitin.
Meinhold and Thomas (201) reported on a commercial process of producing
chitosan from shrimp wastes. Chitosan is produced from chitin by
hydrolysis. Chitosan is a highly polymeric, free, primary amine similar
to cellulose except that amino groups replace the hydroxyl groups.
Possible commercial applications for chitosan include the manufacture
of paper products, animal feeds, and photographic materials.
Fertilizers
Shrimp wastes make valuable fertilizers since the calcium carbonate
which is a major constituent of shrimp wastes is similar to agricultural
lime and the chitin contains about 7 percent nitrogen which would be
slowly released by soil organisms (99). Idler and Schmidt (202)
described a process to produce these fertilizers. Enzyme digestion was
utilized and urea, phosphoric acid, potassium hydroxide and water were
added to produce a final product with a N:P205'K20 ratio of 10:5:5. A
California firm makes a crab waste fertilizer (sacked in 100 pound
bags) that sells for approximately 30 to 35 dollars per ton (203).
Lime and Limestone
Lime is produced from various shellfish wastes by combustion of the
calcium carbonate residue. In 1963, 55,000 tons of lime were made from
oyster shells, having a value of $1*68,000 (38). The lime is used in
various chemical processes including cement manufacture (20U) and
animal feed supplementation (205).
The limestone residue from shellfish wastes, approximately 95 percent
of the total weight, can be used to treat acid wastes (20^). Cronan
(206) reported on a Texas firm that neutralized a 0.6 percent acid
waste stream to pH 5.6 by passing the waste through a clam-shell-filled
pit.
Nelson, Rains and Norris (20?) found that clam shells could be used to
produce reagent grade limestone.
Glue
Excellent adhesive materials can be made from fish waste. Canadian
researchers have developed a superior product with little or no odor
using cod skins (208). The Commercial Fisheries Review (209) reported
that the menhaden skull might be used for glue production.
97
-------
Fish Roe and Caviar
The roe (eggs) of fish are the most valuable of the miscellaneous fish
products. If large enough, almost any species can be used. Presently,
several species of fish roe are cured and canned, including that from
alewives, bottom fish, shad, sturgeon, whitefish and salmon (210).
In a broad sense, all canned roe is caviar, but the commonly accepted
caviar is made from sturgeon eggs.
A variety of curing methods are used. Sturgeon and salmon eggs are
salted in brine. Others are salted and air dried, salted in brine or
dry salted. Each commercial packer has his unique process which he
believes to give the eggs superior quality (211).
The greatest interest in caviar production has been evidenced in
Alaska, where salmon eggs are used. Until about 1960 salmon roe was
considered worthless and discarded with the offal. Since then, salmon
eggs have been utilized for bait and for a red caviar developed by
Japanese firms. In 196U, 1.5 million pounds with a value of $300,000
were used for bait and 350,000 pounds were used for caviar at a value
of $750,000 (212).
A large volume of salmon eggs is available from salmon processing each
year. Magnusson and Hagevig (U3) listed the egg content of the total
"waste" for the five species of salmon. These values ranged from 8
to 17 million pounds annually, if all salmon roe were recovered.
Alaskan caviar production takes place under Japanese technical
supervision (212). The eggs from the waste flow are washed in salt
water. The skeins are next agitated in a saturated salt solution for
20 minutes. The skeins then are graded and packed in salt for
shipment to Japan.
Miscellaneous Roe Products
Calson (213) reported on a smoked salmon egg spread. The spread was
stable at room temperature.
Kyte (21*0 stated that oil and protein contained in salmon eggs are
valuable if they can be separated. Certain enzyme preparations
partially separate these two constituents. About one-third of the
oil is in a free-oil droplet form, the other two-thirds is closely
associated with the protein (183).
Jones, Carrigan and Dassow (196) concluded that protein, fat, and
lecithin could possibly be recovered from salmon eggs. Cholesterol
concentrations were judged to be average. Kyte (183) judged the
amino acid distribution of salmon egg protein to be capable of
supplementing plant protein diets.
-------
WASTEWATER STRENGTHS AND VOLUMES
Fish processing wastes come from a variety of sources. Thus, the
pollutional strengths of these wastes vary over a wide range. In the
literature this topic has been only lightly covered. Therefore, the
task of describing fish processing waste strengths is difficult.
The Washington State Water Pollution Control Commission (8) characterized
in general terms fish processing wastewaters as shown on Table 6l. The
listed biochemical oxygen demands (BODc) and solids concentrations are
very high compared to domestic sewage. These values can be considered
only crude estimates at best, since neither the products, processes or
plant sizes are listed.
Table 6l. Fish Processing Wastewater Characteristics (8).
Parameter Unit Value
Volume gal/ton fish U65-9»100
BOD5 mg/1 2700-3,UUO
BOD5 lbs/1000 gal effluent 2.6-29
BOD5 Ibs/ton fish 8-120
BODc Ibs/ton product 21-2U
Suspended solids (S.S.) mg/1 2,200-3,020
Total solids (T.S.) mg/1 U,198-21,820
Population equivalent (P.E.)* BOD based/ton fish 1*7-706
*Assuming 1 P.E. =0.17 Ibs BOD^/capita-day
A thorough waste survey of German fish processing was reported by
Limprich (215). The parameters measured for the city of Cuxhaver, which
has plants canning herring, processing and freezing red perch, and
producing fish meal, are listed on Table 62. These values are within
the range listed on Table 6l.
99
-------
Table 62. German Fish Processing Wastewater Characteristics (215)
Parameter
Volume (including
cooling water)
Volume (excluding
cooling water)
BODC
BODc
Ammonia N
Nitrate N
Total N
Unit
gal/ton fish
gal/ ton fish
Ibs/ton fish
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
Value
7,200
5,800
82
2,658
6.0
0
710
The total nitrogen level exceeded 700 mg/1 and thus nitrification could
contribute significantly to the oxygen demand in the BOD test. Buczowska
and Dabaska (216) stated that nitrification begins in fish processing
wastewaters sooner than in normal sewage, and is likely to be significant
in the 5-day BOD test.
Untreated effluents from fish processing contain large bacterial popu-
lations. The major contribution comes from the washing of the fish
before processing. Keil and Randow (217) found the "bacterial count"
from a German fish processing plant to be from 260,000 to 850,000 per ml.
Bottom Fish
The wastewater flows from bottom fish processing (outlined on Figure 3,
page ll) include large volumes of wash water which contains blood and
small pieces of flesh, the body portion of the fish after filleting and
the skins.
Claggett and Wong (218) listed the wastewater flow from a bottom fish
plant as 1*50 gpm with 750 mg/1 total solids. A report by the firm of
Stevens, Thompson, Runyan and Ries, Inc. (219) listed wastewater flows
from a bottom fish processing plant as 0.1*6 to 0.59 nigd. This process
included water transport of the fish to the filleting tables. The BODc
concentration varied from 192 to 6Uo mg/1 and the BODc per hundred
pounds of product averaged 3-7 pounds. The organic loading ranged from
298 to 1,100 pounds of BODc per day.
In 1969 the firm of Cornell, Rowland, Hayes and Merryfield (220)
measured the waste loadings from this same fish processor after the fish
flume had been replaced by a conveyor belt. The flow had decreased
to 0.15 ngd; the average BODc concentration was 6kO mg/1 and the
100
-------
suspended solids, 300 mg/1 (see Table 6$. The average waste loadings
were 800 Ibs BOD5/day and 375 Ibs suspended solids/day. The fish scaling
operation produced significant quantities of wastewater. The wastewater
flow from the sealer was 0.23 n»gd with average concentrations of UOO mg/1
BOD and 290 mg/1 suspended solids (220); however, the sealer was only
operated for approximately 2 hours per average processing day.
Limprich (215) reported on the waste flows from a bottom fish processing
plant at Cuxhaven, Germany. The average discharge was 132 gpm with a
BODc concentration of 1,726 mg/1. This waste was clarified and the
sludges were centrifuged and then processed for fish meal.
Table 63. Bottomfish Processing Wastewater Characteristics.
Parameter Unit Value Reference
Flow
BODq
j
Suspended solids
gpm
gpm
gpm
gpm
rag/1
mg/1
mg/1
Ibs/ton of product
mg/1
U50
320-1*10
105
132
192-6UO
6Uo
1,726
7k
300
(215)
(219)
(220)
(215)
(219)
(220)
(215)
(219)
(220)
Herring, Menhaden and Anchovies
Limprich described in detail the wastes from a German fish meal plant
using approximately ^50 tons of raw material per day. The resultant
flows and strengths are summarized on Table 6k .
Table 6U. Fish Meal Processing Westewater Characteristics (215).
Parameter Cooling Waters Other Wastewaters
Discharge 1^0 gpm 680 gpm
2kO-k&0 gal/ton fish 510-1020 gal/ton fish
BODc 621 mg/1 1005 mg/1
101
-------
The wastewaters from the production of fish meal, solubles, and oil
(diagrammed on Figure 10, page 29) from herring, menhaden and anchovies
can be divided into two categories: high volume, low strength wastes
and low volume, high strength wastes.
The high volume, low strength wastes consist of the water used for
unloading, fluming, transporting, and handling the fish plus the wash-
down water. Davis (221) estimated the fluming flow to be 2000 gallons
per ton of fish with a suspended solids content of 5000 mg/1. The solids
consist of blood, flesh, oil, and fats. Claggett and Wong (218) listed
a herring pump water flow of 250 gpm with a total solids concentration
of 30,000 mg/1 and oil concentration of ^,500 mg/1. Pump water is used
to transport the fish from the holds of the boats to the processing
plant.
The bilge water in the boats was estimated at UOO gallons per ton of
fish with a suspended solids content of 10,000 mg/1 (221). Other wastes
come from leakage from holding tanks, wash-up, evaporators and the drier
air scrubbers. Paessler and Davis (38) described in detail these wastes
and process modifications that can be used to reduce the waste loads.
Jordan (222) discussed the wastewaters from a fish meal operation. The
drainage and rinsing waters from the storage bunkers are usually thick,
slimy, highly colored, and strongly malodorous. These wastes have large
amounts of insoluble and soluble solids with high nitrogen and phosphate
levels. Active decomposition begins rapidly, resulting in the production
of hydrogen sulfide. Limprich (215) listed this waste volume as 36 to
U8 gal/ton of fish.
Other wastewaters include the condensate from the cooking operation and
the cooling water from the condensers. The volumes are large, but the
organic loads are small. These wastes contain small amounts of soluble
and insoluble solids, including fats. The chemical oxygen demand is
usually about 300 mg/1 and the wastes are not readily putrefiable (222).
Tanzler (223) recomaended that this wastewater be first passed through
a separator before discharge and the water draining from the fish be
passed through a vacuum thickener. Condensate from the thickener would still
contain suspended matter which should be removed before discharge to
a stream. The final wastewaters generated in the process come from the
drying of the fish meal. These wastes are similar to the condensate
wastes.
The strongest segment of the fish meal wastes is the stickwater. In most
instances stickwater is now evaporated to produce condensed fish solubles
but in previous years it was discharged untreated. The volume was
estimated by Kempe, et. al. (69) and Davis (221) to be about 120 gallons per ton
of fish processed. Paessler and Davis (38) reported stickwater strengths
from 56,000 to 112,000 mg BODc/1 and grease concentrations from U,200 to
2^,UOO mg/1 for menhaden. California rendering plants using sardine
scrap produced an average 8005 of 1*2,000 mg/1. Jordan (222) stated that
102
-------
stickwater decomposes rapidly, evolving hydrogen sulfide, and leads to
nuisance conditions if discharged to water-ways or sewage treatment plants.
Davis (221) estimated stickwater to be 6 percent solids, consisting
almost entirely of protein, with very little oil.
The Biological Board of Canada studied the total waste flow from a
sardine rendering plant in British Columbia. The effluent contained
approximately 80,000 mg/1 total solids (22U), 0.57 percent oil, 1.91
percent suspended solids and 2.96 percent dissolved protein (225). Flow
was approximately 1900 gal/hr during the 600-hour processing season.
Hart, Marshall, and Beall stated that the water was "not affected" beyond
a 700-foot radius from the outfall (226).
Knowlton (227) and Tetsch (228) agreed that separation of fats, greases,
oils, and protein emulsions should take place at the fish processing
plant before discharge to municipal sewers.
Salmon
The wastes from the salmon canning process (illustrated on Figure 12,
page 35) include butchering water, viscera, wash water, retort water,
and cooling water. Also included is cooking water when oil recovery
from the heads is practiced.
Claggett and Wong (218) listed the flow from a salmon canning line as
300 gpm with a total solids concentration of 5000 mg/1 and oil concentration
of 250 mg/1. The firm of Stevens, Thompson, Runyan and Ries, Inc. reported
on the effluents from several salmon processors (219) Later studies
of the same firms were reported by Foess (220). The wastewater chara-
cteristics are listed on Table 65. The values for all parameters are
quite variable; the strengths depend on the efficiency of solids removal.
The BODc concentrations range from 200 to kOOO mg/1; suspended solids,
1*0-5000 mg/1; total solids, 80-8000 mg/1; and volatile solids, 60-7000
mg/1. Mild curing was reported to produce considerably weaker wastes
than canning operations.
Caviar production results in extremely strong wastes, but waste volumes
are small. These wastes should be recovered and not discharged to the
waterways or sewage treatment plants.
103
-------
Table 65. Salmon Processing Wastevater Characteristics.
Process
Canning
Canning
Caviar
Mild curing
Mild curing
and fresh
Mild curing
or freezing
Plow COD
(mgd) (mgd)
0.01*3-0. OU6 5,920
0.33
0.018-0.066
0.011-0.036
0.01U-O.OU6
Suspended
BODij BODc/raw product Solids
(mg/1) (Ibs/ton) (mg/1)
3660-3900
3,860
270,000
173-1320
206-2218
397-3082
b. 5-178
10-80
3.2-36
3.8-19
508-1*780
2,1*70
92,600
l*l*-l*56
112-820
1*0-1821*
Total
Solids
(mg/1)
1188-71*1*1*
386,000
258-2712
l*8U-29l*0
88-31*22
Volatile
Solids
(mg/D
101*8-7278
292,000
98-2508
18U-1756
67-2866
Reference
(219)
(220)
(219)
(219)
(219)
(219)
-------
Sardines
The National Canners Association has completed a one-veek study of the
wastes from four Maine sardine packers. These wastes were divided into
four categories: pump water, flume water, hold water and processing
wastes flume water. Ranges are listed on Table 66-
Table 66. Sardine Packing Wastewater Characteristics (229)
Source
Flume water
Hold water
Pump water
Waste flume water
COD
(mg/D
500-1,UOO
800
170- 3kO
2HO- 1,700
BOD5
(8/1)
200-1,150
370
10-U5
100-2,200
Suspended
Solids
(mg/1)
Uoo
100-2,100
Oil and
Grease
(mg/D
300-360
60-1, 3^0
Flow
(gpm)
130-300
---
800-1,000
Uo-l8o
The pump waters transferred the fish from the shipboard holds to a screen
separator in the plant. These wastes were lightly polluted, as shown
by a BODc of under 50 mg/1, but comprised the largest flow. The flume
water conveyed the fish through the plant and became heavily polluted.
The hold water resulted from the storage of fish in the boats. The
small volumes made this wastewater of lesser consequence. The processing
wastewaters were used to transfer the solid wastes to a truck for
disposal. This waste flow could easily be eliminated through the use of
dry capture techniques. All the liquid wastes were discharged untreated.
The water usages for each plant are listed on Table 67. The volumes for
salt water seem excessive and probably reflect its ready availability
and the lack of effluent treatment requirements.
Table 67. Sardine Packing Plant Water Usages (229).
Plant
A
B
C
D
Annual
Pack
(cases)
130,917
36,188
86,173
130, U07
Fresh
(mg/yr)
"
8.
2.2
13-0
3-3
Water Usage
(gal/case)
62
60
150
25
Salt
(mg/yr)
120
120
96
120
Water Usage
(gal/case)
900
3,300
1,100
920
105
-------
Shellfish
Shellfish processing wastes include large volumes of processing wash
waters, solid wastes, canning waters, and plant clean-up waters (see
Figures lU and 15, pages kh and U5. Crawford (26) reported that the
mechanical shrimp peeler effluents he studied averaged 29,000 mg/1
total solids and 6.k percent (dry weight basis) total nitrogen.
Tuna
Tuna processing wastes (listed on Figure 16, page ^9) include water
from butchering, cooking, canning, retorting and cooling and the
eviscerated solid wastes. The Kennedy Engineers (230) reported on tuna
cannery wastes in American Samoa. The waste concentrations averaged
5,100 mg/1 6005, 5,890 mg/1 grease and 1,730 mg/1 suspended solids, of
which 85 percent was volatile.
Chun, et al., (105) studied in detail the wastes from a tuna canning
and rendering plant in Hawaii. The study was conducted for only a 5-day
period; however, the investigators stated that total solids averaged
17,900 mg/1, of which 37 percent was organic. The average BODc for each
day ranged from 500 to 1550 mg/1 and the average COD for each day ranged
from 1300 to 3250 mg/1. The waste was claimed to be toxic, so these
BODS values are questionable. The average waste flow was 6800 gallons
per^ton of fish (see Table 68). An excess of phosphorus and nitrogen
was present in the waste. Treatability studies showed the waste to be
toxic in the opinion of the researchers.
