U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Federa! Water Pollution Control Administration
                               VOLUME II!
                INDUSTRIAL fASTE PROFILE NO. 8
                           ?   MEAT PRODUCTS

-------
Other publications in the
  FV7PCA Publication No. I

  FWPCA Publication No. I

  FWPCA Publication No.
  FWPCA Publication No.
  FWPCA Publication No.
  FWPCA Publication No.

  FWPCA Publication No.

  FWPCA Publication No.
  FWPCA Publication No.
Industrial Waste Profile series
          Blast Furnace and
           Steel Mills
          Motor Vehicles and
           Parts
          Paper Mills
          Textile Mill Products
          Petroleum Refining
          Canned and Frozen
           Fruits and Vegetables
          Leather Tanning and
           Finishing
          Dairies
          Plastics Materials and
           Resins
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.w.
.w.
.w.
.w.
.w.
.w.
.w.
.w.
.w.
p.-
p.-
p.-
P_
*
p.-
P mm
p.-
p.-
p.-
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
7:
9:
10:
             FWPCA Publication No. I.W.P.-8

-------
                                                             -octroi Admin.
                    THE COST OF

                    CLEAN WATER
                    Volume III

            Industrial  Waste Profiles
               No. 8 - Meat Products
        U. S.  Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
   For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
               Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price $1.00

-------
                                   11
                                PREFACE
The Industrial V/aste Profiles are part of the National Renuircnents and
Cost Estimate Study required by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
as amended.  The Act requires a comprehensive analysis of the require-
ment and costs of treating municipal and industrial wastes and other ef-
fluents to attain prescribed water quality standards.

The Industrial Waste Profiles v/ere established to describe the source
and quantity of pollutants produced by each of the ten industries stud-
ied.  The profiles were designed to provide industry and government
with information on the costs and alternatives involved in dealing ef-
fectively with the industrial water pollution problem.  They include
descriptions of the costs and effectiveness of alternative methods of
reducing liquid wastes by changing processing methods, by intensifying
use of various treatment methods, and by increasing utilization of
wastes in by-products or water reuse in processing.  They also describe
past and projected changes in processing and treatment methods.

The information provided by the profiles cannot possibly reflect the
cost or wasteload situation for a given plant.  however, it is hoped
that the profiles, by providing a generalized framework, for analyzing
individual plant situations, will stimulate industry's efforts to find
more efficient ways to reduce wastes than are generally practiced today.
                                        Commissioner
                         Federal UatTSr Pollution Control Administration

-------

-------
   INDUSTRIAL WASTE  PROFILE:   MEAT PRODUCTS
          PART I:   MEAT  PACKING

                     Prepared for F.W.P.C.A.

                    Department  of Economics
                    Wichita State University
                    Wichita, Kansas


          PART II:  POULTRY PROCESSING


                     Prepared for F W P C.A.

                    Department  of Economics
                    Wichita State University
                    Wichita, Kansas
       FWPCA Contract Number:   14-12-103
               30 September  1967
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
                September  1967

-------

-------
                               Ill
                          FOREWORD







             The Meat Products Industry (SIC 201) includes Meat




Packing Plants (SIC 2011), Sausage and other Prepared Meat




Products (SIC 2013), and Poultry and Small Game Dressing and




Packing (SIC 2015).  For purposes of this report the Meat




Products Industry will be divided into two Parts:







             I.   "Meat Packing"      (SIC 2011 and 2013)




             II.  "Poultry Packing"   (SIC 2015)







Each of these Parts will be analyzed separately.







             Meat Packing Summary           Part I, page S-l




             Meat Packing Profile           Part I, page 1




             Poultry Processing Summary     Part II, page S-l




             Poultry Processing Profile     Part II, page 1

-------

-------
                             IV



                  INDUSTRIAL WASTE PROFILE

                       MEAT PRODUCTS



                     TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                         Page

Preface	  ii
Foreword	,	 ill
Table of Contents	 iv-v
List of Tables	vi-vii
List of Figures	 viii

Introduction:

       Definition of Meat Packing	    1
       Measure of Plant and Industry Size	    1
       Slaughter Data Available	    2
       Definition of Small, Medium, and
       Large Plants	    5
       Source of Data	    9
       Wasteloads Measured by BOD	   12
       Relationships Between Bod, Wastewater,
       and Plant Size	   14

Fundamental Industry Processes:

       Meat Packing Processes	   19
       Meat Packing Processes Related to BOD	   21
       Interpretation of Conclusions Based
       Upon the Number of Plants	   21
       Definition of Technology by Subprocess Mix	   23
       Relationship Between Technology and
       Plant Size	   23

Gross Pollution Quantities

       Per Unit Wasteloads and Wastewater
       Volumes by Technology	   31
       Effect of Plant Size and Technology
       on Wastewater Use	   31
       Gross Wasteloads in Base Year:  1963	   36
       Gross Wasteload and Wastewater
       Volumes:  1963-1977	   36
       Seasonal Changes	   42

-------
                                                         Paqe

Reduction of Gross Wasteloads	  43

Pollution Reduction Through Subprocess Change

       Washing of Carcass	  43
       Change from Continuous Flow Hoses to
       Interruptable Flow Cabinet	  43
       Paunch Material.	  46
       Edible Rendering	  46

Industry Owned Waste Treatment Facilities

       Types of Waste Treatment Facilities	  46
       Utilization of Waste Treatment Facilities........  50

Municipal Treatment of Meat Packing Wastewater..........  52

Net Pollution Quantities

       1963	  55
       1966	  55
       Projections to 1977	  58

Cost of Pollution Reduction

       Cost of Pollution Reduction by
       Subprocess Change	  59
       Costs of Pollution Reduction by
       Industrial Waste Treatment	  59
       Costs of Municipal Treatment
       of Meat Packing Wastewater	  59
       Industry Investment in Waste
       Treatment Facilities, 1967	  62

-------
                              VI
                           LIST OF TABLES

Table:                                                         Page

  1.   Total Animal Slaughter,  United States,  1966 	    3

  2.   Number of Plants and Liveweight Slaughtered by
      Type of Inspection,  1960 and 1965	    4

  3.   Definition of Plant  Size:   Small, Medium,  Large
      Meat Packing Industry 	    6
  4.   Distribution of Federally Inspected Animal Slaughter
      by Size of Plant,  United States,  1964,  1965,  1966 ...    7

  5.   Number of Plants and Total Liveweight Killed  by
      Size Group Federally Inspected Plants,  United
      States, 1966	    8

  6.   Slaughter Characteristics of Federally Inspected
      Meat Packing Plants by Type of Plant, United
      States, 1964, 1965, 1966	10

  7.   Size Characteristics of Federally Inspected Meat
      Packing Plants by Type of Plant Thousands of  Pounds .  .   11

  8.   Number of Plants and Annual Liveweight Killed by
      Size Class, 1966 All Federally Inspected Plants and
      all Plants Responding to Questionnaire	13

  9.   Production Process and Significant Subprocesses ....   22

 10.   Technology Levels and the Associated Typical
      Subprocesses	25

 11.   Wasteload and Wastewater per Thousand Pounds
      Liveweight Killed by Type of Technology, 1966
      (Post Catch Basin Wasteloads) 	   32

 12.   Wasteload and Wastewater per Thousand Pounds
      Liveweight Killed by Type of Technology, 1966
      (Pre-Catch Basin Wasteloads)	33

 13.   Wasteload and Wastewater Index by Technology	34

 14.   Wastewater Use Per Unit of Product by Type of
      Technology and Plant Size, 1966 (Gallons/1000 Ibs.
      Liveweight Killed)	35

-------
                             VI1
15.  Total Wasteload Quantities and Total Wastewater
     Volume—Meat Packing Industry, 1963 (Post Catch
     Basin Wasteloads)	   37

16.  Total Wasteload Quantities and Total Wastewater
     Volume—Meat Packing Industry, 1963 (Pre-Catch
     Basin Wasteloads)	   38

17.  Production Gross Wasteloads, and Wastewater
     Volumes, 1963, 1966, 1967 and Projections to 1977
     (Pre-Catch Basin Wasteloads) 	 ...    40

18.  Production Gross Wasteloads and Wastewater
     Volumes 1963, 1966, 1967 and Projections to 1977
     (Pre-Catch Basin Wasteloads)	     41

19.  Changes in Subprocesses and Their Effect upon
     Wasteload and Wastewater Volume .... 	     44

20.  Utilization of Waste Treatment Facilities 	     51

21.  Quantity of Wastewater from Meat Packing Plants,
     Quantity and Per Cent Discharged to Municipal
     Treatment Facilities, By Plant Size, 1967 	     53

22.  Per Cent of Meat Packing Wastewater Discharged
     to Municipal Treatment Facilities 	     54

23.  Net Pollution Load After Industry Waste
     Treatment, 1963	     56

24.  Gross and Net Pollutant Quantities by Plant
     Size, 1966	    57

25.  Net Pollutants:  Base Year and Projected Year ...     58

26.  Cost of Waste Reduction by Subprocess Change  ....    60

27.  Cost of Waste Treatment Facilities by Type of
     Facility small, medium, and large plants ......    61

28.  Capital and Operating and Maintenance Costs of
     Waste Treatment Facilities by Size Classification
      (Actual Sample Data and Data Projected for all
     Federally Inspected Meat Packing Plants) 	    63

29.  Expenditures  for Waste Treatment by the Mear
     Packing Industry,  1966 	    64

-------
                              Vlll
                            LIST OF FIGURES

Figure:                                                       Page

   1.  Basic Processes in the Meat Packing Industry	18

   2.  Relationship Between Wasteload Per Thousand
       Pounds of Liveweight Killed and Plant Size, 1966 ...   15

   3.  Relationship Between Wastewater Per Thousand
       Pounds of Liveweight Killed and Plant Size, 1966 ...   16

   4.  Relationship Between Wasteload Per Thousand
       Pounds Liveweight Killed and Wastewater Per
       Thousand Pounds Liveweight Killed, by Type of
       Technology, 1966	19

   5.  Total Commercial Slaughter United States,  1950-1977.  .   39

-------

-------
       PART I
MEAT PACKING PROFILE

-------

-------
                                                              S - 1
                        MEAT PACKING SUMMARY
Measure of Plant and Industry Size

        Since animal slaughter is the most important  factor
determining wastewater volumes and pollution loads of the meat
packing industry, pounds of liveweight slaughter will be used as
the measure of plant and industry size.  Both value-added and
sales have been rejected as measures of plant and industry size
upon which to base pollution estimates since neither will
necessarily reflect the pollution load of the industry.
Slaughter Data Available

        Total Commercial Slaughter is the best available measure
of  industry size.  This statistic includes all U.S. slaughter
except that which takes place on individual farms, which would not
present a significant pollution problem.  Much more detailed in-
formation is available about meat packing plants which are
federally inspected.  The use of the federally inspected sector to
represent the entire total commercial slaughter industry in many
instances is reasonable since eighty-five per cent of total U.S.
slaughter occurs in federally inspected meat packing plants.  The
fact that this percentage is growing over time might mean that this
sector of the industry will become more and more representative of
the entire industry.  Liveweight, rather than numbers of animals,
is  the measure of plant and industry size because this unit makes
possible the meaningful addition of unlike species.
Definition of Small, Medium, and Large Meat Packing Plants

        For purposes of this report, plant size will be defined
in  terms of annual  liveweight slaughter.  It should be mentioned
that "national packers" (Armour, Swift, Hormel, etc.) may not
agree with the definitions given in this report.  "National
packers" might disagree especially with the definition of a small
plant.  "National packers" also define plant size differently,
depending upon the  type of animal killed.  A medium-sized cattle
plant will be twice as large as a medium sized hog plant in terms
of  liveweight killed.  This report, however, assumes that plant
size is a function  of annual liveweight kill, regardless of the
type of animal killed.

        A small plant is one whose annual liveweight kill is less
than twenty five million pounds.  Any plant killing less than
one hundred cattle  per day or less than four hundred hogs per day
would be small.

287-031 O - 68 - 2

-------
                                                               S  -  2
        In 1966, approximately thirty-eight per cent of federally
inspected plants would be classified as small.  This thirty-eight
per cent, however, killed only five per cent of the liveweight.

        For projection purposes the typical small plant will be
one whose annual liveweight kill is twenty million pounds.

        A large plant is one whose annual liveweight kill is
greater than two hundred million pounds.  In 1966 over ten per cent
of federally inspected plants would be so classified.   These large
plants killed approximately forty-two per cent of the liveweight.

        Probably this group should be subdivided into the "large"
(two to four hundred million pounds per year) and "very large"
(above four hundred million per year).  Approximately eight per
cent of federally inspected plants in 1966 were "large," and their
annual kill was twenty-four per cent of all liveweight.  Between
two and three per cent of federally inspected plants were "very
large."  The "Very large" plants killed about eighteen per cent of
all liveweight slaughtered.  The "very large" plant would probably
correspond to what a "national packer" would define as large.

        For projection purposes, the large plant is assumed to kill
three hundred pounds annually.  The typical large plant, in other
words, would kill eleven hundred cattle per day or four thousand
hogs per day.

        Medium plants would include all those plants killing
between twenty-five and two hundred million pounds annually.  For
projection purposes, the typical medium plant is defined as one
killing one hundred million pounds per year.  On a daily basis the
typical medium plant is one which kills approximately four hundred
cattle or twelve hundred hogs.
 Source  of Data

        Much  of the data upon which this report is based was
 collected by  the author under a grant from the National Science
 Foundation.   These data were the basis of her doctoral dissertation
 at  the  University of Missouri.  The plants presented  in this data
 source  are  referred to in  the report as "questionnaire data" and
 these plants  represent about fifty-four per cent of all federally
 inspected slaughter and forty-six per cent of total commercial
 slaughter (on a liveweight basis) .

        When  conclusions are based upon "questionnaire data" the
 implicit assumption is that the "questionnaire" sample is  represen-
 tative  of both federally inspected slaughter plants and total
 commercial  slaughter plants.

-------
                                                              S - 3
Processes and Pollutants

        Five processes were singled out for analysis because of
their potential impact upon the wasteload of the meat packing
industry.  In some cases it could be argued that what has been
classified as a process or subprocess might more appropriately
be classified as by-product recovery.  In an industry well known
for "utilizing all parts but the "squeal,1" by-product recovery
has essentially become part of the process mix.  It was decided
to classify all such alternatives as processes and subprocesses
rather than as by-products.

        The five processes relevant to the "red" meat sector are:
                     1.  Blood recovery
                     2.  Paunch handling
                     3.  Edible rendering
                     4.  Inedible rendering
                     5.  Cleanup

    1.  Blood recovery is an "all or nothing" situation with respect
to the subprocess mix.  Either it is recovered, or it escapes to
the sewer.  Recovery means a forty-two per cent reduction in the
gross wasteload of a meat packing plant.  In 1966 over ninety-five
per cent of the industry, on a liveweight basis, were recovering
blood.
        Blood is a rich source of protein and, hence, for all but
the very small plant it is economically rational to recover this
blood.  The very small plant, which does not render (inedible
products), which does not produce tankage, and which is not lo-
cated in an area where it can sell raw blood to others, would
probably dump blood in the sewer.

    2.  The handling of paunch material becomes a source of
pollution problems if this material is dumped into the sewer, as
the total solids concentration becomes so large that it interferes
with the efficient workings of traditional waste treatment methods.

    3.  Edible rendering can be a very polluting process, depending
upon the method of rendering.  The most polluting alternative is
wet rendering without evaporating tank water.  This subprocess is
the oldest type, and it is not being adopted by new plants.  If
users of the wet rendering process will evaporate tank water,
wasteloads are cut in half.  The newer methods of rendering cut
wasteloads by sixty per cent.  These newer methods include dry
rendering and low temperature rendering.

-------
                                                               S - 4
    4.  Inedible rendering is basically of two types	dry or wet.
Wet rendering must be followed by evaporation of tank water in order
to cut wasteloads in half.  Both forms of dry rendering, batch and
continuous, will produce wasteloads sixty per cent less than those
from a wet rendering system without evaporations of tank water.
The continuous dry rendering is the latest in terms of technology.

    5.  Cleanup by water from high pressure hoses has been and
continues to be the general practice in the meat packing industry.
Pollution loads could be substantially reduced by the use of dry
cleanup prior to the wet cleanup.  Dry cleanup could also mean
greater recovery of scraps for utilization in inedible rendering.
Thus, rather than hosing scraps into the sewer, one would collect
them for use in the inedible rendering department.

        Another direct effect of dry cleanup is the reduction of
wastewater volume.  Analysis of the "questionnaire data" indicated
a high, direct correlation between wastewater use per thousand
pounds liveweight killed and wasteload per thousand pounds live-
weight.  Decrease in wastewater volumes seems to be accompanied by
utilization of dry cleanup and, hence, lower wasteload per unit of
product as well as lower wastewater volumes per unit of product.

Effect of Technology on Wasteloads

        Technology has been defined in terms of the subprocess mix.
The three levels of technology:  "Old", "Typical", and "Advanced"
are defined as follows:

"Old Technology"   (10 per cent of all plants in 1966)
           1.  Recovery of all blood
           2.  Washing of all paunch material down the sewer
           3.  Edible rendering--wet with no evaporation of tank
               water                                                              ^
           4.  Inedible rendering--wet with no evaporation of
               tank water
           5.  Wet cleanup

-------
                                                             S - 5
"Typical Technology"   (80 per cent of all plants in 1966)
           1.  Recovery of all blood
           2.  Wet dumping of paunch material followed by hauling
               away of the gross paunch material
           3.  Edible rendering—dry rendering or wet rendering
               with evaporation of tank water
           4.  Inedible rendering — dry rendering
           5.  Wet cleanup

"Advanced Technology"   (10 per cent of all plants in 1966)
           1.  Recovery of all blood
           2.  Dry dumping of the paunch material followed by the
               hauling of the gross material away from the plant
               premises
           3.  Edible rendering — low temperature
           4.  Inedible rendering--continuous
           5.  Dry cleanup followed by wet cleanup

        There are definite differences in wastewater volume and
wasteload per unit of product depending upon the type of technology.
In general the more advanced the technology, the smaller the
wastewater and wasteload per unit of product.
     WASTELOAD AND WASTEWATER PER THOUSAND POUNDS LIVEWEIGHT
              KILLED BY TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY, 1966

 Type of                      Wasteload              Wastewater
Technology               Ibs. BOD/1000 Ibs. LWK    gals/1000 Ibs LWK
"Old Technology"                 26.9                   2112

"Typical Technology"             19.2                   1294

"Advanced Technology"            15.1                   1116
       *Technology is defined by subprocess mix as indicated above.
The BOD values are pre-catch basin values.

Recirculation of Process Water

         Process water is not recirculated in the Meat Packing
Industry.

-------
                                                             S - 6
Waste Reduction by Subprocess Change

        Although subprocess change can be an effective means of
wasteload reduction, it is often economically unfeasible.  There
appears to be agreement within the industry, for example, that often
the change from a wet rendering system to a low temperature (edible)
or continuous (inedible) system could not be justified from an
economic point of view.  One reason is the continually declining
demand for lard and edible animal fats.  In short, subprocess change
does not seem feasible for rendering process except for the case of
that plant which wet renders and dumps unevaporated tank water into
the sewer.  At relatively little cost, a fifty per cent reduction of
wasteload can be achieved by installing evaporators and selling
the "evaporated stick" to a renderer for use in the manufacture of
animal feed.

        Blood recovery is practiced by all but the very small plants.
The expense of collecting and hauling to an off site disposal will
be relatively little in return for a forty-two per cent reduction
in wasteload.

        If any subprocess changes are to be encouraged, the following
would appear to be logical choices:
           1.  Evaporation of tank water and disposal of the
               evaporated stick
           2.  Collection of all blood
           3.  Screening of all paunch material and disposal of the
               gross material elsewhere than the sewer.

        Notice that all subprocesses requiring change are those
associated with the "old technology" and/or very small plants.

        Because these "old technology" plants are in the minority
today (10 per cent) and are disappearing, the regulation of
subprocesses as part of the effort to reduce the gross pollution
loads seems to be of little significance.
Waste Reduction by Use of Waste Treatment Facilities

        The most common form of waste treatment facility in the meat
packing industry is the "catch basin" (a sedimentation tank with
grease skimming).  "Catch basins" could reduce wasteloads by
approximately twenty-five per cent if they are properly designed.
Most packing plants installed "catch basins" to aid in by-product
recovery.  The grease recovered meant dollars earned in terms of
rendering products.  The detention time of wastewater in the "catch
basin" based upon the economics of grease recovered was approximately
twenty minutes.  The detention time for optimal pollution reduction

-------
                                                              S - 7
is at least double.   Many existing "catch basins", then, are under-
designed from the point of view of pollution control.

        Approximately eighty-five per cent of all plants today have
some form of waste treatment facility.   In 1966, the existing waste
treatment facilities were responsible for reducing gross wasteloads
by one-third.  To achieve this reduction the industry required a
thirty-five million dollar investment in waste treatment equipment
and spent $3.5 million in 1966 for operation and maintenance of
the waste treatment facilities.
Poi'Jv.tipn Reduction by Municipal Treatment

        Approximately seventy per cent of meat packing wastewater
was treated by Municipal Treatment Facilities,  As wastewater passed
through municipal facilities, fifty^six per cent of the wasteload
CBOD) was removed.  The industry paid approximately $6 million for
this service.
        A summary of all expenditures on waste treatment in 1966
is as follows:

                 EXPENDITURES FOR WASTE TREATMENT BY
                   THE MEAT PACKING INDUSTRY, 1966
Replacement
Value of
Treatment
Facilities
Millions of
Dollars
Annual
Equivalent
Millions
Of Dollars


Annual
0 & M
Costs
Millions
Of Dollars

Annual
Payments To
Municipalities
Millions Of
Dollars

Total
Payments For
Waste
Treatment
Millions Of
Dollars
    35
3.5
3,5
13

-------

-------
              PROFILE OF THE "MEAT PACKING" INDUSTRY
INTRODUCTION

Definition of_ Meat Packing

        "Meat Packing" is defined for purposes of this report to
include all plants engaged in slaughtering and/or processing of
the "red" meat animals; that is, SIC categories 2011 and 2013.
The aggregation of the four-digit SIC categories was necessary
because of the lack of waste strength information for the latter
category, sausage and other prepared meat products (SIC 2013).

        There are three different types of plants which are
included in the category described in this report as "meat packing1
the slaughter house or abattoir, the meat packing plant, and the
meat processing plant.

        1.  A slaughtering plant is a killing and dressing
            plant which does almost no processing of by-
            products.

        2.  A meat packing plant is both a slaughtering
            house and a meat processing plant.  Packing
            houses will often be involved in the cooking,
            curing, smoking and pickling of meat, the
            manufacture of sausage, the rendering of
            edible fats into lard and edible tallow, and
            the rendering of inedible fats into greases.

        3.  A meat processing plant does no slaughter at
            all.
Measure of Plant and Industry Size

        Since animal slaughter and/or meat production are the
primary factors determining wastewater volumes and pollution loads
of the meat packing industry, it will be necessary to examine the
size and structure of the meat packing industry in order to esti-
mate the total wasteload of the industry.  Neither value-added
nor sales are adequate measures of plant or industry size from
which to estimate plant or industry wasteload because these meas-
ures may not reflect pollution loads.  For example, those plants
and/or areas with high beef sales may have a low beef packing
wasteload because there is little slaughtering.  Thus, animal
slaughter data are more relevant measures of plant and industry
size than meat production or value-added statistics, as pollution
loads are related primarily to the slaughtering aspect of the

-------
production process.  Technically, data pertaining to meat
production or value-added may include the processing of imported
dressed carcasses and, hence, overstate the pollution load.  Total
liveweight, then, is the measure of size which will be utilized
in this study, primarily because this measure makes possible the
meaningful addition of unlike species.  Two cattle plus two hogs
is not as meaningful an aggregate as two thousand pounds of cattle
plus five hundred pounds of hogs.  Total liveweight killed per year
will be used as the measure of meat packing size as well as of
the industry size.
Slaughter Data Available

        The three types of slaughter data available which can be
used to measure industry size are shown for 1966 in Table 1.  The
most inclusive category is total slaughter which is composed of
farm slaughter and total commercial slaughter.  Federally inspected
slaughter and state or locally inspected slaughter constitute total
commercial slaughter.  The preferred category for measuring industry
size is total commercial slaughter.

        Total commercial slaughter is preferred to total slaughter
as a measure of industry size related to pollution load.  Total
slaughter is only slightly larger than total commercial slaughter,
the difference being the amount of farm slaughter.  Farm slaughter
in all cases is a very small and continually decreasing proportion
of total slaughter.  In 1965 less than two and one-half per cent
of all animal slaughter took place on farms.  Such an insignificant
proportion of the total can be ignored without affecting the re-
sults.  Even more important, however, is the fact that farm slaugh-
ter is not geographically concentrated and, therefore, poses no
significant pollution problem.

        Total commercial slaughter is also preferred to federally
inspected slaughter as a measurement of size.  Although more in-
formation is generally available about federally inspected slaugh-
ter than about total commercial slaughter, the latter is a more
acceptable indicator of size because federally inspected slaughter
represents only about eighty-five per cent of total commercial
slaughter.

        Table 2 shows the number of plants by type of inspection
and total liveweight killed by type of inspection for the years
1960 and 1965.  Notice that less than twenty per cent of commer-
cial slaughter plants are federally inspected, yet these plants
kill almost eighty-five per cent of the liveweight slaughtered.
These  statistics are a clear illustration of the dangers of basing
meat packing statistics upon the number of plants.

-------































vO
vO
o^
1—1
A
CO
w
H

H
CO

o
w
H
M
^
| — i

M
pd
W
H

O
P

rJ
CO

! n
3
^
H
^j
3

-i
<£
H
O
H






































.y
XI
60
•r-l
0)

0)

• r-l
rJ

M-l
O

en
TJ
Cl
3
0
p ,

U-l
O

en
C
O
•!-l
t— 1
• i-l
*y*





















en
, — i
cfl
B
•H
Cl
 o
m i— i r^ CM O
nun »\
r-l r-l CM CO
i— 1 i— 1 i— J


ON CM i— 1 CO — i m
\O i — i r^- t^>



ON oo r^ CTM ON
i— 1 O CM -> t3 cfl
r— 1 QJ -i-l
i— 1 4-1 CJ
cfl O VH
J-l 0) rJ 01
0) CL, a) E
TD en JZ r— 1 E rH
CD C 4-J cfl o E cfl
rl-l 1— 1 O 4-1 O S-J 4-1
O cfl O
H fc H
^D
*^O
O^
i— l

O
1 1

4-J
C
a)
E
ai
i — i
a,
a,
3
C/3

n
cn
CJ
•r-l
4-1
en
• r-l
4-1
cfl
4-1
CO

4-1
cfl
QJ
rS
TD
c
cfl

^
CJ
o
4-1
en
0)
£>
• r-H
rJ

n
a)
r-l
3
4-1
1 — 1
3
CJ
•r-l
(-1
bp


U-l
O

4-J
C
aj
E
4-J
r^
CO
a,
0)
O

en
OJ
4J
cd
4-1
c«

TD

• r-l
4J ,J
C
0)
E  r-l
0 3
O cj
• r-l
r-l
C 60
0 <
4J
60 U-l
Cl 0
• r-i
j: 4-1
cn C
cfl cu
•2 E
••»-' 1 1
)-l
CO Cfl
co a,
CO QJ
~~TT= Q

C cn
•H Cl)
4J 4J
Ol Cfl
•— 1 4-1
r-l CO
3
M -a
cu
i— 1 4-1
Cfl -r-l
0 C
•H O
4-1
cn
• r-l
4-J
Cfl
4J
CO
















































•
0
I— (
1
c^


Cu
CX

^
x-^
r*-
^O
o^
1 — 1

«
OJ
u
•rH
MH
"4-1
o

60
C
•H
4J
c
•1-1
(-1
P-I

4-1
C
0)
E
c
S-i
01
£>
o
o


c
o
4-J
60
Cl
• rH
x;
cn
CO
^~*z
* —

-------

























Q
W

w
H m
K-C **O
^3 ON
§0
C/3 ^J
•^
EH
*T^, ^^
o o
M ON
W i-H
W**
> a
PJ H
_J Q c_>
CQ S Kt
< < PH
H CO
CO 2
H l-t
pr.
<
m m
§



























i
0)
> d
•H O
i-J T) -H
o) 4-1 m
r~ 1 rJ O VO
CS CU CU ON
•U 4-1 Cu r-l
O XI CO
H 00 C
3 M
M-i cB
O r-l M-l
CO O
4-1
C 4-1 CU O

cj oo >, o>
•r-l H rH
>-i CU
cu ^ >,
p ! pQ
S-i
cu
i-H 4—) 4-)
cs ^; o m
4-1 00 vO
O 3 0) ON
H tB pi. •— i
•-I r*. d
U-l CO H O
O -r^
r—l £>•* 4-J
4-1 CB ^2 U
d -t-t cu
cu o en a,
U S-I 4-J CO O
cu d d vo
V4 S CO >— 1 ON
CU E r- 1 r-l
PH 0 PL,
u
CU

CU
4-1 m
(~! vO
60 • ON
3 en r-i
CS 43
1— 1 1— 1
CO
M-l
4-1 O
(-?
oo •
•r-l 1— 1 O
a) -H ^D
[56 ON
cu i— i
>
tJ

in
^o
M-l CO ON
O 4J i— 1
d
• CB O
O r-l ^D
2; P-i ON

d
o
•1-1
4_j
o
cu
CL,
CO
d
h-l

M-l
o

0)
a

H





CO
.
j-



ON
1— 1
CO
n
OO
CO


Q

un



0
CO
m








K*N ^3
r-l CU
r-l 4J
cB O
s-i cu
0) CL,
T3 CO
cu d
&M M






1 —
.
m
r-l







1— 1

ON
r-l





r~-
•
0
00





r-l
•
CO
oo





ON
, — f
CO
„
CO




CN
\0
o
rt
ON



f^^.
oo
CO
n
CM


-------
          Commercial slaughter data by type of animal are available
on a regional or national basis in two forms:  the number of animals
killed and the total liveweight of animals slaughtered.
Definition of Small, Medium, and Large Plants

          In the meat packing industry itself, there exists a lack
of agreement as to the correct size designation of a plant in
terms of small, medium, or large.  National packers will define
small differently than independent packers will.   A "national"
meat packer* would probably specify any plant killing less than
one hundred million pounds per year as small.  Thus, the national
packer tends to estimate size in terms of the "national" meat
packing industry.  "National" meat packers define the size of
plants differently, depending upon the type of animal killed.  In
general, a plant engaged in the killing of cattle and classified
as a medium-sized plant, will handle two times the liveweight as
a similarly designated plant killing hogs.  A small plant in terms
of cattle would be one whose annual kill is less  than twenty-five
million pounds.  A small plant in terms of hogs would be one whose
annual kill is twelve or thirteen million pounds.

          In spite of the lack of consistency concerning size
definition on the part of the "national" packer,  in this report
the size of plants will be defined in terms of annual liveweight
slaughter.  This definition of size allows for a  meaningful com-
parison between a plant killing four species of animals and a
plant killing only one species.

          A small meat packing plant will be defined as one in
which the annual liveweight kill is less than twenty-five million
pounds, a medium plant, as one in which the annual liveweight kill
is approximately one hundred million pounds, and  a large plant, as
one in which the annual liveweight kill is two hundred million
pounds or more.  See Table 3.  Tables 4 and 5 describe the char-
acteristics of the federally inspected meat packing industry by
size class for the years 1964, 1965, and 1966. Table 5 summarizes
the characteristics of the Federally Inspected meat packing in-
dustry by the size classes to be utilized in this report, that is,
small, medium, and large.
          *Firms are designated as "national" packers who have
national systems of distribution, widely known brand names, and
national programs of advertising and promotion.   National packers
would include such firms as Armour & Co., Swift  & Co., Wilson &
Co., and eight or ten others, such as Cudahy, Hormel, Morrell,
Oscar Mayer, and Rath.  (1)

-------
                             TABLE 3

          DEFINITION OF PLANT SIZE:  SMALL, MEDIUM,  LARGE
                      MEAT PACKING INDUSTRY
Plant Size
in Annual
Liveweight
Killed3
(Mil. Ibs.)
Equivalent Size in Terms of Daily Kill
Liveweight
(Thou. Ibs.)
Cattle
(No. head)
Hogs°
(No. head)
d
Cattle & Hogs
(No. head)
Small
25
Medium
100
Large
200
95,000

379,000

758,000

95 380

379 1,156

758 3,032

48 190

190 758

379 1,516

       aln terms of a range in Annual  Liveweight Killed,  plant
sizes would be as follows:
              Small:     0 -  25 millions of pounds
              Medium:  25 - 200 millions of pounds
              Large:   200 - up.

        Cattle average 1000 Ibs. per head.

       GHogs average 250 Ibs.  per head.
       dT .
        Liveweight divided equally between cattle and hogs.

-------






U.
o
LU
fvj
CO
Q.
LU
1— CD
? 8?

CO
_J O>
_ °>
t— *
C W
CO  0
— J UJ
— 1 l>—
cc ^
O
LU •*
U. h-
O -J
CD
or
1 —
fj
c




ui n
O u»
o: <
W P"
0. CO
MUtATIVE
>F UNITED
CJ
_,
1- CO
0 p
U, H
0 09
h- a
X UJ
Ul P
O —
K 3



Ul
.J
^- K
X •<
19 '*'
Ul
2 ac
» O.
-J
•c
tV-
o


NUMBER OF PLANTS
ftTEfiORIES
IBS, OF LIVE-
o
u.
w 0
Kl
£

BC
X
CP
_J
CO


ae
X
3
-J



IF POUNDS

THOUSAN



ac
Ul
ac
£
ac
Ul
H-
CO
=3
_J
CO
CP
Ul

CD

CO
CD
in

CO

CO

CO

CO

CO
CD
CO
CO



— CM in o o m en co CM m co o in
-CMCo^^mincococot-
— CM eo ^- in in co co CD co f-
^"iSS* SSSS8S8
CM CD
8S»»«Io «.».««o-
CO
ococoh-cococo — in p- — — CM CM
oo«-cDOcncn.ncocovco 	
coincDcocoincM en en CM co co — CM
omp-— cocoeoco— COOP-OOP-
cMwinco— eop-eoinaoeoo*-co
cocn^-cocoeo — coop-CDCooin
— O — CO CO •»• h- CO O CD •*(- CM CO P-
— V«r*-COCMCMCM — ~ — CM
CO — OO — CO -V OO^- OOOO^-COCM
SCOP-CMCMCMP- — CO P- 00 CO CO »
oo^-inp-coo —  o f en co
ocMcooomcoo — in P- P- CM P- CM
^p*inCMP-CMCMC»CO— CO — COr*
— TfincO^-CNJCMCM— CO
CD^-t>— COOOCD — incOOOCO — OOCM
^* <^ ^~ o m CM co o> — CD CD o CM in
— COCDCO^-p-OOOh*incOP"CMCO
— — OO^^-P-OOCOCOCnCOCMCOP-
-^•TT^^CM 	
CO O> — CM OO S CO — — —
eor-incocMcocococococDcoco —
csjco— CNICD-^-CO— — — —
OO C\j CD CO O O) CO t~- C3 O> O5 CO CM CM
CD O5 (71 O> CTl O5 O> Oi Ol O> O5 OT CFt CT)
z ^ ^1 ^ !± _ CM CM CM CM
z 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
ooooooooooooo
co — oinotnoinomomom
-J — — — — CMCMCMCM
CO C
P- C
P- p
ao -
CO C
p— p
CM f
CO C
m c
— r
CM C
CO
00 •,
O5 <
CM C
P- C
CO 5
^ c
CM
O U
CM U
CD C
{2
CM

CM'
CO -
CO P
CD C
en a
f a
CM X
CO P
1
o c
0 U
0 c-
CO C
0 —
o o
- 00
D CD
M CO
- p-
o in
3 —
0 00
sj 0
CO
—
r en
5O)
CO
> in
> P-
> CO
!S
> CO
•h
OO
O)
m
o
£

- CM
0 —
3 CM
5 CD
f> ^"
r p-
•) co
1
T O
5 0
o in
1 CO
00 •*•
— CO
CO OO
00 CO
0 CO
00 00
CM —
P- CO
p~ ao
p- CO
— CO
CD O
O CO
m (D
co in
en *n
CM O
S &
p- 0
CO
•«• o
co tn
m CM
»«• o
co m
CO
e» —
— OO
in p-
<• ro
00 CM
in p~
— CM
CM P-
— OO
•*• CD
en o
CD en
CD en
CO ^J"
1 1
o o
in o
P- 0
co *»•
CO O
in o
CD O
cr> o
CO O
CD O
CD 0
CO O
CO O
CM »
P- V
in co
CO —
in —
« S
CO CM
P- —
U*> P—
CO O
CO CM
CO CO
CO CO
P- CD
{p, ff
CM CM
CD CP
₯ P~
in co
CO CO
CD O
CM in
CO CO
in p-
0
en o
CD •
m o
o
1 CO
0 w
O 0
O CD
m •<
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
CM
00
CM
CD
OO
CM
CM
O
S
00
in
o
CD
CO
p-
tn
00
CO
CO
en
i—
in
o
CO
CO
ao

o
o
o
UJ
o
OD








P-.
CM
in
in
CO
•«-
^~
en
CO
*
^~
<«•
CO
CD
ao
in
^~
CD
CM
CD
CO
S
CD

•2
at
«
 •«
W 0
-1 IE
g
•< 03


-------
                         TABLE  5

Number of Plants and Total Liveweight Killed by Size Group
     Federally Inspected Plants, United States, 1966
Size Class
TLWK/Year
(Mil. of Ibs)
No. of
Plants

Per Cent
of Plants

TLWK/Year
(Mil. of Ibs)

Per Cent
of Total
Slaughtered
0- 24.9
25-199.9
200 and up
All Plants
239
335
55
629
38.0
53.3
8.7
100.0
2,437
24,718
19,399
46,555
5.2
53.0
41.8
100.0
   Source:  United States Department of Agriculture, unpublished
            data.

-------
          Finally, it should be noted that this report has defined
the medium-sized plant in such a manner that the range includes
both the average-size plant under federal inspection as well as
the median-size plant.  The average size plant under federal in-
spection is one whose annual kill is approximately seventy-four
million pounds.  The median-size plant under federal inspection is
one whose annual kill is approximately thirty-eight million pounds.
To the extent that the definition of medium-size is such that it
includes both the average and median-size plants, it is a reasonable
definition.

          Slaughter characteristics of Federally Inspected Meat
Packing Plants by Type of Plant, that is, by type of animals killed
are shown in Tables 6 and 7.  The increasing percentage of total
liveweight slaughtered, which is handled by the specialized plants
or single species plants, is shown in Table 6.  The average and
median plant size for each type of plant is shown in Table 7.
Source of Data

          The data referred to in this report as "questionnaire
data" or "sample data" is information collected by the author
under a grant from the National Science Foundation.  These data
were the basis of her doctoral dissertation at the University of
Missouri.  The data referred to as "questionnaire data" actually
came from the following three sources:

          1.  A four week program of sample collection
              and analysis at four Kansas meat packing
              plants.

          2.  Files of meat packing companies related
              to wastewater characteristics and waste
              treatment facilities.

          3.  Questionnaire responses from federally
              inspected meat packing companies and
              some locally inspected plants in the
              Midwest  which had not been contacted
              under either of the above programs.

          Approximately six hundred meat packing establishments
were contacted personally or by correspondence.  Questionnaires
were sent to those firms which were not contacted under the
sampling program or the plant visitation program.  The nationwide
mailing list was obtained from the February-March 1967 issue of
the USDA Bulletin:  "Working Reference of Livestock Regulatory
Establishments, Circuits, and Officials."  In total there were
284 responses.

287-031 O - 88 - 3

-------
10















UJ
O-
t —
^_
CD

t/J
z
•0.
, i


CD
_ co
:*: CO
cj en

*
UJ 
s: -
C: *

O CT)
Q_
CO *
— L«J
>- -*t

— J CO

GC 0
UJ UJ

i? ^

Lx.
o «
H»
o -«c

h™ Q_
CO
cc O
^i i


^
cc
J7
O
cc
UJ
h-
C9

•*».
r_ i






















(0
U
h-
CO -J
-c
o t-
•jj C5
*- 1—
I
Ul CO
•J ui a.
^ > IU CO
*- .1 IU U>
•< << X O
0 0 CO I

to
> Ul CO
«l Ul CO
•« X 0
0 co 3:

UJ
-1 0.
t» |U CO

^ 3C O
O CO I

tj u
»- > CO
5 i S
O O I

Ul CO
-I Ul •-
1- > Ul
1- -1 Ul
^ ^ X
O 0 CO
^
U CO

X O
CO 3:

GO
2 8
< o
0 3:


to
111 0.
> Ul
-1 Ul
•« X
U CO

Ul
*- CO
1- U>
•« o
O 3C

Ul
-1 0.
1- Ul
I— Ul
•« x
o co

111 CO
-I u
•- J
o o



o


0.
Ill
Ul
co


to
Ul
i
0


Ul
•J
£
«•{
0
ae
••(
UJ


r^. CD _ r-- <£• _ 0) -^cnm
u-) r^- — co o — CM CTCOUO
^•^-mtncococD co to 10

LO 2" CD

lO CO **- ^*" CO ^" CO CTJ — OO
r-^rcNtoooot^oo 00-3-00
— — — o co **•
o en oo
—


CM — CN — COCMIO CO TT CO
— cn oj
CM ~~


CO CO CO CvJ UO <£) CO ^-CDCM
oj _ c^ _ en o oo
co cn cr>

CO CO CO


to to co oj — CM en oocooj
UO lO ^" ^" CO CO CO LO CO ^~

CO CM CM


CO C£> OO — O N- •*• — COh"
1^ CO CO
— ^ —

— — — CM — ^ co comco
— CO U7
CM


— — o o — o CNJ co ico
UO | CO




CO
o

'CfCMCM^ COOV =>
*— o
ca-
ii.
o
— IO ^ CM — O O
CM CM CO U"3 CO CD ^- V3

0

_j

IO — 10 CO CO IT) ID S:


X

5
cn oo o r- co *« to
*Cf CD 1^- !*•• CO OO CO u.
O
Ul
a.
r- — co o r— m CD ^
CO ^ ^ CD N- CO CD
^>
CO
o
Ul
O CM "•" CO ^ CO ^f CC
Ul
h-
X
CD

<
CM CM ^* CO CO CM CM  h-
»- x

< <-4- <<•- h> r« ococo «-
— j co co cn CM r*- oo co ui

u. >
o —
•J
CD tO lO IO CD CD CO CD <
ic cn cn 01 CT> cn en cn ^*
X ___ 0


«o cn o
— —

oo CO O
t«- r*- co
CT> CO —
•> •> «
CO CO 00


CO CO —
— 00 CM
— O TT
— — — ).
X
3
co in o o-
co «• CM
O O O> u.
« » •* o
CO CO CM
Ul
a.
cn CM m >
1^. — 0 (-
co m cn
•>•!•>-
in •«• -4- co
ae
CO O CO Ul
O CO CO 1-
"~ "" CO
3

«l
— CM CO
_ — — .J
)H
o
^r •«- o i—
^> O3 ~
CM •* — u.
«. •>. • 0
O — CM

»
Sin co o
CO CO
C7> cn on ee
- - ~ £


o o o
o o o
000


0 0 CM
CM — 00
CM CM —




t— CO
"* 0 0


^- oo in
1— 00 00




co m m

r- m in



00 00 0
CO CO CO


CM in

0 0


— O CO
o o o





CO CM CM
O O O

CM co in
in T i-^




in •<• —

CM CM CO



CO 00 CO
CO CO CO


r— — m
• • •
— 0 0


CM * —
CD O CD





^ -t •<


•«• CO 0

CM UO CO
CM CM CM


•^r in co
CO CO CO

_ _ _
a.
CO
u
o

•0

mj
o
Ul
u
t
CO


>
-1
ac
Ul
0
u.
Ul

h-

—
OT
w

«
o

^
ac
o
3
*-

s

(^
Ul
u
u.
U-
o
^
91
—
o.

UJ
c

K
O
O


•*
0
(3
at

CO
•^

CO
oo
o
ar
t-
cc
0
Ul UJ
ac ac
g
^ Ul
=> 0
o —

cc ac
a in
-« CO
U. X
0 u
ae
t- ^
Ul CO
EUI
DC
tc
« o

0 0

CO O
Ul O
t- Ul

O CM

o T
S in
— cn
ae •-•
f^
• >

1^ 0 to
X 3C 3
Ul H- O
0 XX
CC
ui • ac
Q- ui uj
in to x
O — co
• — 1 S3

« 3 CO
£

CO CO
CO Ul


§
•< CO








































••{
h-
o
O
UJ
X
CO

CD
O.
*
3
UJ
or


3
o

cc
CP

u.
0
1-
at
IU
ff

&.
bj
O


£
«/>
o
UJ
K
••
x













-------
                                                                                                                      11
UJ  O
z:  o-
c   to
UJ  O
    CO

    o
UJ
o
o

CO
-t
:n
o
5

2
w

u
U)
ac
cn
u
CO
b.
O
*
o
OS
UJ

u.
0
bJ
a.
£
SC
*!
bJ
o:
>>

bl
to
cc
bl
ISI
O
oc
UJ

M
.J
-«
r
-<
%
hi
ft.
t




K


G_


O
U
K
U
h-
X
co
3
<
_J
CO



*
w
bl
CE
•<
V)
*J
X
«l
a.


o
bl
K
t*J
K
X
CO
<
_f
to
iT>
CO
00
CM
O
O
a?
o

1*- 1-
co o
<• -3
in -
CO -
•«- o
0 O
CO CI
v c
co r-
cn o
— if
cn c.
CO •«
CM I-
co c
0 f
I-. a
CO CI
cn o

O
Ul
t-
0
CD
1—
CD
CO
r—
f-
co
in
8
CO
CO
cn
05
3 CM
•> co
3 CD
i cn


•> in
J 0
J CM
3 —
J CO
> CO
> CO
> in
J O
> —
5 O
- CO
3
1 CO
3 CO
> CO
) cn


in
«
^
in
^
in
r-
in
in
r—
-
CD
cn

to
CD
O
a-
UJ
Ul
CO
0
CO
0)
CO
CO
eo
CM
CM
-
CO
s
cn

0
Ul
0
en
CO
in
CO
en
CO
r—
CO
in
CM
CM
-
in
CO
cn


i
in
i
m
en
S
cn
f-
en
CO
CM
in
CD
cn


ff
CO
*
CO
CM
If)
CO
CO
eo
oo
CM
CO
CD
CD
CD
en


CM
CD
CM
eo
in
CM
t—
r-
cn
in
in
CM
eo
CO
en


in
2
CO
CM
eo
CO
CO
CO
CM
in
05
S

o
m
cn

CO
Ul
0
Ul
t-
o
in
m
CO
oo
CM
CO
CO
r-
in
CM
CO
CM
CO
in
o
o
o
CM
-
S
CD

Z
0
a.
bl
LU
X
CO
CO
CM
CD
—
£
in
CO
i
N-
OO
"
r—
CO
cn

a.
IU
bJ
ac
co
0
JC
CO
CJ)
CO
CM
i
o
CO
in
CM
cn
CO
CO
oo
CO
CO
•t
in
CO
i


CM
r--
m
CO
CM
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
cn
"
?
CO
CO
en


CO
CO
CM
cn
o
in
in
eo
S
CO
cn
CM
CO
-
eo
CD
CD


CD
00
0
cn
CD
in
CO
*
CM
CD
CO
X
•«•

CO
CO
cn

Ul
-j
o
Ul
t-
0
cn
oo
cn
in
0
CD
CO
cn
CO
en
CO
CO
1*-
r—
CO
cn

O
o
CO
CO
CO
CO
r—
£
oo
r—
CM
CM
CM
in
CM
CO
CM
CO
in
CO
O)

CO
CD
O
o
r*.
CM
in
r
cn
CO
cn
in
cn
cn
CM
oo
in
er<
in
CD
a>


0
CM
O
CM
05
in
CO
m
CM
cn
CM
r*-
in
r—

cn
CO
CO
CD


in
m
in
CD
cn
CO
s
r—
in
CO
CO
CO
f-
CD
CD
CO
CD
CO


s
CM
CM
CO
CM
CM
CO
r-
o
in
0
CO

in
i

rj.
Ul
Ul
ac
CO
Ul
o
in
o
CM
CM
CO
I
CO
CO
in
CO
CO
en
en
in
CO
oo
CO
cn

CO
o
Ul
O
O
O
cn
CD
O
O
m
CO
cn
CO
CO
in
CM

CD
CM
in
CO
O5

V3
CD
O
o
O
eo
CM
CM
CO
in
CO
CD
oo
CM
cn
m
in
oo
in
CD
en


00
en
o
CO
o
CO
CM
CM
CM
CO
CO
o
CO
in
CO

00
CO
CO
CO


in
CM
oo
CM
CO
s
in
m
CO
CO
in
00
CD
CO
cn


CM
CD
CM
CM
a
0
co
oo
N-
CO
CM
"
„
CD
en

0.
Ul
Ul
z
CO
CO
w
0
CO
CO
f-
00
05
cn
in
oo
o
0
05
CD
CO
T
o
CO
CD
cn

0.
Ul
Ul
3
•1
Ul
_J
1-
o
CO
CM
cn
CM
1—
CO
r
CO
in
CO
CO
en
CM
o
CM

CM
in
CD
en

CO
CD
O
3:
a
O
o
CO
CO
CM
CM
f*-
cn
CO
CD
OC
en
CO
CO
*
o
m
to
cn


en
0
CO
CO
m
in
in
CM
o
in
cn
cn
cn

m
CD
CD
cn


in
00
CD
Si
CO
s
r—
m
CD
§
CO
CM
O5
C?
in
CD
CD
o>


o
m
r—
S
CO
r—
CM
S
CM
CO

r-
CO
i

(O
bi
o
UJ
a.
CO
1
CD
in
en
oo
o
cn
CM
CD
CD
cn

CD
o
a:
Ul
i-
t-
o
i—
CO
in
CO
CO
CM
CO
CM
CO
OO
O
OO
CM
O
CM

•r
m
co
a>


CM
CO
CM
CO
in
cn
CM
CO
CO
o
in
CM
CO
in
o
o
CD
in
CD
cn


r—
en
CM
en
CD
CO
cn
S
oo
8
00
in
CM

CD
00
CO
CO
cn


01
in
cn
CO
CM
CD
S
oo
CO
en
CM
CO
CO
CM
CO
O
r>-
co
CD
en



-------
                                                                12
These 284 responses could be categorized as follows:
      Slaughtering and Processing Plants                 219
          With wasteload (BOD) data        66
          With no wasteload (BOD) data    153

      Processing Only                                     20
          With wasteload data               0
          With no wasteload data           20

      No Information                                      25
          Firm out of Business, etc.

      Total                                              284

        The basic assumption upon which this entire report rests
is that the usable sample of 219 plants is representative of the
meat packing industry.  Table 8 compares the sample to the
federally inspected portion of the meat packing industry.  The
sample appears to be representative of the federally inspected
portion of the meat packing industry.  It will be recalled that
plants under federal inspection kill eighty-five per cent of
all liveweight slaughtered in the United States and that most
commercial establishments which are not under federal
inspection are small plants.  It is quite possible that our
sample is under represented so far as numbers of very small plants
are concerned; however, those small plants who did respond to the
questionnaire seem to be typical of the small plants in that
their process and subprocess mix are those expected of the very
small plant.  Small plants will have a higher proportion of their
group which do not collect blood and many will not be engaged in
extensive by-product recovery.
Wasteloads Measured by BOD

        Because of the short time available for data collection
and data analysis, it was decided to use "organic load" as the
measure of wastewater strength.  "Organic load" will be measured
in terms of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).   To be more
specific, the organic load was measured in five-day, twenty degree
centigrade BOD.  The five-day designation refers to the usual
incubation period and the twenty degree centigrade to the
temperature maintained during incubation.  This particular form
of the BOD test, as well as the BOD test itself, was chosen
because it is the one most generally used.

        The reliance upon one measure of wastewater strength
(BOD) does not imply that this indicator is the only one or even

-------
                                                          13
                            Table 8

NUMBER OF PLANTS AND ANNUAL LIVE WEIGHT KILLED BY SIZE CLASS,  1966
           ALL FEDERALLY INSPECTED PLANTS AND ALL PLANTS
                    RESPONDING TO QUESTIONNAIRE
Size
Class
TLWK/yr .
Mil. of
Lbs.
USDA Data
Total Federally
Inspected Slaughter
No. of
Plants
TLWK/yr.
Mil. of Lbs.
Questionnaire
Data
No. of
Plants
TLWK/yr.
Mil. of Lbs.
Sample as Per Cent
of Federally
Inspected Slaughter
No. of
Plants
TLWK/yr.
Mil. of Lbs.
0.0- 0.9
1.0- 9.9
10.0- 24.9
25.0- 49.9
50.0- 74.9
75.0- 99.9
100.0-124.9
125.0-149.9
150.0-174.9
175.0-199.9
200.0-224.9
225.0-249.9
250.0-274.9
275.0-299.9
300.0-324.9
325.0-349.9
350.0-374.9
375.0-399.9
400.0-499.9
500.0-599.9
Above 600.0
31
93
115
120
82
54
36
18
14
11
5
6
6
9
8
1
2
2
7
6
3
13
509
1,915
4,337
4,863
4,643
3,972
2,534
2,301
2,068
1,050
1,426
1,560
2,575
2,467
348
716
775
3,053
3,358
2,071
7
26
33
30
21
21
21
10
11
3
3
3
4
2
6
1
2
1
6
5
3
3
134
526
1,094
1,253
1,863
2,378
1,392
1,810
546
659
698
1,044
569
1,889
343
719
386
2,648
2,880
2,159
23%
28%
29%
25%
26%
39%
58%
56%
79%
27%
60%
50%
67%
22%
75%
100%
100%
50%
86%
83%
100%
23%
26%
27%
25%
26%
40%
60%
55%
79%
26%
63%
49%
67%
22%
77%
100%
100%
50%
87%
86%
100%
 Total
629
46,554
219
24,995
35%
54%

-------
                                                                14
the best one.  In many instances total solids may be an equally
important measure of meat packing wasteload.  BOD was chosen
because it is one of the most important, commonly used measures of
wastewater strength.  Additional studies of meat packing
wastewater should include analysis at least of total solids and
suspended solids.