Table 68. Tuna Wastewater Characteristics (105),
Concentration
Parameter
COD
BODt
Total solids
Suspended solids
Grease
mg/1
2,273
895
17,900
1,091
287
Ib/ton
of fish
129
U8
950
58
15
106
-------
However, considering the literature studied, the high BOB values, and
the organic nature of fish wastes the conclusion of toxicity seems
unjustified.
The 5-day BOD was only approximately Uo percent of the COD value. Due
to the high nitrogen levels and high proportion of particulate matter
in the waste, a considerable BOD would be expected to be exerted after
five days. In this case at 22 days the BOD exerted was 3525 mg/1 and
still increasing. It is important to realize that the waste will exert
a considerable nitrogenous BOD in excess of the 5-day value.
107
-------
STANDARD WASTE TREATMEHT METHODS
The liquid wastes resulting from fish processing are most commonly
discharged to adjoining waters. This practice has been restricted in
many areas in recent years as plants have consolidated and enforcement
of water pollution control regulations has intensified. The resultant
action in many cases has been to discharge the wastes to the municipal
sewers. Only one case was mentioned in the United States literature
that had on-site treatment of fish processing wastes before discharge
to a water body (231).
The specific difficulties encountered in the treatment of fish processing
wastes are attributable in large part, to the characteristics of the
wastes. These are usually: high flows, medium to high BOD,- and suspended
solids, and high grease and protein levels (when compared to domestic
sewage). The high grease and protein levels probably produce the most
serious treatment problems due to the difficulty of removal. The
frequently short processing seasons, high peak loadings and rapid
biodegradability of the wastes are also important considerations.
Screens
Claggett and Wong (232) studied the effectiveness of screening salmon
canning wastewaters. Two specific types were tested as, shown on Figures
17 and 18: rotary and tangential screens. A 3U-mesh rotary screen made
of stainless steel was investigated. The U-foot long barrel section
was rated at 100 gpm. Solids were removed with a screw conveyor and
blinding was prevented through the use of high pressure nozzles.
The tangential screen employed two screening surfaces, each one square
foot in area, sized at 20 and *»0 mesh. The resulting operating
capacities were 35 and 20 gpm, respectively.
Both screen types were judged to be successful on salmon canning wastes
(232). The results, shown on Table 69, indicate that with the low
capital and operating costs associated with screening, a processor could
expect removal of over one-half of the total solids in his waste stream.
Table 69. Solids Removal (g/l) from Salmon Wastewater by Screening (232)
Screen Mesh Size Raw Waste Underflow Overflow
Rotary
Tangential
1*0
U.2 2.U
U.5 2.5
105.1
16U
108
-------
WATER
SPRAY
OVERSIZE
WASTEWATER
ROTARY
SCREEN
UNDERSIZE
FIGURE 17.
ROTARY SCREEN (232 ).
109
-------
WASTEWATER
OVERSIZE
UNDERSIZE
TANGENTIAL
SCREEN
.FIGURE 18. TANGENTIAL SCREEN 12321
no
-------
Centrifuges
Jaegers and Haschke (233) stated that centrifuges can be effectively
used to remove fish pulp from waste streams. Fats and proteins can also
be recovered by this method (23*0. However, centrifuging entire waste
streams is very expensive when compared to other methods, due mainly
to high capital costs.
Clarifiers, Gravity
Large quantities of fats and greases are present in the wastewaters from
the processing of oily fishes (sardines, herring, etc.). Knowlton
(22?) reported the fats and grease content of sardine canning wastewaters
to be from 1,000 to 30,000 mg/1 compared to 50 to 200 mg/1 in domestic
sewage. These organics are present as flotables or as emulsions. When
the untreated wastes are discharged, serious problems can result if the
emulsified grease coalesces and rises to the surface of the receiving
water (235).
The greases can be removed by two methods in clarifiers: flotation and
sedimentation. Flotation will be described in the following section.
Sedimentation of the fats and greases is enhanced by various coagulants.
Limprich (215) reported that the application of 2.5 g clay plus 2.5
g lime and 100 mg of ferric chloride per liter gave an optimal precipitation,
with a BOD5 decrease of 75 percent. A similar procedure was described
by Schulz (236) using 2.5 g/1 of A1203, 2.5 g/1 of lime, and 100 mg/1
of FeCl^. Griff en (237) also mentioned that the high fat and protein
wastes can be treated with lime. Chlorination before sedimentation is
recommended to prevent serious odor problems from rapid degradation
(228, 236, 237). It should be noted that the coagulant dosages
recommended above would lead to sludge volumes of at least an order of
magnitude greater than those normally encountered in wastewater treatment
practices. Thus, in many cases, these dosages would prove impractical.
Buczowska and Dabaska (2l6) listed sedimentation results for fish
processing wastewaters. In two hours of quiescent settling, 32 percent
of the suspended solids were removed with 25 percent of BOD^. About 58
percent of the organic matter in the wastewaters was in solution or
colloidal suspension. Limprich (215) stated that 58 percent of the
suspended matter settled out in 2 hours for "fish wastes". The resulting
sludge was described as being "very voluminous". Corresponding values
for sewage after 2 hours of settling would be approximately 70 percent
suspended solids and UO percent BOD^ removals (238).
A partially successful gravity clarification system was developed using
large quantities of a commercial coagulant called F-FLOK (232). F-FIOK
is marketed by the Georgia Pacific Corporation and is derived from
lignosulfonic acid. The floe formed slowly, but after formation,
111
-------
sedimentation rates of U feet per hour could be achieved. The summary
for a large scale test on salmon wastewaters (Table 70) shows a maximum
solids removal of about 70 percent. The underflow was judged to be
quite dilute.
Table 70. Gravity Clarification Using F-FLOK Coagulant (232)
Coagulant
Concentration
(a«A)
5020
1*710
2390
Total
Solids Recovery
(*)
68
60
»*7
Protein
Recovery
(*)
92
80
69
Claggett (2Uo) mentioned that normal detention times in gravity clarifiers
may lead to strong odors due to rapid microbial action.
Drangsholt (239) described a method to chemically treat stickwater for
discharge. The waters are first aerated and skimmed to remove fats and
colloids; the pH is then raised and coagulants are added to precipitate
the proteins. The final effluent is neutralized and passed through sand
and activated carbon filters.
Clarifiers, Flotation
The flotation technique relies on the entrainment of minute air bubbles
which float particles to the water surface. The resulting sludge blanket
is continuously skimmed from the surface. Two methods are used to entrain
the air bubbles in the flow, each method having definite advantages over
the other.
The first method uses mechanical aerators to "whip" the air bubbles
into solution. Dreosti (2Ul) reported that good laboratory results were
obtained using fish wastes with suspended solids levels of up to 8,000 mg/1.
Higher suspended solids concentrations led to sludges that did not
consolidate well on the surface.
For optimum results, Dreosti (2Ul) recommended a small quantity of air
for flotation and agitation times of only 1 or 2 seconds. Centrifugal
pumps could be used if air were bled into the pump chambers. Coagulants
improved the removal efficiency; however, no mention was made of types
or quantities used. The minimum detention time was estimated to be
5 minutes.
112
-------
Hopkins and Einarsson (231) reported a fish waste treatment installation
using a "whip-type" air flotation unit. A flow of 0.065 mgd was passed
through tanks with an "Air-0-Mix" aeration unit. The resulting sludge,
including 15.5 pounds per day of grease and 35 pounds per day of fish
solids, was flash incinerated.
The second method involves flow pressurization. The total influent
flow or a part of the flow is pressurized and then passed into the
flotation unit, which is at ambient pressure. The now supersaturated
solution begins to release air, forming many tiny bubbles. These
bubbles then float the suspended solids to the surface. This method
requires pressure pumps and containers. However, greater efficiency
is usually obtained than with the "whipping" method.
Claggett (2UO), and Claggett and Wong (232)(218) described in detail
pilot scale tests of the flow pressurization method of solids removal
from fish processing wastes. Water was pressurized by a centrifugal
pump to about Uo psig. Air was added at the rate of about 2 percent
by volume. The pressurization tank had a one-minute detention time.
The recovered sludge was heated and the protein and oil fractions
removed by centrifuges.
All tests were conducted using a coagulant aid. These aids act by
breaking the oil-water emulsions, coagulating small particles and
reducing the solubility of protein fractions. The specific aids tested
were alum, ferric chloride, F-FLOK, aluminum hydroxide, Zetol A (trade
name for an animal glue), and lime.
In the first tests on salmon processing wastewaters, alum, ferric
chloride and F-FLOK were compared. The partial results on Table 71
show that alum and ferric chloride performed well as coagulants, but
large dosages of F-FLOK were necessary to achieve comparable results.
Ferric chloride-treated and recovered solids showed signs of extreme
oxidation in the oils. In all cases a significant carry-over of the
floe was noticed in the effluent.
In the second test on salmon processing wastewaters, precipitated
aluminum hydroxide, lime, Zetol A and F-FLOK were compared. The results
shown on Table 72 show that precipitated aluminum hydroxide was only
partially effective. The F-FLOK gave similar results, but dosages
over 2,000 mg/1 were used, leading to large sludge volumes.
113
-------
Table 71. Effects of Flotation with Coagulant Aids on
Salmon Processing Wastewaters (218).
Coagulant Dosage
Aid (ppm) pH
Influent
Total Solids
(ppm)
Effluent
Total Solids
(ppm)
Solids Dry Solids
Removal Recovered
Efficiency at 50 gpm
(Ibs/hr)
Alum
Alum
Ferric
Chloride
Ferric
Chloride
Ferric
Chloride
F-FLOK
U7
U7
60
60
133
1000
6.1
6.0
5.5
5.5
k.l
U.o
5,UOO
2,290
5,580
2,860
1,800
5,900
1,560
1,200
2,1*00
950
1,180
1,200
71
U8
57
67
3U
63
11.5
8.5
11.0
15.0
10.5
"*
Table 72. Effects of Flotation with Coagulant Aids on Salmon Processing Wastewaters (232).
Coagulant
Aids
75 mg/1 aluminum
hydroxide
1 mg/1 Zetol A
T.S.
2,685
2, Ma
Influent
S.S.
(mg/1)
6Uo
697
BODc
(mg/1)
1,775
1,275
T.S.
(mg/1)
1,505
1,625
Effluent
S.S.
(mg/1)
1,305
200
Removal Efficiencies
BOD5
(mg/1)
381
T.S.
(*)
kk
33
S.S.
(*)
51
71
BOD5
26
70
375 mg/1 aluminum
sulfate plus 75 mg/1
lime
1993
2,833
2,162
397
633
80
78
-------
Claggett and Wong (218) concluded that flotation cells could be used
effectively on fish processing wastes. Alum treatment was judged the most
promising of the methods used. Feeding tests showed that alum could be
included in the recovered solids up to the 1 percent level without
altering the growth rate of chickens.
A method has been developed to remove fish oils down to the 0.008 percent
level (80 mg/l) by acidification of the waste stream followed by
flotation (2^2). This method would require neutralization after treat-
ment. Specially-coated treatment equipment would be needed to avoid
corrosion.
Aerobic Biological Treatment
Buczowska and Dabaska (2l6) concluded that the carbon:nitrogen ratio of
fish processing wastewaters indicates that biological treatment should
be successful. The biochemical oxidation rate was said to be similar
to sewage, but nitrification begins sooner and is more significant.
Assuming primary stage removal of reasonable levels of solids, grease
and oils, no special problems should be encountered, the authors said.
Without this pretreatment several problems can develop. Matusky, Lawler,
Quirk and Genetelli (2^4-3) mentioned that oil and grease can interfere with
oxygen transfer in an activated sludge system. Czapik (2kk) reported on
a trickling filter that clogged due to high solids and oil levels in the
wastewaters from a fish processing plant.
A Japanese activated sludge plant has been especially designed for fish
wastes (21+5). The wastewater flow is approximately O.kl cfs (0.2? MGD)
and the BODt- concentration ranges from 1,000 to 1,900 mg/l (see Table
73). Pilot plant studies were conducted using a 10-hour separation time
and the organic and hydraulic loadings listed on Table ?lf. The results
showed adequate treatment using conventional biological waste treatment.
Bulking occurred when the organic loading rate exceeded 0.31 Ib/ft^/day.
Table 73. Wastewater Characteristics of a Japanese Fish Sausage Plant
Parameter Units Value
PH
Total solids
Volatile solids
Suspended solids
BOD5
Total nitrogen
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
6.9-7.1
1,560-2,1*50
1,120-1,900
320- 695
1,000-1,900
70- 311
115
-------
Table 7!*. Activated Sludge Pilot Plant Results (2^5).
Effluent Characteristics
Parameter
pH
S.S.
BOD5
Total
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(% removal)
N (mg/1)
Raw
Waste
6.9
320
1,000
70
BOD
0.075
5.5
5
99.5
loading (lb/ft3/day)
O.lU
6.0
10
99.0
0.21
6.0
12
13
98.7
35
0.26
6.2
70
27
97.3
51
Anaerobic Biological Treatment
Fish wastes were judged to present no unusual problems in digester
operations, assuming that large waste solids are first removed at the
processing plant (8). Matusky, et al, (2^3), stated that fish solids and
digested readily and the resultant sludge dewatered easily. The digester
loading rates varied from 0.1 to 0.36 Ibs v.s./ft3/day.
In the system described by Hopkins and Einarsson (231), the clarified
wastewater was effectively treated in a series of septic tanks.
116
-------
ON-GOING RESEARCH
A variety of research projects on subjects relating to fish processing
wastes are presently on-going or have been recently completed. These
projects are briefly summarized below to describe the general trends
in current research efforts and to indicate specific individuals who
can provide recently developed data.
Harvesting and Processing Modifications
The Oregon State University Seafoods Laboratory (2U6) is presently
studying the efficiency of the Yanagiya Flesh Separator. The device
consists of a revolving stainless steel drum perforated with numerous
1/16" diameter holes. A continuous belt is forced against a portion
of the drum. Whole fish or filleted fish bodies are placed between
the revolving drum and the belt and the soft flesh portions are
continuously pressed through the drum and extracted. Present data
show excellent recovery of the flesh portions from the bone structures
of the fish. A larger model of this device is presently being used by
one Oregon processor to remove cooked tuna flesh from bone scraps. The
recovered flesh is processed as pet food.
Richardson and Amundson (2U?) have undertaken a 5-year study of rendering
of Great Lake alewives. Microbial activity is used to separate the
oil and scrap. Proposed as possible uses are fish protein concentrates,
fish oil and various oil-based products.
The College of Fisheries of the University of Washington (2l»8) has
concluded research on the enzyme digestion of shrimp wastes. An effort
was made to develop an active digestive system that could operate at
high temperatures.
Law (2^9) currently holds a U.S.D.A. grant to study the utilization of
marine waste products and latent fisheries.
A new, rapid method of ship-board fish meal production has been developed
by a Mexican firm (89). Fresh fish are ground and dried simultaneously
in a 2l*0°C gas stream. The meal is then cooled and packaged. The complete
process takes from 6 to 8 seconds as compared to 22 minutes in an alcohol
extraction process. One ton of fish meal is recovered from five tons of
fish. No reference was made to the applicability of this method to fish
wastes, but there appears to be no obvious reason to discount it as a
possibility.
A packaged on-board freezer has been recently marketed by a Pennsylvania
firm (250). This unit freezes up to 300 pounds of shrimp per hour and
maintains freezing temperatures in the storage hold. Utilization of
this apparatus could eliminate the use of ice and its resultant waste-
water.
117
-------
Two new American ocean vessels have recently been active in the
harvesting and processing of fishery products (251). Named the "Seafreeze
Atlantic" and "Seafreeze Pacific", these two ships cost over $5 million
each, and each can handle 50 tons of fish per day. Processing is so
complete that "...only the skins are wasted." If this venture proves
successful, terrestial accumulation of fish processing wastes could be
substantially reduced in the future.
The Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (252) has developed a trap to harvest
the sable fish population off the Pacific Coast. The trap has been
judged to be moderately successful and further development is planned.
Waste Strengths and Volumes
The National Canners Association (253) is presently conducting research
on wastewater characteristics from sardine, shrimp, salmon, and tuna
processing plants. The wastewater parameters to be measured are COD,
BODc, total solids, dissolved solids, suspended solids, oil, grease,
nitrogen and chlorides. A study on Maine sardine plants has been completed
(253).
Waste Treatment
A Northern California firm (62) has developed a direct-fired gas drier
to economically dry fish meal. The drier jet exhausts upward with an
adequate velocity to "fluidize" the drying bed of meal. High heat
transfer efficiencies have been obtained with this machine (i.e.,
greater than 95 percent recovery).
Kempe (25*0 has proposed research on the efficiency of spray-evaporation
of stickwater. This method is considered to be superior to other
evaporation methods due to its lower cost, simplicity of operation and
faster start-up. These factors are especially important to the smaller
rendering plants with limited capital.
Johnson and Hayes (255) have proposed a pilot plant study on the
utilization of king crab wastes for chitin. Mathews (60), of the
University of Alaska, is presently studying the utilization of king
crab wastes.
Deyoe (256), at Kansas State University, has proposed research on the
nutritive value and economic utilization of catfish processing wastes.
Meals produced by various methods would be chemically analyzed and
animal feeding tests performed.
118
-------
ACKNOWLEDC3MENTS
This report is of value only insofar as it truthfully represents the
"state of the art"; therefore its degree of success can be measured
by the level of industrial, governmental, and university cooperation
achieved.
The support of many individuals within the National Canners Association,
National Fisheries Institute, U.S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
state water pollution control authorities, university research and
extension organizations, private research laboratories, consulting
engineering firms, and the numerous processing plants who cooperated
with the authors in this study is gratefully acknowledged.