        The BOD test is a time consuming, expensive, and delicate
test of wastewater strength.  These characteristics of the test
may be one explanation of the lack of information concerning the
strength of industrial wastewater.
Relationships Between BOD, Wastewater, and Plant Size

        Relationships between wasteload per unit, plant size, and
wastewater per unit, (two variables at a time) are shown
graphically in Figures 2, 3, and 4.  All data shown graphically
are "questionnaire data."

        Figure 2 shows the relationship between wasteload per
thousand pounds of liveweight killed and plant size.  Plant size
is measured by annual liveweight killed in millions of pounds.
The BOD per thousand pounds varies from a low of approximately
three pounds to a high of thirty-seven pounds.  There is no
discernible pattern relating BOD per thousand pounds of live-
weight killed to plant size.

        Figure 3 shows the relationship between wastewater per unit
of product and plant size.  If one were to eliminate those plants
whose wastewater averages above 3000 gal.  per thousand pounds of
liveweight, there seems to be a pattern in which the wastewater
per unit of product increases with plant size.  This relationship
is to be expected in that larger plants will tend to have more
processing which would increase their water and wastewater use per
thousand pounds of liveweight.

        Figure 4 shows the relationship between wasteload per unit
of product and wastewater use per unit of product by type of tech-
nology.   The visually obvious direct relationship between waste-
load and wastewater per unit of product is unexpected from a
theoretical point of view.  The formula by which the wasteload per
unit of product is obtained is:

                          (BOD in mg/1) (8.34) (Wastewater in MGD)
BOD in lbs/1000 Ibs LWK =  	(TLWK in 1000 Ibs/day)	

-------
                                                                                                                15
CM
3
        CO
        Q
        O  O>
        (X,  r-t


        O   -
        O  W
        O  N
        <->  H
            t/3
        B!
        W  H
        O
        nJ  Q
        W  B
        H  <
            w
        W  H
        W  W

        H  H
        W  ffi
        PQ  O
            I— I
        PJ  W
        M  5
        EC  W
        CO  >
        W
                                                                                                         ^  o
                                                      o
                                                      ro
O
CN

-------
                                                                                                             16
W
cd
       o

       w
       o
       o
       O
w
          Fd
          N
          M

          CO


          H
       H PH     ::::
H
w
<

*
s
W
W

g
w
eq

PH
          
-------
                                                               17
As wastewater per unit of product increases, one would simply
expect the BOD concentration in mg/1 to be lowered but the BOD in
pounds per thousand pounds to be unaffected.  The empirical study
of over sixty plants indicates that there is a direct relationship
between BOD per thousand pounds liveweight and wastewater per
thousand pounds liveweight.  As wastewater use per unit increases^
so does the wasteload per unit.  This relationship is reasonable
if the amount of wastewater per unit of product is some kind of
index of the plant's "wastewater consciousness."  "Wastewater
consciousness" would probably mean that greater attention is
given to dry cleanup and to the recovery of all scraps and trimmings
for by-product manufacture.  On this basis, then, the direct rela-
tionship between wastewater per unit and wasteload per unit seems
reasonable.

        In Figure 4 technology has been indicated according to the
subprocess mix as shown on page 25.   It is encouraging to note that
new technology is associated with both lower wastewater and waste-
load per unit of product according to Figure 4.

-------
        to
        w
        CO
        CO
        W
 3
 oo
•1-1
        §
        a
         o
         y>
                           O
                           O
                          PQ
 to
 
-------
                                                                19
FUNDAMENTAL INDUSTRY PROCESSES
        In the meat packing industry cattle,  hogs,  sheep,  and
calves are first brought to the packing house.   There they are
held for a few hours, often to the accompaniment of "muzak,"
before stunning and sticking.
Meat Packing Processes

I.  Stunning, Sticking, and Bleeding

        Animals are taken from the holding area,  and immediately
prior to their entering the kill area,  they are immobilized by
chemical, mechanical, or electrical means.  Cattle are suspended
by their hind legs from an overhead rail for sticking and bleeding.
The immobilized hogs are positioned on  a conveyor, so their heads
are over the bleeding trough, which is  a drain constructed under-
neath the conveyor, for collection of blood.
II.  Removal of Outer Covering

        A.  Cattle:  Hide Removal

        Mechanical hide-removers are used in most meat packing
plants to separate the hide from the carcass.  These mechanical
devices are designed to handle approximately fifty to sixty head
per hour or approximately one hundred million pounds per  year.
The introduction of the mechanical hide-remover appears to  be an
important factor in the determination of plant size.  Most  new
cattle plants will be killing an even multiple of the fifty to
sixty head per hour.  That is, the high cost of the mechanical
hide remover dictates that if it is desired to increase the rate
of kill to more than 60 head per hour the increase will necessarily
be to 100 or 120 per hour.  In terms of a liveweight equivalent,
this means that the size of cattle plants will be 100 million
pounds per year, 200 million pounds per year, 300 million pounds
per year, etc.

        B.  Hogs:  Hair Removal

        Hair is removed from the hog carcass without skinning.
Hair is loosened in a scalding vat or tub where the water is kept
at about 140 degrees F.  The hair is then removed by scraping.
In larger plants this hair is removed by mechanical scrapers. After
removal, hair may be sold, hauled to offsite disposal, or dissolved
in a caustic solution.  The trend seems to be towards sale  of the
hog hair because it can be used in the manufacture of foam  rubber.

-------
                                                                20
III.  Evisceration

        Viscera are removed and distributed to the proper channel,
depending upon whether they will become an edible or an inedible
product.  Hearts, stomachs and lower digestive tracts are usually
the edible items.

IV.  Washing

        Washing of the carcass and the internal organs takes place
throughout the meat packing process.  This process of washing is
described in detail in the next section.

V.  Paunch Removal

        The method by which this process is carried out will
determine its wasteload contribution, and these methods are
discussed in detail in the following section.

VI.  Rendering

        In general, there are tw9 types of rendering:  edible
and inedible.  Edible rendering is the process by which fats are
converted into lard and edible tallow.  Edible rendering is applied
primarily to hog fats but also to some beef fat.  Inedible rendering
is the process by which scraps, trimmings, and inedible organs
(heads, feet, etc.) are converted into inedible fats, which are
used in soap, in the manufacturing of grease,  and in animal feeds.
Inedible rendering also provides an outlet for those parts of an
animal which have been condemned by federal meat inspectors.
Through rendering, condemned material is sterilized and converted
into a recoverable product.

VII.  Sausage

        Sausage manufacture consists of preparing the filling from
meat and stuffing the casings.  Repeated washing of the utensils and
area are the main contributors to waste from this process.

        Many conclusions about meat packing industry activity
which are based upon the number of plants, will be misleading
because of the structure of this industry.  Even the most casual
analysis of the data shown in Table 2 will illustrate the misleading
nature of these data.  General information based upon the number of
plants is misleading because of the extremely large number of very
small meat packing plants.  Meat Packing plants range in size from
plants whose annual kill is less than one million pounds to those
plants whose annual kill is over eight hundred million pounds.
Twenty per cent of all meat packing plants in 1966 belonged to the
size category in which annual kill was less than ten million pounds.

-------
                                                                  21


Meat Packing Processes Related to BOD

        Six fundamental industry processes which can be carried
out in several ways have been identified.  The method by which a
fundamental process is executed is defined as a subprocess.
Those processes whose subprocess choice determines its pollution
contribution have been identified in Table 9.  Table 9 further
shows the percentage distribution of the subprocesses among  meat
packing plants.

        Only those distributions of plants by subprocess in  the
Killing, Washing, and Cleanup sections include all meat packing
plants.  The remaining categories should be interpreted as the
distribution of plants among the subprocesses when that fundamental
process is part of the packing plant's operation.   The fundamental
process of Paunch Handling will serve to illustrate this inter-
pretation.  In 1967, according to Table 9, of all plants handling
paunch material, (that is, those plants killing cattle and/or
calves) sixteen per cent employed the dry dumping method, seventy
one per cent used wet dumping, and the remaining thirteen per
cent allowed paunch material to be dumped into the sewer.

        The percentage of plants employing the indicated
subproceses were estimated for the years 1950, 1963, 1967, 1972,
and 1977.  The estimates for 1967 are based upon "questionnaire
data" and should be the most reliable of all estimates.  Histori-
cally estimates are based upon conversations with meat packers.
The projected percentage distributions assume continued efforts
on the part of industry to reduce wastewater flow and/or wastewater
strength.


Interpretation of Conclusions Based Upon the Number of Plants

        Many conclusions about meat packing industry activity
which are based upon the number of plants, will be misleading
because of the structure of this industry.  As mentioned earlier,
even the most casual analysis of the data shown in Table 2
illustrates the misleading nature of these data.  General
information based upon the number of plants is misleading
because of the extremely large number of very small meat packing
plants.  Meat packing plants range in size from plants whose
annual kill is less than one million pounds to those plants
whose annual kill is over eight hundred million pounds.  Twenty
per cent of all meat packing plants in 1966 belonged to the  size
category in which annual kill was less than ten million pounds.
These one hundred twenty four plants together handled only one
per cent of total liveweight slaughtered that year.  To the
extent that an estimate of industry participation is based upon
the percent of plants participating, the participation is likely
to be understated.   The extent of the understatement will, of
course, depend upon the number of very small plants in the estimate.

-------
                          TABLE  9
                                                                22
Production Process and
Significant
Subprocesses
I.

KILLING AND
1.
2.
Recovery
Recovery
Estimated Percentage of Plants
Employing Indicated Subprocess
1950 1963 1967 1972 1977
BLEEDING
of
of
all blood
no blood
70 80 83 90 99
30 20 17 10 1
 II.   WASHING OF CARCASS
      1.  Interruptable water flow
      (Lever type valves on water
      hoses and/or automated
      washing mechanisms causing
      water to shut off when no
      animals are present)
      2.  Continuous water flow
      (In washing mechanisms or
      hoses)

III.   PAUNCH REMOVAL
      1.  Dry dumping of paunch
      material followed by off-
      site disposal
      2.  Wet dumping of paunch
      material followed by off-
      site disposal
      3.  Dumping of all paunch
      material into sewer
100
95
             25
75
  0
      16
 50    70    71

 50    25    13
            80
20
      25
            90
10
      35
            70    65

             5     0
 IV.  EDIBLE RENDERING
      1. Dry rendering                 20    30    40    50    60
      2. Wet rendering with no
      evaporation of tank water        40    30    26    10     0
      3. Low temperature rendering      0    10    19    25    30
      4. Wet rendering followed by
      evaporation of tank water        40    30    15    15    10

  V.  INEDIBLE RENDERING
      1. Dry rendering                 70    74    80    80    80
      2. Wet rendering with no
      evaporation of tank water        15    13     9     5     0
      3. Continuous rendering           0     3     5    10    19
      4. Wet rendering followed by
      evaporation of tank water        15    10     6     5     1

 VI.  CLEANUP
      1. Dry cleanup followed by
      wet cleanup                       0     5    10    30    60
      2. Wet cleanup                  100    95    90    70    40

-------
                                                               23
Definition of Technology by Subprocess Mix

       Three levels of technology were specified in terms of the
process or subprocesses.  The latest method of performing a funda-
mental process was categorized as "advanced" technology.   The
oldest methods still utilized were designated as "old" technology.
The most widely used method was characterized as "typical" tech-
nology.  In general, the different methods of paunch handling,
edible rendering, inedible rendering, carcass washing and cleanup
can be designated as "typical," "old" or "advanced" technology.

       An "old" plant is one in which all rendering is wet with no
evaporation of "stick water;" paunch material is washed into the
sewer and cleanup is wet.

       A "typical" plant is one in which rendering is either "wet
with evaporation of stick water" or dry.  Paunch material will be
dumped wet but screened and disposed of offsite.

       An "advanced" plant is one whose edible rendering is low
temperature and whose inedible rendering is dry.  Paunch material
will be dumped dry and conveyed dry to trucks for offsite dumping.
Cleanup will be dry followed by wet.

       Any plant which did not collect blood was automatically
listed as "old" technology, regardless of the type of rendering,
paunch handling, etc.

       When the method of edible rendering was a different
technology from that of inedible rendering, the assignment of
technology was based upon the animal mixture.  If only cattle
were killed, the inedible rendering was felt to be the determining
factor.  If hogs dominated, then the edible rendering method
became the deciding factor.

       All "questionnaire" plants were categorized according to
their subprocess mix as having "old," "typical" and "advanced"
technology.  It was assumed that the "questionnaire" plants were
representative of the entire meat packing industry in terms of
subprocess mix.  Table 10 shows the percentage distribution of
plants by technology level for 1967.
Relationship Between Technology and Plant Size

       Table 10 further shows the percentage distribution within
a given technology level by size of plant.  In 1967, eighty per
cent of all plants employed subprocesses classified as "typical."
Half of these plants were medium size plants, according to Table

-------
                                                               24
10.  Or it could be stated that forty per cent of all plants were
medium sized using "typical" technology.

       It is interesting to note that of those few plants with
"advanced" technology only six per cent are small plants, while
close to thirty per cent of those plants with "old" technology are
small.

-------
                          TABLE 1C
                                                                25
Technology Levels and
the Associated Typical
Subprocesses
Estimated
Per Cent of
Plants by
Type of
Technology*
1967
Proportion of
Plants of this
Type by size
Sm. Med. Lar.*
Size Range
of Plants
by Type of
Technology
Mil. Lbs.
LWK/yr . *
"TYPICAL TECHNOLOGY"

1. Recovery of all blood
2. Wet dumping of paunch
   material followed by
   hauling away of the
   gross paunch material
3. Edible rendering—dry
   rendering or wet ren-
   dering with evaporation
   of tank water
4. Inedible rendering—dry
   rendering
5. Wet cleanup
80
.05  .50  .45
 1-800+
"OLD TECHNOLOGY"
10
.28  .36  .36
 1-500
1. Recovery of all blood
2. Washing of all paunch
   material down the sewer
3. Edible rendering—wet
   with no evaporation of tank
   water
4. Inedible render ing--wet
   with no evaporation of tank
   water
5. Wet cleanup
"ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY"

1. Recovery of all blood
2. Dry dumping of the paunch
   material followed by the
   hauling of the gross
   material away from the
   plant premises
3. Edible rendering--low
   temperature
4. Inedible rendering--
   continuous
5. Dry cleanup followed by
   wet cleanup
10
.06  .47   .47
15-500
  'Based  solely  upon  "Questionnaire  Data."
   287-031 O - 68 - 4

-------
                                                             26
I.  Killing and Bleeding

        Because blood is one of the major sources  of  BOD,  the
recovery of blood is an important subprocess to  the process  of  kill-
ing.  Failure to recover blood increases the BOD by seventy-two per
cent.  In other words blood recovery can cause the BOD to  decrease
by forty-two per cent. (2)

        A.  Blood Recovery 1966, 1967

        By 1967, according to survey results, four out of  every
five packing plants in the United States recover blood.  Plants
which allow blood to escape directly into the sewer are usually
small in size.  Of all plants that do not recover  blood, seventy
per cent are small plants.  Twenty-four per cent are  at the  lower
end of the range of medium sized plants, and six per  cent  fall  in
the middle of the range of the medium sized plants.  As shown in
Table 10' only eighty-three per cent of meat packing plants  attempt-
ed to and/or accomplished recovery of all blood.  This statistic
on blood recovery provides an excellent example  of understatement
of the meat packing industry's adoption of waste reducing  subpro-
cesses.  On a total liveweight basis more than ninety-six  per cent
of the meat packing industry is practicing blood recovery.  Since
failure to recover blood is a major source of BOD, face-value
acceptance of Table 10 percentages will overestimate the pollution
load.

        B.  Blood Recovery 1950, 1963

        The consensus of opinion among "national"  packers  is that
although medium and large-sized plants would have  attempted  to  re-
cover blood as early as 1950, recovery methods were less than they
are today.  Improvements in the design of the kill area have
increased the percentage of blood recovered from the  animals.
In 1950 it was estimated that seventy per cent of  all plants
recovered blood.  This percentage represents two factors:  a
larger proportion of packing plants not recovering blood as  well
as a less efficient recovery on the part of those  packers  who
did attempt to recover blood.

        C.  Blood Recovery 1972, 1977

        It seems likely that concern with the water pollution
effects of no blood recovery will force the adoption  of this
subprocess upon all meat packers.

-------
                                                               27
II.  Paunch Material

        In ruminants (cattle, calves, and sheep) the paunch or
first stomach contains a large amount of undigested material.  The
paunch content of a one thousand pound cow might weigh from sixty
to ninety pounds, and at the packing house the paunch is opened and
the contents removed.  The method by which the contents of the
paunch are removed and the ultimate disposal of the contents will
affect the wasteload of a particular packing plant.  Combinations
of the various methods of removing the undigested material from
the paunch with those methods of ultimate disposal have led to
the differentiation of three alternative subprocesses.

        A.  Dry Dumping

        The first subprocess is designated as "dry dumping of
paunch material and offsite disposal."  This method of  paunch
handling is one in which the undigested material (hay,  corn,
straw, and grain) is dumped into a hopper and conveyed  by mechan-
ical means to a truck.  The hauling of this material to its off-
site disposal may be at the expense of the packer or may be
provided free of charge in exchange for receipt of the  paunch
material.  Paunch material may be used as land fill or  soil
conditioner.  Recent attempts to process paunch material into
animal feed have met with only partial success.

        Dry dumping and offsite disposal represents "advanced
technology" in the handling of paunch material.  The use of this
method of handling may in part be dictated by waste treatment
practices.  After the gross material has been removed from the
paunch, the paunch itself is cleaned with water.  In some plants,
the paunch is saved for tripe; in other plants where tripe is not
processed, the paunch probably is used for inedible rendering.

        B.  Wet Dumping

        The second subprocess is designated as "wet dumping of
paunch material and offsite disposal of the gross paunch material."
This process involves the use of water under pressure to flush the
entire paunch or the dumping of the paunch contents into a flowing
stream of water which will be passed over vibrating or  rotating
screens.  Screening separates the coarse material from the fine.
The gross material is then trucked away.  The solution containing
the suspended fine material plus any dissolved matter passes into
the sewer.  This subprocess is most typical of the meat packing
industry today and probably represents an "intermediate stage" in
terms of technology.  The introduction of screens for separation
of gross material was probably pollution oriented in that their
use was caused by the desire to lower the total solids  content of
the wastewater.

-------
                                                              28
        C.  Dumping into Sewer

        The third alternative subprocess  is  one in which "all
paunch contents are washed down the sewer."   This subprocess
represents the oldest form of technology  and probably would have
been practiced primarily by packers located  along major  rivers  who
in earlier times were less concerned with this polluting character-
istic of meat packing wastewater than the inland packers.
III.  Edible Rendering

        There are five basic edible rendering processes:   dry
rendering, wet rendering, low temperature rendering,  caustic
rendering, and enzyme rendering.

        The latter two types are  insignificant relative to the
others and will not be included in the tabulations.   Very few
rendering operations rupture fat  tissues with a caustic,  and it
is therefore excluded.  Enzyme rendering is excluded  because it
is still in the development stage.

        Because of differing effects upon the waste loading, four
subprocesses will be included in  this study.  These are [1]  dry
rendering, [2] wet rendering without evaporation of tank water,
[3] low temperature rendering, and [4] wet rendering  followed by
evaporation of tank water.  Each  subprocess will be discussed in
detail.

        A.  Dry Rendering

        Dry rendering refers to the process in which  fats are
cooked in steam jacketed tanks under a vacuum.(3) A  dry rendering
system is usually more advantageous than a wet rendering one
because of the increased recovery of protein material.   Also, the
dry rendering process does not contribute directly to water pollu-
tion, although the vapors from a  dry rendering process may contrib-
ute to air pollution through the  resulting unpleasant odors.  These
odors may be removed by washing the vapors.  If wash  water for
this process is not recirculated  it will contain some small amounts
of pollution material, but compared with other sources of polluting
material, this seems to be rather insignificant.

-------
                                                               29

          B.  Wet Rendering

          This process is often referred to as steam rendering
because it is a process in which

          a large tank is loaded with fat and the tank sealed.
          Steam is introduced at some forty to sixty pounds
          gauge pressure and kept at the particular level
          chosen until the fats are completely freed from the
          tissues.  On standing, three layers form in the tank.
          Fats are on top, water is largely in the middle of
          the tank, and slush is in the bottom.  After the fats
          are drawn off, the water and slush are either run
          through some kind of centrifuge or press to separate
          the suspended solids from the liquid.  This liquid
          is the tank water, which when concentrated to about
          thirity-five per cent moisture, is known in the trade
          as liquid stick.(4)

          It has been estimated that seventy-five per cent of the
total protein content of the reiidering inputs is dissolved in
tank water.(5)  Tank water before evaporation is therefore a
major source of BOD, and it has been estimated that tank water
will contain on the average 32,000 ppm BOD.(6)  The most polluting
subprocess of edible rendering would be "wet  rendering without
evaporation of tank water."  This process is typical of "older
technology."

          C.  Wet Rendering Followed by Evaporation of Tank Water

          Because of the relatively high protein and solids content
of the tank water, it is usually economically desirable to concen-
trate the tank water.  The concentrated material, which is the by-
product of edible rendering, can be sold to pharmaceutical houses
for use in some products.  The high protein content of the evapo-
rated tank water in any case would be a source of protein which
could be used to upgrade tankage, but even though this tank water
is evaporated, it is estimated that as much as fifty per cent of
the protein content will be lost to the sewer.  Therefore, this
subprocess is the second highest polluting method of rendering
edible materials.  This subprocess is a modification of the "older
technology," and it is doubtful if a new packing plant would
install this type of edible rendering equipment.

          D.  Low Temperature Rendering
          This name is applied to the edible rendering process
which produces a mechanical breakdown of the fatty tissues.
No water is added, and the maximum temperature is 118°F.   Because
no water is added to the fat-yielding tissues, there is a minimum
of water pollution arising from this subprocess.   This process
represents the latest technology in edible rendering.

-------
                                                              30
IV.  Inedible Rendering

        There are four subprocesses or methods of rendering
inedible material; [1] dry rendering,  [2]  wet rendering with no
evaporation of tank water, [3]  continuous  rendering,  and [4] wet
rendering followed by evaporation of tank  water.

        A.  Dry Rendering

        See description of this subprocess under  edible rendering.

        B.  Wet Rendering

        See description of this subprocess under  edible rendering.

        C.  Continuous Rendering

        There are several patented processes for  continuous
rendering of inedible material.  Almost all of the patented
continuous rendering processes  are considered dry rendering.

        D.  Wet Rendering Followed by  Evaporation of  Tank Water

        See description of this subprocess under  edible rendering,

-------
                                                              31
                    GROSS POLLUTION QUANTITIES
Per Unit Wasteloads and Wastewater Volumes by Technology

        All "questionnaire" plants with wastewater strength data
were categorized by type of technology.

        The number of plants of each type in the sample, the
range, and average values of the waste characteristics by type
of technology are shown in Table 11.

        Once the "sample" plants had been identified by technology
level, the plants in each technology group were analyzed to de-
termine the average pounds of BOD per thousand pounds liveweight
killed.  A simple average BOD per unit of product was obtained as
well as a weighted average with total liveweight killed serving as
the weight.  In all cases the weighted average BOD was slightly
larger than the simple average.  In all future calculations the
weighted average BOD will be used.

        Notice that all wasteloads in Table 11 are "post catch
basin" wasteloads.  These wasteloads must be increased by a factor
of 1.33 in order to represent the gross wasteload per thousand
pounds liveweight killed.  Table 12 shows the "pre-catch basin"
wasteloads per unit of product.

        The "pre-catch basin" wasteload per unit of product should
be used to estimate all gross wasteloads.  All estimates of gross
wasteloads should be based upon the weighted average BOD and waste-
water values per unit of product.  An assumed distribution of
slaughter by technology is also necessary to determine a gross
wasteload.