The financial support and technical and administrative guidance
provided by the Federal Water Quality Administration through the
Project Officer, Mr. Kenneth A. Dostal, and the Project Coordinator,
Mr. George Keeler, were indispensable to the successful completion of
the project.
119
-------
LITERATURE CITED
1. Holt, S.J. 1969. The Food Resources of the Ocean. Scientific
American, 221:3, 178-19^.
2. . 1961. Report of the International Conference on
Fish in Nutrition. FAO Fisheries Report No. 1. Washington,
B.C., 91 PP.
3. Wilcke, H.L. 1969. Potential of Animal, Fish, and Certain Plant
Protein Sources. Journal of Dairy Science, 52; U09-U16.
U. lyles, C.H. 1969. Fisheries of the United States...1968. C.F.S.
No. 5000. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. 83 pp.
5. Borgstrom, G. and C.D. Paris. 1965. The Regional Development of
Fisheries and Fish Processing. In: Fish as Food, Volume III
(G. Borgstrom, ed.), Academic Press, New York. Pp. 301-397.
6. . 1969. Computer Projects 73 percent Frozen Food
Poundage Rise During Next Decade. Quick Frozen Foods,
^1:11, U5-U6.
7. Clark and Groff Engineers. 1967- Evaluation of Seafood Processing
Plants in South Central Alaska. Contract No. EH-EDA-2. Branch
of Environmental Health, Division of Public Health, Department
of Health and Welfare, State of Alaska, Juneau, Alaska, 28 pp.
8. Nunnallee, D., and B. Mar. 1969. A Quantitative Compilation of
Industrial and Comnercial Wastes in the State of Washington.
1967-69 Research Project Study 3F. State of Washington Water
Research Center. Washington State Water Pollution Control
Commission. Olympia, Washington. 126 pp.
9. Slavin, J.W. and J.A. Peters. 1965. Fish and Fish Products. In:
Industrial Wastewater Control (C.F. Gurnham, ed.). Academic
Press. New York. Pp. 55-67-
10. . 1969. A Survey of Waste Disposal Methods for
the Fish Processing Plants on the Oregon Coast. Oregon State
Sanitary Authority. Portland, Oregon. 77 pp.
11. . 1968. Packaged Fishery Products. C.F.S. No. 1*951,
Bureau of Comnercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. 5 pp.
12. Thurston, C.E. 1961. Proximate Composition of Nine Species of
Sole and Flounder. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,
5: 313-316.
-------
13. Needier, A.B. 1931. The Haddock. Bulletin No. XXV. The Biological
Board of Canada. Ottawa, Canada. 28 pp.
Ik. Landgraf, R.G., Jr. 1953. Alaskan Pollock: Proximate Composition.
Commercial Fisheries Review, 15_:7, 20-22.
15. Grizzell, R.A., Jr., E.G. Sullivan and O.W. Dillon, Jr. 1968.
Catfish Farming: An Agricultural Enterprise. Unpublished
report. Soil Conservation Service, U.S.D.A. 16 pp.
16. Boussu, M.F. 1969. Harvesting Pond-Raised Catfish. Presented at
the Commercial Fish Farming Conference, University of Georgia,
Athens, Georgia. 11 pp.
17. Greenfield, J.E. 1969. Some Economic Characteristics of Pond-Raised
Catfish Enterprises. Working Paper No. 23. Division of Economic
Research, Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, U.S.D.I., Ann Arbor,
Michigan. 19 pp.
18. Barksdale, B. 1968. Catfish Farming. The Farm Quarterly, 23: k, 62-67.
!9. . 1969. Freezes Catfish with Liquid Nitrogen.
Food Engineering, jjOL; 12, 66-67.
20. Billy, T.J. 1969. Processing Pond-Raised Catfish. Ms. AA-61
Final Draft. Technological Laboratory, Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. Ann Arbor,
Michigan. 13 PP«
21. Jones, W.G. 1969. Market Prospects for Farm Catfish Production.
Presented at the Comnercial Fish Farming Conference, University
of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. 2k pp.
22. . 1968. Master Plan for Fisheries: Cultured
Catfish Fishery. Region k Catfish Committee, Bureau of
Conmercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I.,
Ann Arbor, Michigan. 35 PP«
23m . 1969. Station Experiments with Catfish
Byproducts. Feedstuffs, Ul: 19, 38.
2k. Stansby, M.E. 1963. Processing of Seafoods. In: Food Processing
Operations (M.A. Joslyn and J.L. Heid, eds.). AVI Publishing
Co., Westport., Conn. Pp. 569-599.
25 Dassow, J.A. 1963. The Crab and Lobster Fisheries. In: Industrial
25. Dasso£sJ;^ Te*£ology (M.E. Stansby, ed.). Reinhold Publishing
Corp., New York. Pp. 193-208.
26. Crawford, D.L. 1968. personal communication.
-------
27. Jensen, C.L. 1965. Industrial Wastes from Seafood Plants in the
State of Alaska. Proceedings, 20th Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University, Engineering Extension Series No. 118,
329-350.
28. . 1970. Extracts Crabmeat Automatically. Food
Engineering, 42; 2, 36.
29. . 1968. Canned Fishery Products. C.F.S. No. U9^9.
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. 17 pp.
30. Alverson, D.L. 1968. Fishery Resources in the Northeastern Pacific
Ocean. In: The Future of the Fishing Industry of the United
States (D. Gilbert, ed.), Publications in Fisheries, New
Series, Volume IV. University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington. Pp. 86-101.
31. . 1944. Operations Involved in Canning. Fisheries
Leaflet No. 79. In: Research Report No. 7, Commercial
Canning of Fisheries Products. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I., Washington, D.C. Pp. 93-111.
32. . 1968. Preservation and Processing of Fish and
Shellfish - Quarterly Progress Report. Technological Laboratory,
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S.D.I., Ketchikan, Alaska, 2 pp.
33« Hoalihan, J. 1969. personal communication.
3k. Dassow, J.A. 1963. The Halibut Fisheries. In: Industrial Fishery
Technology (M.E. Stansby, ed.). Reinhold Publishing Corp.,
New York. Pp. 12O-130.
35. Stansby, M.E. 19^7. Composition of Fish. Fishery Leaflet 116.
Seattle Technological Laboratory. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S.D.I., Washington, D.C. 16 pp.
36. June, F.C. 1963. The Menhaden Fishery. In: Industrial Fishery
Technology. (M.E.Stansby, ed.) Reinhold Publishing Corp.,
New York. Pp. 1U6-159.
37. . 1969. Industrial Fishery Products, 1968 Annual
Summary. C.F.S. No. U950. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. 9 PP-
38. Paessler, A.M. and R.V. Davis. 195&. Waste Waters from Menhaden
Fish Oil and Meal Processing Plants. Proceedings, llth
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University. Engineering
Extension Series No. 91, 371-388.
-------
39. McKee, L.G. 19^8. Planting and Marketing Oysters in the Pacific
Northwest. Fishery Leaflet 52. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. 6 pp.
Uo. Wheaton, F. 19&9- Engineering Approach to Oyster Processing.
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society
of Agricultural Engineers, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
Indiana. 15 pp.
Ul. Bullis, H.R., Jr. and J.S. Carpenter. 1968. Latent Fishery
Resources of the Central West Atlantic Region. In: The
Future of the Fishing Industry of the United States (D. Gilbert,
ed.). Publications in Fisheries New Series, Volume IV.
University of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Pp. 6l-6U.
U2. Smith, R.M.R. 1970. personal communication.
1+3. Magnusson, H.W. and W.H. Hagevig. 1950. Salmon Cannery Trimmings.
Part I - Relative Amounts of Separated Parts. Commercial
Fisheries Review, 12: 9, 9-12.
kk. Brody, J. 1965. Fishery By-Products Technology. AVI Publishing
Co., Westport, Conn. 232 pp.
U5. Jones, G.I. and E.J. Carrigan. 1953- Possibility of Development
of New Products from Salmon Cannery Waste: Literature Survey.
In: Utilization of Alaskan Salmon Cannery Waste, Special
Scientific Report: Fisheries No. 109 (M.E. Stansby, et al., eds.),
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I., Washington, D.C. Pp. 7-35.
k6. Karrick, N.L. and M.A. Edwards. 1953- Vitamin Content of Experi-
mental Fish Hatchery Foods. In: Utilization of Alaskan
Salmon Cannery Wastes. Special Scientific Report: Fisheries
No. 109. (M.E. Stansby, et al. eds.). Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. Pp. 79-89-
U?. Lassen, S. 1963. The Sardine, Mackerel and Herring Fisheries.
In: Industrial Fishery Technology (M.E. Stansby, ed.).
Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York. Pp. 131-1^5.
U8. Dewberry, E.B. 196^. How Shrimps are Canned at a New Orleans
Factory. Food Manufacture, 39- 7, 35-39.
U9 Lee, C.F. and F.B. Sanford. 1963. Handling and Packing of Frozen
Breaded Shrimp and Individually Peeled and Deveined Shrimp.
Commercial Fisheries Review, 25_: 11, 1-10.
50 Idyll, C.P. 1963. The Shrimp Fishery. In: Industrial Fishery
Technology (M.E. Stansby, ed.). Reinhold Publishing Corp.,
New York. Pp. l60-l82.
-------
51. Vilbrandt, F.C. and R.F. Abernethy. 1930. Utilization of Shrimp
Waste. In: Report of Commissioner of Fisheries. Bureau
of Fisheries Document 1078. Pp. 101-122.
52. . 1963. The U.S. Tuna Industry. Good Packaging,
2*: 7, 56-76.
53. Dewberry, E.B. 1969. Tuna Canning in the United States. Food Trade
Review, 22:11, 37-^2.
1970. Tuna and Tuna-like Fish Received by California
_
Canneries, 1969. Western Packing News Service, 65: 9> 5.
55. _ . 1969. Pacific Coast Fisheries - 1967. C.F.S.
No. 5082. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. 6 pp.
56. _ . 1969. Processed Fishery Products. C.F.S. No. ^970.
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S.D.I., Washington, D.C. U3 pp.
57. Yonker, W.V. 1969. personal communication.
58. _ . 196U. Salmon Waste Utilization. Commercial
Fisheries Review, 26: 10, 13.
59. Gilbert, W.S. 1969. personal communication.
60. Simon, B. 1969. personal communication.
61. Stansby, M.E. 1953. Introduction. In: Utilization of Alaskan
Salmon Cannery Waste. Special Scientific Report: Fisheries
Ho. 109. (M.E. Stansby, et al., eds.). Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. Pp. 5-7.
62. Grimes, E. 1969. personal communication.
63. Soderquist, M.R. 1969. A Survey of Oregon's Food Processing Wastes
Problems. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Pacific
Northwest Pollution Control Association. Seattle, Washington.
35 PP.
61*. Bell, F.H. 1963. Distribution and Description of Fisheries. In:
Industrial Fishery Technology. (M.E. Stansby, ed.). Reinhold
Publishing Corp., New York. Pp. 22-Uo.
65. Smith, J.G. 1966. Thoughts on the Future; California's Commercial
Fishery Resource. Presented to Humboldt Bay Fisheries
Association, Inc., and to Humboldt Chapter, The Wildlife
Society. Humboldt, California. 8 pp.
-------
66. Clemens, H.B. 1959. Status of the Fishery for Tunas of the
Temperate Waters of the Eastern North Pacific. In: Tuna
Industry Conference Papers, Circular 65. Bureau of Conmercial
Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. Washington,
D.C. Pp. kL-U2.
67. Ahlstrom, E.H. 1968. An Evaluation of the Fishery Resources
Available to California Fishermen. In: The Future of the
Fishing Industry of the United States. (D. Gilbert, ed.).
Publications in Fisheries, New Series, Volume IV. University
of Washington. Seattle, Washington. Pp. 65-80.
68. . 1969. Great Lakes Fisheries-1967. C.F.S. No. 1*971.
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. 8 pp.
69. Kempe, L.L., N.E. Lake and R.C. Scherr. 1968. Disposal of Fish
Processing Wastes. Office of Research Administration,
University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1*6 pp.
70. Billy, T.J. 1969- personal communication.
71. Carbine, W.F. 1969- personal communication.
72. Seagran, H.L. 1963. Lake and River Fisheries. In: Industrial
Fisheries Technology. (M.E. Stansby, ed.). Reinhold
Publishing Corp., New York. Pp. 79-86.
73. . 1969. Mississippi River Fisheries-1967. C.F.S.
No. 5090. Bureau of Conmercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. 13 pp.
7U. . 1969. Gulf Fisheries-1967. C.F.S. No 5037.
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. 7 pp.
75. Longnecker, O.M., Jr. 1968. The Place of the Shrimping Industry in
the United States Fisheries. In: The Future of the Fishing
Industry of the United States. (D. Gilbert, ed.) Publications
in Fisheries, New Series, Volume IV. University of Washington.
Seattle, Washington. Pp. 111-117-
76. Robinson, R. 1969. personal communication.
77. . 1969. Chesapeake Fisheries-1967. C.F.S. No. 1*935.
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. 8 pp.
78. . 1969. South Atlantic Fisheries-1967. C.F.S.
No. 5023. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. 10 pp.
-------
79. 1969. Middle Atlantic Fisheries-196?, C.F.S.
No. 1*887. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. 5 pp.
80. . 1969. New England Fisheries-1967. C.F.S.
No. U907.Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. 8 pp.
81. Edwards, R.L. 1968. Fishery Resources of the North Atlantic Area.
In: The Future of the Fishing Industry of the United States.
(D. Gilbert, ed.). Publications in Fisheries, New Series,
Volume IV. University of Washington. Seattle, Washington.
Pp. 52-60.
82. Carlson, C., M. Knudson and H. Shanks. 1969. personal communication.
83. Taylor, W.H. 1970. personal communication.
6k. Sanford, F.B. and C.F. Lee. 1960. U.S. Fish-Reduction Industry.
Commercial Fisheries TL Ik. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. Washington D.C. 77 pp.
85. Lee, C.F. 1961. Industrial Products, Trends...Developments. Fishing
Gazette (New York), 78: 13, 130-132.
86. . 1969. Stanpack - Complete Self-Contained Fish
Meal Plants. Bulletin 67^. Standard Steel Corporation. Los
Angeles, California, 3 PP«
87. . 1965. Atlas-Stord Package Meal Plants. Stord
Bartz Industries. Bergen, Norway. 8 pp.
88. de Sollano, C.D. 1967. Mexican Firm Introduces Shipboard Fishmeal
Plant. The Fishing Gazette and Sea Angler, 150; 6, 63-6U.
89. Lopez, J.L.G. 1967. Fish Meal Manufacturing Machines On Board
Shrimpers - Economic Study. Available from: Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I.
Ann Arbor, Michigan. 11 pp.
90. Sorensen, K. 1966. Fishmeal. Commercial Fishing, k: 8, 11-12.
91. . 1966. Packaged Fish Meal Plants. Chemical
Research Organization. Esbjerg, Denmark, k pp.
92. . 196U. Fishmeal Plant Development. World Fishing,
13: 51-55.
93. Beatty, G. 1964. Processing and Handling Equipment. Fishing News
International, 3: 375-377.
-------
9^4-. Varga, C.R. 1968. personal communication.
95. _ . 1959- Menhaden Industry - Past and Present.
Commercial Fisheries Review, 21; 2a, 2k.
96. IJyer, J.A. 196?. personal communication.
97. Brown, R.L. 1959. Protein Analysis of Shrimp-Waste Meal. Commercial
Fisheries Review, 21; 2a, 6-8.
98. Thurston, C.E. and P.P. MacMaster. 1959- The Carbonate Content of
Some Fish and Shellfish Meals. Journal of the Association of
Official Agricultural Chemists, k2: 699-702.
99. Peniston, Q.P., E.L. Johnson, C.N. Turrill, and M.L. Hayes. 1969.
A New Process for Recovery of By-Products from Shellfish Waste.
Presented at the 2Uth Annual Industrial Waste Conference,
Purdue University. Lafayette, Indiana. 11 pp.
100. Khandker, N.A. 1962. The Composition of Shrimp Meal Made from Fresh
and Spoiled Shrimp Heads. Commercial Fisheries Review,
2k: 2, 8-10.
101. Karrick, N.L. , and W. Clegg, and M.E. Stansby. 1957. Vitamin Content
of Fishery Byproducts. Commercial Fisheries Review, 19: 5a,
lU-23.
102. Karrick, N.L. , and M.E. Stansby. 1951*- Vitamin Content of Fishery
Byproducts. Commercial Fisheries Review, 16; 2, 7-10.
103. Grau, C.R., L.E. Ousterhout, B.C. Lundholm, and N.L. Karrick. 1959-
Progress on Investigation of Nutritional Value of Fish-Meal
Protein. Commercial Fisheries Review, 21: 2a, 1-3.
10k. Stansby, M.E. 1959- The Processing of Tuna. In: Tuna Industry
Conference Papers, Circular 65. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S.D.I., Washington, B.C. Pp. 76-85.
105. Chun, M.J., R.H.F. Young, and N.C. Burbank, Jr. 1968. A Characterization
of Tuna Packing Waste. Proceedings, 23rd Industrial Waste
Conference, Purdue University. Engineering Extension Series
No. 132, 786-805.
. 1959. Visceral Meal. Trade News, 12: 12, 13-11*-
107 Olley J. , J.E. Ford, and A. P. Williams. 1968. Nutritional Value of
Fish Visceral Meals. Journal of the Science of Food and
Agriculture, 19: 282-285.
108. Jones, E.D. 1958. personal communication.
-------
109. lantz, A.W. 19U8. Utilization of Freshwater Fish, Trimmings,
and Offal. Progress Report of the Pacific Coast Station
No. 76. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Vancouver,
B.C. Pp. 78-80.
110. Finch, R. 1963. The Tuna Industry. In: Industrial Fishery
Technology (M.E. Stansby, ed.). Reinhold Publishing Corp.,
New York. Pp. 87-105.
111. Carpenter, G.A. and J. Olley. I960. Preservation of Fish and
Fish Offal for Oil and Meal Manufacture. Torry Technical
Paper No. 2. Great Britain Department of Scientific and
Industrial Research. Aberdeen, Scotland. 31 PP«
112. Kawada, H., K. Kataya, T. Takahashi, and H. Kuriyama. 1955.
[Studies on the Complete Utilization of Whole Fish. Part k.
The Chemical Composition of Some Fish Viscera and the Fish
Soluble Feed Made from Cuttlefish Liver. ] Bulletin of the
Japanese Society of Scientific Fisheries, 21; 7, 503-511.
113. Arnesen, G. 1969. Total and Free Amino Acids in Fishmeals and
Vacuum-dried Codfish Organs, Flesh, Bones, Skin and Stomach
Contents. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,
20: 218-220.
111*. Fineberg, H. and A.G. Johanson. 1967. Industrial Use of Fish
Oils. Circular 278. Bureau of Conmercial Fisheries, Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. 16 pp.
115. Gruger, E.H., Jr. 1960. Methods of Separation of Fatty Acids
from Fish Oils with Emphasis on Industrial Applications.
Fishery Industrial Research, 2:1, 31-UO.
116. Anderson, L. 19U5. A Preliminary Report on Alkali Process for
the Manufacture of Commercial Oil from Salmon Cannery Trimmings.
Fishery Market News, 7:1*, U-7.
117. Eyck, R.N. Ten, H.W. Magnusson, and J.E. BJork. 1951. A Brief
Study of the Alkali Process for Recovery of Oil from Pink
Salmon Cannery Waste. Technical Note No. lU. Commercial
Fisheries Review, 13_:11, 39-^3-
118. Butler, C. and D. Miyauchi. 1953. The Preparation of Vitamin
Oils from Salmon Cannery Offal by the Alkali Digestion Process.
In: Utilization of Alaskan Salmon Cannery Waste (M. Stansby, ed.)
Special Scientific Report No. 109. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. Pp. 35-^.
-------
119. Brocklesby, H.N. and O.F. Denstedt. 1933. The Industrial
Chemistry of Fish Oils with Particular Reference to those
of British Columbia. Bulletin 37. The Biological Board
of Canada. Ottawa, Canada. 150 pp.
120. Ehlert, H.M. 1962. Treating Oil-Containing Animal Material,
Such as Fish and Fish Offal. U.S. Patent 3,0^1, 1?U. 2 pp.
121. Bailey, B.E. (ed.). 1952. Marine Oils. Bulletin No. 89. Fisheries
Research Board of Canada. Ottawa, Canada. Uoo pp.
122. Hannewijk, J. 1967. Use of Fish Oils in Margarine and Shortening.
Circular 279. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. D.I. Washington, B.C. 19 PP.
123. _ . 1957. How About the New Marine Oils? Fishery
Leaflet 528. Bureau of Conmercial Fisheries, Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. D.I. Washington, D.C. 8 pp.
12U. _ . 1957. Commercial Uses for Menhaden Oil. Commercial
Fisheries Review, 19:Ua, 3-U.
125. Karrick, N.L. 1967. Nutritional Value of Fish Oils as Animal
Feed. Circular 281. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S. D.I. Washington, D.C. 21 pp.
126. _ . 1956. Fish Oils in Sprays for Citrus Trees.
Commercial Fisheries Review, l8:3> 9.
127. Lee, C.F. 1958. Report on Development of Fungicides from Fish
Oils. Commercial Fisheries Review, 20:6, 20.
128. Mattel, V. and W.T. Roddy. 1959- The Use of Fish Oils for
Fatliquoring Leather. III. Suitability of Ocean Perch,
Herring, Salmon, and Menhaden Oils in Fatliquoring. Journal
of the American Leather Chemists Assoc., 5^: 640-653.
129. Stansby, M.E. I960. Possibilities for Applying Fish Oil to Ore-
Flotation. Commercial Fisheries Review, 22:2, 17-21.
130. Olden, J.H. I960. Good Prospects for Fish Oil as Ore-Flotation
Agent. The Fish Boat, j>:6, U5.
131. Lessen, S. 1965. Fish Solubles. In: Fish as Food, Volume III
(G. Borgstrom, ed) . Academic Press, New York. pp. 281-299.
132. Luneburg, H. 19*3. t Investigations of Waste Waters from the
Fish-meal Industry 1. Wasser und Abwasser, 41:15.
-------
133. Gallagher, F.S. 1959. Fish Meal Fertilizer Wastes. Industrial
Wastes , U:5, 87-88.
13U. Nachenius, R.J. 196^. Stickwater Evaporator Fundamentals .
Fishing News International, 3:3, 53-5^.
135. Gunther, J.K. and L. Sair. 19^7. Process for Treating Fish Press
Water. U.S. Patent No. 2,1*5^,315. Chemical Abstracts, U
136. Tschekalin, P.M. 1951. [ Production of an Adhesive Substance from
Waste Waters from Processing Plants. ] Chem. Zbl., 1228, II;
1382-1383.
137. _ . 1969. Osmosis Is Key To Whey-out Unit. Chemical
Engineering, 76:5, 20.
138. _ . 1968. Reverse Osmosis Units Dewater Solutions.
Chemical Engineering, 75:2, 115 -116.
139. _ . 1969. ABCOR Membrane Ultrafiltration. Abcor,
Inc. Cambridge, Mass. 6 pp.
Michaels, A.S. 1968. New Separation Technique for the CPI.
Chemical Engineering Progress, 6U:12, 31.
Olden, J.H. 1960. Fish Flour for Human Consumption. Commercial
Fisheries Review, 22:1, 12-18.
1U2. Rodale, R. (ed.). 1970. Fish Protein Concentrate. Rodale ' s
Health Bulletin, 8:2, 1.
Nunn, R.R. 1969. Fish Protein Concentrate is on the Rise. Part 2:
The VioBin Process and How It Works. Ocean Industry, U:l,
36-UO.
I960. Fish Flour Is Primarily a Protein Con-
_
centrate - Not a Substitute for Grain Flour. Commercial
Fisheries Review, 22:6, 13-11*.
lU5. Altschul, A.M. 1969. Food: Proteins for Humans. Chemical and
Engineering News, ^7:^9, 68-81.
lU6. Khobl, G.M. , Jr. 1967. World Efforts Toward FPC. In: The Fish
Protein Concentrate Story. Food Technology, 21: 1108-1111.
1U7. Bertullo, V.H. 1968. Fish Protein Concentrates for Human
Consumption - A Review of Processing Methods. In: The Safety
of Foods, (S.C. Ayres, ed.). AVI Publishing Co., Westport,
Conn. Pp. 270-277.
-------
Listen, J. , G.M. Pigott, G.R. Limb, and B. Manickam. 1969. Studies
in the Rational Total Utilization of Fishery Products. In:
1968 Research in Fisheries. University of Washington.
Seattle, Washington. Pp. 79-81.
lU9. Kornberg, W. 1966. Extraction Process Wins Protein from Fish.
Chemical Engineering, 73.:^, 98-100.
150. _ 1966. Marine Protein Concentrate. Fishery Leaflet
58^. iureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. D.I. 27 pp.
151. Guttmann, A. and F.A. Vandenheuvel. 1957. The Production of
Edible Fish Protein From Cod and Haddock. In: Progress
Reports of the Atlantic Coast Stations, No. 67. St. Andrews,
New Brunswick. Pp. 29-32.
152. Power, H.E. 1963. A Report to the Fishing Industry on the
Characteristics of Fish Protein Concentrates Made from Various
Raw Materials. New Series Circular 15. Fisheries Research
Board of Canada, Technological Research Laboratory. Halifax,
Nova Scotia. 2 pp.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
Russo, J.R. 1969. Can New Protein Sources
Food Engineering, 4l:5, 74-77.
. 1969. Fish Protein Plant
Manufacture, 44:8, 53.
Avert World Shortage?
in Canada. Food
. 1970. $5-Million Contract Awarded for Construction
of FPC Plant. Ocean Industry, 5tl> 16.
. 1969. Fish Protein Joins
Chemical Week, 104:61-63.
. 1970. FPC Plant Becomes
Oceanology International, 2:1, 13.
Jones, W.G. 1960. The Use of Fish in Pet
War on Hunger.
Canadian Property.
Foods. Fishery Leaflet
501. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. D.I. Washington, D.C. 22 pp.
159. Ousterhout, L.E. and D.G. Snyder. 1961. Effects of Processing
on the Nutritive Value of Fish Products in Animal Nutrition.
Paper No. R/IV.l. In: Report of Food and Agriculture
Organization International Conference on Fish in Nutrition.
Washington, D.C. Pp. 2.18.1-2.18.11.
160. Combs, G.F. 1961. The Role of Fish for Animal Feeding. Paper
No. R/I.5. In: Report of Food and Agriculture Organization
International Conference on Fish in Nutrition. Washington>D.C
Pp. 1.5.1-1.5.12.
-------
l6i. . 196U. Increased Use of Fish Meal in South Seas;
Layer, Pet Food Use Adds to Consumption. Feedstuffs, 3j>:l» 63-6U.
162. Baelum, J. 1961. Fish and Fishery Products in Poultry Rations.
Paper No. R/IV.5. In: Report of Food and Agriculture
Organization International Conference on Fish in Nutrition.
Washington, B.C. Pp. 2.22.1-2.22.lU.
163. Braude, R. 1961. Fish and Fishery Products in Pig Nutrition.
Paper No. R/Tf.k. In: Report of Food and Agriculture
Organization International Conference on Fish in Nutrition.
Washington,B.C. Pp. 2.21.1-2.21.k2.
16U. Sanford, F.B. 1957. Utilization of Fish Waste in Northern Oregon
for Mink Feed. Commercial Fisheries Review, 12:12, UO-U7.
165. Winchester, C.F. 1963. Choice Sea Foods for Farm Animals.
Feedstuffs, 25:7, 18.
166. . 1950. Commercial Fisheries Review, 12:9, 12.
167. Hansen, P. 1959. [Ensilage of Fish and Fish Offal]. FAQ World
Fisheries Abstracts. Jan/Feb., I960. Pp. U5.
168. Prater, A.R. and W.A. Montgomery. 1963. Fish Preservation
Inquiries. IH. Fisheries Byproducts. 1. The Liquid
Ensilage of Fish for Animal Feedstuffs. Fisheries Newsletter,
_22:10, 16-18.
169. Freeman, H.C. and P.L. Hoogland. 1956. Acid Ensilage from Cod
and Haddock Offal. In: Progress Report of the Atlantic Coast
Stations. No. 65. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Pp. 2U-25.
170. Krishnaswamy, M.A., S.B. Kadkol and G.B. Revankar. 1965.
Nutritional Evaluation of an Ensiled Product from Fish.
Canadian Journal of Biochemistry, U3;1879-1883.
171. Majewski, J. 1959. Liquid Feed Concentrate from Fishes and Fish
Wastes. Centralne Laboratorium Przemysto Rybnego.
172. Larsen, B.A. and W.W. Hawkins. 1961. The Quality of Fish Flour,
Liver Meal and Visceral Meal as Sources of Bietary Protein.
Journal of Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 18:1, 85-91.
173. Anderson, J.O., K. Wisutharom, and R.E. Warnick. 1968. Relation
Between the Available Essential Amino Acid Patterns in Four
Fish Meals and Their Values in Certain Broiler Rations.
Poultry Science, VT:6, 1787-1796.
-------
Snyder, D.G. and H.W. Nilson. 1959. Nutritive Value of Pollock
Fish Scales as Determined by Rat Feeding Tests. Special
Scientific Report-Fisheries No. 260. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S.D.I. 11 pp.
175. Jorgensen, G. 196U. Trials with Redfish (Sebastes Marinus) for
Young Mink. World Fisheries Abstracts,15tJan-Mar, 41-U2.
1?6. Deyoe, C.W. 1969« personal communication.
177- Thurston, C.E., L.E. Ousterhout and P.P. MacMaster. I960. The
Nutritive Value of Fish Meal Protein: A Comparison of Chemical
Measurements with a Chick Feeding Test. Journal of the
Association of Official Agricultural Chemists, Ug; 760-762.
178. Breirem, K., A.E. Kern, T. Homb, H. Hvidsten and 0. Ulvesli. 1961.
Fish and Fishery Products in Ruminant Nutrition. Paper No.
R/IV.3. In: Report of Food and Agriculture Organization
International Conference on Fish in Nutrition. Washington, D.C.
Pp. 2.20.1-2.20.13.
179. Fladmark, M. 1952. Manufacture of Oil and Food Products from
Herring, Whales, and other Sea Animals. United States Patent
No. 2,590,303. Chemical Abstracts. 46:6855C.
180. Oldfield, J.E. and A.F. Anglemier. 1957. Feeding of Crude and
Modified Menhaden Oils in Rations for Swine. Journal of
Animal Science. l6:U, 917-921.
181. Leong, K.C., G.M. Khobl, Jr., D.G. Snyder, and E.H. Gruger, Jr.
196^. Feeding of Fish Oil and Ethyl Ester Fractions of Fish
Oil to Broilers. Poultry Science. l£:1235-12Uo.
182. Landgraf, R.F., Jr., D.T. Miyauchi and M.E. Stansby. 1951.
Utilization of Alaska Salmon Cannery Waste as a Source of
Feed for Hatchery Fish. Commercial Fisheries Review, 13_:lla, 26-33.
183. Kyte, R.M. 1958. Potential By-Products from Alaska Fisheries:
Utilization of Salmon Eggs and Salmon Wastes. Corniercial
Fisheries Review, 20:3> 1-5.
18U. Leekley, J.R., R.G. Landgraf, J.E. Bjork, and W.A. Hagevig. 1952.
Salmon Cannery Wastes for Mink Feed. Fishery Leaflet No. U05.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. 30 pp.
185. Wigutoff, N.B. 1952. Potential Markets for Salmon Cannery Wastes.
Commercial Fisheries Review, 12:8, 5-11*.
-------
186. Burrows, R.E. and N.L. Karrick. 1953. A Biological Assay of the
Nutritional Value of Certain Salmon Cannery Waste Products.
In: Utilization of Alaskan Salmon Cannery Waste. Special
Scientific Report: Fisheries No. 109. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S.D.I. Washington, B.C. Pp. ^9-65.
187. Meiske, J.C. and R.D. Goodrich. 1968. Minnesota Reports Results
of Beef Cattle Experiments - Value of Oyster Shells and
Alfalfa-Breme Hay In Finishing Rations for Yearling Steers.
Feedstuffs, UO:U2, 63.
188. Marvin, J. and E.E. Anderson. 1959. Animal Food from Clam Waste.
United States Patent No. 3,017,273-
189. Tomiyama, T., et a_l. 1956. [Studies on Utilization of Wastes
in Processing Shellfish]. Bulletin of the Japanese Society
of Scientific Fisheries, 22:6, 37^-378.
190. Rousseau, J.E.,Jr. 1970. Shrimp-Waste Meal: Effect of Storage
Variables on Pigment Contents. Commercial Fisheries Review,
22:U, 6-10.
191. Seagran, H.L. 1953. Amino Acid Content of Salmon Roe. Technical
Note No. 25- Commercial Fisheries Review, 15:3, 31-3^.
192. Seagran, H.L., D.E. Morey, and J. Dassow. 1951*. The Amino Acid
Content of Roe at Different Stages of Maturity from the Five
Species of Pacific Salmon. Journal of Nutrition, 53_:1, 139-1^9-
193. Pottinger, S.R. and W.H. Baldwin. 19^6. The Content of Certain
Amino Acids in Seafoods. Commercial Fisheries Review, 8:8, 5-9-
19^. Tarr, H.L.A. and C.P. Deas. 19^9. Bacteriological Peptones from
Fish Flesh. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada,
7:9, 552-561.
195. Sripathy, N.V., D.P. Sen and N.L. Lahiry. 196U. Preparation of
Protein Hydrolysates from Fish Meat. Research and Industry,
_9:9, 258-260.
196. Jones, G.I., E.J. Carrigan and J.A. Dassow. 1950. Utilization of
Salmon Eggs for Production of Cholesterol, Lipide and Protein.
Commercial Fisheries Review, 12:lla, 8-lk.
197. Cooke, N.E. and N.M. Carter. 19^7- Is our Fish Waste Being
Exploited Fully? In: Progress Report of Pacific Coast
Station No. 71. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Vancouver,
B.C. Pp. 5-10.
-------
198. Pottinger, S.R., C.F. Lee, C.D. Tolle, R.W. Harrison. 1935.
Chemical and Physical Properties of Haddock-Liver Oil and
Its Vitamin Content. Investigational Report No. 27. Bureau
of Fisheries, U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C.
16 pp.
199. Harrison, R.W., A.W. Anderson, A.D. Holmes, and M.G. Pigott. 1937.
Vitamin Content of Oils From Cannery Trimmings of Salmon From
the Columbia River and Puget Sound Regions. Investigational
Report No. 36. Bureau of Fisheries, U.S. Department of
Commerce. 8 pp.