        Table 13 shows the effect of technology upon wasteload
and wastewater volume per unit of product in an index form.  "Old"
technology is the base.  Advancing technology has a slightly greater
effect upon wastewater volume than upon BOD, according to Table 13.
Effect of Plant Size and Technology on Wastewater Use

        Table 14 shows wastewater volume per unit of product by
level of technology and by plant size.  As explained earlier,
wastewater per unit of product declines as technology advances.
According to Table 14, this relationship applies to small and to
medium plants but not to large plants.  The paucity of large

-------
                                                                              32
M
W
te ON
P rH <<-y
O    CO
  83
p
O
W  b W
fX,  O " 0
H  pa

• rH
CO i— 1
r$ *r^

01
4J O 4J
ca o xi
3 o oo
Ol rH -H
4-1 ~->- 0)
CD • g
Cfl rH CD
S « >
60 -H
I_J



13
Ol
CO • r-4
Xl CD rH
rH ,Q -H

13
tfl O 4-J
O O Xi
rH O 60
4) rH TH
4J ^ Ol

•iH
)_^

rH
cfl
3
C rO
C Q)
<£ <-< s~*
PH •
C -H CO
•iH [-4 Xi
1— 1
4-1 4-1
c x: "J-i
cfl 60 O
PH 0) •
13 ' — '
LM 01 -H
o > g
•H N-'
01 i-J
N
•r-l
CO
• 0)
4-1 >
& <

.
0)
^
^




Ol
60
c
cfl
Pi

• 0)
4-1 >
S ^3


•
0)
^
^




O)
60
c
tO
erf




•
01
•^




Ol
60
c
cO
Pi



"4-i en
0 4J
c
• cfl
0 rH
py; PLJ
K^
60
14H 0
O rH
o
01 c
CX XI
>, CJ
H 01
H
ON
CM
rH

CM
m
CO
t— 1


00
vO
vO
1
m
r^
CO
^
^*
rH


ON
•
CO
1— 1


vO
•
^J-
CM
1
CM
•
CM




m
CM



o
o
00

CM
rH



CM
CM



V,
60
rH O
tfl rH
CJ O
*W"J C
CXXl
>, o
EH Ol
= H
CM
r-l
rH
CM


O

ON
rH


^j-
ON
vO
CM
1
r^.
CO
ON



CM
•
O
CM


^>
•
ON
rH


x^-
•
vO
CO
1
vD
•
00






^p
vO
T— 1






0
o
m
i
00








o-
rH




—
^
60
O
rH
0
C
13 JS
rH 0
O Ol
~ H
VJD
rH
rH
rH


CO
CM
ON



1 —
O

CM
1
m
CM
rH



CO
•
r-l
rH


ON
•
00



CM
•
m
CM
i
ON
•
rH






^f
ON
rH






O
0

1
oo








1 —
! 	 1




—
^
13 60
Ol O
O rH
C O
cfl C
> A
13 O
<; 01
= H
rH C
rH Cfl
•H s:
S *->

01 :
LI r>i
O> 60
f, O
H rH
0
. C
t— , j^
rH U
0)
Ol H
rH
& 13
cfl Q)
H 0
C
C Cfl
*H ^
•a
13 >
CJ S-i
•H 0
13 60
C 01
•iH 4J
cfl
CO CJ
cfl

jj^ rj
•H 4J
e
c
co -i-i
co
Ol CO
O 4J
o c
S-l cfl
CXrH
3
CD Ol
•iH
01 0
J3 01
4-1 CX
CO
£>>
Xi Ol
rH
13 60
0) C
C -i-l •
•H CO CO
4H Ol
0) MH -iH
13 O S-l
0
CO C 60
•H O 01
•iH 4J
>,4J Cfl
60 1-1 0
0 0
rH CX O
O O £
C S-l 4-1
XI CX
CJ l^
Ol Vj 01
FH Ol XI
to xl -u
60 O
•H
XI Ol
XI
Cfl 4-J

0) C
XI -H











































•
""O
o>
t-H
rH
5

4-1
r-;
60
•H
0)
^
0)
^
•H
rH

r-H
cfl
3
C
C
cfl

£x,
r\

13
01
4-1
fl
60
•i-t
0)
ts








0 0
o> 4J s-i xl
X CO CX CJ
4-j o cx to
: cfl 01
r\
x; o> >> o>
4-1 Xi Xl CO
60 4-i cfl
C O 0)
Q) «4-l O IH
S-i O pq O
4J C
CO 4-1 0) -iH
O CJ
4J 0) 3 «
C <4H 13 Q)
Ol "4-1 0) 3
3 0) >-l rH
rH CO
<4H 60 rH >
<4H C rH
O) -H -iH Q
o 3 O
4H 3 pa
O 13
0) 01 ;
co S-i 60 co
0) cfl co
S-i C S-i O
3 O 0) Sj
CO -H > 60
co 4J cfl :
O> 3
0 rH Ol Cfl
rH XI
01 O 4J O 4-1
s-i a, 4.) c
0) C O)
£ Ol O CO O
XI Ol
CD 4J - 3 t-l
0) •> rH Q)
3 Ol CO CO CX
rH 4J C >
to cfl -iH CD
> C CO Q Q)
••-i cfl O >-i
8E Xi PQ X!
•rl 4-1
PQ rH XI 0) 1
Ol CJ > >s
- 4-1 O 4-1
Cfl O Cfl Xl >H
4-1 4J O CO -H
cfl r xl
13 13 Ol 4-1
01 4-1 XI
O) 4-1 10 4J >>
S-l CD Xl Xl
•r4 3 4-J 4-1
Cfl T-l CD Ol
C 13 13 3 i—
C cfl 01 "-i Xl
O B TJ tfl
•H 0) 3 Cfl 4-1
4-1 Xl CD
CO CO O <11
Ol 4J CO H >
3 co 0
cr 3 oi xi
r g x. • rt
4-1
rH CO rH C Ol
rH CO rH CD XI
CO 3 -H 0 4-1
rH S
Q) tfl S-l C
O > 4J 0) T-1
n M cx
•HP CJ
co O m 3
PQ = CM rH
Cfl
•• Q) C >, >
W > T-l ^J
H O co 4-) O
O Xt cfl cfl O
!a «s xi B PQ

-------
33










































CM
rH
a
PQ
<
Q O
£5 O
^4 rJ
co O

o S
ffi U
H W
pi
W fn
P., 0

pi U
W P-i
fH r^-*

60 •-!
1-J




T3
CU
rH
CO • rH
XI CO -H
rH n Kj^
1— 1
T3 4J
CO O XI
O O 60
i— 1 O -H
0) rH 01
CO Q Q)
CO O >
S PQ •"-(
r4


_,
cfl
3
C -0
c ai
<^ rH /*^
1-1
C -H CO
• H s^ XI
rH
4-1 4-1
C Xi >4H
cfl 60 O
P-i 0) •
!S i—1
MH cu *r4
o > 6
•H O'
01 rJ
N
•r-l
CO

•
• 0)
4-1 >
s ^


•
01
^
^j




01
60
C
cfl
OtJ


Xi

• 0)
4J >
uS "^


•
01

^


Ol
60
C
cfl
PS






•
01
^
^d




Ol
60
C
CO





MH CO
O 4-1
C
• cfl
O rH
£2 P-i


^
60
U-i O
O r-l
0
Ol C
CX Xi
>, 0
H 0)
H
o-
ON
CM
r-l


CM
in
co
i-l


00
vD
vO
CO
1
m
r^.
CO


CM

ON
1— 1


in
•
oo
1—4

OO
CM
ro
i
ON
•
CM






m
CO
CM



O
0
00
1
CM
i— 1






CM
CM




—
^
60
r-4 O
CO i— i
0 0
•H C
a, x:
>> u
H 0)
= H




CN
r— l
r-l
CM


O
vD
ON
1—1


sj-

wO
CM
1
r-
co
ON


ON
•
WO
CN


ON
•
m
CM

m
oo
^^
i
^f
•
i— i
r-4






*^J-
vO
i— 1



O
0
m
i
00






^~
i— i




—
£*•*
60
O
r-4
O
c
*O X-
r-l O
O Ol
= H


Ol

VO
rH
i— l
r-l


CO
CN
ON



r-^
O
m
CM
i
m
CM
i— i


i— i
•
m
•—I


ON
•
r-4
r-l

vO
CO
CO
1
in
•
CM






^J-
ON
l— 1



O
o
1 —
1
00






[^
1— 1




—
^
-O 60
Ol O
O r-l
C 0
cfl C
> x:
T3 O
< o>
= H
X

1— 1
1— 1
• H
JS

01
v-<
o>
x:
H


-_~
'

Ol
i— 1
x>
cfl
H
C
•i-l

•o
Ol
4J
CO
O
•r4
^
c
•1-1
CO
cfl

X
•r-l
e

CO
CO
0)
\U
0
o
t-l
a.
Lf^
3
CO

Ol
X!
4-1
•^
Xl
•a
Ol
c

U-l
O)
1^3

co
•r4
>,
60
O
i— l
0
C
1"!
o
01
H
cfl









01
XI
4J

C
•i-4

C
CO

4-1

-
^Sj
60
O
r-l
O
c

CJ
0)
H
T3
Ol
U
C
cfl

•a
^
—

£*•»
1-1
o
60
Ol
4-1
Cfl
U

Ol
.£
4-1
•r-l
co
4-1
C
cfl
i— i
cx

Ol
•H
0
Ol
a
01

0)
1— 1
60
C
•H
CO

CM
O •
co
C 0)
O •<-!
•H )-l
4-1 O
H 60
O O)
a -u
O cfl
U U
a,
o
j-i ^
O> 4J
(-;
60 S-l
•i-l 0)
f-; r^
4-1
cfl 0












































T)
01
i— 1
i— 1
•r-l
*v?

4-1
Xi
60
•r-l
0)
01
•r-l
1— 1

1-4
Cfl
C
C
cfl

^

•a
01
4J
n
60

Ol
>^
o








Ol f~!
> 4-1 H
O M
^
cfl •
r 4J
01 • C
x: c 01
4-1 -r-l U
CO
- cfl H
XI Xt OJ
4-1 a.
60X!
c o m co
0) 4J CM CO
(^ cfl
4-> U >, r-l
CO = rH
0) >,
4-1 a) 4J x
C JS cfl
<" *-> 6 r-l
3 '^ rH
i tl j fcJ * '
4-4 O O 0)
4-1 r^l I— 1
oi 4-i a. xi
O D. CO
4-i 01 cfl H
O <4-4
H-4 >, C
CO 0) X -H
O>
ti 60 Q CO
3 C O T3
CO T-l pQ Cfl
cfl U O
Ol 3 -O r-<
g t3 0) Q)
Ol U 4-1
0> l-i D CO
M "O cfl
Ol C 01 g
3 0. H
•H Ol
CO 4-1 - XI
Ol 3 0) 4J
3 r— I 60
r-l r-l CO 00
cfl 0 U C
> O. 0) -r-4
r* r*N
Q 0) Cfl r-4
o -c a.
pQ 4J Ol -r-l
X 4J
r Ol 4-1 r-l
Cfl 4-1 3
•u cfl n e
cfl C 0
T3 T-l >,
6 = xi
ai -a -
^J i— 1 CO TJ
•i-l CD C 0)
cfl -i-l C
C O co T-I
C 4-1 Cfl Cfl
O XI 4J
•H 13 XI
4J 0) X O
CO 4-1 O
Ol co 4J Ol
3 3 cfl U
cr ••-) o 01
s 13 s 3
cfl
r-l 4J CO
i— 1 0) CO T3
cfl (j XI cfl
0) 4J O
Ol ? rH
o -a oi
ti CO 0) 4J
•r4 Ol g (0
Crt 3 3 (fl
i— 1 CO g
Cfl CO
•• > CO 0)
JV] ^
H Q co 0
O O cfl Xi
& PQ 5 cfl

-------
                                                              34
                             Table  13

           WASTELOAD AND WASTEWATER INDEX BY TECHNOLOGY
Waste Characteristics
Per 1000 Ibs. LWK
BOD in Wastewater
Ibs. in gals.
"Old
Technology" 20.2 2112
"Typical
Technology" 14.4 1294
"Advanced
Technology" 11.3 1116
Index of Waste
("Old" = 100)
BOD Wastewater


100 100
71 61

56 53
       Based on "questionnaire data" in which plants were class-
ified as "old," "typical," or "advanced" on the basis of their
subprocess mix.  (See Tables 11 or 12)

-------
35






























-| Q"
BW
nJ
i-J iJ
0 M
25 ^
EC
0 H
W X
H O
h- 1
Cn W
0 25
W
W >
CM M
>< vJ
H

JH CO
pa pa
H ^
0 0
:=> o
o o
0 ^
pi ^~
PM CO
t— ^
fn O
0 J
H ^
H O
J3 N — x
5

oi
w
pu

w
CO
p

CX!
W
H
~,
00
o
1— (
o
c
£:
o
0)
H
•o
0)
O
C
cfl
>
T)
<


>,
oo
o
1 — 1
0
c
f,
o
£
T~t
a
o
•r-l
Ou
>^
H


>>
W)
O
i — l
O
c
f.
0
01
H

•n
r-H
O



0)
N
•r-l
CO

4-1
C
cfl
i— i
PH


O ^O O O
CM 00 CM t-H
f)  *\ n «v
i — 1 i — 1 I — 1 i — 1





vD u"1 O vD
m in ON i— i
rO OO ON i— 1
i— 1 i— 1
















O O en <)•
o  ^D CM CM
CM LJ-l vD ,-{
m r~ CM i— i
** *• " f.
r—l<—,
f
T3
0)
4J
J2
00
•H
cu
S

tu
00
eO
i-l
0)
>
<
•}:







-------
                                                               36
plants classified as having "advanced" technology in the "questionnaire
sample" probably accounts for the wastewater use per unit of pro-
duct being higher at the "advanced" level of technology than at the
"typical" level of technology.

        Small plants used the least amount of wastewater per unit
of product—probably because small plants tend to do less pro-
cessing than mediun or large plants.  Medium-sized plants use the
largest amount of wastewater per unit of product.  Large plants
according to Table 13 use slightly less wastewater per unit than
medium-sized plants but more than small plants.  It is probable
that this relationship is due in part to the distribution of plants
by technology and size in the sample.  Most of the sample firms had
"typical" technology and most of these firms were medium or large
in size.  There was almost no difference in the wastewater use per
unit of product between large and medium plants of "typical"
technology.  There is little reason to expect that there should be.
Until the percentage of large plants with "advanced" technology
increases, there is not sufficient evidence to predict the effect
of size upon wastewater use in this category.
Gross Wasteloads in Base Year;  1963

        The annual gross wasteload is a function of annual production
(liveweight slaughter) and the assumed distribution of technology.
Tables 15 and 16 depict the daily and yearly gross wasteloads for
the base year, 1963.  Table 15 shows "post catch basin" wasteloads
and Table 16 shows "pre catch basin" wasteloads.  The latter, of
course, is the more accurate representation of the "gross" waste-
load.
Gross Wasteload and Wastewater Volumes;  1963-1977

        Gross wasteloads and wastwater volumes have been estimated
from meat production data for selected years between 1963 and 1977.

        Production or slaughter projections by type of animal are
shown in Figure 5.  For reasons described earlier, value-added is
not a satisfactory measure of production upon which to base
pollution estimates.  Slaughter projections were based upon as-
sumed rates of population growth and per capita consumption of
meat which in turn were based upon assumed elasticities of demand
for meat and assumed changes in per capita income and meat prices.(7)

-------
w


S >N >N
3 rt to
P -a
rt rl rH
4J d) -iH
0 PL, g
H
O >, in
PQ rt 43
P .-H
rt rl I-l
4J CU -iH
0 PL, g
H


S rl
3 rt I-H
cu rt
i-H >l OO
rt
4-1 rl rH
O CU -H
H PL, g

P
0 r.
M rt to
CU 43
rH >4 rH
rt
1 1 t , 1
4-* rl r— 1
O CU -rl
H PL, g

rl
cu o
4-1 O &
rt o 5
e> i T
l> ' l rH
(U \
4J CD CO
CO rH 43
rt rt I-H
S 00
o
o >i
O 3
Q I-H rJ
0 ^
pq to to
43 42
rH rH


•
g rl CO
g CU 43
0 4J rH
0 42
00 UH
rH 3 0
rt rt
1 1 1 I
O W -rH
H rO





cu

< o
O
4-1 PQ
5

cu P
P O
 PQ
s


eu P
> 0

Ǥ
4-1 pq
3

CU P
> O
< PQ
cu
4-1 >
3 <3


cu
>

<



CU
 0 42
CU CJ
rJ «



CN
vO
^H

ON
O
rH
O
OO
•— 1



rH
VO
H;


m
r--.
>
H

CN
CN
rH



CN
m


00
00
ON
ON
CM



C7N
o
ro


r~
ON
CM

C^I

^^^
CS|


0
k£>
ON
f*H


CM
O
CM


•H
rH

i-H
W
4-1
0
4_>

>^
43

'a
cu
4-1
42
00
•H
CU
U


43


37


4J
co rt
CU 42
3 4-1
iH Q
rt T) o
> 0) pq
F^ •
P 3 0) 4-1
O en > C
pq en o Q)
rt 43 U
cu en
> CU rl
O 43 CU CU
43 42 CX
CO rH 4-1
rH CU
0) -iH 4J CU
42 > cn ri
4-1 3 42
4-1 V-) 4J
- M TJ 1
42 rt >-.
4-1 4-1
bOr O ri
C • H -H
(U C 42
rl -rt 4-1
4-i en •
en rt 4J >-,
43 C 43
4J cu
C 42 CJ CU
CU O rH
3 4-1 IH 43
I-H rt at rt
4H CJ {X 4-1
MH -.
CU u-i CU
CU CN >
UH 42 0
C 4-1 ^ 43
r-H rt
tO UH CU
cu o 4-1 cu
IH rt 42
3 4-1 g 4J
en u -H
CO CU X (2
CU UH O -H
S "4H rl
CU PL, CU
CU CX 3
rl 00 rt rH
CU (2 rt
fe -H >, >
a 43
CO 3 P
CU T3 Q O
3 CU O pq
rH Vl PQ
rt 42
> d cu o
o cj rt
P -iH 3 CU
O 4J 13
pq 3 cu cu
rH rl CO
r rH rt
rt O •— 1 CU
4-1 pu rH (H
rt -HO
13 CU & C
42 -H
0) 4-1 «•
rl CU "
•H a) oo cu
rt 4-J ctf 3
rt rt rt rH
rt rt cu rt
0 -H > >
•rl g rt
4J -H P
0) rH CU O
cu cu 42 pq
3 4-1
cr 0 r
s 4-1 c cn
O CO
i-l TJ 0
rH CU r rl
rt 4-i •> oo
co en r
cu 3 c
U T-| T-l rt
rt 13 en
•rl rt rt o
C/2 43 4-1
cu
43 42 CO
CJ CU
W 4-> 4-1 3
H en rt rH
O 3 0 rt
a e = >

-------
                                                                                                                   38
     W
     W cd
     H CO
     CO SO
     i-J   "  CO
     <^  ^-(  Q
     H  oj  <;
     OHO
     H  to  hJ
         t3  W
     P  P  H
     !3  !Hi  CO
W

pq

H
w
M
H
M
H
         O
S
M
CO

pq
     £>  EH  O
     C/ <$  H
         W  <\
     P  S  sJ

     01
     rJ  W  Pd
     W  S  PH
     H  S  ^-/
     CO  i-J
     -l rH
O CU -H
H a, e
p
O I^ CO
PQ CO XI
Q rH
1
1^
cd >-i T-H
4-1 CU -H
o cu g
H

S rl rH
5 CO CO
CU 60
rH >-,
Cfl rH
4-1 rl -H
O CU g
E-i O-i
Q
O J-l CO
PQ cd Xi
CU rH
rH >-l
Cd rH
4J rl -H
O CU 0
H OH
rl
CU O
4-1 0 ^
cfl O 13
S rH nJ
cu ^
4-1 CO CO
CO rH XI
CO CO rH
rs 60
o
O ^
O ^
P rH J
o ~^
pq co co
| Q ^ O
rH rH

CO
g rl X>
B 0) rH
O 4-1
u x: 4-1
60 0
rH 3
Cfl Cd rH
4J rH -H
O CO XI
H




cu
< 0
o
4-i pq
£2

CU P
> 0
 0
< PQ

cu

 0
< PQ

cu
4-1 >
& <



cu
£>
<
Xl
CU
4J >
13 <;

0)
^
O
4-t
rH O
•r)
pq co
Xi
rH

• .
4J XI
C -H
CU rl
CJ 4-1
rl CO
CU -rl
PH p
60
0
„ 1 1
CU 4-1 O
t> 0 ti
cu xl
,-J 0
cu
H
CM
SO
rH
ON
rH



0

.
CM

CM
CO

CM

CM
0
r--
«*
CM
^f

SO
rH
sD
»>
^J-

CM

CM
rH
V^J-



sO
ON
CO




CM
rH
rH
CM

0
sD

rH

ON
.
SO
CM

ON
•
LO
CM







CO
.
LO
rH







0
CO










=
13
rH
O

rH
rH

ON




LO
rH
•


rH
rH
«


0
o^
px.
#1
CM


00
o
CO
*
CM


r-*
CO




ON
CM





sO
rH
rH
r-H

CO
CM
ON


rH
•
LO
rH

ON
•
rH
rH







LO
,
CM








LO






~
13
CU
O
G
cfl
j>
rrj

rH




























00
•
0
LO







o
o
rH









,_J
<£
H
0
H


















































en
rrj
C
3
0
PL,

C
0
•H
rH
T-H
•H
XI

OO

O
LO

W
Cfl


rl
CU
4-1
XI
60

cd
rH
CO

CO
VQ
o*\
rH


•
cd






























































rH
1— 1
•H
/^

4_J
rj
60
•H
0)
£j
CU
£>
•H
rH

rH
Cfl
4-1
O
4-1

^
CN

T3
cu
4-J
f~]
60
•H
QJ
&


•
XI







CO
cu cd
xl $
4-1
i i
•• t-t
xl cu
60= O
C • X°
cu c cd
^t >rH
4-1 CO CU
co cd xl
Xi H
4-1
c x;
cu o •
34-14-1
rH CO C
LH O CU
U-l Z O
cu
0) rl
- x: cu
C 4-1 Cu
•rH
CO 4-1 LO
CO O CM
XI CO
4J P^CO
XI O rH
O CU 0) rH
4-1 y-i 4-)
cd M-I cd ^,
o cu B Xi
= -H
eo x 
cd *•
> cu cu cu
4-1 60 X!
Q cd cd 4-1
O C rl
PQ -iH CU 60
e > a
= -H CO -H
<0 rH >,
4-1 CU CU rH
co x; P,
13 O 4-1 -rt
4-1 4-1
CU C rH
»-i id o 3
•rH CU f3
CO 4-1 Z
C co - >•,
C 3 co Xi
0 •!-> C
•H '"O *iH rc3
4-1 CO CO CU
co cd C
CU CU Xl -H
3 rl CO
cr cu xi 4-1
= $ o &
4-> 0
rH CO H)
rH cu a cu
Cfl 3 = rl
rH CU
CU CO 4-1 >
O > CO
C XI co
•H Q 4-1 T3
C/3 O Cd
PQ t3 O
CU rH
.. cu 6 cu
W > 3 4-1
H O CO CO
O Xi co CO
£3 cd cd 5

-------
                                          FIGURE  5
                                                                                  39
                                TOTAL COMMERCIAL  SLAUGHTER

                                 UNITED  STATES, 1950-1977
billiohs

  of   '

-Pounds- - —
                                                  c:    -   * ;.t;       H       .  ,
                                                  Lli,-! mr',,.,.!.  l'_-lLL_i_,4^J	L.-iii
                                                  '4 1" -  .!tJ,,l  • '   ;    ' - '   !    i  U   .iJ
                                                     --   -      •       ^-

-------
                                                               40
                              TABLE 17
         PRODUCTION, GROSS WASTELOADS AND WASTEWATER VOLUMES
              1963,  1966,  1967 AND PROJECTIONS TO 1977
                    (POST CATCH BASIN WASTELOADS)
Year


Total
Comm.
Slaughter
Bil. of
Pounds
Per Year
Wasteload
per unita
Ibs BOD/
1000 Ibs
LWK

Wastewater
per unit
gals/1000 Ibs
LWK


Total
Wasteload
Per Year
Mil. Ibs
BOD

Total
Wastewater
Per Year
MGY


1963b    50.8
15.99
1531
812
77,806
1966°
1967°
1968C
1969°
1970°
1971°
1972C
1977d
54.9
57.0
60.2
61.4
62.8
63.9
65.2
71.6
14.05
14.05
14.05
14.05
14.05
14.05
14.05
12.85
1322
1322
1322
1322
1322
1322
1322
1205
771
801
846
863
882
898
916
920
72,578
75,354
79,584
81,171
83,022
84,476
86,194
86,278
        a.  Wasteload or wastewater per unit is the weighted
average BOD per thousand pounds liveweight killed shown in
Table 11 by type of technology, which has been averaged according
to the assumed distribution of technology levels.

        b.  1963   Assumes 65 per cent of the industry has
                   "Typical Technology."  30 per cent  of the
                   industry has "Old Technology."  5 per cent  of
                   the industry has "Advanced Technology."

        c.  1966-1972
                   Assumes 60 per cent of the industry has
                   "Typical Technology."  30 per cent  of the
                   industry has "Advanced Technology."  10 per
                   cent of the industry has "Old Technology."

        d.  1977   Assumes 50 per cent of the industry has
                   "Typical Technology."  50 per cent  of the
                   industry has "Advanced Technology."  0 per
                   cent of the industry has "Old Technology."

-------
                                                               41
                              TABLE 18

         PRODUCTION, GROSS WASTELOADS AND WASTEWATER VOLUMES
              1963, 1966, 1967 AND PROJECTIONS TO 1977
                    (PRE-CATCH BASIN WASTELOADS)
Year





Total
Comm .
Slaughter
Bil. of
Pounds
Per Year
Wasteload
per unit3
Ibs BOD/
1000 Ibs
LWK

Wastewater
per unit3
gals/,1000 Ibs
LWK


Total
Wasteload
Per Year
Mil. Ibs
BOD

Total
Wastewater
Per Year
MGY


1963
50.8
21.32
1531
1083
77,806
1966C
1967C
c
1968
1969C
1970°
1971c
1972
1977d
54.9
57.0

60.2
61.4
62.8
63.9
65.2
71.6
18.73
18.73

18.73
18.73
18.73
18.73
18.73
17.13
1322
1322

1322
1322
1322
1322
1322
1205
1028
1068

1128
1151
1176
1197
1221
1227
72,578
75,354

79,584
81,171
83,022
84,476
86,194
86,278
        a.  Wasteload or wastewater per unit is the weighted
average BOD per thousand pounds liveweight killed shown in
Table 12 by type of technology which has been averaged,according
to the assumed distribution of technology levels.

        b.  1963   Assumes 65 per cent of the industry has
                   "Typical Technology."  30 per cent of the
                   industry has "Old Technology."  5 per cent of
                   the industry has "Advanced Technology."

        c.  1966-1972
                   Assumes 60 per cent of the industry has
                   "Typical Technology."  30 per cent of the
                   industry has "Advanced Technology."  10 per
                   cent of the industry has "Old Technology."

        d.  1977   Assumes 50 per cent of the industry has
                   "Typical Technology."  50 per cent of the
                   industry has "Advanced Technology."  0 per
                   cent of the industry has "Old Technology."
287-031 O - S3 - ,S

-------
                                                             42
        The weighted average "pre-catch basin" wasteloads shown in
Table 12 were used in making the projections of gross wasteloads
shown in Table 17.
Seasonal Changes

        Seasonal changes are minimal and can safely be ignored.

-------
                                                              43
                   REDUCTION OF GROSS WASTELOADS
        Gross pollution loads can be reduced in three ways:
1.  change of subprocess;  2.  use of industry-owned waste treat-
ment facilities; and 3.  use of municipal waste treatment facilities.
Any of these three methods can be used singly or in combination with
one or both of the other methods.  Each of these methods will be
discussed in turn.
           POLLU-TION  REDUCTION  THROUGH  SUBPROCESS  CHANGE

        Table 19 shows the percentage reduction in BOD which could
be expected with the specified change in subprocess.
Washing of Carcass

        Washwater is dispensed through the use of hoses and/or
mechanical washers.  The use of mechanical, or cabinet washers, is
essentially a process by which the packer substitutes water volume
for labor.  Cabinet washers may be the continuous flow or the inter-
ruptable flow type.  The latter is regulated in such a way that when
the chain conveying the animal stops, the water is turned off.  Hoses
almost always are equipped with some kind of valve for regulating
flow but the valve is not necessarily used.  The use of the valves is
almost always dependent upon the "water-use-consciousness" of the plant
supervisors.  In many instances hoses equipped with valves have been
found to have been altered by plant workers so that the valves remain
open all the time.  This practice has turned an interruptable flow
device into a continuous flow device.
Change from Continuous Flow Hoses to Interruptable Flow Cabinet

        Theoretically the change to mechanical washers will not
effect the wasteload per unit of product; that is, the BOD per
thousand pounds liveweight killed.  This change does imply an
increase in the wastewater volume per unit of product.  An open
hose carries about fifteen gallons per minute.  The concentration
of BOD in mg/1 should be lower with the use of mechanical washers
and higher with the use of hand washers or hoses.  With concentra-
tion varying indirectly with wastewater use, the BOD per unit of
of product should be unaffected.  In practice, however, it was
often found that wastewater use per unit is directly related to
wasteload per unit.   [See Figure 4 and discussion following.]

-------
                                                               44
                          TABLE  19
          Changes in Subprocesses and Their Effect Upon
                 Wasteload and Wastewater Volume-*
Subprocess Change
  I.  KILLING AND BLEEDING

      Change subprocess from recovery of
      no blood to recovery of all blood.

 II.  WASHING OF CARCASS

      Change from a system of continuous
      water flow to one of "interruptable"
      water flow.
Per Cent Wasteload
Reduction Associated
With  Indicated Change
of Subprocess
      42
  See Text
III.  PAUNCH REMOVAL

      A. Change subprocess of dumping all
      paunch material into sewer to wet
      dumping of paunch material with off-
      site disposal.

      B. Change subprocess of wet
      dumping of paunch material with off-
      site disposal to dry dumping of
      paunch material with offsite disposal.

      C. Change subprocess of dumping all
      paunch material into the sewer to
      dry dumping of paunch material with
      offsite disposal.

 IV.  EDIBLE RENDERING

      A. Change subprocess of wet rendering
      with no evaporation of tank water to
      one in which  tank water is evaporated.