200. Kamasastri, P.V. and P.V. Prabho. 1961. Preparation of Chitin
and Glucosamine from Prawn Shell Waste. Journal of Scientific
Industrial Research (India), 20D:U66.
201. Meinhold, T.F. and P.C. Thomas. 1958. Chitosan - Useful Chemical
from Shrimp Shells. Chemical Processing, 21 :U, 121-123.
202. Idler, D.R. and P.J. Schmidt. 1955- A Soluble Fertilizer from
Shrimp Waste. In: Progress Report of the Pacific Coast
Station No. 103. Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
Vancouver, B.C. Pp. 16-17.
203. Bisio, F. 1969. personal communication.
20^. Shearon, W.H., Jr. 1951. Oyster-Shell Chemistry. Chemical and
Engineering News. 29:21, 3078-3081.
205. McKee, L.G. 1963. The Oyster, Clam, Scallop and Abalone Fisheries.
In: Industrial Fishery Technology. (M.E. Stansby, ed.).
Reinhold Publishing Corp., New York. Pp. 183-192.
206. Cronan, C.S. 1960. Clam Shells Kill Waste Acid. Chemical
Engineering, 6_7_:12, 78.
207. Nelson, D.J., T.C. Rains and J.A. Norris. 1966. High-Purity
Calcium Carbonate in Freshwater Clam Shell. Science, 152:1368-1370.
208. . 1959. Improved Fish Glue. Trade News, 12:5> 15.
209. Lee, C.F. 1951. Chemistry of Menhaden: Report on Literature Study.
Commercial Fisheries Review, 13:lla, 11-20.
2io. . 1956. Fish Roe and Caviar. In: Report No. 7. Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.I. Washington, D.C. Pp. 299-308.
211> . 1950. Fish Baits: Their Collection, Care, Preparation
and Propagation. Fishery Leaflet No. 28. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S.D.I. 26 pp.
-------
212. . 1965. Salmon Caviar Industry Developing in Alaska.
Commercial Fisheries Review, 27:21.
213. Calson, C.J. 1955. Preparation of a Smoked Salmon Caviar Spread.
Commercial Fisheries Review, 17:1, 13-15.
2lU. Kyte, R.M. 1957. Enzymes as an Aid in Separating Oil from Protein
in Salmon Eggs. Commercial Fisheries Review, 12:Ua, 30-3U.
215. lamprich, H. 1966. Abwasserprobleme der Fischindustrie [Problems
Arising from Waste Waters from the Fish Industry] . IWL-Forum
66/IV. 36 pp.
216. Buczowska, Z., and J. Dabaska. 1956. [Characteristics of the
Wastes of the Fish Industry]. Byul. Inst. Med. Morsk. Gdansk.,
7:20U-212.
217. Keil, R., and F. Randow. 1962. [Chemical and Bacteriological Results
in Waste Waters of the Rostock Fish Works]. Wasserw.-Wass.
Techn.. 12:391-393.
218. Claggett, F.G. and J. Wong. 1968. Salmon Canning Waste-Water
Clarification. Part 1. Flotation by Total Flow Pressurization.
Circular No. 38. Fisheries Research Board of Canada.
Vancouver, B.C. 9 PP«
219. . 1966. Industrial Waste Survey for Port of Bellingham
(unpublished). Stevens, Thompson, Runyan and Ries, Inc. 38 pp.
220. Foess, J. 1969. Industrial and Domestic Waste Testing Program
for the City of Bellingham (unpublished). Cornell, Howland,
Hayes and Merryfield, Inc., Seattle, Washington. 17 pp.
221. Davis, B.C. 19Mt. Disposal of Liquid Waste from Fish Canneries,
from the Viewpoint of the Fish Canning Industry. Sewage
Works Journal. l6:91*7-9I*8.
222. Jordan, G. 1937. [Fish Meal Factories and Their Waste Waters.]
Kleine Mitt. Ver. Wasser, Boden-u. Lufthyg., 13_:308.
223. Tanzler, K.H. 19^2. [Waste Waters from Fish Meal Factories].
Gesundheitsing. 6_5_:157.
22U Deall, D. 1937. Dissolved Nitrogenous Materials in the Effluent
of Pilchard Reduction Plants. Journal of the Biological Board
of Canada. £:177-179-
225. Beall, D. 1933. Losses in the Effluent of Pilchard Reduction
Plants in British Columbia. Bulletin 35. The Biological
Board of Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. 11 pp.
-------
226. Hart, J.L. , H.B. Marshall and D. Beall. 1933. The Extent of the
Pollution Caused by Pilchard Reduction Plants in British
Columbia. Bulletin 39. The Biological Board of Canada.
Ottawa, Ontario. 11 pp.
227. Khowlton, W.T. 19^5. Effects of Industrial Wastes from Fish
Canneries of Sewage Treatment Plants. Sewage Works Journal.
17:51^-515.
228. Tetsch, B. 195^. [Separators for Light Material in Waste Waters,
Technique With Special Reference to Waste Waters from the
Fish Industry ]. Ber. Abwass. Techn. Verein. j?:278-286.
229. _ 1969. Maine Sardine Waste Survey. Research Report
2-69. Washington Research Laboratory, National Canners
Association, Washington, B.C. 6 pp.
230. _ . 1964. Report on Waste Disposal in Pago Pago Harbor,
Tutuila, American Samoa. Kennedy Engineers. San Francisco,
California.
231. Hopkins, E.S. and J. Einarsson. 1961. Water Supply and Waste
Disposal at a Food Processing Plant. Industrial Water and
Wastes , 6:152-151*.
232. Claggett, F.G. and J. Wong. 1969. Salmon Canning Waste-Water
Clarification. Part II. A Comparison of Various Arrangements
for Flotation and Some Observations Concerning Sedimentation
and Herring Pump Water Clarification. Circular No. U2.
Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Vancouver, B.C. 25 pp.
233. Jaegers, K. and J. Haschke. 1956. [ Waste Waters from the Fish
Processing Industry. ] Wasserw. - Wass. Techn. ^:
23U. _ . 1969. Protein Recovery from Fish Filleting Waste
Waters. Effluent Water Treatment Journal, 9:46-U7.
235. Stenzel, R.W. 19^3. Treating Oily Waste Water Such as Those
from Fish-Canning or Vegetable-Oil Plants. Chemical Abstracts,
27:2500.
236. Schulz, G. 1956. [ Purification of Waste Waters from Fish Ponds! .
Wasserwirtsh. Was ser tech. , 6:31^-316.
237. Griffen, A.E. 1950. Treatment with Chlorine of Industrial Wastes.
Engineering Contract Record, 63:7**-8o.
238. Fair, G.M. and J. Geyer. 1958. Elements of Water Supply and
Waste-Water Disposal. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York.
597 PP.
-------
239- Drangsholt, C. 19^8. process and Apparatus far the Continuous
Treatment of Waste Waters from the Extraction of Oils from
Herrings or Whales ]. Chim. et Indus tr. , 60:57^.
2kQ. Claggett, F.G. 1967. Clarification of Waste Water Other Than
Stickwater from British Columbia Fishing Plants. Technical
Report lU. Fisheries Research Board of Canada. Vancouver,
B.C. 8 pp.
Dreosti, G.M. 1967. Fish Solids from Factory Effluents. Fishing
News International, 6:11, 53-51*-
Aminodan, A. 1968. Recovery of Oil and Protein from Waste Water
British Patent #1,098,716. k pp.
2U3. Matusky, F.E., J.P. Lawler, T.P. Quirk, and E.J. Genetelli. 1965.
Preliminary Process Design and Treatability Studies of Fish
Processing Wastes. Proceedings, 20th Industrial Waste Conference.
Purdue University. Engineering Extension Series No. 118, 60-7^.
2kk. Czapik, A. 1961. Fauna of the Experimental Sewage Works in
Krakow. Acta. flydrobiol., 3:63-67.
2U5. Magasawn. 1968. [ The Achievement of Waste Water Treatment in
Public Nuisances Prevention Corporation ] . Water and Waste,
10:66.
2k6. Law, D.K. 1969. personal communication.
. 1970. Converting the Alewife. The Sciences, 10:2,
35-3
2U8. Listen, J. 1969. personal communication.
Law, D.K. 1969. personal communication.
250. _ . 1969. Lightweight Packaged On-Board Freezer for
Shrimp Trawlers Now on Market. Quick Frozen Foods, jJ2:U, 93-
251. _ _ . 1969. U.S. Tests Fish Factory Vessels. Canner/Packer ,
138:2. 12.
252. _ . 1969. Sablefish Off West Coast Sought as Resource
for Frozen Packers. Quick Frozen Foods, J2:5, 107-108.
253. Sternberg, R. and G. Brauner, 1969. personal communication.
25U. Kempe, L.L. 1969. Spray Evaporation of Stickwater from Fish Rendering
(unpublished). Department of Chemical Engineering, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 6 pp.
-------
255- Simon, R. 1969- personal communication.
256. Deyoe, C. 1969. The Nutritive Value and Economic Utilization
of Catfish Processing Waste in Animal and Fish Diets
(unpublished). The Food and Feed Grain Institute, Kansas
State University, Manhattan, Kansas, h pp.
257. . 1969. Site Hunting in '69: Rising Costs Make it
Extra Tough. Chemical Week, 105: 17, 60-86.
258. Pailthorp, R.E. 1970. personal communication.
-------
PUBLICATIONS
The following publications were generated as a direct result of this
project:
1. Soderquist, M. 1969. Water Pollution in the Seafoods Industry
In: Pollution and the Fisheries. National Fisheries Institute,
Washington, B.C. Pp. 16-19.
2. Soderquist, M.R., K.J. Williamson and G.I. Blanton, Jr. 1970.
Seafoods Processing: Pollution Problems and Guidelines for
Improvement. In: Proceedings of the National Symposium on Food
Processing Wastes, Portland, Oregon, April 6-8, 1970. Pacific
Northwest Water Laboratory, Federal Water Quality Administration,
Corvallis, Oregon. Pp. 189-225.
-------
APPENDIX I
Summary of Water Quality Standards for
The States with Seafoods Processing Industries
-------
The following report was summarized from the October 29, 1969 issue
of Chemical Week.
pH Allowable Dissolved oxygen
State Range Deviation (minimum mg/1 or fo saturation)
Alabama 6.0-8.5 1.0 2.0 at 5 ft. or middepth
if less than 10 ft.
Other Requirements: Solids. Free from waste materials that cause
unsightly or putrescent conditions or interfere directly or indirectly
with industrial use.
Alaska 7.0-8.0 0.5 5.0
Other Requirements: Color. True color less than 50 color units.
Solids. No dissolved solids above natural conditions causing corrosion
or scaling problems. No visible evidence of other floating solids or
sludge deposits. No imposed sediment load that would interfere with
established treatment levels.
Arizona 6.5-8.6 0.5
Other Requirements: Turbidity. 50 JCU (streams); 25 JCU (lakes).
Color. Free from waste materials in amounts sufficient to change
existing color enough to interfere with industrial use or to create
a nuisance. Solids. Free from wastes that would be unsightly,
putrescent, odorous, or in amounts that would interfere with industrial
use.
Arkansas 6.0-9.0 1.0 U.O (average for any
(2k hours) cross section)
Other Requirements: Taste and Odor. Must not cause offensive odors
or otherwise interfere with industrial use. Solids. No distinctly
visible persistent solids, bottom deposits or sludge banks due to
wastes.
California 6.5-8.6 6.0 Coastal water:
7.0-8.6 5.0; (unless naturally
(Coastal waters) lower)
other Retirements- Turbidity. Free from wastes that could alter
water's exisSnf tuJSrtyHU*:. Free from substances attributable
-------
pH Allowable Dissolved oxygen
State Range Deviation (minimum mg/1 or % saturation)
to wastes that produce detrimental color. Taste and Odor. No
substances that impart foreign taste or odor. Solids. Dissolved
solids in fresh water must not exceed 300 mg/1 at anytime; annual
mean: 175 mg/1. Settleable solids must not "be able to change nature
of stream bottom or harm aquatic environment.
Connecticut 6.0-9.0 2.0
Other Requirements: Turbidity, Color, Taste and Odor. None in such
quantities that would impair industrial use. Solids. Limited to small
amounts that may result from discharge of appropriately treated wastes.
Delaware
6.5-8.5 50£* or U.O
Other Requirements: Solids. Free from unsightly and malodorous
nuisances due to floating solids or sludge deposits. Toxic Substances.
None in concentrations harmful (synergistically or otherwise) to
humans, fish, shellfish, wildlife, or aquatic life.
Florida 6.0-8.5 1.0 ^.0
Other Requirements: Turbidity. 50 JCU. Color. Must not render water
unfit for industrial-cooling or process-water supply purposes. Solids.
Dissolved solids must not exceed 1,000 mg/1; monthly average: 500 mg/1.
Must be free from floating wastes that are unsightly or deleterious or
other wastes that settle to form putrescent or objectionable sludge
deposits.
Georgia 6.0-8.5 2*5 .
e 3.0 (daily average)
Other Requirements: Solids. Free from wastes that are unsightly,
putrescent or otherwise objectionable or would interfere with industrial
use. Toxic Substances. No wastes in concentrations that would prevent
fish survival or interfere with industrial use.
Hawaii 6.5-8.5 U'5
Other Requirements: Taste and Odor. Wastes, after dilution and
mixture must not interfere with industrial use.
-------
PH Allowable Dissolved oxygen
state Range Deviation (minimum mg/1 or ^saturation)
Idaho 6.5-9.0 0.5 1% (at seasonal low)
Other Requirements: Turbidity. No objectionable turbidity that can
be traced to a point source. Solids . No floating or submerged matter;
no sludge deposits that could adversely affect industrial use.
Illinois 5.0-9.0 --- 2.0
3.0 (for 16 hrs. in any
2U hr. period)
Other Requirements: Color, Taste, and Odor. Free from wastes that
produce color, odor, or taste, in such a degree as to create a
nuisance. Solids. Free from floating wastes that settle and form
unsightly, deleterious or putrescent deposits.
Indiana 5.0-9.0 --- 1.0
2.0 (daily average)
Other Requirements: Solids. Dissolved solids must not exceed 1,000
mg/1; monthly average: 750 mg/1. Mast be free from unsightly,
putrescent, deleterious or otherwise objectionable wastes.
Iowa --- --- ---
Other Requirements: Solids. Free from floating wastes in amounts
that would be unsightly or deleterious or other wastes that settle to
form putrescent or objectionable sludge deposits.
Kansas 6.5-9.0 H.O
Other Requirements: Taste and Odor. Concentrations limited to those
that would not result in noticeable offensive odors or otherwise
interfere with industrial use. Solids . Free from floating debris or
material in amounts that would be unsightly or detrimental to industrial
uses.
Kentucky 5.0-9.0
Other Requirements: Solids. Dissolved solids must not exceed 1,000
mg/1; monthly average: 750 mg/1. No floating wastes in unsightly or
deleterious amounts; no other wastes that settle to form putrescent or
objectionable sludges.
-------
pH Allowable Dissolved oxygen
State Range Deviation (minimum mg/1 or % saturation)
Louisiana 6.0-9.0 50$
Other Requirements: Solids. None that would produce floating masses,
sludge banks or beds on bottom, either organic or inorganic.
Maine
6.0-9.0* 0.5* 2.0*
Other Requirements: Turbidity, Color, Taste, and Odor. Free from
wastes that impart turbidity, color, taste, or odor or impair industrial
use. Solids. Free from sludge deposits, solid refuse and floating
solids.
Maryland 5.0-9.0 ^.0 (unless naturally
(unless natural) lower)
Other Requirements: Color, Taste, and Odor. Free from waste materials
that change existing color or produce taste and odor to such a degree
as to create a nuisance or interfere with industrial use. Solids.
Free from wastes that float, settle to form deposits, create a nuisance
or interfere with industrial use and are unsightly, putrescent or
odorous.
Massachusetts 6.0-9.0 2.0
Other Requirements: Solids. None allowed except that which may result
from the discharge from waste-treatment facilities providing appropriate
treatment.
Michigan 6.5-8.8 0.5 Enough to prevent
nuisance
Other Requirements: Turbidity. Color. No objectionable unnatural
turbidity or color in quantities sufficient to interfere with industrial
use. Taste and Odor. Below levels that are or may become injurious
to industrial use.Solids. Dissolved solids must not exceed 750 mg/1;
monthly average: 500 mg/1. No floating solids or objectionable
deposits in quantities that would interfere with industrial use.
Minnesota 6.0-9.0
Other Requirements: Color, Taste and Odor, Solids. Free from wastes
that cause nuisance conditions, such as material discoloration,
obnoxious odors, significant floating solids, excessive suspended
-------
PH Allowable Dissolved oxygen
State Range Deviation (minimum mg/1 or % saturation)
solids or sludge deposits.
Mississippi 6.0-8.5 1.0 3.0
Other Requirements: Solids. Dissolved solids must not exceed 1,500
mg/1; monthly average: 750 mg/1. Must be free from floating wastes
that settle to form unsightly deleterious, objectionable or putrescent
deposits.
Missouri 6.5-9.0 --- k.O*
Other Requirements: Solids. No noticeable organic or inorganic
deposits or floating materials in unsightly or deleterious amounts.
Montana 6.5-9.5 0.5
Other Requirements: Solids. No floating solids and sludge deposits in
amounts deleterious to industrial use; no sediments or settleable
solids that affect treatment levels.
Nebraska 6.5-9.0 1.0 5.0
Other Requirements: Turbidity. No more than 10$ increase above normal
level. Solids. Dissolved solids must not exceed 1,500 mg/1. No more
than 20% increase (limit: 100 mg/l) from any point source. No waste
solids that permit deposition or are deleterious to industrial use.
New Hampshire 6.0-8.5 5.0
(unless
natural)
Other Requirements: Solids. No floating solids or sludge deposits in
objectionable amounts.
New Jersey 6.5-8.5 ^«°
(unless
natural)
Other Requirements: Turbidity, Solids. None noticeable in water or
deposited along shoredColor, Taste and Odor. None that are offensive
to humans or detrimental to aquatic biota^.
-------
pH Allowable Dissolved oxygen
State Range Deviation (minimum mg/1 or % saturation)
New York 6.0-9.5 3.0
Other Requirements: Color, No colored wastes that alone or in
combinations make water unsuitable for industrial use. Solids. No
floating or settleable solids or sludge deposits that are readily
visible and attributable to wastes.
North Carolina 6.0-8.5 3.0
It.3 (swamps)
Other requirements: Color. Must not render water unfit for industrial
cooling. Solids. Must not, after dilution and mixture, make water
unfit for industrial cooling.
Oregon 6.5-9.0 5.0
Other Requirements: Turbidity. 5 JCU above natural. Solids. No
floating solids, organic or inorganic deposits injurious to industry.
Pennsylvania 6.0-9.0 ^.0
5.0 (daily average)
Other Requirements: Solids. Dissolved solids must not exceed 750 mg/1;
monthly average: 500 mg/1. No floating wastes or substances that
settle to form sludge in amounts harmful to industrial use.
Rhode island 6.0-8.5 3.0*
5.0* (16 hrs./day)
Other Requirements: Solids. No solid refuse, floating solids or
sludge deposits.
South Carolina 6.0-8.5 3-0*
5.0-8.5 2.5
(swamps)
Other Requirements: Solids. None from waste sources in amounts that
are unsightly, putrescent, odorous or that cause a nuisance or interfere
with industrial use.
-------
PH Allowable Dissolved oxygen
state Range Deviation (minimum mg/1 or % saturation)
South
Dakota 6.0-9.5 i.o
Other Requirements: Solids. Dissolved solids must not exceed 2,000
mg/1. No wastes producing floating solids, sludge deposits or other
offensive effects.
Tennessee 6.0-9.0 1.0 Enough to prevent
(2b hrs) offensive conditions
Other Requirements: Solids. Dissolved solids must not exceed 500 mg/1.
No distinctly visible solids, bottom deposits or sludge banks that
could be detrimental to industrial use.
Texas 5.0-8.5 h.O
5.0-9.0
(cooling water)
Other Requirements: Solids. Dissolved solids must not exceed
1,000 mg/1. unless water used only for cooling water. Must be
essentially free from floating or settleable suspended solids that
would adversely affect industrial use.
Utah 6.5-9.0
Other Requirements: Solids. No floating wastes that are unsightly or
that interfere with industrial use; no wastes that settle to form
unsightly or odorous sludge or bottom deposits.
Virginia 5.0-9.0 - 1.0*
(swamps as 2.0* (daily average)
low 1^.3)
Other Requirements: Solids. No floating wastes that are unsightly or
create a nuisance or other wastes that settle to form unsightly,
putrescent or odorous deposits.
Washington 6.5-8.5 0.5 6.5 or 70$
Other Requirements: Turbidity. Less than 10 JCU over natural con-
ditions. Color, Taste and Odor, Solids. Dissolved, suspended,
floating or submerged matter shall not reduce esthetic values so as
to affect industrial use.
-------
pH Allowable Dissolved oxygen
State Range Deviation (minimum mg/1 or % saturation)
Wisconsin 6.0-9.0 0.5 1.0
2.0 (daily average)
Other Requirements: Solids. Dissolved solids must not exceed 1,000
mg/1; daily average: 750 mg/1. No floating or submerged debris or
waste substances that would cause objectionable deposits in amount
to create a nuisance.
^Standard reserved from Federal Water Quality Administration approval.
Abbreviations: JCU - Jackson Candle Units.
Note: Specific limits for coliforms, biochemical oxygen demand (BODj),
oil, grease, etc. are not included. Some states set standards for
each stream reach or river basin; in such cases, table shows the least
stringent requirements.
-------
APPENDIX II
Synopsis of Charges to Industries
Served by Municipal Treatment Systems
-------
Charges for municipal treatment of industrial wastewaters are commonly
computed by formulas of the type shown below.
Daily Sewage Charge = (Q x A) + (Q x S.S. x B) + (Q x BOD^ x C)
Where: Q = Flow (mgd)
A = I/million gals
S.S. = Ibs of suspended solids/mi Hi on gals
B = $/lb of S.S.
BOD5 = Ibs of BOD5/million gals
C = $/lb of BOD
The three basic parameters monitored are flow, 5-day biochemical
oxygen demand, and suspended solids. Other parameters are included in
the treatment charges if the industrial waste poses unusual treatment
problems.
Ranges of presently-used values for parameters A, B, and C in several
Pacific Northwest municipalities are listed below.
Table 75. Treatment Charge Parameters (258).
parameter
A
B
C
Unit
<
»
<
t
<
t
i/million gals
;/lb of S.S.
;/lb of BOD
Range
$U.58 -$26.95
0.0025- 0.0056
0.0017- 0.001*1
Average
$20.09
0.0039
0.0028
-------
APPENDIX HI
Tabulation of On-Site Seafood Processing Center Survey Results
-------
Location
1. Kodiak,
Alaska
2. Kodiak,
Alaska
3. Kodiak,
Alaska
h. Juneau,
Alaska
5 . Kena,
Alaska
6. Anchorage,
Alaska
Species
Dungeness crab
Tanner crab
Dungeness crab
King crab
Dungeness crab
Tanner crab
Salmon
Scallops
Shrimp
Herring roe
Dungeness crab
King crab
Tanner crab
Salmon
King crab
Scallops
Halibut
Salmon
Salmon
Processing
Season
8/15-2/15
Year around
7/1-9/1
8/1-1/15
5/1-10/1
9/1-7/1
7/1-9/10
Year around
Year around
Vl-5/1
3/1-10/1
8/15-1/15
9/1-7/1
7/1-9/15
8/15-2/15
____
5/7-10/15
6/20-8/5
6/25-8/10
Wastewater
Disposal
TJ tt) +> H -p
,C -H -p O -P
fn O W C0 -H 03
P W 10) CO)
fl -H C f-i 2 £H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Solid Waste
Disposal
M M
03 03 -H .H
fc to o3 (H H C
O O< CO 'ti C^ 3 '^ O fl)
W M CJ 8 -H 0> -o 4>
£S3 S5l §£ ^1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
r-J
aJ H
P< n)
H CO
o o
H &
C W
1'^
-------
Location
7. North
Naknek,
Alaska
8 . North
Naknek ,
Alaska
9. North
Naknek ,
Alaska
10. South
Naknek,
Alaska
11. Terminal
Island,
California
12. Eureka,
California
Species
Salmon
Salmon
Sockeye Salmon
Red Salmon
Tuna
Tuna meal
Pet Foods
Solubles
Sole
Lingcod
Rockf i sh
Sable fish
Salmon
Processing
Season
...
_ _ _
6/20-7/20
6/20-7/15
Year around
Year around
Year around
Year around
Year around
Year around
Year around
Year around
3/1-9/1
Wastewater
Disposal
d Q) -P H -P
0> M C a} d
4> JS -H -p O -P
ji 3 £ £ 12
X
X
X
X
X Solids
Removal
X
X
X
X
Solid Waste
Disposal
M £jA r"j
$H W flj J^ rM £^ *
o>o-P «) -M ^ y 2
OftW -dfl fiTl 00) 'dg^
MW C«J -HO) -I-34J Sr
H-H+J o)H co) -oaj Sg
>«< oca.
-------
13
Ik
15
16
17
18
Location
. Eureka,
California
Astoria,
Oregon
. Astoria,
Oregon
. Astoria,
Oregon
. Warrenton,
Oregon
. Hammond,
Oregon
Species
Tuna
Dungeness crab
Shrimp
Salmon
Sole
Lingcod
Rockfish
Sablefish
Tuna
Fish
Salmon
Tuna
Fish
Shrimp
Fish
Processing
Season
Year around
12/1-5/1
---
3/1-9/1
Year around
Year around
Year around
Year around
2/1-3/1,
5/1-11/1
6/1-11/1
7/1-Vl
Year around
3/1-11/1
5/1-2/1
Wastewater
Disposal
"b
0) bO C 05 d
ris t. A) O QI ft)
ca 3 -P a 47 s
V SS -H -P 0 -P
f-i o w aJ -H aJ
-P w iO> d 0>
G -H G M 3 h
t> P OH S EH
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Solid Waste
Disposal
bO bO
_ H a a
05 B} -H -H
f-i w aJ t-t H C
Q) O ^ ^ [^ oj >r^ £4
oftw -da e-d oa)
ca w fl aJ HO -o +s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Municipal
Disposal
-------
1.9
20.
21.
22.
23.
2>* ,
Location
Astoria,
Oregon
South Boston,
Massachusetts
Gloucester,
Massachusetts
Gloucester,
Massachusetts
South Boston,
Massachusetts
Westwego ,
Louisiana
Species
Fish
Haddock
Cod
Pollock
Lobster
Herring
Fish oil
Fish meal
Fish solubles
Haddock
Perch
Shrimp
Oysters
Processing
Season
Year around
...
.
Vl-1/1
Year around
Year around
Year around
Year around
...
...
5/1-1/1
1/1-5/1
Wastewater
Disposal
13 4> -P H -P
43 g rl (0
43 v) 14) c d)
& £ SB IB
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Solid Waste
Disposal
bC t)0 H
-------
INDEX
Aberdeen, Washington, 88
Abernethy, R.F., U?, 76
Acidification, 115
Act of 1938, Food Drug and
Cosmetic, 80
Activated sludge, 1, 115
Adductor muscle, 31
Adjustment, pH, 8U
Aerators, mechanical, 112
Aerobic biological treatment, 115
Aerobic digestion, h
Agents, flotation, 83
Ahlstrom, A.H., 6l
Air flotation, 2, 5
Air-0-Mix, 113
Air pollution, 75
Alabama, 65
Alaska, lU, 1*6,52,81,92
Board of fish and game, 23
Kodiak, 1,2
processing wastes, 5^,56
University of, 118
Alaskan catches, projected, 52
Alaskan Department of Fish and
Game, 55
Alaskan King Crab, 17,23,118
Alaskan landings, 52
Alaskan waste disposal methods, 56
Albacore tuna, 6l
Aleutian islands, 5^,55,56
Alewives, 38,62,69,7^,98,117
Alewife catches, ^0
projected, U2
Alewife processing, kO
Alewife wastes, U2
Alkaline digestion, 80
Alpine marine protein industries,
88
Alum, 113,115
Aluminum hydroxide, 113
Alverson, D.L., 33,^2,^6,52,58
American Samoa, 106
Amino acids, essential, lU
Anacortes, Washington, 59
Anadromous fisheries, 3^
Anaerobic biological treatment, 116
Anaerobic digestion, U
Anchovies, 38, 51*, 59, 6l, 7k
animal feed from, 91,92
Anchovy catches, Uo
projected, b2
Anchovy meal, 77
Anchovy oil, 80,8U
Anchovy processing, 38
Anchovy stickwater, 8U
Anchovy wastes, k2
Anchovy wastewater characteristics,
101,102
Anderson, A.W., 95
Anderson, E.E., 93
Anderson, J.O., 91,92,93
Anderson, L., 80
Animal feed, 30,38,61,68,73,7^,76,
78,79,83,87,89,97,118
as fish meals, 89
by species, 91
condensed fish solubles, 89
fish oils as, 89
fish silage as, 89
from anchovies, 91,92
from bottomfish, 91
from catfish, 91
from clams, 93
from herring, 91,92
from menhaden, 92
from oysters, 93
from salmon, 92
from shellfish, 92
from shrimp waste, 93
from tuna, 91,93
Animal feeding, 3
Animal meal, 10,17
Antibiotics, 9^
Astoria, Oregon, 57, 90
Atlantic cod, 12,13,lU
Atlantic Ocean perch, 12,13
Atlantic, Seafreeze, 118
Autolysis, 78
8
Bacteriological control, 13
Baelum, J., 89
Bait, 38
Balance, nutrient, 115
Baldwin, W.H., 91*
-------
Barging, 3,5
Basin, Mississippi River, 63
Bass, Atlantic sea, 12,13
Bass, stripped, 12
Battelle - National Renderers1
Association Process, 7^
Bay, Chesapeake, 17,69
Beall, D., 103
Beatty, G., 75
Beds, fluidized, 118
Beef liver, lU
Bell, F.H., 6l
Bellingham, Washington, 57,59
Belt-driers, 75
Benthic disturbances, k
Bertullo, V.H., 86
Bilge water, 102
Billy, T.J., 63
Biochemical oxygen demand (see BOD'
Biological Board of Canada, 103
Biological filtration, k
Biological treatment, aerobic, 115
Biological treatment, anaerobic,
116
Biological waste treatment, 1,2
Bivalve mollusks, 30
Bjork, J.E., 80,92
Black flounder, 71
Blue catfish, ill-
Blue crab, 17,18,23,66,67,69,70
Bluefin tuna, 6l
Blue fish, 12
Blue pike, 62
BOD, 2,U
BOD5, 99
BOD, ultimate, 107
Bonito, 6l
Boston, Massachusetts, 71
Bottom fish, 10,52,58,59,67,98
animal feed from, 91
catches, 12
catches, projected, 13
consumption, 6
consumption per capita, 6
fillets, 13
oil, 82
processing, 10
steaks, 12,13
unloading of, 10
waste quantities, 13
wastewater characteristics, 100
Braude, R., 89
Breirem, K., 92
Bristol Bay, 5U
British Columbia, Canada, 103
Brocklesby, H.N., 8l
Brody, J., 36
Brookings, Oregon, 59
Broth, clam, 33
oyster, 33
Brown bullhead catfish, ih
Brown, R.L., 76
Buczowska, Z., 100,111,115
Buffalofish, 6k
Bulking, 115
Bullhead catfish, brown, 1^
Bullis, H.R. Jr., 33,67,70
Bunker drainage, 102
Burbank, N.C., Jr., 106
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, 2,12,
13,16,17,18,28,33,36,U2,U7,52,5U,
62,69,88,89,91,92,96,118
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries
solvent extraction rendering
process, 7^
Burrows, R.E., 93
Butler, C., 80
Butterfish, 12
Buttons, 96
By-products, 55,65,7^,93,9^,117
development, 3
utilization, 2,3,5
Cake, pressed, 28
Calico scallop, 33
California, U2,59,102,118
California catches, projected, 60
California landings, 59
California wastes, 60
California waste disposal methods,
60
Calson, C.J., 98
Canada, 71
Biological Board of, 103
British Columbia, 103
Fisheries Research Board of, 78
Canneries, floating, 2
shipboard, 2
Canso, Nova Scotia, 88
Cape Flattery I, 88
-------
Carbon:nitrogen ratio, 115
Cardinal Proteins, Ltd., 88
Carlson, C., 73
Carnigan, E.J., 9^,98
Carp, 6k
Carpenter, G.A., 79
Carpenter, J.S., 33,67,70
Carter, N.M., 95
Catches
alewife, Uo
anchovy, UO
bottom fish, 12
catfish, 16
crab, 18,22
halibut, 25
herring, Uo
lobster, 18,22
mackerel, hO
menhaden, 28
oyster, 31
projected Alaskan, 52
projected alewife, k2
projected anchovy, U2
projected bottom fish, 13
projected clam, 33
projected Great Lakes, 62
projected Gulf States, 67
projected halibut, 25
projected herring, U2
projected lobster, 18
projected mackerel, h2
projected menhaden, 30
projected Mississippi River
Basin, 65
projected Oregon, 58
projected oyster, 33
projected salmon, 36
projected sardine, 1*2
projected scallop, 33
projected shrimp, U6
projected South Atlantic, 70
projected tuna, hQ
projected Washington, 58
salmon, 36
sardine, ^0
scallop, 31
shrimp, U6
tuna, U8
Catfish, lU,61*,69
animal feed vrom, 91
blue, lU
Catfish (cont.)
catches, projected, l6,17
channel, ik
farming, 15,16
fillets, 16
meal, 78
processing, 1^,15
projected, 16,17
steaks, 16
wastes, 17,118
white, lh
Cattle feed, 92,93
Caviar, 98,103
Cement manufacture, 97
Centrifuges, 111
Changes, in-plant, l*,5
Changes, process, 1*,5
Characteristics
anchovy wastewater, 101,102
bottom fish wastewater, 100
fish oil, 8l
fish protein concentrate, 87
fish solubles, 83
menhaden wastewater, 101,102
of fish meals, 75
salmon waste, 118
salmon wastewater, 103
sardine waste, 118
sardine wastewater, 102,103,105
shellfish meal, 76
shellfish wastewater, 106
shrimp waste, 118
tuna waste, 118
tuna wastewater, 106
wastewater, 118
Characterization, 3,**,5
Chayan-Sharples rendering process,
7^
Chesapeake Bay, 17,69
Chinook salmon, 3^,36
Chips, 96
Chitin, 23,96,118
Chloride, ferric, 111, 113
Chlorination, 111
Cholesterol, 9U
Chub, 62
Chum salmon, 3^,36
Chun, M.J., 106
Claggett, F.G., 100,102,103,108,
112,113,115
Clam, 30,70,71
-------
Clam (cont.)
animal feed from, 93
broth, 33
catches, 31
catches, projected, 33
hardshell, 33
processing, 31
sun-ray, 33
wastes, 33
Clarifiers, flotation, 112, 115
Clarifiers, gravity, 111
Clay, 111
Clean Water Act of 1965, 73
Clegg, W., 77
Clemens, H.B., 6l
Coagulants, 111,112,113
Cod, 10,71,87,91
Atlantic, 12,13,11*
liver oil, 95
oil, 83
skins, 97
Coho salmon, 3^,36
Collar flesh, 3^,38
College of Fisheries, University
of Washington, 117
Combustion, submerged, 8k
Commission, Washington State Water
Pollution Control, 99
Concentrate, fish protein (F.P.C.)