      B . Change subprocess of wet rendering
      with no evaporation of tank water to
      subprocess of dry rendering.

      C. Change from a system of wet
      rendering with no evaporation of
      tank water to subprocess of low
      temperature rendering.
  See Text
      10
       50
       60
       60

-------
                                                               45

                          TABLE  19  (cont'd)
Changes in Subprocesses Ccont'dj
Subprocess Change
                                             Per Cent Wasteload
                                             Reduction Associated
                                             With Indicated Change
                                             of Subprocess

V.  INEDIBLE RENDERING

    A.  Change Subprocess of wet rendering
    with no evaporation of tank water to
    one in which tank water is evaporated.         50

    B.  Change subprocess of wet rendering
    with no evaporation of tank water to
    continuous rendering.                          60

    C.  Change subprocess from wet ren-
    dering with no evaporation of tank
    water to continuous rendering.                 60

VI.  CLEANUP

    Change subprocess of primarily wet
    cleanup to one of dry cleanup
    followed by wet cleanup.                       10
        *0nly those subprocess  changes which will  alter wasteload
 are  considered.

-------
                                                              46
The direct relationship between wasteload and wastewater per unit
of product makes sense if wastewater use per unit of product is
interpreted to be an index of "water" and "wastewater conscious-
ness," which leads to waste saving practices within the plant.
Paunch Material

        Paunch material is troublesome primarily because it
increases greatly the total solids concentration in packing plant
effluent.  Should all plants now dumping all paunch material di-
rectly in the sewer abandon this practice, fifty to sixty pounds
of solids per thousand pounds of liveweight killed would be elimi-
nated from the wastewater.

        Paunch material presents a waste treatment problem because
this undigested material is not eadily handled by a bacteriological
treatment facility.  For some reason the bugs do not like paunch
material.  The difficulty in handling this material at end-of-line
treatment plants dictates that this material be separated from other
waste material and disposed 6f separately.

        In those cases where the paunch is wet dumped, elimination
of the wet dumping and wet transfer of this material should reduce
the BOD content by at least five per cent.  It is the elimination
of the paunch "fines" from the effluent that should cause the five
per cent reduction.
Edible Rendering

        The unevaporated tank water, which is a by-product of the
wet rendering system, is a main source of BOD.  The installation
of evaporating equipment should reduce the BOD of the wastewater
by approximately fifty per cent.  Even when great care is taken
to evaporate this tank water, it is estimated by those in the
meat packing industry that some BOD will be lost to the sewer.
Therefore, it was estimated that the substitution of the process
of dry rendering for one of wet rendering without evaporation,
would result in a sixty per cent reduction in BOD.

-------
                                                            47
            INDUSTRY OWNED WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES
Types of Waste Treatment Facilities

         A brief description of those types of waste treatment
facilities utilized by meat packing plants follows:

"Catch Basins"

         "Catch basins" are gravity settling tanks with grease
skimming.  Larger packing plants have utilized "catch basins"
because of the economic value of the recovered grease.  The
effectiveness of this means of treatment will depend upon the
size of the tank and the dention time.  Several years ago the
Meat Packing Industry made a study of the detention time which
maximized the economic return of use of the catch basins.  The
detention time was about twenty minutes.  From a waste reduction
standpoint the detention time should be twice as long for maximum
efficiency.  To the extent that meatpackers are still following
the twenty minute guide in designing "catch basins," full waste
reduction potentiol is not realized.

         There is one immediate implication:  to inform the packing
industry of the detention time necessary to achieve maximum waste
reduction.

Air Flotation

         Air Flotation is a treatment process in which a coagulation
agent such a ferric chloride or alum is added to the wastewater,
which is then subjected to air pressure in an enclosed chamber.
The wastewater is left in the chamber for a few minutes and then
released to atmospheric pressure.  This method is supposed to be
especially good for treatment of wastes which contain quantities
of fat and protein.  The introduction of the air aids the oxida-
tion of the organic material with thejLron salts acting as catalyst.
The air further aids by bringing flock and colloidal matter to the
surface where it can be skimmed off.  There is lack of agreement
within the meat packing industry as to the success of this method
of treatment; however, one of the "national" packing companies has
installed this method of treatment in approximately half of its
plants.

-------
                                                              48
Trickling Filters

        A trickling filter is a bed of coarse, rough, impervious
material over which wastewater is sprayed or distributed.  The
wastewater trickles downward  through the filter in contact with
the air.  Organisms attached to the material of the filter oxidize
the organic matter in the wastewater.  It is necessary to see that
solid materials are screened or settled out before the wastewater
is distributed onto the filter in order to prevent clogging of the
filter.  Very cold weather may interfere with the working of this
system.  When operating efficiently, a ninety per cent BOD removal
can be expected.
Lagoon Systems

        According to Eckenfelder there are three types of lagoons:
aerobic ponds, facultative ponds, and anaerobic ponds.(8)

        The aerobic pond depends upon algae to supply oxygen to
satisfy the BOD.  Because the algae are dependent upon sunlight to
produce oxygen the pond must be shallow; that is, less than eighteen
inches.  This type of pond has often been used to treat meat packing
waste.  An eighty per cent BOD reduction can be obtained.
Facultative Ponds

        This pond is much deeper, and there will be two layers:  an
aerobic surface layer and an anaerobic bottom layer.  Depth of
ponds will vary from three feet  to six feet and an eighty per cent
BOD removal can be expected.
Anaerobic Ponds

        These are loaded to such an extent that anaerobic conditions
exist throughout.  These ponds are usually much deeper so that  there
is a high volume to surface area ratio, which will help  to maintain
the temperature of the waste.  Anaerobic decomposition requires
high temperatures for efficient decomposition of the material.  Meat
packing waste is especially suited to anaerobic decomposition because
it is a very strong waste and comes from the packing house at a
temperature of eighty degrees.

        The more common practice is to use an anaerobic-aerobic
pond system in series using the aerobic pond as a polishing pond.
Because sample data are extremely limited as to the actual BOD
loading which went into the meat packing lagoons and the BOD

-------
                                                              49
reduction obtained, we have lumped all three lagoon systems together
in tabulating the data and we have assumed an arbitrary figure of
ninety per cent BOD reduction.
Activated Sludge

        The activated sludge process involves the aeration of
screened, presettled wastewater mixed with a small volume of acti-
vated sludge which has been collected in a sedimentation basin
shortly before it is mixed with the sewage preceding aeration.(9)
There are a very few activated sludge plants specially devoted to
the treatment of meat packing waste, primarily because of the high
capital cost of the system and the necessity to have well-trained
personnel supervising the operation of the process.  When used,
however, it is assumed that a ninety-five per cent BOD reduction
could be obtained.
Channel Aeration

        This process is really a modification of the activated
sludge process or, more specifically, the extended aeration acti-
vated sludge process where a cage rotor is used as the aerating
device.  The Pasveer concept is to put the wastewater in an oval
ditch and use the cage rotor to aerate the liquid and at the same
time cause it to flow around the oval.  This process was developed
in Holland and is now and has been utilized on a pilot plant scale
at one plant in the United States.  The full scale plant will be
built at one of the major packing plants.  The simplicity and
efficiency of this system make it a promising addition to the
methods of treating meat packing waste.
Anaerobic Contact

        Again it will be mentioned that the anaerobic digestion
process is especially suited to meat packing waste because of its
relatively high organic content and high temperatures.  The high
organic content means that relatively large amounts of methane gas
will be released which can be utilized as a source of heat.  Anae-
robic contact process separates seed organisms and recirculates
them to the digester.  When operating efficiently, this process
requires retention periods of six to twelve hours.  Waste flows
into an equalizer tank, from there into a digester and then through
a vacuum degasifier which removes residual gases to facilitate
settling,and finally into a settling basin from which the sludge is
removed and returned to the digestor as seed.  This method of de-
composition is usually followed by polishing lagoons or by other
secondary treatment methods to achieve further decomposition of
the organic material.

-------
                                                              50
Utilization of Waste Treatment Facilities

        Estimates of utilization of waste treatment facilities by
type of facilities have been made for the years 1950, 1963, 1967,
1972, and 1977.  These estimates are shown in Table  20.

        The 1967 estimates were based upon the "questionnaire"
data and should be considered more reliable than estimates for
other years.  Past and future estimates are admittedly guesses.
Literature dealing with meat packing waste treatment and conversa-
tions with waste experts in the meat packing industry were used
to gain insight into past experience.

        Future estimates will reflect the assumption of increased
use of industry-owned treatment facilities.  Future estimates
indicate shift in the treatment mixj indicating increased use of
methods especially suited for the degradation of meat packing
wastewater; that is, wastewater with high concentrations of BOD
and high temperatures.  Future estimates further assume that only
those meat packing plants utilizing municipal waste treatment
facilities will be allowed to operate no more than "catch basins"
or air flotation units.

-------
                                                                51
                             TABLE 20
            UTILIZATION OF WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES
Type of Waste Treatment                Estimated Percentage of Plants
       Facility                      Employing Waste Treatment Process
                                     1950   1963   1967   1972   1977
"Catch Basin" Only
(Sedimentation and
Grease Skimming)
Air Flotation


60
0


50
5


46
8


10
20


10
20
                 It is assumed that a "catch basin" will
                 precede the following methods of treatment.

       Lagoon Systems                 10     15     17     20     14

       Trickling Filter                13332

       Activated Sludge                12331

       Anaerobic Contact
          (Followed by Lagoons,
          Activated Sludge, or
          Trickling Filter)            0      5      6     20     25

       Channel Aeration
          (Pasveer Process)            0      0      2      5     10

       Joint Industrial                0      1      2     10     15

       Other
          (Including Chemical
          Treatment)                   84482

       TOTAL
          (Plants With Some Type of
          Treatment Facility          80     85     91     99     99

       No Treatment Facilities        20     15     10      1      1

          TOTAL                      100    100    100    100    100

-------
                                                                 52
          MUNICIPAL TREATMENT OF MEAT PACKING WASTEWATER
         Many meat packing plants use municipal waste treatment
facilities for the treatment of wastewater.  Some plants will pre-
treat the wastewater before disposing of it into municipal sewers;
other plants have no pretreatment.

         Table 21 shows the estimated annual wastewater discharge
of meat packing plants into the municipal sewerage system by size
class.  These estimates were based upon information obtained from
the "questionnaire data."  The total gallons discharged by medium
and large plants were approximately equal.   The twenty-five billion
gallons from large plants represented a much higher proportion of
their total discharge than did that from medium plants.  Seventy
per cent of all meat packing wastewater is discharged to the
municipal sewerage system.

         Table 22 contains estimates of the per cent of waste-
water discharged to municipal treatment facilities in selected
years.  The projected percentages for 1972 and 1977 show increased
use of municipal treatment facilities.

-------
                                                          53
                      TABLE 21
      QUANTITY OF WASTEWATER FROM MEAT PACKING PLANTS,
             QUANTITY AND PER CENT DISCHARGED TO
               MUNICIPAL TREATMENT FACILITIES,
                     BY PLANT SIZE, 1967
Plant Size

Small
Medium
Large
Gross
Wastewater
Emerging
From Plant
(mil. gal.
per year)
3,768
42,198
29,388
Wastewater
Discharged to
Municipal
Facilities
(mil. gal.
per year)
2,449
24,897
25,568
Per Cent
of Gross
Wastewater
Discharged to
Municipal
F acilities
65
59
87
TOTAL
75,354
52,914
70

-------
                                                       54
                     TABLE 22

 PER CENT OF MEATPACKING WASTEWATER DISCHARGED TO
          MUNICIPAL TREATMENT FACILITIES
Year                                      Per Cent

1950                                        35

1963                                        50

1966                                        70

1972                                        80

1977                                        85

-------
                                                                55
                     NET POLLUTION QUANTITIES
1963
       A detailed estimate of gross wasteload reduction achieved
by industry's use of its own waste treatment facilities is shown
in Table 23 for the base year, 1963, by type of treatment facility.
These estimates were derived by combining the theoretical
percentage BOD reduction reduction associated with a particular type
of treatment.  The implicit assumption was that the per cent of
plants and the per cent of liveweight slaughtered associated with
a given treatment process would be the same.  While it is obvious
that they are not, lack of time prevented the development of a
distribution of liveweight slaughtered by type of industry-owned
waste treatment facilities.  In 1963, lagoons were the dominant
method of providing secondary treatment to meat packing wastewater.
Fifteen per cent of all meat packing plants provided no waste
treatment at all.

1966

       By size of plant, Table 24 shows the wasteload reduction
achieved through the use of industry or municipal waste treatment.
The gross wasteload was reduced almost equally with each type of
waste treatment.  Industry's waste treatment removed 339 million
pounds of BOD and municipal treatment removed 380 million pounds.
Altogether the gross wasteload was reduced sixty-eight per cent.
All estimates in Table 24 were based upon "questionnaire data."

-------
                                                                  56
                                 TABLE 23

             NET POLLUTION LOAD AFTER INDUSTRY WASTE TREATMENT
                                   1963
  Treatment Method0
Theoretical   % of Plants   Gross Pollution    Net
   Waste       Employing      Removed by    Pollution
 Reduction  Method of Waste   Treatment       Load
 Per Cent      Treatment     mil Ibs BODb  mil Ibs BOD
BOD Removed
"Catch Basin" only
Air Flotation Unit
Lagoons
25
50
90
50
5
15
135
27
146
   a.  Aerobic and
       Facultative (80)
   b.  Anaerobic (80)
   c.  Anaerobic-
       Aerobic   (94)

Trickling Filter

Activated Sludge

Channel Aeration
    90

    95

 80-95
Anaerobic Contact Plus     95
   a.  Trickling Filter
   b.  Activated Sludge
   c.  Lagoons

Other
   (including Chemical
   and Joint Industrial)   70
3

2

0

5
29

21

 0

48
                                  38
TOTAL
                  85
              444
            638
      a.  All treatment methods except the "catch basins only" and "air
          flotation" are assumed to be preceded by "catch basins."
      b.  Gross pollution load is 1082 million pounds of BOD.

-------




























03
W
M
H
i-l
H

<£
j— 1 \^
cy^o

H *-*
CN <; -
H W
td E3 N
rJ rJ H
PQ i-J W
i
S3 PQ
^
C/3
tn
O
oS
O

























rH C CO
4J rH O CO -O
C CO T-l O Cfl
0> S-I 4J S-I O
O I) cj o i— '
> 3 01
S-I O *O ^ 4->
cii a) o en
P4 14-1 QS cfl
0 J3
CO CU CO CO
O 4J 0) ,£}
Q i— 1 Cfl CO rH
O 0) JS S-i
PQ 4-1 3 I-H
CO O O -rl
CO 4J CJ g
MH cfl CO
O O CX 4-1
rH -H C
4J  ftj >, H
PH 
CO cj C co
O Cfl 4J Ol J3
Q rH Pv, C g rH
O V Cfl 4J
PP 4J S-I rH CO rH
CO CD PM 01 -i-l
Cfl 4J S-I g
JS ^ H
£ bO
O C 4J
• H -H g
Q 4-1 -Ssi 4J CU CU
O 0 CJ C 4J g
pq 3 co co co 4-i
rQ pt^ ,_| p^ rg
Ol PM 3 0)
pi >> S-i
pq H
cfl co
co O ,O S-i
CO rH rH >-,
O CU ^~
S-I 4J rH Q
O CO -i-l O
to B pq
4J
C CU
CO N
rH .r-l
p , r/J






\T  o 1-1 o
VO rH OO
rH CN CO








CN 00 r^ co
LO CN CO CO








rH \O CN CT\
CN r^ ON 00
CO CN ^O








CO CO CO C7>
CN *^~ r~*- co
rH rH CO






Vt ON IO OO

-------
58














































u-i
CM
a
PQ
•^J
H







































































CO
fy{
^3
§3

Q
W
H
U
W
h^
o
PS
PH

Q
^5
^J


U

IH
0)
PH






4-J
01
^



4-1
C
Ol
u

IH
0)
PH






4-J
Ol
£2





U
C
0)
u

I-l
Ol
PH





co
CO
O
,-1
O



^
CO
01
>H



O
4-1

"0

o
1— t
01
4J
CO
CO
^






O
o
PQ




to
0)
4-J
ccj
0)
4-1
CO
CO
&


T3
CO
0
1— 1
0)
4-1
co
cfl

c
O
•1-1
4J
O
3
•o
0)
0£j


""O
cfl
O
r-l
0)
4-1
CO
Cfl
^


C
o
•rH
4-1
O
3
TD
01
Pi


"O
cfl
0
i— 1
0)
4-1
CO
cfl
!2








CO
01
co
IH
3
O
U
)H
01
4J
Cfl
£5


Q
C
O
•H
4-1
O
3
•0
0)
pi

>>
Xi

•o
4-1
CO
0)

H




IH
Ol
4-J
MH"
^H



4-1
C
cfl
rH
PH

^
i-Q




J-J

u
o
IH
PH




CO
co
0)
o
0
I-l
PH


^_j

's'

s~~^
c
•rH
CO
CO
Xt










IH
cfl
01
SH

IH
0)
PH















01
01
•rH
4-1
•H
i — 1
•rH
O
Cfl
fa



1 •
4-1 CO
CO *-i Xi
0) C I-l
IH O>
H 6 rH
-H
a

•
CO
4-J tQ
C i-l Q
0) O
G rH pT)
•rH
a



co
0)
too
C
CO
^
O




co
01
60
C
cfl
x:
o



a
Q
O
PQ

•
co
Xi
r— 1













s± ro vo »J
m o o\ r^~
 in
r^ vo vo v£3








O n 00 CO
CO CO CO *cf







CM OO OO O
OO CM CM in
O O rH rH
r-l rH i— 1 rH









Cfl Cfl CO Cfl







CM 00 00 O
00 CM CM in
O O 1-H r-H
r-H rH r-H i— 1




CO ^D OO CT>
vO *"O '•JO *«O
CT* C^ O> CTt
r-H rH •— 1 rH








CM m oo r^
*3" CM C^  vO *^







vo oo o ^n
r-- r*- oo oo








r^ O"\ o> o
i — 1 CTi <(• ^O
^o in in *^/






vn
•
r^ o m CM
^j- in in o







**o r^- I-H VJD
r^ ON CM cs]
rH i— 1 CM CM
i— 1 i— 1 i— 1 r-H









Cfl Cfl Cfl CO







VO | — t-H *X>
r^ CT> CM CM
i-H i-H CM CM
1— 1 l-H l-H rH




O i—1 CM r^
r^ p^, p^, f —
CJ> CJN ON ON
i— i i — i i — i i — i





































»
CO
rH
01

O>
r-H

£>^
too
O
o
Xi
o
0)
4J

01
X!
4-1

c
•rH

4J
•rH
0
•iH
i— 1
a.
g
•H

0)

Cfl

CO
01
toO
C
cfl
X!
O
co
CO
0)
O
o
^
PH
CO






co
01
• !— |
4J
•rH
1— 1
•rH
O
CO


4-1
rj
Ol

4J
CO
01
IH
4-1

i— I
CO
a.
•H
o
•H
c
3
^
>i
XI
T3
Ol
4-1
cfl
Ol

4-1

I-l
01
4-1
cfl
g
Ol
4-1
co
cfl
12
0

4-J
c
Ol
o

^1
0)
a,

Ol
x;
4-1

c
Ol
Ol

4-1
Ol
XI

o
•iH
4-1
cfl
IH

01
Xi
4-1
co
Ol

3
CO
CO

-------
                                                                59
                   COSTS OF POLLUTION REDUCTION
Cost of Pollution Reduction by Subprocess Change

        Capital and operation and maintenance costs have been
estimated for three subprocess changes.  These costs are shown in
Table 26.  None of these costs should be interpreted as anything
but "ball park" estimates.  The salvage value of the "more
polluting" rendering system which is being replaced by a "less
polluting" rendering system would constitute one adjustment of
the costs shown in Table 26.  The physical layout of the meat
packing plant would influence greatly the installation portion of
the capital costs listed.

        Costs shown in Table 26 would require additional adjustment
if, for example, there is increased revenue due to higher prices
received for animal feed as a result of its increased protein
content because of the addition o^ dried and processed evaporated
"stick water."  Adjustments of the cost estimates would also be
required.  The enforcement of "dry cleanup" may result in lower
water use per unit of product and thus lower total water costs.
These are only two examples of possible cost adjustments which
should be included in the analysis of alternatives for a specific
plant.   Geographical location affects construction costs and
labor costs and refinements of this nature would also be necessary.

Costs of Pollution Reduction by Industrial Waste Treatment

        Costs of treatment by type of waste treatment process were
developed for the "typical" small, medium, and large plant.  Plant
size in annual liveweight killed and wastewater flow associated
with the typical plant in a size class are indicated at the top of
Table 27.  The costs of treatment were based upon the average cost
per thousand gallons experienced by plants in our "sample" with
occasional adjustments by engineering cost estimates. (10)  The
lagooning cost data from the "sample" was felt to be especially
unreliable since land costs were not consistently included in
the reporting of capital costs.

Costs of Municipal Treatment of Meat Packing Wastewater

        It is impossible to estimate for a given size of plant the
charges which must be paid to the municipality for its treatment of
the industry's wastewater.  These charges vary greatly from one city
to another.  If the meat packing plants in the "questionnaire sample"
are representative of the entire industry, the entire meat packing
industry paid six million dollars in 1967 to municipalities for
waste treatment services.

-------
                                                                                                        60
vD
CM

a
       u

       C/3
       W
       W
       U
       o
       oi
       PM
M


§
M
H

B
Q
U
Pi

W
H
CO
       O

       H
       W
       O
       a
3

4-1
C !•<
efl >•>
i— i ^.
PLI cn
Xl
CU •— 1
60 •
I-l I-l
CO -H
rJ e

o
O
co
I

4J
C ^
cfl >,
i— 1 	
P-i co
•H i-l
-0 -r-l
CU 6
S
o
o
F-l
3

4-1
C I-i
cfl >>
^ [ --^^
PH eo
Xi
r-l r-l
i— 1
CO r-l
E -H


O
CN
s
en
c# 4-1
co
• O
0 U




•c/>

• cn
ex 4-i
efl en
0 0
U
S ^
co
cS 4J
eo
• O
0 0



• en
CX 4.)
co cn
U 0
U
s ^
CO
uS 4J
en
• O
0 cj



• CO
f^ _m
cfl cn
U 0
O


en
co
cu cu
0 60
0 C
i-i ctf
cxx:
Xl O
3
C/D

O
o
o
•s
O
r-l





O
O
o
•1
o

1— 1
0
o
o

IO


o
o
o
0
r>.

O
O
o
«
CN



O
O
o
•\
o
CO
60
C
i-i -i-l
O ^-i
4J CU
Cfl T3
I-i C
O CU

cfl cfl
> 4J E
[T~\ CU CU
5 4->
•O CO
TD 0 >










O
O
O
»*
O
o
CN















O
O
O
f\
O
CN
r— 1
















O
O
o
ft,
o
vD








00
c
•H
O 4-1 60
H 3 C
i— 1 T-IXI
Q) r-l I-l E
00 O CU CU
c ex TI 4-1
cfl C C co
x: o cu >,
U ,3 Pd CO
o
o
o
o
o
I—I








0







o
o
o

o









o







0
o
o
•s
co









o










x; o
4-1 4-1 a,
,
S-l i-t U
P-. O Q


cn
'H

CU
CH
•H
i— i

0
•r-l


q
o
o
cu

cu
c1.
H

•
g^5
O


^
^

Q
0
PQ

4-1
3
O

i-l
r-l
•H
J5

I-i
O
4-)
CO
l_i
O
CX
cfl
^
cu
•
C cn
Cfl |J
cfl
<4-l CU
O >-.

c c
o cu
•i-l CU
4J 4J
•H ll-l
*O "•"'
TD UH
efl
CU
CU Xl
XI
H 0
CO 4-1

T)
CU


cn
CO
efl



.
g^°
O
VO

^,
Xl

Q
0
PQ

CU
O
3
•a
CU
i-i
•o

3
O
^

E
cu
4J
CO
^
en
co
60 i-l
C cO
•r-l CU
I-i ^i
CU
•o c
C CU
cu cu
I-l 4-1
14-1
CU -H
c« n j
4-1
CU
U-l Xl
0
0
60 4J
c
•H *O
60 CU
c E
CO 3
x: eo
U CO
cfl
cu
4-1 cn
CU T-I
r— 1
ex cu
C ni
0 -H
O r-l

cu u
XI -H
H E
Xl 0
c
o
o
cu

(U
x;
H




cn
co
CU
0
0
I-l
ex
Xl
3
cn

eo
•i_i
XI
4-1

CU
•r-l
4-1
O
CU
14-1
U-l
CU

CU
Xl

0
H


•
B"*S
0
1— 1

£*•*
Xi

Q
0
PQ •
4J
CU C
U 
-------
                                                                                                                  61
w
r-l
H

H
.J
H
CJ
5 rJ CU
rJ CU 4J
4J Cd
4-1 • Cd £
d i-i & cu
cd >s cu 4-1
i—i — ^ 4-> en
PM co co cd
us cd S
CU r-l S
60 • Q
rJ rH >H O
ed -H O S
rJ S S
oo
o <(• ^o
o 
OO <)• rH
S: >-< cu
rJ CU -U
4J Cd
4-1 • cd 5
d rJ |S CU
cd ts cu -w
rH ^s. 4-1 W
PL, cn eo cd
rQ cd &
E --I S
3 • 0
•i-J i— 1 PH O
T3 -iH CJ 2
cu g S

o oo m
o > 4-1 Cd
PLJ -v. en Js
en cd
rH ,Q S O
rH r-l O
6 rH O
co T-i s m
g CM
OO i — 1
CO OO •
CM O
• v>
S
en
c3 4-1
cn
• O
0 U




•co-

• en
p, 4J
cd en
U 0
O

S ^
CO
br3 4J
cn
• O
0 0





y
cn
i^J 4J
CO
• 0
0 0





• co
p, 4J
cd en
0 0
0

4-1
14-1 d X
O CU 4J

CU 4J rH
Oi Cd > CU O
BH j-i ed
H fn




O
O
O
"
CO
rH





0
o
o
"
o
in
CN

o
0
o
«
o
1— 1





o
o
o
«
m
OO



o
o
o
n
rH





O
0
0
•N
CM

rH
G
O

—
d
••H
cn
PQ

O
4-1
cd
0
                                              O
                                              o
                                              o
                                                *\

                                              o
                                              oo
                                              O
                                              o
                                              o
                         o
                         o
                         o
                         o
                         o
                         o
        O
        o
        o

        10
        CO
        o
        o
        o
          •\

        o
        o
       o
       o
       o
       o
       o
       o
         *l
       o
       o
o
o
o
  *\

o
CO
o
o
o

o
ro
vO
o
o
o
  f\
o
CM
o
o
o

o
m
00
                                              o
                                              o
                                              o
o
o
o
                         O
                         o
                         o
o
o
o
        o
        o
        o
o
o
o
               o
               o
               o

               o
               CN
o
o
o
                  o
                  o
                  o
o
o
o
                                                                       m     o

                                                                       rH     O

                                                                       CM     I—
                                                                               o
                                                                               o
                                                                               o
                                                                               o
                                                                               o
                                                                               o

                                                                               o
                                                                               I—
                                        o
                                        o
                                        o
                                        o
                                        o
                                        o
rH
G
O
"d
••H
cn
pq
o
4-1
cd
0
-
lotation
fa

(j
•iH
<£
assumed that a
h basin" will
CO O
•H 4J
cd
4-1 0
M -
de the following
ds of treatment.
cu o
O X
CU 4J
S-l CU
cx E
CO
CU
4-1
cn
cn
G
O
0
60
cd
rJ
i-J
CU
4-1
i-l
•iH
60
G
•r-l
rH
^
O
•r-l
Jj
H
CU
60
13
3
rH
CU
4J
cd

•H
4-1
0

obic Contact
r4
CU
cd
d

owed by Lagoons,
ated Sludge, or
rH >
rH -H
O 4J
[V) fj
v—' ^
CU
4J
r-H
•r-l
60
d
•r-l
rH
K/
O

S-i
H
el Aeration
d
d
cd

o
eer Process)
>
cn
cd

>— '

-------
                                                              62
Industry Investment in Waste Treatment Facilities, 1967

        The estimates of capital and operation and maintenance
expenditures on waste treatment facilities by the Meat Packing
Industry require explanation.  These estimates were based upon
"questionnaire data."  The average capital investment  [measured
in terms of 1967 replacement cost ] per plant was determined for
each size group and then inflated to reflect the number of plants
under federal inspection.   The number of federally inspected
plants seems more appropriate than all plants because of the
extremely small size of the non-federally inspected plants.  The
use of plant numbers rather than liveweight killed introduces a
source of error, but since the plants have been grouped by size
class, the error should not be significant.  Since federally
inspected plants kill eighty-five per cent of the liveweight, the
estimated costs for the entire federally inspected sector of the
industry were increased by 17.6 per cent to account for the re-
maining liveweight slaughter in locally inspected plants.  The 1967
replacement value of waste treatment facilities would then be
approximately thirty-five million dollars.