85
Conclusion, 1
Condensate, 102
Condensed fish solubles, 28,83,102
as animal feed, 89
Consumption, water, 58
Continuous pulp press, 78
Continuous rendering process,
Kingar, 7k
Control, bacteriological, 13
Control, water pollution, 2
Conveyors, effects of, 100
Conveyors, screw, 78
Cook Inlet, 5U
Cooke, N.E., 95
Cooking, steam, 28
Cooling waters, 102
Cooperation, 1
Cornell, Howland, Hayes and
Merryfield, Inc., 100,103
Corver-Greenfield rendering
process, 7^
Cosmetics, 9^
Costs (see economics)
Costs, 87
Cottlefish, 79
Coxhaver, West Germany, 99,101
Crab, 3,^,6,17,18,7^
Alaskan King, 17,23,118
blue, 17,18,23,66,67,69,70
catches, 18,22
catches, projected, 18
devilled, 96
dungeness, 17,18,23,5^,57,58,
59,61
packs, 18,22
processing, 17
tanner, 23,5U
wastes, 23,2^,97
Crawfish, 6k
Crawford, D.L., 106
Croaker, 12
Crole, 52,55,59
King, 52,5^
Cronan, C.S., 97
Crustaceans, 6
Culture media, microbiological,
Cusk, 12,13
Cyclone, 75
Cylander-driers, 75
Czapik, A., 115
Dabaska, J., 100,111,115
Dassow, J.A., 25,9^,98
Davis, H.C., 102,103
Davis, R.V., 30,81*,102
Deep sea disposal, 2,3,5
DeLaval rendering process, 7k
Delaware, Lewes, 71
Demand, nitrogenous oxygen, 100
Demonstration projects, 3,^,5
Denmark, 75,85,90
Denstedt, O.F., 8l
Department of Ecology, Washington
State, 99
Department of Environmental Quality,
Oregon State, 13,33,36,^7,51,59
de Sollano, C.D., 75
Development, by-product, 3
Deviled crab, 96
Deyoe, C.W., 92,118
-------
s, 9k
80
Diet supplements, '
Digested sludge, 3
Digesters, Il6
Digestion
aerobic, U
alkaline, i
anaerobic, k
enzyme, 117
rendering, ?U
Dilution, U
Discharge, effects of, 3,^,5
Discharge regulations, wastewater,
62
Discharge, untreated, h
Disposal, deep sea, 2,3,5
Disposal, marine, 2
Disposal, solid waste, 3
Disposal, waste, 2
Disposal, wastewater, 3
Dissolved oxygen, U
Disturbances, benthic, U
Diversity, 2
Drainage, bunker, 102
Drangsholt, C., 112
Dreosti, G.M., 112
Driers, fish meal, 75
Drum drying, 8U
Dryers, 118
Drying, vacuum, 75
Dry rendering, lh
Dungeness crab, 17,18,23,5^,57,58,
59,61
Dyer, J.A., 75
E
Eastport, Main, 71
Ecology, 3
Washington State Department of,
99
Economics, 3,5
Economies of size, U
Edwards, R.L., 72
Effects of conveyors, 100
Effects of discharge, 3,^,5
Effects, temperature,U
Effects, tidal, U
Efficiencies, removal, U,5
Egg spread, smoked salmon, 98
Eggs (see roe), 98
Ehlert, H.M., 8l
Einarsson, J., 113, Il6
Emulsions, 83,111
Endocrine gland, 95
Engineers, Kennedy, 106
Environmental Quality, Oregon State
Dept. of, 13,33,36,U7,51,59
Enzymatic digestion, 9^?97
Enzyme digestion, 117
Enzymes, 68,81,85,95,98
Equalization, U
Equipment, fish meal, 75
Equivalent population, 7,99
Estuaries, 2,5
Evaluation of treatment processes,
3,^,5
Evaluation, process (in-plant), 5
Evaporation, multiple effect, 8U
Evaporation, stickwater, 8U
Evaporation, submerged, 8^
Evaporation, Vincent, Qh
Experimental station, Halefox, 95
Extraction rendering process, B.C.F.
solvent, 7^
Eyck, R.N. Ten, 80
Factor, growth, 7^,82,89,90
Farming, catfish, 15,16
Fatliquor, 83
Fats, 9^,98,111
Federal Water Quality Administra-
tion (see FWQA)
Feed
animal, 30,38,61,68,73,7^,76,78,
79,83,89,97,118
cattle, 92,93
mink, 89,90
poultry, 89,90,91,115
swine, 89,91
Feeding, animal, 3
Ferric chloride, 111,113
Fertilizer, 59,68,97
Filleting, 10,11
Fillets, bottom fish, 13
Fillets, catfish, l6
Filters, trickling (see biological
filtration), 115
Filtration, biological, h
Finch, R., 79
Fineberg, H., 80,82
-------
Fish, blue, 12
Fish, bottom, 10,52,58,59,67,98
Fish flour, 86
Fish hatchery feed, 89
Fish meal, 28,38,^8,57,61,63,65,68
69,73,7M7,99,101,102,118
animal feed as, 89
characteristics of, 75
driers, 75
equipment, 75
manufacture, 7^
oily, 77
plant, 3
plants, packages, 75
plants, ship-board, 117,75
Fish oil, 38,1+8,57,61,69,7^,79,98,
102,117
as animal feed, 89
characteristics, 8l
manufacture, 80
uses, 82
Fish paste, 3^
Fish protein concentrate (F.P.C.),
85
Fish, rock, 5^,58,61
Fish, sable, 6l,ll8
Fish separator, Yanaguj'a, 117
Fish silage as animal feed, 89
Fish solubles, 69,7^,102
characteristics, 83
condensed, 28,83,102
manufac ture, 83
Fish traps, 118
Fi sh eri es, anadromous, 3^
Fisheries, industrial, 71
Fishery products, miscellaneous,
93
Fisheries Research Board of
Canada, 78
Fishes, oily, 28,38,111
Fladmark, M., 92
Flesh, collar, 3^,38
Flesh separators, 3
Fletches, 25
Floating canneries, 2
Florida, 65,69
Flotables, 111
Flotation, h
Flotation agents, 83
Flotation, air, 2,U,5
Flotation clarifiers, 112,115
Flounder, 10,12,13,ll*,60,71
Flounder, black, 71
Flow pressurization, 113
Flows, 58
Fluidized beds, 118
Flume waters, 105
Fluming waters, 102
Foess, J., 103
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of
1938, 80
Food flavorings, 9^
Food, pet, 10,17,^8,78,91,117
Food preparations, 95
Food processing, 9k
Ford, J.E., 78
F.P.C., 85,117
F.P.C. characteristics, 88
manufacture, 86
production levels, 88
Fractionation, oil, 80
Freeman, H.C., 91
Freezers, 117
Freezing, liquid nitrogen, 16
Frozen sea foods, 6
Funding, 2
Further research, 1
FWQA, 2
Gallagher, F.S., 8k
Garibaldi, Oregon, 59
Genetelli, E.J., 115,Il6
Georgia, 69
Germany, 99,100,101
Gland, endocrine, 95
Gloucester, Massachusetts, 71,73
Glucosamine, 96
Glue, 97
Goodrich, R.D., 93
Grau, C.R., 78,89
Gravity clarifiers, 111
Grease, 111
Great Lakes
catches, projected, 62
landings, 62
region, 62,117
wastes, 62,63
waste disposal methods, 63
Greenfield, J.E., l6
Griffin, A.E., 111
-------
Groundfish, 7^
Growth factor, 7*4-, 82,89,90
Gruger, D.H., Jr., 92
Gulf States, 65
Gulf States, catches, projected,67
Gulf States landings, 66
Gulf States' wastes, 68
Gulf States waste disposal methods,
68,71
Gunther, J.K., 85
Guttman, A., 88
H
Haddock, 10,12,13,lU,71,72,87,91
Haddock liver oil, 95
Hageveg, W.H., 36,92,98
Hake, 10,27
Hake, red, 87,88
Hake, silver, 10
Halibut, 2,10,2^,52,57,61
catches, 25
catches, projected, 25
processing, 2U,26,77
wastes, 25
Halifax experimental station, 95
Hannewik, J., 82,83
Hansen, P., 90
Harberger, Brouzewerke rendering
process, 7^
Hardshell clam, 33
Harrison, R.W., 95
Hart, J.L., 103
Harvesting modifications, 117
Harvest, world, 6
Haschke, J., Ill
Hatchery feed, fish, 89
Hawaii, 106
Hayes, M.L., 76,87,93,96
Head oil, 8l
Heads, salmon, 38
Herring, 38, 52,5^,62,73,7^,87,99,
101,102
animal feed from, 91,92
catches, ^0
catches, projected, U2
meal, 77,78
oil, 82,83
processing, hO
wastes, k2
Hoali Len, J., 2k
Hoidsten, H., 92
Hold waters, 105
Holmes, A.D., 95
Homb, T., 92
Hoogland, P.L., 91
Hopkins, E.S., 113,Il6
Hormones, 95
Hydrogen sulphide, 102,103
Hydrolysates, protein, 9^
Hydroxide, aluminum, 113
Imports, 6
Incineration, 3,5
Industrial fisheries, 71
In-hours research, 2
In-plant changes, U,5
Insecticides, 83
Insulin, 95
International Pacific Halibut
Commission, 25
Introduction, 6
"Iron Chink", 3^
Island, Kodiak, 5^,55,56
Islands, Aleutian, 5^,55,56
Isolation, 2,3
Jack mackerel, 58,59,61,7^
Jaegers, K., Ill
Japan, 6
Jensen, C.L., 25,36,^7,93
Johnson, E.L., 76,87,93,96"
Joint treatment, 4
Jones, G.I., 9^,9$
Jones, W.G., 16,17
Jordan, G., 102
Jorgensen, G., 91
K
Kadkil, S.B., 91
Kansas State University, 118
Karrick, N.L., 77,78,89,93
Kataya, K., 79
Kawada, H., 79
Keil, R., 100
Kennedy Engineers, 106
Kern, A.E., 92
-------
Ketchikan, Alaska, 56
Ketchikan Technological Laboratory
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries,
2k
Khandker, M.A., 76
Kingan continuous rendering
process, 7k
King crab, 52,5^
King crab, Alaskan, 17,23
King salmon, 3^,36
Knobl, G.M., Jr., 86,87,92
Knowlton, W.T., 103,108
Knudson, M., 73
Kodiak, Alaska, 1,2
Kodiak Islands, 5^,55,56
Kornberg, W., 87
Krishnaswainy, M.A., 91
Kuriyama, H., 79
Kyte, R.M., 92,98
Lake Michigan, 63
Lake, N.E., 63,7^,8U,102
Lake trout, 62
Landfill, 3,5
Landfill, sanitary, 55,59
Landgraf, R., Jr., lU,92
Landings
Alaskan, 52
California, 59
Great Lakes, 62
Gulf States, 66
Middle Atlantic, 71
Mississippi River Basin, 6k
North Atlantic, 71
Oregon, 57
South Atlantic, 69
Washington, 57
Lantz, A.W., 78
Lassen, S., 83
Law, S.K., 117
Lavrler, J.P., 115,Il6
Leachates, 59
Leakley, J.R., 92
Leather treatments, 95
Lecithin, 98
Lei, C.F., 7^,80,83,95
Leong, K.C., 92
Lerves, Delaware, 71
Leston, J., 87
Limb, G.R., 87
Lime, 97,111,113
Limestone, 97
Limprich, H., 99,101,102,111
Lipids, $k
Liquid nitrogen freezing, l6
Liquid wastes, 1
Liquor, press, jk
Liver, beef, lk
Liver oil, cod, 95
Liver oil, haddock, 95
Liver oil, tuna, 95
Livers, tuna, U8
Loading rates, 115
Loadings, k
Loadings, shock, k
Lobster, 17,18,69,70,71
catches, 18,22
catches, projected, 18
Northern, 17
processing, 18
rock, 17
spring, 17
wastes, 2k
Longnecker, O.M., 67
Lopez, J.L.G., 75
Louisiana, 65
Lundholm, B.C., 78,89
Luneberg, H., 8k
M
Mackerel, 38,5^,79,87
Mackerel catches, ko
Mackerel catches, projected,
Mackerel, jack, 58,59,61,7^
Mackerel, Pacific, 6l,7^
Mackerel processing, 38
Mackerel wastes, k2
MacMaster, 76,77,78,92,93
Magnusson, H.W., 36,80,98
Maine, 71,105,118
Maine, Eastport, 71
Maine, Portland, 71
Maine, Rockland, 71
Maine sardines, kO
Majewski, J., 91
Manickam, B., 87
Manufacture
cement, 97
fish meal, 7^
fish oil, 80
fish solubles, 83
-------
Manufacture (cont.)
F.P.C., 86
Mar, B., 59
Margarine, 83
Marine disposal, 2
Marine Protein Concentrates, LTD,
88
Market surveys, 3,5
Marsh rendering process, jk
Marshall, H.B., 103
Marvin, J., 93
Maryland, 69
Massachusetts, Boston, 71
Massachusetts division of water
pollution control, 73
Massachusetts, Gloucester, 71,73
Massachusetts, New Bedford, 71,88
Materials, photographic, 97
Mattei, V., 83
Matusky, F.E., 115,116
Meal
anchovy, 77
animal, 10,17
catfish, 78
characteristics, shellfish, 76
fish, 28,38,U8,57,6l,63,65,68,
73,7^,87,118
herring, 77,78
mackerel, 77
sardine, 77
shrimp, 76
tuna, 78,117
Meals, oily fish, 77
Meals, visceral, 77,78
Meat tenderizers, 95
Mechanical aerators, 112
Meinhold, T.F., 97
Meiske, J.C., 93
Menhaden, 6,28,66,69,7^,75
animal feed from, 92
catches, 28
catches, projected, 30
meal, 77,78
oil, 80,82,83
processing, 28
wastes, 30,97
wastewater characteristics, 101
102
Methods, new treatment, U
Mexico, 75,117
Michigan, 63
Michigan Lake, 63
Microbiological culture media, yk
Middle Atlantic landings, 71
Middle Atlantic states, 71
Middle Atlantic wastes, 73
Middle Atlantic waste disposal
methods, 73
Milt, salmon, 36
Mink feed, 89,90
Miscellaneous fishery products, 93
Mississippi, 65
Mississippi Delta states, 16
Mississippi River Basin, 63
catches, projected, 65
landings, 6k
wastes, 65
waste disposal methods, 65
Miyauchi, D.T., 80,92
Modifications, harvesting, 117
Modifications, processing, 117
Mollusks, 6
bivalve, 30
Montgomery, W.A., 90
Morey, D.E., 9^
Mullet, 12
Multiple effect evaporation, 8^
Muscle, adductor, 31
Mussels, 6k
N
Nachenius, R.J., 8h
National Canners Association, 1,5
105,118
National Fisheries Institute, 1
N.C.A. (see National Canners
Association)
Neah Bay, Washington, 88
Needier, A.B., ik
Nelson, D.J., 97
New Bedford, Massachusetts, 71,88
New England, 73
New Jersey, 71
Port Monmouth, 71
Newport, Oregon, 59,90
New treatment methods, k
New York, New York, 71
N.F.I, (see National Fisheries
Institute)
Nilson, H.W., 91
Nitrification, 100,113
-------
Hitrogen, 100
Nitrogen freezing, liquid, 16
Nitrogenous demand, 107
Nitrogenous oxygen demand, 100
Norris, J.A., 97
North Atlantic landings, 71
North Atlantic Region, 10
North Atlantic states, 71
North Atlantic wastes, 73
North Atlantic waste disposal
methods, 73
North Carolina, 69
Northern lobster, 17
Northwest Pacific, 2k
Norton Sound, 5k
Nova Scotia, Canso, 88
Nunnalles, D., 59
Nutrient balance, 115
Ocean Harvesters, Inc., 88
Ocean perch, 10
Atlantic, 12,13,71
Pacific, 13
Octopus, 79
Odors, 59,75,102,103,111,112
Off-flavors, ik
Off-season recovery, k
Oil
anchovy, 80,82
bottom fish, 82
cod, 83
cod liver, 95
fish, 38,48,57,61,69,7^,79,98,
102,117
fractionation, 80
haddock liver, 95
head, 8l
herring, 82,83
menhaden, 80,82,83
perch, 83
removal, 115
salmon, 83
salmon visceral, 80
sardine, 82
tuna, 82
tuna liver, 95
Oily fishes, 28,38,111
Oily fish meal, 77
Olden, J.H., 83,88
Olley, J., 78,79
On-going research, 117
On-site treatment, 108
Optimization of treatment processes,
k
Oregon, 57
Astoria, 57,90
catches, projected, 58
landings, 57
Newport, 59,90
processing wastes, 58
State Department of Environmen-
tal Quality, 13,33,36,47,51,
59
State University Seafoods
Laboratory, 117
waste disposal methods, 59
Osmosis, reverse, 85
Otter trawls, 10,43
Ousterhout, L.E., 78,89,92,93
Oxygen demand, biochemical (see BOD)
Oxygen demand, nitrogenous, 100
Oxygen, dissolved, 4
Oxygen transfer, 115
Oysters, 30,66,68,69,70
animal feed from, 93
Pacific, 57
Oyster broth, 33
Oyster catches, 31
projected, 33
Oyster processing, 31
Oyster wastes, 33
Pacific City, Oregon, 59
Pacific
Fisheries Technologists,!
mackerel, 6l,74
Northwest, 2k
ocean perch, 13
oyster, 57
perch, 13
sardines, 40,42,61
saury, 58
seafreeze, 118
Packaged fish meal plants, 75
Packs, crab, 18,22
Paessler, A.H., 30,84,102
"pak-shaper", kQ
Pancreas, 95
-------
Paper products, 97
Paste, fish, 3k
Paste, salmon, 3^
Pectin, 93
Peniston, Q.P., 76,87,93,96
Pennsylvania, 117
Per capita consumption, 6
Perch, 10
Atlantic Ocean, 12,13
ocean, 10,71
oil, 83
Pacific Ocean, 13
red, 99
yellow, 62
Peroxide value, 83
Peru, 6,75
Peters, J.A., 10
Pet food, 10,17,^8,78
P.F.T. (see Pacific Fisheries
Technologi sts)
pH adjustment, SM-
Pharmaceuticals, 95
Phospholipids, 9^
Photographic materials, 97
Pigott, G.M., 87,95
Pike, blue, 62
Pilchard, 87
Pilot plant, 2
Pink salmon, 3^,36
Plant, fish meal, 3
Plants, packaged fish meal, 75
Plants, ship-board fish meal, 75,
117
Pollock, 10,79,91
Atlantic, 12,13,1^
Pollution, air, 75
Pollution control, water, 2
Pomferts, 58
Population equivalent, 7,99
Porgy, 12
Portland, Maine, 71
Port Mbnmouth, New Jersey, 71
Pottinger, S.R., 9^,95
Poultry feed, 89,90,9!
Power, H.E., 88
Prater, A.R., 90
Pravia rendering process, 7^
Prawn wastes, 96
Preparations, food, 95
Preservation, 76,79
Pressed cake, 28,7^
Press liquor, jh
Pressurization, flow, 113
Press water, 28
Pretreatment, 108
Pretreatment, stickwater, 8k
Primary productivity, k
Primary treatment, k
Prince William Sound, 5^,56
Priorities, 5
Process, Battelle National
Renderers Association, 7k
Process changes, U,5
Process evaluation, 5
Processes, evaluation of treatment,
3,^,5
Processes, optimization of
treatment, k
Processing
alewife, Uo
anchovy, 38
bottom fish, 10
catfish, 1^,15
clam, 31
crab, 17
food, 9k
halibut, 2^,26,27
herring, kO
lobster, 18
mackerel, 38
menhaden, 28
modifications, 117
oyster, 31
salmon, 3^
sardine, 38
scallop, 31
ships, 118
shrimp, ^3
tuna, kj
wastes, Alaska, 5^
wastes, Oregon, 58
wastes, Washington, 58
Production levels, FPC, 88
Productivity, secondary, k
Products, miscellaneous fishery, 93
Products, paper, 97
Products, shell, 96
Profit, 2
Projected
Alaskan catches, 52
alewife catches, k2
anchovy catches, U2
-------
Projected (cont.)
bottom fish catches, 13
California catches, 60
catfish catches, 16,17
clam catches, 33
crab catches, 18
Great Lakes catches, 63
Gulf States catches, 67
halibut catches, 25
herring catches, k2
lobster catches, 18
mackerel catches, k2
menhaden catches, 30
Mississippi River Basin catches
65
Oregon catches, 58
oyster catches, 33
salmon catches, 36
sardine catches, U2
scallop catches, 33
shrimp catches, k6
South Atlantic catches, 70
tuna catches, h8
Washington catches, 58
Projects, demonstration, 3,U,5
Propeller-driers, 75
Protein, 98
Protein hydrolysates, 9U
Pulp press, continuous, 78
Pump water, 28,102,105
Purse seines, 28
Pyloric seca, 95
Quality, Oregon State Department
of Environment, 13,33,36,^7,51,
59
Quality requirements, water, k
Quantities, bottom fish waste, 13
Quirk, T.P., 115,116
R
Raines, T.C., 97
Randow, F., 100
Rates, loading, 115
Recommendat i ons, 1
Recovery, off season, U
Recovery, solids, 3
Redfish, 73
Red hake, 87,88
Red perch, 99
Red salmon, 3^,36
Red snapper, 12,13
Reduction, wastes, 2,3
Region, Great Lakes, 62,117
Region, North Atlantic, 10
Regulations, waste water discharge,
62
Removal
BOD, 2
efficiencies, U,5
oil, 115
solids, 2,5
Rendering, 10,17,59,61,91,117,118
digestion, 7^,75
dry, 7k
process, B.C.F. solvent extrac-
tion, 7*1
process, Chayen-Sharples, 7^
process, Corver-Greenfield, 7^
process, DeLaval, fk
process, Harberger, Eisen, and
Brouzewerke, 7U
process, Kingan continuous, 7^
process, Marsh, 7^
process, Pravia, jk
solvent extraction, 7^,75,78
wet, 7k
Requirements, water quality, 2,3,1*
Research, 75,85,93
further, 1
in-hours, 2
on-going, 117
Revankar, G.D., 91
Reverse osmosis, 85
Rock fish, 5^,58,61
Rock lobster, 17
Rockland, Maine, 71
Roddy, W.D., 83
Roe, 98
salmon, 36,38,9^
Rotary screens, 108
Rousseau, J.E. Jr., 93
Russia, 6
Russo, J.R., 88
Sable fish, 6l,ll8
Sair, L., 85
-------
Salmon, 3,3^,52,5^,57,58,61,62,98,
108,109,113
animal feed from, 92
catches, 36
catches, projected, 36
Chinook, 3^,36
chum, 3^,36
coho, 3^,36
egg spread, smoked, 98
heads, 38
king, 3^,36
milt, 36
oil, 83
paste, 3^
pink, 3^,36
processing, 3^
red, 3k, 36
roe, 36,38,9^
visceral oil, 80
wastes, 36,1*0,95,91*
waste characteristics, 118
wastewater characteristics, 103
Samoa, American, 106
Sanford, F.B., 80,90
Sanitary landfill, 55,59
Sardines, 38,59,8?
Sardines, Pacific, 1*0,1*2,6l
Sardine
catches, 1*0
catches, projected, 1*3
Maine, 4o
meal, 77
oil, 82
processing, 38
wastes, 1*2
waste characteristics, Il8
wastewater characteristics,
102,103,105
Saury, 5!*
Pacific, 58
Sealer, 101
Scallops, 2,30,5^58,70,71
calico, 33
catches, 31
catches, projected, 33
processing, 31
wastes, 33
weathervan, 33
Scandinavia, 75
Scherr, R.C., 63,7^,8^,102
Schmidt, P.J., 97
Schulz, G., Ill
Screening, 2,5,6l,68
Screens, 108
rotary, 108
tangential, 108
Screw conveyors, 78
Scrubber, 75
Sea bass, Atlantic, 12,15
Sea disposal, deep, 2,3,5
Seafoods, frozen, 6
Seafoods Laboratory, Oregon State
University, 117
Seafreeze Atlantic, 118
Seafreeze Pacific, 118
Seagran, H.L., 65,9^
Seasons, 3,5!*
Seattle, Washington, 57,88
Secondary productivity, 1*
Secondary treatment, it-
Sedimentation, 1*,111
Seines, purse, 28
Separators, flesh, 3
Separator, Yanagiya flesh, 117
Septic tanks, 116
Shad, 98
Shanks, H., 73
Sheepshead, 62,6k
Shellfish, 30
animal feed from, 93
meal characteristics, 76
wastewater characteristics, 106
Shell products, 96
Shells, 33,59
Shipboard canneries, 2
Shipboard fish meal plants, 75,117
Shipjack tuna, 6l
Ships, factory, 75
Ships, processing, 118
Shock loadings, 1*
Shortening, 83
Shrimp, 2,3,M2,52,55,58,6o,6l,61*,
66,68,69,70,73,7U,117
catches, U6
catches, projected, 1*6
meal, 76
processing, ^3
trawlers, 75
waste, animal feed from, 93
waste characteristics, 118
wastes, V7,97,117
Sica, pyloric, 95
-------
Silver hake, 10
Silver salmon, 3^,36
Simon, B., 55
Size, economies of, h
Skinning, 10,1^
Skins, cod, 97
Slavin, J.W., 10
Sludge, activated,
Sludge, digested, 3
Smelt, 5^,58
Smith, J.G., 6l
Smoked salmon, 36
egg spread, 98
Snapper, red, 12,13
Snyder, D.G., 91,92
Soap, 9^
Sockeye salmon, 3^,36
Sole, lU
Solid waste disposal, 3
Solid waste strength, 6
Solid waste volumes, 6
Solid wastes, 1,5,13,61,63,68,93,
108
Solids recovery, 3
Solids removal, 2,5
Solids, total, 99
Solubles, condensed fish, 28,83,10;
Solubles, fish, 69,7^,102
Solubles, manufacture, fish, 83
Solvent extraction rendering, 71*,
75,78
Solvent extraction rendering
process, B.C.F., 7^
Sound, Prince William, 5^,56
South Africa, 88
South Atlantic catches, projected,
70
South Atlantic landings, 69
South Atlantic states, 69
South Atlantic wastes, 71
South Atlantic waste disposal
methods, 71
South Carolina, 69
Soviet Union, 6
Species, animal feed by, 91
Spray-evaporation, 118
Spread, smoked salmon egg, 98
Spring lobster, 17
Squid, 58
Standard waste treatment methods,
108
Stansby, M.E., 25,77,83,92,93,95
States, Gulf, 65
Middle Atlantic, 71
Mississippi delta, l6
North Atlantic, 71
South Atlantic, 69
Station, Halifax Experimental, 95
Steaks, bottom fish, 12,13
Steaks, catfish, l6
Steam cooking, 28
Steatites, 93
Stevens, Thompson, Runyan & Ries,
Inc., 100,103
Stickwater, 28,30,63,81*,102,112,
118
anchovy, 8k
evaporation, 8U
pretreatment, 8^
Stone crab, 70
Storage, 78
Strength, solid waste, 6
Strengths, waste, 118
Strengths, waste water, 98
Striped bass, 12
Sturgeon, 98
Sulphide, hydrogen, 102,103
Sun-ray clam, 33
Supplement, diets, 91*
Survey, 1
Surveys, market, 3,5
Suspended solids, 4,99
Swine feed, 89,91
Takahashi, T., 79
Tangential screens, 108
Tanks, septic, 116
Tanner crab, 23,5^
Tanzler, K.H., 102
Temperature effects, k
Tenderizers, meat, 95
Tetsch, B., 103
Texas, 65,97
Thomas, P.C., 97
Thurston, C.E., lU,76,77,78,92,93
Tidal effects, k
Titan rendering process, 7^
Tolli, C.D., 95
Tomiyama, T., 93
Total solids, 99
-------
Toxicity, 1,106,10?
Transportation, 3
Trant, Lake, 62
Traps, fish, 118
Trawler, 10
Trawlers, shrimp, 75
Trawls, otter, 10,4s
Treatment,
aerobic biological, 115
biological waste, 1,2
joint, b
leather, 95
methods, standard waste, 108
on-site, 108
primary, h
processes, evaluation of, 3>^,5
processes, optimization of, U
secondary, ^
waste, 118
Trickling filter (see biological
filtration)
Tschekalin, 85
Tuna, U7,57,59
albacore, 6l
animal feed from, 91,93
bluefin, 6l
catches, hQ
catches projected, U8
liver oil, 95
livers, h8
meal, 78
oil, 82
processing, 1+7
shipjack, 6l
waste characteristics, 118
wastes, 50
wastewater characteristics, 106
yellow fin, 6l
Turrill, C.N., 76,87,93,96
U
Ultimate BOD, 107
Ultrafiltration, 85
Ulvesli, 0., 92
United States, 6
University, Kansas State, 118
University of Alaska, Il8
University of Washington College
of Fisheries, 117
Unloading of bottom fish, 10
Untreated discharge, h
Usage, water, 3,^,5
Uses, fish oil, 82
USSR, 6
Utilization, by-product, 2,3,5
V
Vacuum drying, 75
Value, peroxide, 83
Vandenheuvel, F.A., 88
Vilbrandt, F.C., ^7,76
Vincent evaporation, &±
Viobin Co., 88
Virginia, 69
Visceral meals, 77,78
Visceral oil, salmon, 80
Vitamins, M3,95
Volumes, solid waste, 6
Volumes, waste, 118
Volumes, waste water, 6,99
W
Wales, 90
Walleye, 62
Warnick, R.E., 91,92,93
Warrenton, Oregon, 59
Washington, 57,92
Aberdeen, 88
catches, projected, 58
landings, 57
Neah Bay, 88
processing wastes, 58
Seattle, 57,88
State Department of Ecology, 99
State Water Pollution Control
Commission, 99
waste disposal methods, 59
Waste characteristics
salmon, 118
sardine, 118
shrimp, 118
tuna, 118
Waste disposal, 2
methods, Alaskan, 56
methods, California, 60
methods, Great Lakes, 63
methods, Gulf States, 68,71
methods, Middle Atlantic, 73
methods, Mississippi River
Basin, 65
-------
Waste disposal (cont.)
methods, Oregon, 59
methods, South Atlantic, 71
solid, §
Waste quantities, bottom fish, 13
Waste strengths, 118
Waste treatment, 118
biological, 1,2
methods, standard, 108
Waste volumes, 118
Wastewater characteristics, 118
anchovy, 101,102
bottom fish, 100
menhaden, 101,102
salmon, 103
Wastewater discharge regulations,62
Wastewater volumes, 6,99
Wastes,
Alaska processing, 5^
alewife, 1*2
anchovy, k2
California, 60
catfish, 17,18
clam, 33
crab, 23,2^,97
Great Lakes, 62,63
Gulf States, 68
halibut, 25
herring, k2
liquid, 1
lobster, 2k
mackerel, k2
menhaden, 30,97
Middle Atlantic, 73
Mississippi River Basin, 65
North Atlantic, 73
Oregon processing, 58
oyster, 33
prawn, 96
reduction, 2,3
salmon, 36,^0,9^,95
sardine, ^2
scallop, 33
shrimp, V7,97,H7
solid, 1,5,61,63,68,93,108
South Atlantic, 71
tuna, 50
Wastewater characteristics
sardine, 102,103,105
shellfish, 106
tuna, 106
Wastewater disposal, 3
Wastewater strengths, 99
Water, bilge, 102
Water consumption, 58
Water pollution control, 2
Commission, Washington State,
99
Massachusetts division of, 73
Water, press, 28
Water pump, 30
Water quality requirements, U,9
Water usage, 3,^,5
Waters,
cooling, 102
fluming, 102,105
hold, 105
pump, 102,105
Weathervane scallop, 33
West Germany, Coxhaver, 99,101
Westport, Washington, 59
Wet rendering, jk
Whales, 6
White catfish, lU
Whitefish, 62,98
Whiting, 10,12,13,71,87
Wigutoff, N.B., 92
Williams, A.P., 78
Winchester, C.F., 90
Wisconsin, 63
Wisutharom, K., 91,92,93
Wong, J., 100,102,103,108,113,115
World harvest, 6
Wrongall, Alaska, 56
Yanagiya flesh separator, 117
Yellow fin tuna, 6l
Yellow perch, 6k
Young, R.H.F., 106
Zetol A, 113
-------
1
5
Xccession Number
« Subjet 'I Field ii. Group
05D
SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
Organization
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Department of Food Science and Technology
T«le
CURRENT PRACTICE IK SEAFOODS PROCESSING WASTE TREATMENT,
10
22
Authors)
Soderquist, Michael R.,
Williamson, Kenneth J.,
Blanton, Guy I., Jr.,
Phillips, Donald C.,
Law, Duncan K. and
Crawford, David L.
16
21
Project Designation
FWQA Project
12060ECF
Note
Citation
Current Practice in Seafoods Processing Waste Treatment, Final Report,
12060ECF, 118 pp, April, 1970, 18 figures, ?U tables, 258 references.
FWQA Project
Descriptors (Starred First)
tanneries, *Waste treatment, Industrial wastes, Water pollution sources, Waste
disposal
oe I IdentHiers (Starred First)
* # *
1 1M _1. 0V,~T T *< eVi "C
*Fish, *Shellfish, *Seafoods, By-product, Characterization, Food processing, Freezing,
Processing, State of the art
27
Abstract
This report contains discussions of the processing of the major United States
seafoods species, the resultant wastewater strengths and flows, solid wastes
magnitudes, current treatment and by-product recovery methods, and current and
recommended research in water pollution abatement. The geographic distribution
of fish and shellfish landings and products is described. The report is based
on a comprehensive literature review and extensive on-site investigations of
current research, processing and treatment activities in the major seafoods centers
of the United States.
Abstractor
hael R. Soderquist
Institution
Oregon State University
TO *VATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFOR
US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. D. C 2024O
a GPO : 1971 O - 420-309
------- |