        The estimate of industry investment is felt to be an
extremely conservative estimate.  Several meat packing companies
have arrangements with municipalities whereby the city owns the
facility but the packing plant in effect guarantees to cover the
operating and amortization costs.  Such facilities are often
especially designed units to handle meat packing wastes yet the
legal arrangement precludes their inclusion in Table 28.

       Operation and maintenance costs for the federally
inspected sector were  likewise inflated to account for the
remaining liveweight.  Total operation and maintenance costs for
1966 were $3.5 million.
Industry Expenditures for Waste Treatment, 1966

    Table 29 summarizes all expenditures on waste treatment in 1966.
The capital expenditures are expressed as an annual average payment
assuming a fifteen year life and interest rate of six per cent.
Total expenditures then were approximately thirteen million dollars,

-------
                                                                                  63
r-l Q
is
 .0 US
CM • to
S i ^H 3
EO O ;£ C
•*







e
I

e
• 03
o •-*
2 fe
*S
c
ou
*.
D- O
OJ U


O iJ
c
• 03
O r-
a .
** o
d"
co w
D. 0
5O


•s s
° i
O r-l













r* CM o
N? •>£> CO
*" £ o>
en o>
CM CM n
 CM CO
CM vO
CM v£> -J
O r- in
in ^£> o
r-l


en o
O O 0
r-- ~J in
CM CM r-l
en CM
~J CO o
0 -^ <&
 0 o
03 << E-i (D
K w « co as
J i-J 4-» C U
Sal q rJ
_H r-l >, 1-1
(J -H rH H ^
E: a. a. 4* i-i
l-< g 6 TJ hJ
S 3 ea 0) ^
. CO tO In CJ
w S
v£> O O
5 SA rC
rS CO 1>
1-1
o o o
O O O
lA O O
r-* o in
r-* ^ en
^

^s
ggg
O O O
O O O
rH
888
O O O
sss


rH CM



o o o
§o o
0 0
o o o
rH rH en
O O O
80 o
o o
o o"o"




in o 'A
CM in r-.
 o u
w w «" w
w u e u
C C r-H g
to TO S
01 4) « ft
Q. Q- QJ E-H
CO CO tn M
CJ
O 0 O
g88
S {C S
CM
o o o
888


^













888
O O O
CM
888
O O O
o o o
CM  0 tj
< £H a,
WWW rH
j-t iJ c ea
-« rH >^ W H
-H — < LI i <;
1" E T> z ce
ra fo QJ o o
to to fe o ~~-
O Q

CO CM rH
""* ^ ^
rH 
CO eo CM
en
en CM co
O  O U 2
< E- A
(O \O CO
eM ix
0 O 0
§o o
o o
IA in in
in oo "-o
en CM
,-T


f-^ m
CM















41 ^
2-3
•< H
 fe, E
w
CJ
r-- O O
CM O O
rH lA

O O O
^ 5 »















0 O O
o o o
0 O 0
rH m
o o o
888
g||



CM IX
§§|

8§8
O O O
-* ^" •*




rH ^

a]
4J
S
ca
C
rH
01 ph
&a
flj rH -0
41 4J U
> O y
«a H 41
CD m m"
4J *J C

41 4) CO Q
O. Q. 4) »-H
1 1 "S 1-.
W CO h g
O
O O O
o o o
o o o
S ^ CO
rH »n
8§8
O O O
m o m
r~ IA CM
rH en CM













O O O
O O O
O O O
™ss
o o o
o o o
o o o
0 O O
lA O *A
r^ IA CM
rH en CM
'~t

CM IX










U
0
H
09
S

4) p^
00
cd -^ -o
LI nj 41
> 0 0

as en S*
w w c

4) 0) CD ^
O. O. 0) Q
nub fc
-*
rH 0 0

 O U
 0 0
^ H CJ


ca 03
« « a
a. a. 41
1 1 "S
W W Eb

CM lA *O
^ eo rn
S.°I
eo -tf >-«
co CM rx
fx en m

0 oT
rH M
CM CO
rH en
ill
in co r-i
S*
O r*- in
« CM O
en -J en
CM IA


CM m


el 2 S
co en »3-
oo in
M? CO CM
tx r-. co
-j en co
lA vD >A
lA CM
v£> CM
CM

r*. en
CM
-^- CM CM
en en IA
2 co
so 00 O
SO CO CO
^ oo m


CM

rH IA
r-H
3
o
H
CD
c
(d
235
> o u
< H at


03 4
H 4) 4) 03
f_ O. D. 4*
5 CO W CM
1

-------
                                                                                         64
            ox
        H   •>
        <
        w
            H
            CO
PQ
        W
        H
        Pi  H
        O  «
        fa  O

        W  PM
        W
        &  H
        W  PC
        PM  H
        X
        W
                            O         4-1
                            fa     4-1   O
                                    C      co
                       r-l  CO  CD   0)   CO  i-l
                        CO  4J 4J   g   C  Cfl
                        4-1  C  CO  4-1   O  i—I
                        O  CL)  Cfl   CO  T-l  i—I

                        H  6 S   0)  i-l  O
                            ;>!      H  rH  P
                            co     H  -H
                            PM         S
         CO
         0)
     O  -i-l  4-1
    H  4J  O
        •H      CO
i—I   CO  I—I   CO  U
 co  4-1   ca   c  co
 3   c   a.  o  1-1
 C   HI  -i-l  TH  i-l
 C   6   O  rH  O
<;   >-> -H  ^-t  o
     CO   C  -H
                 CO
             CO   U
i-l           C   CO
 CO  S   co   O  i-l
 3      4J  -i-l  i-l
 C  o3   co  1-1   O
 C       O  rH  p
<3  O  u  -i-i

            ss
     4-1       CO
     C   co   M
•-I  01   C   Cfl
 CO i-l   O  i-H
 3  CO  -r-l  I—I
 C  >  r-i   O
 a ---I  r-i  p
  H  cfl
                        pd          fa
                4-1
             co   O
             0)       co
            •H   CO   M
                 C   cfl
                 O  r-l
                     O

                    P
                                                      ro

-------
                                                              65
                       SPECIFIC REFERENCES
(1)   Williams,  Willard F.  and Thomas T.  Stout.   Economics of the
         Livestock Meat Industry.   New York:  Macmillan Co., 1964.

(2)   Macon,  John A. and Daniel N.  Cote.   Study  of Meat Packing Wastes
         jln  North Carolina,  Part I:   "Introduction and Plant Effluent
         Studies."  North  Carolina State College, Industrial Extension
         Service, Raleigh, North Carolina,  1961.

(3)   Ziegler,  P. Thomas.   The Meat We Eat.   Danville:   The Interstate
         Printers & Publishers,  Inc., 1966.

(4)   Nelson, D.H.  "Meat Packing Wastes and  Their Pretreatment,"
         Sewage Works Engineering.   Vol. 20,  No.  8.  Madison,  Wisconsin,
         1949.

(5)   Ruddell,  J.W.  Developments jLn By-Products Processing and Waste
         Disposal.  Paper  read at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Meat
         Packers Council of  Canada,  Toronto,  Canada, February 9-11,  1959.

(6)   U.S. Department of Health,  Education, and  Welfare.  An Industrial
         Guide _to the Meat Industry, Washington,  D.C.:  Government
         Printing Office,  1965.

(7)   Camin,  K.Q.  Chapter  IV,"Economic-Engineering Study of Meat Packing
         Wastewater," unpublished doctoral dissertation, University  of
         Missouri.

(8)   Eckenfelder, W. Wesley, jr.  Industrial Water Pollution Control.
         New York:  McGraw-Hill Book Company,  1966.

(9)   Babbit, Harold E. and E. Robert Baumann.   Sewerage and Sewage
         Treatment.  New York:  John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958.

(10)  Deitz,  Jess C. and Paul W.  Clinebell, Anaerobic  Stabilization.
         Paper read at the Institute on Sanitary Engineering and
         Industrial Wastes,  Madison, Wisconsin, February 28, 1964.

-------
                                                               66
                        GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY


Reports and Unpublished Materials


Deitz, Jess C.  and Paul W.  Clinebell.  Anaerobic Stabilization.
    Paper read at the Institute on Sanitary Engineering and
    Industrial Wastes, Madison, Wisconsin.  February 28, 1964.

Enders, Keith E., Mark J.  Hammer, and Clinton L. Weber.  "Field
    Studies on an Anaerobic Lagoon Treating Slaughterhouse Waste."
    To be published in_ the Proc. 22nd Ind. Waste Conf., 1967.
    Purdue University.

Ruddell, J.W. Developments in By-Products Processing and Waste
    Disposal.  Paper read at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Meat
    Packers Council of Canada, Toronto, Canada, February 9-11, 1959.

Smallhorst, D.F., sr., B.N. Walter, jr., and Jack Myers.  "The Use
    of Oxidation Ponds in Sewage Treatment."  Austin:  Texas State
    Department of Health.   (Mimeographed.)


Bulletins and Periodicals
Andera, Merlin J.,  Gene R. Foss, and Howard A. Brandeland.  "Waste
    Treatment at the Rath Packing Company," Proc. 21st Ind. Waste
    Conf. Purdue University.  Ext. Series #121.  Vol. L, No. 2.
    Lafayette.

Anthony, W.E.  "Structural Changes in the Federally Inspected Live-
    stock Slaughter Industry, 1950-1962."  Economic Research Service,
    Report #83.

Anthony, W.E. and K.E, Egerston.  "Decentralization in the Livestock
    Slaughter Industry,"  Economic Research Service, Supplement #83,
    April, 1966.

Coever, James F.  "Anaerobic and Aerobic Ponds for Packinghouse
    Waste Treatment in Louisiana,"  Proc. 19th Ind. Waste Conf.
    Purdue University.  Ext. Series #117.  Lafayette.

Cowie, C.A.  "Industrial Waste Treatment and Disposal in New
    Zealand,"  Proc. 15th Ind. Waste Conf.  Purdue University.
    Ext. Series #106.  Lafayette.

-------
                                                               67
Daly, Rex F. and A.C. Egbert, Agricultural Economic Research.
    "A Look Ahead for Food and Agriculture."  Vol. XVIII, January,
    1966.

Deitz, Jess C. , Paul IV. Clinebell, and A.L. Strub.  "Design Con-
    sideration for Anaerobic Control Systems,"  W.P.C.F. Journal.
    Vol. 38, No. 4.  Atlantic City, 1965.

Garrison, K.M. and R.J. Gippert.  "Packing House Waste Processing
    Applied Improvements of Conventional Methods," Proc. 15th Ind.
    Waste Conf.  Purdue University.  Ext. Series #106.  Lafayette.

Halverson, H.O.  "Operating and Economic Factors Involved in the
    Study of a Packing House Waste Problem,"  W.P.C.F. Journal 25,
    2, 170, February, 1953.

Hill, Kenneth V.  "Designing a Combined Treatment Works for Munici-
    pal Sewage and Packinghouse Wastes at Austin, Minnesota," Proc.
    13th Ind. Waste Conf.  Purdue University. Ext. Series #98.
    Lafayette.

Kolmer, Lee, William Whrig, and David Hammond.  "The Current Position
    of the Beef Industry,"  Economic Information 145.  Iowa State
    University, March, 1964.

Macon, John A. and Daniel N. Cote. Study of Meat Packing Wastes in
    North Carolina, Part I:  "Introduction~and Plant Effluent
    Studies."  North Carolina State College, Industrial Extension
    Service, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1961.

Nelson, D.H.  "Meat Packing Wastes and Their Pretreatment," Sewage
    Works Engineering.  Vol. 20, No.  8.   Madison, Wisconsin, 1949.

Rands, Maxwell B. and D.E. Cooper.  "Development and Operation of a
    Low Cost Anaerobic Plant for Meat Wastes,"  Proc. 21st Ind.
    Waste Conf.  Purdue University.  Ext. Series #121.  Vol. L.,
    No. 2.  Lafayette.

Rollag, Dwayne A. and James N, Dornbush.  "Anaerobic Stabilization
    Pond Treatment of Meat Packing Wastes," Proc. 21st Ind. Waste
    Conf.  Purdue University.  Ext. Series #121.  Vol. L., No. 2.
    Lafayette.

	, and J.N. Dornbush.  "Design and Performance Evaluation of
    an Anaerobic Stabilization Pond System for Meat-Processing Wastes,"
    W.P.C.F. Journal.  Vol.  38, No. 11.  Albert Lea, Minnesota, 1965.

-------
                                                                68
 Schroepfer,  George J.   "New Developments  in Packing House Waste
     Treatment,"   Proc.  Ind.  Waste Conf.   Purdue University.   Lafayette,

 Sollo,  F.W.   "Pond Treatment of Meat  Packing Plant Wastes,"  Proc.  15th
     Ind.  Waste Conf.   Purdue University.   Ext.  Series  #106.   Lafayette.

 Stanley,  Donald  R.   "Anaerobic and Aerobic Lagoon Treatment  of
     Packing  Plant Wastes,"  Proc.  jZlst  Ind. Waste Conf.   Purdue
     University.   Ext.  Series #121.  Vol.  L, No.  2.Lafayette.

 Steffen,  R.K., K.M.  Garrison, andR.C.  Burrell.   "Packinghouse Waste
     Processing—Applied Improvements  of Conventional Methods,"  Proc.
     Ind.  Waste Conf.   Purdue University.   Lafayette.

 Steffen,  A.J.  "Operating  Expenses  in Anaerobic Treatment of Packing-
     house Wastes,"  Proc.  Ind.  Waste  Conf.   Purdue University.
     Lafayette.

 	,  and M.  Bedker.  "Operation of  a  Full-Scale Anaerobic Contact
     Treatment  Plant  for Meat  Packing  Wastes,"  Proc.  16th Ind.  Waste
     Conf.  Purdue  University.   Ext.  Series  #109.   La~fayette~


 Books
Babbit, Harold E. and E. Robert Baumann.  Sewerage and Sewage Treat-
    ment.  New York:  John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958.

Eckenfelder, W.  Wesley, jr.  Industrial Water Pollution Control.
    New York:  McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.

Gurnham, C. Fred.  "Principles of Industrial Waste Treatment.  New
    York:  John Wiley S Sons, Inc., 1955.

       , (ed).   Industrial Wastewater Control.  Vol.  II, Chemical
    Technology Monographs.  New York:  Academic Press, 1965.

Ives, J. Russell.  The Livestock and Meat Economy of the United
    States.  Institute for Continuing Education, 1966.  Ann Arbor:
    Edwards Bros., Inc.

Landsberg, Hans H., Leonard L. Fischman, and Joseph L. Fisher.
    Resources in America's Future.  Baltimore:  The Johns Hopkins
    Press, 1963.

Nemerow, Nelson Leonard.  Theories and Practices of Industrial
    Waste Treatment.  Addison-Wesley Series in the Engineering
    Sciences, Environmental Engineering.  Reading, Massachusetts:
    Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc. , 1963.

-------
                                                                69
Rudolphs, Willem (ed.).  Industrial Wastes.  American Chemical
    Series, Monograph Series.  New York:  Reinhold Publishing
    Corporation, 1953.

Williams, Willard F. and Thomas T. Stout.  Economics of the Livestock
    Meat Industry.   New York:  Macmillan Co., 1964.

Ziegler, P. Thomas.   The Meat We Eat.   Danville:  The Interstate
    Printers & Publishers,  Inc., 1966.

-------

-------
         PART II
POULTRY PROCESSING PROFILE

-------

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction:

       Definition of Poultry	   1
       Measure of Plant and Industry Size	   1
       Definition of Relevant Terms	   2
       Source  of Data	   4
       Structure and Characteristics of
            the Poultry Processing Industry	   4
       Growth  of the Poultry Processing Industry	   5
       Regional Distribution of the Poultry
            Industry	   8
       Wastewater Characteristics to be
            Considered	   8
       Effects of Plant Size and Technology
            Upon Wasteload and Wastewafer	  11

Fundamental Industry Processes:

       Graphic Representation of Basic
            Processes	  16
       Poultry Processes	  16
       Poultry and Small Game Processes as
            Related to BOD	  22
       Definition of Plant Size	  25

Gross Pollution Quantities:

       Per Unit Wasteloads and Wastewater
            Volumes by Technology.	  28
       Gross wasteloads 1963-1967	  30
       Seasonal Variations	  30

Pollution Reduction by Subprocess Change:

       Cleanup	  32
       Blood Collection	  32
       Evisceration	  32
       By-Product Recovery	  32

Pollution Reduction by Industry
       Wast e Treatment	  33

Pollution Reduction by Municipal
       Waste Treatment	  33

-------
Net Pollution:

       1963	  38
       1963-1977, Selected Years	  38

Costs of Pollution Reduction:

       Cost of Pollution Reduction by Sub-
            process Change	  41
       Blood Recovery	  42
       Cost of Pollution Reduction by Ind-
            ustrial Waste Treatment	  44
       Cost of Municipal Treatment of Poultry
            Processing Wastewater	  44

Reference Section:

       Specific  References	 48
       General Bibliography	 49

-------
                  LIST OF TABLES



TABLE                                                     PAGE

  1.  1965 Poultry Slaughter by Type of Bird	  6

  2.  Poultry Production in the U.S., 1950 to 1965	  7

  3.  States in Poultry Regions	  9

  4.  Broiler Production by Region	 10

  5.  Production Process and Significant Subprocesses	 14

  6.  Technology Levels and Associated Typical Subprocesses 15

  7.  Waste Production by Process	 23

  8.  Definition of Plant Size in Number of Birds
      Processed Per Day and Pounds Liveweight	 26

  9.  Definition of Plant Sizes by Technology Levels	 27

 10.  Waste Index by Technology, 1966	 29

 11.  Annual Poultry Slaughter—Wasteloads and
      Wastewater 1963, 1967, and Projections to
      1977	 31

 12.  Changes in Subprocesses and Their Effect Upon
      Wasteload and Wastewater Volumes.	 34

 13.  Utilization of Waste Treatment Facilities	 35

 14.  Poultry Processing Wastewater Handled by
      Municipal Treatment Facilities by Type of
      Technology, 1966 (Figures in Millions of
      Gallons)	 36

 15.  Per Cent of Wastewater Discharged to
      Municipal Treatment Facilities	 37

 16.  1963 Net Pollutant Quantities	 39

 17.  Summary of Base Year and Net Projected Waste-
      loads (Gross and Net Pollutants Measured in
      Millions of Pounds of BOD Per Year)	 40

-------
18.  Waste Treatment Charges Paid to
     Municipalities in 1966	  43

19.  Cost and Economic Life of Treatment
     Facilities Employed by a Medium Sized
     Plant Using a Typical Level of
     Technology	  45

20.  Waste Treatment Charges Paid to
     Municipalities in 1966	  46

21.  Industry Expenditures for Waste
     Treatment, 1966	  47

-------
                           LIST OF FIGURES




Figure:                                                        Page




   1.  Poultry Production in United States 	    3




   2.  Potential Pollution Sources 	   17




   3.  Major Steps in Poultry Processing 	   18

-------

-------
                                                                S - 1
                    POULTRY PROCESSING SUMMARY
Measure of Plant and Industry Size

         Since the number of birds slaughtered is the most import-
ant factor determining wastewater volumes and pollution loads of
the poultry processing industry, pounds liveweight killed and the
number of birds killed will be used to measure the plant and in-
dustry size.  Value-added and sales have been rejected as measures
of plant and industry size since neither of these two numbers give
a base for pollution estimates.
Definition of Small, Medium, and Large Poultry Processing Plants

          For purposes of this report, plant size will be defined
in terms of daily number of birds slaughtered and daily liveweight
slaughtered.

         A small plant is one whose daily liveweight kill is less
than 100,000 pounds or less than 25,000 birds processed per day.
This measure is applied to all processing plants studied.

         In 1966 approximately  thirty-nine  per cent of total live-
weight slaughtered was done by plants which  are classified as
small.  For projection purposes the typical  small plant will be
one whose daily liveweight kill is sixty-thousand pounds.

         A medium plant is one whose daily liveweight kill is less
than 380,000 pounds of less than 95,000 birds.  The medium plants
killed approximately fifty-two per cent of the total liveweight
in 1966.

         Large plants would include all plants processing over
95,000 birds per day or 380,00 pounds of  liveweight per day.
Large plants killed approximately nine per cent of the total live-
weight in 1966.  This sector of the industry is expected to
experience the most growth in the next ten years at the exp-
ense of the small sector.

-------
                                                              S - 2
Source of Data

        Much of the information is based upon the questionnaire
responses received from poultry packers who killed almost thirty
per cent of all birds processed in 1966.  It is assumed that this
portion of the poultry processors is typical of the entire
industry.
Processes and Pollutants

        Those processes, which have substantial impact upon
wasteloads, have been identified for further analyses.  These
processes are:
              1.  Blood Recovery
              2.  Screening of feathers
              3.  Cleanup

    1.  Blood recovery can reduce wasteloads by approximately
        thirty-eight per cent.  With only fifty-six per cent
        of all plants recovering blood in 1966, this sub-
        process is potentially an area where substantial
        pollution reduction could occur.

    2.  Defeathering has a pollution potential of great
        magnitude because of the volume of feathers in-
        volved.  Because feathers are not easily de-
        gradable by biological waste treatment, processing
        plants must use screens to separate the feathers
        from the wastewater.

    3.  Dry cleanup of manure and feathers preceding the
        wet cleanup can reduce both the solids and BOD
        concentration of the wastewater.
Effect of Technology on Wasteloads

        Technology has been defined in terms of the subprocess
mix.  The three levels of technology:   "Old," "Typical," and
"Advanced" are defined as follows:

-------
                                                             S - 3
"Old Technology" (41% of all plants in 1966)
        1.  Holding of live poultry in storage batteries
        2.  Recovery of no blood
        3.  Nonflow-away system for removal of feathers and
            offal from processing area
        4.  Removal of carcass body heat by submission in
            portable vat containing ice and water
        5.  Shipment of processed poultry in ice
        6.  Dry cleanup followed by wet cleanup

"Typical Technology" (56% of all plants in 1966)
        1.  Direct placement of birds on conveyor from
            receiving truck
        2.  Recovery of all blood due to immobilization of
            birds
        3.  Flow-away system for removal of feathers and
            offal from the processing area
        4.  Shipment of processed poultry in ice
        5.  Wet cleanup of plant

"Advanced Technology" (37= of all plants in 1966)
        1.  Direct placement of birds on conveyor from
            receiving truck
        2.  Recovery of all blood due to immobilization of
            birds
        3.  Flow-away system for removal of feathers and
            offal from the processing' area
        4.  Removal of carcass body heat by submission into
            mechanical chilling tanks containing refrigerated
            water
        5.  Shipment of processed poultry frozen
        6.  Wet cleanup of plant

        Technology is directly related to wasteload reduction.
The major reduction occurs as technology changes from "old" to
"typical."  The waste reduction in this change is caused by the
introduction of blood recovery into the subprocess mix.  This
change in technology also brings the "flow-away" system into
existence with the consequent increase in wastewater per unit of
product.

        The change from "typical" to "advanced" technology sees
only a very slight lowering of wasteload, due primarily to the
introduction of dry cleanup on a limited scale.  The reduction
of wastewater per unit of product is caused by increased reuse
of wastewater.

-------
                                                             S - 4
        The effects of technology upon wasteload and wastewater
volume are summarized in the following table.
        WASTELOAD AND WASTEWATER VOLUME PER 1000 BIRDS
                 BY TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY, 1966
Type of
Technology
"Old Technology"
"Typical Technology"
"Advanced Technology"
Wasteload
Ibs BOD/1000 birds
31.7
26.2
26.0
Wastewater
gals/1000 birds
4,000
10,400
7,300
Waste Reduction by Subprocess Change

        Although  subprocess change can be an effective means  of
wasteload  reduction,  it  is often economically unfeasible  for  an
individual plant.  The poultry processing industry has
four types of  subprocess changes available  to them; Cleanup,
Blood Collection, the method of Sviseration, and By-Product re-
covery.  The two  most predominant subprocess changes are  cleanup
and blood  collection, the latter achieving  the highest per cent
of pollution reduction.

Waste Reduction by Use of Waste Treatment Facilities

        The most  common method of waste  treatment used by the
poultry processor is municipal treatment.   Since the poultry
industry is a  low profit margin industry the costs of private
treatment  tend to be prohibitive for  the poultry processor.
The plants of  the typical and advanced technology levels  wh.ch
employ the flow-away  system of feather and  offal removal  ust
a screening process to remove feathers and  solids from the plant
effluent.  The majority  of processing plants (eighty per  cent)
this is the only  type of treatment employed by the plant.  All
futher treatment  is done by the municipality.  A table of waste
treatment  charges is  shown on page 46 of this report.  A  table on
the cost of private treatment is shown on page 47.

-------
                     PROFILE OF THE "POULTRY
                        PACKING" INDUSTRY
INTRODUCTION

Definition of Poultry

     "Poultry Processing" is defined for purposes of this report to
include all plants engaged in slaughtering, dressing, and packing
of poultry.  The deletion of small game dressing and egg breaking
was necessitated because of the lack of information for these
categories.

     Two types of plants are considered in this report.  The turkey
processing plant and the chicken/broiler processing plant.  Both
plants are engaged in the slaughtering and packaging of their re-
spective products.  The two types of plants were considered
separately because of the seasonal operation of the turkey processor.

     Poultry processing is carried out under government supervision
for interstate commerce shipments.  The industry is characterized
by a large number of small, independent local processors, usually
not being government inspected.  For this reason average figures
had to be used many places in the report because of the lack of
adequate information.

     It should be noted by the reader that this classification as
defined above differs from the SIC classification number 2015 used
by the Federal Government.
Measure of Plant and Industry Size

     Poultry processors typically indicate size of plant by refering
to the number of birds processed per time period.   The literature
in the field, therefore, incorporates this measurement of size.
The water use and pollution per bird for a broiler processor will
differ from that of the turkey processor.  Total liveweight,
therefore, is used as the common denominator for the calculations
in this report.

     Since the majority of poultry statistics are in numbers of
birds processed, a conversion factor had to be developed for con-
verting numbers of birds to liveweight figures.  The conversion
factor utilized in this report is 4.25.  When the number of birds
is multiplied by 4.25,the result is liveweight in pounds.  This
factor is accurate only when applied to annual data because of the

-------
seasonal effect of turkey processing.

     The multiplication factor is constructed in a manner which con-
siders the seasonal load of turkey processors, whose product is the
heaviest.  The 4.25 conversion factor is weighted by the number of
birds of each type killed in 1965.  The use of this same conversion
factor for projections of poultry production implies the same dis-
tribution of total birds as existed in 1965.  This assumption
appears reasonable since the product mix of the industry is becoming
stabilized.  The number of chickens produced should continue to de-
cline until the 0.5 million pounds per year level is reached.  The
1965 ratio of broilers to turkeys is assumed to continue_, as can be
seen in Figure 1.

     The dictionary of relevant terms should be consulted for average
weight per bird by type of bird.   However, since this report is
primarily concerned with aggregate figures, the application of
these individual weight figures to tables in this report is not
relevant.  Total liveweight, then, in annual figures is the measure
of size which will be utilized in this study.
Definition of Relevant Terms

            In the interest of clarity the definitions
                of terms to be used throughout this
                      report are given below.

       Eviscerated poultry....poultry which has had its head,
                              feet, and viscera removed.
       Offal	includes head, feet, and viscera.
       Viscera	the heart, lungs, liver , and
                              intestines of the bird.
       Broiler	a bird grown eight to nine weeks
                              with a liveweight of approximately
                              3.5 pounds.
       Chicken	a catch-all classification of
                              poultry with an average weight
                              of approximately 4.8 pounds.
       Turkey	a type of poultry with the average
                              weight of 14.1 pounds.  In this
                              report turkeys can weigh anywhere
                              from eight to thirty pounds, the
                              heavier birds being less popular
                              than those of lighter weight.

-------
                                      FIGURE  1

                       POULTRY PRODUCTION  IN  THE UNITED  STATES
                    1956  TO 1965 ACTUAL, 1966 TO 1977 PROJECTED
                        (In Billions  of Pounds  of Liveweight)
P
o
u
n
d
s
                                                   70
75
                             Years

-------
Source of Data

     Questionnaires were sent to the poultry processors.  A sample
was selected from each state and weighted to reflect the position
of the state, as compared with total U.S. production.  The names
and addresses of plants were obtained from the:  "Who's Who in the
Egg and Poultry Industries," published by the Watt Publishing Co.,
Mount Morris, Illinois, 1967 edition.  The questionnaire received
a forty-one per cent response which represented twenty-eight per
cent of the total number of birds processed in 1966.  This indicates
that a large percentage of the large processors did not answer.
Nevertheless, it is assumed that the sample obtained was sufficiently
large and typical to justify its use as basis for this report.
Structure and Characteristics of the Poultry Processing Industry

     The poultry processing industry has undergone a process of
vertical integration.  The integration process has been carried out
to ensure the constant supply of uniformly high quality birds.  The
process of integration has enabled the processor to avail himself
of the economies achieved by scheduling production at near optimum
capacity.

     Vertical integration was preceded by a change in the form of
the marketable product.  When the "cold pack" or eviscerated bird
replaced the "New York Dressed" bird, it was possible to freeze
and store processed poultry.  The change in the dressing process
also made it possible for the processor to locate farther from the
market areas.  Therefore, it can be stated that the dressing change
helped to speed up the integration process.

     An Agricultural Marketing Service study lists the six following
points as contributing factors for the growing integration of the
poultry industry.(1)

      1.  the opportunity to increase profits by lowering
          costs through more efficient coordination of
          both the production and marketing processes.

      2.  the need for outside financing and technical
          assistance for many producers.

      3.  the increasing awareness among retailers of the
          need for uniformly high quality. . . (poultry).

      4.  the increasing size of retail operations which
          give retailers greater power in enforcing their
          demands.

-------
        5.  the inability of pricing methods to bring forth
            production of uniformly high quality . .  .
            (broilers) and a uniform seasonal distribution
            of volumes and sizes.

        6.  the inability, in many instances, to obtain the
            benefits from larger sales of feed by developing
            contractual arrangements.

The integration process is proceeding at a rapid pace in most re-
gions; however, the large producing regions are showing the greatest
amount in change.

        Finally, it should be noted that the shift from the "New
York Dressed" poultry, where only blood and feathers are removed,
to cold pack or eviscerated poultry in 1955-1957 presented the
industry with its first waste disposal problems.  Now, 1967, it
is all but impossible to find "New York Dressed" poultry in the
market place.  The effect upon the processing industry has been
the development of poultry by-product rendering facilities to
handle the increased amounts of waste material created through
the sale of eviscerated poultry.
Growth of the Poultry Processing Industry

        Since 1950 the poultry processing industry has undergone
radical change which has been and is being reflected in the
product produced by this industry and in the structure of the
industry.

        The following two tables, Tables 1 and 2, depict the
characteristics and growth of the poultry industry by type of
bird.  The two tables consider weight changes, regional growth
patterns, and the breakdown of the industry's three component
parts.  The component parts are chickens which represent the
smallest per cent in total weight killed, turkeys which consti-
tute the smallest per cent in numbers killed, and broilers which
comprise the largest per cent of the industry in both liveweight
and numbers killed.

        Table 1 shows the characteristics of poultry production
in the United States for 1965.  The numbers of birds and live-
weight slaughtered by type of bird are shown.

        Table 2 shows the growth of the poultry processing
industry over the past fifteen years.  The same information is
presented in graphic form in Figure 1.

-------
                               TABLE 1
               1965 POULTRY SLAUGHTER BY TYPE OF BIRD
               (Numbers of birds and total liveweight)
Type
of
Bird
Millions
of Birds
Per Year
Millions
of Pounds
Per Year
Per Cent of Total
Birds Killed
by Type
Per Cent of Total
Liveweight Killed
by Type
Broilers   2,333

Chickens     195

Turkeys      104

U.S. Total 2,632
8,146
640
1,751
10,938
89
7
4
100
 78

  6

 16

100

-------
                              TABLE 2

       POULTRY PRODUCTION IN THE UNITED STATES,  1950 TO 1965
                  (Millions of Pounds Liveweight)
 Year        Broilers        Chickens         Turkeys         Total
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1,938
2,463
2,699
2,932
3,267
3,350
4,270
4,683
5,431
5,763
6,017
6,841
6,917
7,284
7,524
8,106
1,872
1,875
1,767
1,713
1,661
1,230
1,203
1,008
1,050
1,062
903
947
908
913
943
946
815
911
946
1,080
1,076
1,080
1,249
1,342
1,316
1,379
1,488
1,885
1,628
1,676
1,791
1,885
4,625
5,249
5,411
5,725
6,004
5,660
6,772
7,033
7,797
8,204
8,408
9,673
9,453
9,873
10,258
10,937
287-031 O - 68 - f

-------
          The industry has undergone a tremendous phase of inte-
gration in the past ten years.   With profit margins decreasing as
a result of falling market prices, the poultry processor was forced
into cutting costs in order to survive.  Because economies of
scale existed, costs were reduced by increasing the size of pro-
cessing plants.  Growth of the processing plant was accompanied
by vertical integration within the industry, since large pro-
cessors required large numbers of high quality, uniformly sized
birds delivered on predetermined schedules to meet the demands of
faster, mechanized equipment.   In order to guarantee the regular
delivery of birds, the processor gained control of poultry growing
and distribution channels.  Thus, the processing industry moved
closer to its source of supply, the South Atlantic and Central
Atlantic States,
Regional Distribution of the Poultry Industry

          Poultry is processed in every state, but nine states
produce and process approximately seventy-five per cent of the
nation's broilers and seventy per cent of the nation's chickens.
The nine states are Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Georgia, Maryland,
Mississippi, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.  Table 3 gives
the breakdown of states contained within each poultry region as
defined by the U.S.D.A.  As the industry has grown over the past
decade, processing plants have become larger, and the industry in
general has become more centralized.  Shifts in regional develop-
ment of broiler production can be seen in Table 4.

          The industry's low profit margin will exclude the sur-
vival of all but the large processor.  As noted before, the sur-
vival of large processors is due to the tremendous economies of
scale experienced in both the growing and processing industry.
Thus, it is expected that the South Atlantic, South Central, and
Western regions will continue to grow at the expense of other
regions.
Wastewater Characteristics to be Considered

          Because of the short time available for data collection
and data analysis, it was decided to use "organic load" as the
measure of wastewater strength.  "Organic load" will be measured
in terms of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD).  To be more specific,
the organic load was measured in five-day, twenty degree centi-
grade BOD.  The five-day designation refers to the usual incuba-
tion period and the twenty degree centigrade to the temperature
maintained during incubation.  This particular form of the BOD
test, as well as the BOD test itself, was chosen because it is
the one most generally used.

-------
                            TABLE 3

                   STATES IN POULTRY REGIONS
North Atlantic
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Western
Idaho
Colorado
Arizona
Utah
Washington
Oregon
California


East North Central
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin




South Atlantic            South Central        west North Central
Delaware                  Kentucky             Minnesota
Maryland                  Tennessee            Iowa
Virginia                  Alabama              Missouri
West Virginia             Mississippi          Nebraska
North Carolina            Arkansas             Kansas
South Carolina            Louisiana
Georgia                   Oklahoma
Florida                   Texas

-------
10





















NJ"
w
hJ
M
•^ri
H







































h-l
O --v
W en
Pi CJ
0
^H -r~4
m .-i
i— i
S>r-|
s
M
H C
O -.-I
] 1
Q en
O cu
OS S-i
PLI 3
00
Pi -,-1
W fa
! 1 > 	 '
M
O
Pi





















m
vD
ON
I— t




en
C
13
O
Pi




01
g
3












O
m
ON
i— i








en
T)
c:
3
O
p-l







J_J
0)

"g
3






c
o

00
0)
pi





CM ON CM
O ON 00
oo r~ m
<)• i— t i— 1





CM <)- CM
r-* i— i in
co in  S-4 !-l
<£ O O
3 &
f"]
4-1 4J 4J
5-1 CO CO
O CJ CD
a w Is
ON
^
m
^j-
r*
CO



1— 1
r^
oo
ON




1-1
•
00
CM
ON









*^
•
ON
ON
CM


O
•H
4-1
c
cfl
T— ^
4-1

3
O
cn
m
ON
CO
m
n
CO



CO
1— 1
1— 1
0
,—1



CM
•
CM
00
CO









CO
•
CO
CM
i— 1



i— 1
cS

4-1
C
0)
u

s:
4J
3
O
in
00
VO
^f-
CO





1— 1
ON
ON





r^
•
i— i
*^j-
i—i









r^
•
m
^j-













4J
en
0)
12
in
ON
m
i— i
V*
oo



VO
CM
CO
CO
CM



i— 1
•
m
m
ON
n
r-t








OO

0
CO




en
0)
4-1
cS
4J
W

T3
Ol
4-1
•r-l
C


-------
                                                              11
          The reliance upon one measure of wastewater strength CBOD)
does not imply that this indicator is the only one or even the
best one.  In many instances total solids may be an equally im-
portant measure of meat packing waste.  BOD was chosen because it
is one of the most important and most commonly used measures of
wastewater strength.  Additional studies of poultry processing
wastewater should include at least total solids and suspended
solids.

          The BOD test is a time consuming, expensive, and delicate
test of wastewater strength.  These characteristics of the test may
be one explanation of the lack of information concerning the
strength of industrial wastewater.

          The poultry processing industry has one unique waste pro-
blem, that is, feathers.  A large volume of feathers are accumu-
lated during processing,and these feathers must be disposed of by
means other than biological sewage treatment.  This report has
treated the problem of feather disposal separately from the prob-
lem of wastewater disposal as BOD loads do not include feathers.
It is assumed that feathers will be removed by a screening process
along with other solid materials such as heads and feet.
Effects of Plant  Size and Technology Upon Wasteload and Wastewater

I.  Plan\ Size

          The size of the plant is directly related to the volume
of wastewater produced.  The chicken and broiler processing plants
of typical and advanced technology use approximately nine gallons
of water per bird processed.  The nine gallons include  processing,
cooling, and clean-up water.  About 8.75 gallons of the process
water emerges from the plant as wastewater.  The remaining .25
gallons is absorbed by the bird and/or evaporated during pro-
cessing.  The size of a poultry processing plant is defined in
terms of the number of birds processed by the plant during a one
year period.  Therefore, the volume of wastewater emerging from a
processing plant is directly related to the plant size.  Effluent
volumes from turkey processing plants are estimated to be approxi-
mately four times larger than broiler processing plants handling
the same number of birds per year.  The factor of four is due to
the large size of the turkey compared with that of a chicken or
broiler.  Size in this instance constitutes both inches and
weight.  Plants with "old technology" in general use about two-
thirds as much water as more advanced processing plants.

-------
                                                              12
II.  Technology

          "Technology" affects both the wasteload volume and waste-
water per unit of product.

A.  Wasteload

          The wasteload, measured in BOD per unit of product, de-
pends upon the technology level of the processing plant.  "Old
technology" plants are characterized by low water use and no
collection of blood.  Low water use results from the absence of a
flow-away system for feather and offal removal.  The absence of
blood collection increases the BOD strength of the wastewater by
more than fifty per cent.

          Typical and advanced technology plants are characterized
by the presence of a flow-away system for feather and offal re-
moval and of blood collection methods.  The blood collection pro-
cess alone can reduce BOD loads by thirty-eight per cent, but the
per cent of reduction achieved will depend upon the efficiency of
the blood collection method employed. C3)

B.  Wastewater

          It was stated previously that the "technology level"
affected in an indirect manner the volume of wastewater effluent.
The "old technology" plant has low volume effluents because of the
absence of the flow-away system.  Plants of "typical technology"
use the most water per unit of product while plants of the
"advanced technology" use a slightly smaller amount per unit of
product.  The reason for the reduced water use in "advanced"
plants is that water is reused within the processing operation.

III.  Miscellaneous

          The United States Department of Agriculture regulations
pertaining to the poultry processing industry also affect waste-
water volumes.  The U.S.D.A. regulations prescribe the minimum
amount of chill tank overflow for each bird entering the tank.
This regulation is generally considered excessive by most pro-
cessors.  Therefore, non-federally inspected plants usually have
a  lower volume of wastewater.

          Plants employing the "older" level of technology tend to
have the highest wasteload per unit of product because of the lack
of blood collection.  "Advanced technology" plants tend to have
waste loads whose BOD per bird is reduced by the continuous

-------
                                                               13
rescreening of wastewater that is required to permit the reuse of
water within the plant.  Thus the resulting wasteload is somewhat
lower than that of plants with "typical technology."

          The per cent of plants employing the various processing
and subprocessing methods can be seen in Tables 5 and 6.  Table 5
presents the per cent of plants employing each subprocess method
from 1950 to 1967.  The 1967 figures presented in Table 5 are the
most reliable; the figures for other years are educated estimates,
as indicated in table headings.  Table 6 gives the per cent of
plants employing each technology level in 1967 as ascertained
from the questionnaire data.

-------
                             TABLE  5                          14
Production Process Estimated Percentage of Plants Employing
and Significant Process
Subprocesses 1950 1963 1967 1972 1977
I . RECEIVING
1. Direct placement of
birds on conveyor
2. Birds retained in
storage battery
II. KILLING AND BLEEDING
1. Recovery of all blood
2. Recovery of no blood
III. FEATHER REMOVAL
A. Scalding
1. Immersion in scald
tank
2. Spray scalding
B. Defeathering
1. Line defeathering
with continuous spray
of water
2. Batch defeathering
in cyclictype
machines
C. Pin Feather Removal
1. By hand
2. Wax stripping


50

50

30
70



80
20



50


50

98
2


80

20

40
60



70
30



65


35

95
5


90

10

60
40



60
40



80


20

93
7


92

8

89
20



70
30



82


18

90
10


93

7

80
20



70
30



85


15

89
11
IV.  OFFAL REMOVAL
      1.  Dij^ dumpling of offal
          (Nonflow-away)            70     45      27       19      9
      2.  Wet dumping of offal
          (flow-away)               20     50      71       80     90
      3.  Dumping offal into sewer
          (possible side result of
          either non or flow-
          away system)              10       5       2        11

 V.  REUSE OF CHILL TANK OVER FLOW
      1.  No reuse                  80     70      54       45     25
      2.  Reuse — to supplement
          water flow-away system    20     30      46       55     75

VI.  CLEANUP
      1.  Dry cleanup followed by
          wet cleanup               80     50      29       20     10
      2.  Wet cleanup               20     50      71       80     90

-------
                          TABLE 6
                                                                 15


Technology Levels and
the Associated Typical
Subprocesses


Estimated
Per Cent of
Plants by
Type of
Technology
1967
Proportion of
Plants of this
Type by size

Sin. Med . Lar .
Size Range
of Plants by
Type of
Technology
Mil. Birds
Per Day
"TYPICAL TECHNOLOGY"
56
1. Direct placement of birds
   on conveyor from receiving
   truck
2. Recovery of all blood due
   to immobilization of birds
3. Flow-away system for removal
   of feathers and offal from
   the processing area
4. Shipment of processed
   poultry in ice
5. Wet cleanup of plant
.26  .66
.08
3-240
"OLD TECHNOLOGY"

1. Holding of live poultry
   in storage batteries
2. Recovery of no blood
3. Nonflow-away system for
   removal of feathers and
   offal from processing
   area
4. Removal of carcass body
   heat by submission in
   portable vat containing
   ice and water
5. Shipment of processed
   poultry in ice
6. Dry cleanup followed by
   wet cleanup
41
.40  .55
.05
1-50
"ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY          3

1. Direct placement of birds
   on conveyor from receiving
   truck
2. Recovery of all blood due
   to immobilization of birds
3. Flow-away system for removal
   of feathers and offal from
   the processing area
4. Removal of carcass body heat
   by submission into mechanical
   chilling tanks containing
   refrigerated water
5. Shipment of processed poultry
   frozen
6. Wet cleanup of plant
          .05  .17
           .77
       20-300

-------
                                                               16
FUNDAMENTAL INDUSTRY PROCESSES
Graphic Representation of Basic Processes
        Figures 2 and 3, give a graphic representation of poultry
processing.  Figure 2 shows the major steps in poultry processing,
the major sources of pollution, and by-products.

        Figure 3 shows each processing step and its place in the
process.  The dotted line encloses those processes with which
this report is concerned.  As can be seen from Figure 3 these
processes involve many steps, the majority of which contain pol-
lution potential.
Poultry Processes

I.  Receiving Live Poultry

        Most processing plants receive their live birds by truck,
and the coops containing the birds are moved directly from the
truck to the processing line or to storage.  In the past it was
a common industrial practice to hold the birds in a storage area;
storage time varied from a few hours to as long as one week.  The
changing face of the industry has proven storage uneconomical as
well as unnecessary.  Birds are grown under such controlled condi-
tions today that those brought to the processing plant are within
a specified weight and age range.  The quality of the birds re-
ceived remains at a constant level because of the controlled
environment in which the birds live during their growing life,
which is usually a period of eight to nine weeks.

        At most poultry dressing establishments truck shipments of
poultry are scheduled in a fashion that facilitates the direct
movement of poultry from the delivering truck to the processing
line.  Smaller poultry operations may hold live birds for a few
hours to ensure adequate numbers before beginning killing opera-
tions.  Manure deposits accumulated during the holding period
are an additional source of BOD.

        The birds are removed from the coops and attached by their
feet to shackles suspended from an overhead conveyor line.  The
conveyor line is moved at a prescribed rate of speed which  is gov-
erned by the processing operation.  Large dressing plants will
have more than one conveyor serving the receiving and processing
areas of the plant.  The birds are moved directly from the  receiving

-------
17



	 PI


1 	 ^

1 r»
i
1 r
i
1 i
d
o
•H
4-1
3
iH
,-H
0
PM

tn
i t
4-i
o
3
13
O
l-i
PM
>>
pq

^—



^— I
^W^




^1
J

i i
, '
i
en ,
w 1
u
P
w & j A j
g d " T
0 0
M PM
fe
^
H 1
H
Z
w
H
0
PM








60
C
•H
13
0)
0)
,— I
pq

^
J->
i-H
a
o
PH
(1)
•H
iJ





toO
d
•H
M
QJ
J3
4_l
cfl
0)
4-1
0)
O






d
0
•1-1
4-1
0)
H
Ol
o
H




















** ^
X O
CO O
0) r-H
•-i pq
PM
13
M-i d
O n)
CO «
4-1 4-1
•H m
PQ fn
/











T3
bO <1> >%
C bO t-i
•H CO 4-1
». ,C 	 ^ Ai ^H
' W * 0 3
(T3 CO O
S PH PM






-------
                                                          18
                      FIGURE 3

          MAJOR STEPS IN POULTRY PROCESSING
^

Killing
Station
-^

Unloading of
Live Poultry



^


^ , Wfifihpr .



r -


Weighing
Packaging


Bleeding Area ^
(Tunnel or Enclosed Area)

pingpr 	 Pirk^r . 	 S^al^ing .^
Tanks




"1
1
I
— L/nilling UUCSlue lliolue ~
; ' Tanks Wash Wash
I 	 _ _ _
                          Shipment
The area enclosed by the dotted lines  represents  the processing
area with the greatest pollution potential.

-------
                                                              19
dock to the killing area by the conveyor.


II.  Killing Operation

          Poultry are slaughtered in several different ways:  the
two most common ways are debraining and severance of the jugular
vein.  This operation is not covered by government regulation and
is left up to the processor as long as sanitation and health re-
quirements are met.  The larger dressing establishments collect
the blood which after further processing becomes a salable by-
product or is sold raw to a rendering plant.  Some smaller plants
flush the blood directly into the sewer, thus increasing the
strength of the effluent.  Sewage strength at least is doubled if
all blood is allowed to enter the plant sewer.  From the killing
room the birds proceed through a bleeding chamber where blood is
collected.  Then they proceed to the scalding tanks.
III.  Scalding Tanks

          The scalding operation can be carried on in either one
of two ways:  the birds can be scalded by the use of a spray or
scalded by immersion in a tank containing heated water.  The
latter operation is the most widely used method.  Water temperature
can range from approximately 128°F to 140°F, depending upon the
type of scalding desired by the processor.(1)  Water in the
scalding tank is maintained at the desired temperature by the con-
tinuous addition of hot water; the rate of addition is approximately
one-quarter to one-half gallon per bird.  Excess water overflows
into the sewer along with the tank drainings at the end of the pro-
cessing period.  The drain water will contain significant amounts
of dirt and blood which add to sewage strength.
IV.  Defeathering Operation

          Feathers are mechanically removed from the birds
immediately following the scalding operation.  The feather re-
moval process is carried out in several different fashions.

A.  Batch Removal of Feathers

          This is accomplished by removing the birds from the
overhead conveyor, by hand, and placing them in a rotating
cylindrical machine which removes the feathers.  The cleaned birds
are then gathered up by hand and resuspended from the moving
overhead conveyor.  This is not the usual method used because of
the excessive amount of hand labor necessary to keep

-------
                                                               20

a continuous, even flowing operation.   The batch method is the
most commonly used in small slaughtering operations.

B.  Line Defeathering

        This is the more popular method, since the bird remains
suspended from the conveyor and is passed in front of rotating
drums containing rubber fingers which beat the feathers off the
bird.  Continuous streams of water wash feathers from the carcass
to a flume and then from the picking area to a central gathering
location.  A screening operation is then conducted to separate
feathers and water.  This operation will be discussed later.

        Nonflow-away operations remove the feathers from the
picking area by hand or by machine and deposit them in containers.
Both operations require a wash down of the picking area at the
end of the processing period.

        After the picking operation has been completed, pin
feathers are removed by hand or by wax stripping.  Wax stripping
increases the pollution problem in that some wax inadvertently
escapes into the sewer.  After stripping, the bird passes
through an arc-gas flame to singe fine hair and remaining pin
feathers.  The bird is then passed through an "outside washer,"
a continuous spray of water tha washes the exterior surface of
the carcass.
V.  Evisceration

        The evisceration area of the processing plant is enclosed
and separated from the other portions of the plant to ensure
sanitary operation and avoid contamination.  The first step of
evisceration is the removal of the lower leg portion.  The birds
are then suspended from the conveyor in a fashion which
facilitates removal of viscera.  Subsequent operations remove
inner organs and separate the edibles (heart, liver, and gizzard)
from the inedibles.  Flow-away systems are employed by the great
majority of processors because of the convenience offered in
handling evisceration wastes.  The only drawback of this system
is the large amount of water required to accomplish the physical
movement of the viscera.

        When evisceration is completed the carcass is throughly
washed by an "inside washer" which spray-washes the interior of
the bird.  The bird is then inspected by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to ensure that the final product meets all necessary
health specifications.

        If further processing is desired, the carcasses may be
cut  up and processed for special packages such as wings, breasts,

-------
                                                               21
legs, etc.  This operation may entail packaging and replacing of
neck, heart, liver, and gizzard into the carcass.


VI.  Packing

          The cleaned and processed poultry are either chilled or
frozen before shipment.  The removal of animal hear is very
important in the processing operation.  At this point flavor and
marketing life can be greatly reduced by improper handling of the
chilling or freezing operation.

A.  Chilling and Freezing Operations

          In large portion federal rules and regulations govern
chilling and freezing operations.  Large poultry processors use
two or three mechanical chill tanks in series for carcasses and
a series of smaller tanks for giblets.  Iced or refrigerated
water is added to the first chill tank at a rate to reduce the
carcass temperature to around 65°F.

        With respect to chilling systems using
        continuous chillers, the amount of water
        intake necessary to provide an overflow
        that will be sufficient to accomplish a
        sanitary operation shall not be less than
        one-half gallon per frying chicken in the
        first section of the chilling unit.(2)

The second and third chill tanks continue to lower the carcass
heat to 34°F, a process which is accomplished in about thirty
minutes.  The U.S.D.A. allows recirculation of the water from
the second and third tank to the first tank; however,

        Sufficient water or ice or ice and water
        shall be added to subsequent sections of
        the chilling system (tanks two and three)
        so that the chilling media in all sections
        is maintained reasonably clear and there
        shall be a continuous overflow from each
        section.(2)

          Older plants generally do not have mechanical equipment
for quick chilling, and they generally place birds in portable
tubs containing ice and water.  This operation is referred to as
slow chilling.

          After the birds and giblets are chilled, they are
placed on a conveyor line to allow outer water to drain.  The
birds are then sized by weight, graded, and packed.  Birds to be

-------
                                                              22
frozen are generally wrapped in appropriate containers.   The
great majority of birds are packed in crates containing ice and
then shipped in refrigerated trucks.
Poultry and Small Game Processes as Related to BOD

I.  Blood Collection

          Blood collection has the highest amount of pollution
potential of any process within the plant.  If all blood were
allowed to enter the sewer, it would increase the BOD of plant
effluent at the rate of forty pounds per thousand birds killed.(3)
Blood collection which reaches an efficiency of ninety per cent
will reduce the plant BOD by approximately thirty-eight per cent.

          The plant sewer system will receive a "shock load" when
the blood collection area is cleaned.  This amount represents a
very small amount of total collectable blood, but the pollution
potential of blood is so great that it deserves mention.  The
entire clean-up operation of a typical plant will give a BOD
loading factor of about four pounds per thousand birds.(3)

II.  Scalding

          The purpose of the scalding operation, as described in
the first section, is to remove all dirt and blood from the ex-
terior surface of the carcass and to loosen feathers.  This pro-
cess can be carried out in scalding tanks or sprayers.

A.  Scalding Tanks

          They present a "shock load" waste problem.  Immersion of
the birds will result in a build up of dirt and gum deposits in
the tank bottom.  These deposits have a high BOD and solids con-
tent.  The dumping of the tank represents a "shock load" to the
treatment facilities.  When the tank water is drained at the end
of the processing period, the plant effluent experiences a rise
in strength which is incorporated into the clean-up period BOD
figures in Table  7.

B.  Spray Scalding

          This method allows the same amount of dirt and gum to
enter the plant effluent, but this amount is spread throughout
the processing day.

-------
                                                                 23
                                TABLE 7
                    WASTE PRODUCTION BY PROCESS
     Technology
       Levels
 Wasteload
Ibs BOD/day(l)
 Wastewater
   (mgd)
 "Typical  Technology"
 (125,000  Birds  Per bay)
    Recovery  of  Blood  and
      Flow-away  System
   Wet Cleanup

   Total
   2581
   1385

   3966
 .93 -- 1.0
1.0  -- 1.6
 "Old  Technology"
 (25,000  Birds  Per  Day)
   No  Blood  Recovery and
      Nonflow-away  System
   Dry Cleanup  followed
      by  Wet Cleanup

    Total
    575

     80

    655
.065 -- .11

   .032

.065 -- .14
 "Advanced  Technology"
 (150,000 Birds  Per Day)
    Recovery  of  Blood and
     Flow-away  System
    Recirculation of Water
    Wet  Cleanup

    Total
   3322

    585

   3907
 .9  -- 1.2
     .02
     .27

 ,9  -- 1.3
287-031 O - 68 - 9

-------
                                                                24
III.  Defeathering

        The defeathering process has a pollution potential of great
magnitude because of the volume of feathers involved.  One thousand
birds will yield approximately seventy pounds of feathers.  If no
attempt is made to collect feathers, the sewage disposal problem
becomes overwhelming for a plant killing twenty-five thousand birds
per day.  Such a plant would yield close to two thousand pounds of
feathers per day.

        The batch removal processes of defeathering involves the use
of water to wash the feathers from the drum-like machine during the
processing period.  In the line defeathering method, water is used
to wash feathers from the carcasses.  There is no substantial pollu-
tion difference in these two methods of removing feathers.

        Processing plants use screens to separate the feathers from
the water, which emerges from the plant as wastewater.  If the
screens become plugged, the resulting overflow of the screens will
carry feathers into the sewer.

        An alternative to the above process is the use of line
defeathering with mechanical conveying of feathers from the picking
area to a truck.  The few feathers which cling to the carcass are
washed off with water.  An advantage of this method over the pro-
cess of flow-away with screening is that this method eliminates the
chance of feather overflow into the sewer due to plugged screens.

-------
                                                               25
Definition of Plant Size

        Table 8 which was constructed from data received from
questionnaire responses, defines plant sizes.  It defines plant
sizes in terms of small, medium, or large.  The number and total
liveweight of birds processed per day, the total liveweight in
each size class as a per cent of total industry slaughter, and the
number of pounds of liveweight killed for a typical plant in each
class is presented.  The "typical" plant in each size class is the
plant size which will be used in estimating costs of pollution
reduction later.

        Table 9 shows the size range of plants by technology level
and by size groups of small, medium, and large.  The median size
plant is also given for each size group by level of technology.
An interesting characteristic of the median is that it tends to
fall at the lower end of the size group in both the medium and
large size groups.  The reason for this is that processing plants
for the most part tend  to fall at the lower end of each size group
bringing the median down.  The few large plants in each size group
account for the extremely wide range of the group but had little
influence upon the median.  For this reason the median, rather than
the mean, was decided upon as the measure of central tendency.
Notice that in all size groups the median size plant was larger as
technology improved.

-------
26












CO
Q
CH E~l
H n5
CQ O
M
En Ed
O ^
M
W M
PQ hJ
^T*
g Q
is 5
H O
PH

oo txi g
h~n ^S
ptj C/3 » C C
H T-l PJ
CO
co
n)
14-1 4-> r-l
o si o
60
4-1 -H (1)
C 0) N
CD & i-l
O Q) C/3
^
M i-l c!
 iH
c^ o r-i
iH H i-l



CO
C
3 4J
O rC
P-i 60 ^»
•H CtJ
C  0)
60 -i-l PH
C i— 1
C8




CO >-,

0) Q

€ ^
^J OJ
^^ f> 1

C «
•H 13
M
0) i-l
60 M
a
CtJ U-l
PH O

4-1
C CU
CO N
i-l -H



0
O
O
n
§












cy»
c*")







O
o
o
ft
o
0
1 — 1

o
4-1

o








o
o
o
«l
in
CN

o
4-1

o





,—4
T-l
CO
s



o
o
o
»>
o
o
CN|












csl
m







0
o
o
o
oo


o


o
o
o
»t
o
o
i-H



O
O
0
**
m
o>

o
4-1

O
o
o
r\
in
CM
a
3
•H
13




O
O
O
O
0












CT>








O
O
O
o
v£>


o
4-1

o
o
o
ft
o
oo
pn


o
o
o
•V
o
*^"
CN

o
4->

o
o
o
•s
m

0)
60
^
JS

-------
27






















en

tu
_j
CO
<
E-












































co
i— J
w
>
P-)
_)
>-
U r—,
St/J
T)
§!H
•H
2C CO
u
UJ H-l /-\
H O H tO rH
CQ - 3
0 bO
CO O -H
won.
Kl rH
rH X
OO C rH
•H -H
H cd
2 W Q
^ 0) > — '
*J fH
0, 3
bo
P-, -H
O U^
t^
O
hH
H
S
>-H
Pu
tu
Q
















C
rt
• H
T3

a) M a>
u o bo
C rH C
cd o rt
> C OS
^ r^ ^ 	 '
< 0
(D
H

C
ctf
• H
T3
(D





X
rH bO / 	 ^
rt o o>
O rH bO
•HOC
pti C cd
XrG Di
H O ^-^
(U
H



C
ctf
• H
T3
CD
•£.

X
bO
O
O f-\
C 
C
cd
rH
P


LO o o
rH LO tO
rH
O
LO to ^r
CM  4-1 4->
O UO LO
rH ^3- CM
rH




LO O LO
•^ rH
rH





LO
o LO CM
rH ^ rH

O O O
4-> 4-> 4->

tO LD O
tO rH
rH




CM O O
to o
rH




O
IT> rH
tO tO rH

O O 0
+-)+-)+->
rH LO LO
CM cn




rH 3 (D
rH -H bO
0} 13 H
S a> rt
crt S J

-------
                                                             28
Gross Pollution Quantities


Per Unit Wasteloads and Wastewater Volumes by Technology

       From the "questionnaire data" a wasteload and wastewater
volumes per unit of product were developed for each of the three
levels of technology.  These per unit values are shown in Table 10.

       The immense increase in wastewater per unit of product
between "old" and "typical" technology was caused by the
introduction of the flow-away system.  The drop in water use per
unit of product between "typical" and "advanced" was due to
recirculation of water in "advanced" technology plants.   In other
words, process water was used more than once in the processing
operation.

       "Old" technology and "typical" technology differ in amount
of wasteload because of their differences in terms of blood
collection.  The fact that blood is collected in "typical"
technology and not in "old" technology constitutes the difference
in wasteload reduction of these two technology levels.  The slight
decrease in wasteload between "typical" and "advanced" technology
is the result of the continuous screening which is required by
in-plant reuse  of water which is assumed in "advanced" technology
plants.

       Table 10 also contains the per unit wasteload and waste-
water in index form.  "Old" technology was used as the base of
100.  The index is presented to facilitate comparisons among
technology levels.

-------
            TABLE 10
WASTE INDEX BY TECHNOLOGY, 1966
                                           29
Type
of
Technology
"Old Technology"
"Typical Technology"
"Advanced Technology"
Waste Characteristics Index of
Per 1000 Birds Killed Waste BOD
BOD in
pounds
31.7
26.2
26.0
Wastewater
in gallons
4,000 100
10,400 83
7,300 82
Index of
Wastewater

100
260
190

-------
                                                             30
Gross Wasteloads 1963 - 1977

      Table 11 presents annual poultry slaughter statistics and
future slaughter projections.  The slaughter projections were
determined by the use of multiple linear regression techniques
based on fifteen years of past slaughter statistics provided by the
Department of Agriculture.  The BOD wasteload projections were
functions of the total slaughter and the per unit wasteload,which in
turn was based upon an assumed distribution of technology.

      Wastewater projections were done in the same manner.  From
1970 to 1971 both production and gross wasteloads increase,while
total wastewater volume decreases slightly.  This decrease occurs
because it is assumed that by 1971 all processing plants of major
significance will be using "advanced" technology.  It will be
remembered that "advanced" technology plants have lower wastewater
volume per unit of product than "typical" technology plants have.
Seasonal Variations

      Seasonal variations in gross wasteload is due mainly to the
turkey processing industry.   The growth rate of this industry is
directly correlated with population growth rates.  Therefore, it is
safe to assume that the wasteload of the turkey processors will
always be a per cent of the total wasteload in any given year.  The
turkey processor experiences significant seasonal variations.  Major
processors are active only about one hundred days a year, during
the months of October, November, and December.  Their contributions
to total wasteloads, thus, will be of significance during these
three months.  Seasonal variations in the turkey industry are
expected to decline little,  since the seasonal nature of turkey
production stems from consumer demand.

      Seasonal variations in the rest of the industry have been
reduced to a point where they are no longer of importance.  In the
past, pre-1950, seasonal variations in the industry plus variations
from year to year were common.  Technological advances in the
growing industry have caused these variations to all but disappear.

-------
                                                    31
                      TABLE 11

ANNUAL POULTRY SLAUGHTER -- WASTELOADS AND WASTEWATER
         1963, 1967, AND PROJECTIONS TO 1977

Year

1963
1966
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1977
Millions of
Birds
Slaughtered
2,419
2,668
2,941
3,051
3,262
3,274
3,385
3,976
BOD
Millions of
Ibs/yr
105
125
135
141
147
153
159
189
Total
Wastewater
MG/yr
18,206
19,350
23,524
24,411
26,098
24,557
25,388
29,817

-------
                                                                32
Pollution Reduction by Subprocess Change
        Poultry processing wasteloads can be reduced by practicing
good housekeeping methods.  Some processing methods in themselves
reduce wasteloads.  When budget conditions permit, modifications
of processing operations should be undertaken.   "It is more
economical to reduce the wastes as much as possible at the source
than to treat the gross wastes." (1)

        Wastewater from poultry processing plants is screened to
remove solids from the effluent.  The screening process is an
essential part of the flow-away system especially when recircula-
tion of water is practiced, but the practice has also been found
useful in nonflow-away plants, especially during cleanup operations.

Cleanup

        In the receiving area, there is an accumulation of dirt and
manure on their floors during the handling period of live birds .
The reduction in holding time for live birds has reduced the waste-
load from this sector of the plant by as much as four per cent, (l)
Dry cleaning of the receiving room floors in the typical plant
could reduce BOD by one hundred twenty-five pounds per year.

Blood Collection

        If a plant recovers all blood and exercises care in the
cleanup of the bleeding area, BOD wasteload of the plant can be
reduced by thirty-eight per cent.

Evisceration

        Wasteloads from the evisceration and picking area are
controlled primarily by screening.  The screens must be kept clear
to prevent overflows, which result in the dumping of feathers,
offal, heads, and feet into the sewer system.  In an "older"
technology, nonflow-away system, care must be taken to ensure proper
use of containers where viscera and feathers are collected.  Con-
tainers must be emptied often enough to guard against overflows.
Care must be taken to ensure that flow-away systems carry sufficient
quantities of water to effectively carry viscera and feathers from
the processing area.

By-Product Recovery

        The utilization of by-products has proven economical to

-------
                                                                33
processors.  The sale of blood, viscera, and feathers to rendering
firms or farmers has proven profitable to many poultry processors.
In those areas where there are no rendering firms, the by-products
are at least removed from the gross pollution load of the plant if
they are given free in exchange for hauling them away.

        Table 12 shows the percentage reduction  in BOD which  should
accompany  the specified change in subprocess.
Pollution Reduction by Tndustrv Waste Treatment-

        Table  13 gives the breakdown of  the  types  of  treatment
being used by  poultry processors who have  their own waste  treat-
ment facilities.  It should be noted from  the  table that a
general level  of improvement is being experienced.  To a large
extent this is accounted for by the locational shift  which has
occurred within the industry.  Treatment facilities were con-
structed along with the errection of new processing plants.  It
should be remembered that only ninety-five plants  provided the
basis for the  distribution shown in Table  15.  The implicit
assumption is, therefore, that these plants  are representative
of  the entire  poultry industry.
Pollution Reduction by Municipal Waste Treatment

        Table  14 shows the amount' of wastewater treated by, municipal
treatment facilities by type of technology and by  size of plant.
The  largest amount of wastewater comes from typical  technology  plants
of medium size.  Very little wastewater comes, for example,  from
"advanced" technology plants of small size because there are  few
such plants.

        Table  15 shows the per cent of processing  plant effluent
which enters municipal treatment facilities in selected years.
Note the increase experienced from the years  1950  to 1963.   This
change can be  explained by the shift in industry location men-
tioned earlier.

-------
                                                               34
                                 TABLE 12

              CHANGES IN SUBPROCESSES AND THEIR EFFECT UPON
                     WASTELOAD AND WASTEWATER VOLUME
    Subprocess Change                            Per Cent Wasteload
                                                Reduction Associated
                                                   With Indicated
                                                Change of Subprocess


 I.  Typical Technology

        A.  Change subprocess from holding
            of birds in storage area to
            direct placement of birds on
            conveyor                                     4
        B.   Change subprocess from recovery
            of no blood to recovery of all
            VI „„ A
            blood                                       38

II.  New Technology

        A.  Change subprocess from holding
            of birds in storage area to
            direct placement of birds on
            conveyor                                     4
        B.  Change subprocess from recovery
            of no blood to recovery of all
            blood                                       38

        C.  Change subprocess from no reuse
            of water to reuse of water                   1

-------
                                                35
                 TABLE 13




UTILIZATION OF WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES
Type of Waste Treatment
Facility
Catch Basin Only
(Grease and Solids
Removal)
Lagoon Systems
Trickling Filter
Irrigation
Estimated
1950
49
3C
20
1
Percentage of
Process
1963 1967
30
40
25
3
9
49
34
8
Plants Employing
1972 1977
5 1
50 57
34
9

-------
                                                          36
                      TABLE 14

POULTRY.PROCESSING WASTEWATER HANDLED BY MUNICIPAL
 TREATMENT FACILITIES BY TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY, 1966
          (Figures  in millions of gallons)
Type of
Technology
Old
Typical
Advanced
Total
Small
1,254
2,193
70
3,517
Medium
2,318
5,230
873
8,421
Large
228
1,012
803
2,043
Total
3,800
8,435
1,746
13,981

-------
                                                         37
                  TABLE 15

PER CENT OF POULTRY WASTEWATER DISCHARGED TO
       MUNICIPAL TREATMENT FACILITIES
    Year                        Per Cent

    1950                          50

    1963                          70

    1967                          72

    1972                          76

    1977                          80

-------
                                                                 38
Net Pollution


1963

        The gross pollution load of the poultry processing industry
is shown in Table 16 by source:  blood collection and processing
operations.

        Pollution reduction of gross wasteload in the base year
was the result of blood collection and private waste treatment of
poultry processing plant wastewater.  Blood collection removed
approximately twenty-four million pounds of BOD while private waste
treatment removed only about sixteen million pounds.  Twelve of
the sixteen million pound reduction was probably due to solids
removal by screening.  The remaining four million pounds BOD reduction
would be due to some form of biological waste treatment.

        The poultry processing industry is different from the meat
packing industry in that the former relies primarily upon municipal
treatment facilities to reduce wasteloads.

 1963-1977.  Selected  Years

        Table  17 gives  gross and  net pollution figures  for  selected
 years  between 1963  and 1977.   The  gross  pollution  estimates  assume
 that  all  processing  plants  of  major blood collection is therefore
 the  primary source  of  pollution  reduction by subprocess change.
 It should be  noted  that the trend  of poultry processors to rely
 upon municipal facilities  is  expected to continue.   Private  waste
 treatment tends to  be  too  costly for this low profit margin  industry.

-------
       Cfl
        CO
        w
CQ
60
C
XI en
O 01
co en C to
CU M -H CO 13
(*5 3 fl d
O O O 3
13 U O -rl O
CO pa rH pu
0 rl rH
rH CU 4-1 -H 4-1
cu 4-1 cu S o
4-1 co sa
co £s
cO
t?


4-1
c
CU CO
B C
4H E*. 4-1 O
O XI CO -H CO
CU rH 13
a c ri rH c
O O H -H 3
•H 'H SO
4J 4-1 rH PM
0 3 CO C
3 rH CX -H 4-1
13 rH i-l O
CU 0 0 Q
ftj PM i-l O
pj pa
J3
^


4-J
C co
cu c
4H >-, E O
O XI 4-1 1-1
(fl rHX>
d d 0) <-f cn
O O t-i i-l 13
•H -H H S C!
4J 4-> 3
0 3 CU d O
3 rH 4-1 -H PM
13 rH CO
CU O > P 4-1
Pi Pu -H O O
n pa
PM


4-1 1
13 O C 3
CO 3 -H 0
O 13 PU
eJ 0 O
!M O 4-1
d PM W O
O I
•H >, >~. en
4-1 pa Si d
3 01 0
rH (M > -rl
rH CU O rH
O 4-1 O rH CO
DLJ 4-1 CU 1-4 13
-i en co
4-1 4-1 ro eu
rH CO VD rl CU
3 ON CX XI
O CU rH CU 4J
PM U )H
C CU 0
B cu xi en 4-1
O >H 4-1 CX
M CU 3 T3
(i-l 4-1 O O CU
C 4-1 rl -H
en o 60 rH
CU O 13 CX
4-1 cu cu cx
en cu -H 01 co
CO 4-1 rH rl
|2 co cx xl en
r co cx 4J co
3: co s
cu o
rH rH pi 4-1 C
O CO CU C CU
•H -rl X! -H Si
4-1 rl 4-1 4J
rl 4J Cl
CO CO CU 3 CU
3 N 0 rl
CU T3 iH 13 3
XI C (0 60
4-1 I-H C -H
4-1 CU 4H
8 XI C Ai
O 4J cO O O
)H CO rH rl O •
4M rH CX Xi Pa CO
vO
13 CU >-, 0) 13 ON
CU X; Xi rl CU iH
> 4-1 CU 4->
•rl 13 S f, C
rl pi 0) 60 -H
CU i-l 4J 0 -H
13 Xl O CU >,
13 60 4J |3 60
CU CU -H rH O
1-1 rl CU O 60 rH
o) co 5 pa d o
S OJ vH d
PU O! >^ 4-* XI
0) CX rl ft rH O
rH CO CU 3 CU
Xi JS 13 CO 4-1
CO CU CU 0)
4-1 rH CO -H tM 0)
a cu 13 xi
CO 1-1 rl 3 CU 4-1
•H 4-1 3 4-1 X
XI >-i 60 CO H 60
4-1 Cfl iH pj
4-1 en 1-1
d cu 4J • en
•rl XI CO d >> 3
4-1 - CO 60
13 d rH O CO
01 CO O CX rH CO
CO CO 4-1 O &
r-l 	 1 ^.A ft
fj ^n ^ ^
d o -H xi x
en o pa co o a
0) 4J CU -H
M rH • CU 4-1 XI
3 o ri x: S
60 PQ £ H 13
1-1 cu ?-,
4H • O rl
S • • d 4_i
Q 00 CU CO CO
o d m ri > 3

O rH 60 CO d
CU r, iH -H
XI -4H 13
H >» >> d 4-1
XI 4-1 rl CO O
• -rl CU ~
co r en 4-1 rH d
CO M XI (0 O
4-1 CU 60 O -rl
d > 3 -H 4-1
CO i-l CO CX V4
rH d i— 1 >~> O
PM 3 CO 4-1 CX





•
d
o
•H
4J
«0
U
•H
4-1
w
•H
XI
cx
o
CO

I4H
o

en
cu
cu
^1
60
cu
-a

60
d
•H
^
}M
CO
£>

4-1
o

to
CO
cu
CJ
0

cx

60
d
•rl
d
0)
cu
VM
U
CO

CO

CU
XJ

o
4-1

13
CU
)M
cu
13
•H
CO
a
o
U

en
•H

4-1
d
cu
B
4-1
CO
CU
4-1

cu
4-J
CO

•H
V-l
PM

•
,n





                                                                                       39

-------
                                                                                                                   40














^
I— 4

PQ
H














0 0
rJ -H
W rH
H rH
C/) -H

W rJ >H
5 3
CO M S-i
Pi cfl Ol
CLj QJ P-i
(2^
H Q
W M O
Q Cfl 14-H
<2 3
rH M
Pi rH T3
< O C
W p i 3
>H 0
4-1 P-l
W 0)
W !s 4-1
<: o
PQ 'O
|J4 CO
O
M
>-l M
Pi O
a
1 M
rH 0) M
O 4.1 4-1 0)
CM pj CO M
cfl IS M
4J 4-J 3
0) 3 O O
Z rH 4-1 U
42 rH 4-1
4J Cfl C
a rH a. o>
01 CO -H B
U > 0 4-1
O -iH cfl
rJ 6 C 01
0) 0) 3 r<
P-i Pd S H
4-1 M
d to i
cO 0) >> 1
4J o PQ o> -a
30 Pi C 4J
iH r4 •> CO C
rH P-i CO 4-1 01 OJ
O O! O >-, 4J £3
PL, H 60 3 (H cfl 4J
0) cJ t) 0) > cfl
4-J 4-J Cfl O !> «rH Cl)
0) 4H ,£ S-i O S-i I-l
^ > 42
_Q 4-J
4J C
C rH 0) 0)
a) co 4J B
U > cfl 4J
0 > cfl
fH 0 -H 0)
d) Q) )_i )-i
PL, pi P-i H
0) 13
4-1 C 4J
14H CO O
rH M M 13 S-I
O 4-1 M 0) O O>
PM £ O> 60 S-i >
CO 0 C PL, O
4-1 4-1 O CO 1 O
0) 3 M 42 >> QJ
2 rH PL, O PQ Pi
£a
4-1 rH "0 r?
Ol CO O Ol
0 > S-I >
0 P-, 0
>-l B 1 0
a> -. o>
PM pi PQ pd
t-i
4J
IH
rH MM
O 4-1 M 0)
CO 0 C
4-1 4-1 O Cfl
5 .3 £ £
2 i— 1 PL, U
CO
CO
4J 0)
C -H 0 M
Ol CO O 0)
O > S-i 60
O PM C
SH B tfl
0) Ol >> 42
CM pi 42 U
M C
CO 1 tfl
O rH 4-J
1-103
0 P-I rH
S-i
tfl
cu
ft ""^ ^^
rH rH ON
1^- CD ON
rH CM r-l
00 ON ON
CM
rH ON vj
oo in ' — '
r^. ON oo
moo
-* in m
00 ON 00
rH O ON
00 O ON
rH
-* O O
• • »
CM in ON
CM CM CM
^- if} \&
• • *
u~\ ~f o
O c^t 
                                                                                                         a

                                                                                                         p
                                                                                                         o
                                                                                                         PQ
                                                                                                                C
                                                                                                                o
                                                                                                                cfl
                                                                                                                o
                                                                                                                •H

                                                                                                                M
                                                                                                                •H

                                                                                                                CX
                                                                                                                O
                                                                                                                M
                                                                                                                01
                                                                                                                0>
                                                                                                                0)

                                                                                                                60
                                                                                                                0>
                                                                                                                13

                                                                                                                60
                                                                                                                C
                                                                                                                 M
                                                                                                                 M
                                                                                                                 OJ
                                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                                 60
01
M
O
CO

CO

01
 0)
•a
•rH
 M
 g
 a
 4J
 C
 01
 S
 4-J
 CO
 01
•H
 I-l
P-i

-------
                                                               41
                  COSTS OF POLLUTION REDUCTION
        The basic assumption underlying this section of the report
is that 522 processors of major significants were producing ninety
per cent of the total poultry shipments in 1966. (4)  This
estimate of the number of plants seems reasonable in view of the
number of plants data in the 1963 "Census of Manufacturers."  At
that time there were 2992 plants in the poultry processing category
(SIC 2015).  Sixty-seven per cent (2,016 plants) of these plants
had fewer than twenty employees per plant and altogether sixty-seven
per cent of the plants accounted for only four per cent of production
measured by value of shipments.  In 1963, 967 plants produced ninety-
six per cent of the output.  With the industry trend towards larger
scale, high speed processing the assumption that 522 plants are
producing ninety per cent of output in 1966 seems reasonable.

        The remaining ten per cent of shipments come from plants
which fall into one of three categories.  First, those plants engaged
in small game dressing which are not analyzed.  Second, plants
engaged in the egg breaking industry and third, poultry processing
plants which have gone out of business.  It should be recalled at
this point that the SIC classification 2015 includes the egg
breaking and small game processing plants with poultry and turkey
processing plants.  These plants are of little significance in terms
of pollution loads and have been ignored in this report

        The 522 plants are divided into three categories: plants
which discharge their waste to municipal treatment facilities, plants
which treat their own waste in privately owned treatment facilities;
and plants which have a combination of private and municipal treat-
ment arrangement.  Applying the distribution of plants responding
to our questionnaire to the 522 poultry plants, there are:
           1.  ninety-five plants (187o) with their own waste
               treatment facilities,
           2.  four hundred and one plants (76%) using mun-
               icipal treatment facilities,
           3.  twenty-six plants (670) using both industrial
               and municipal waste treatment facilities.
Cost of Pollution Reduction by Sybprocess Change

        The operation and maintenance costs of subprocess changes
which should reduce wasteloads are presented in Table 18.

-------
                                                             42
Blood Recovery

        Blood recovery is the most significant subprocess for
reducing total plant wasteloads and will be used here to illustrate
the weakness of estimates.  The physical space necessary for blood
recovery will depend on the speed at which the processing line is
moving.  The bird should remain in the bleeding area from one to
two minutes.  A bleeding cycle of longer duration will cause feather
removal to be more difficult.  The type of bleeding area will also
effect cost; if a bleeding room is used, the capital cost will be
low but labor cost will be high, since blood will have to be
coagulated on the bleeding room floor and shoveled by hand into
containers.  Blood remaining on the floor will be washed into the
sewer during the cleanup period.  If a bleeding tunnel is used, the
initial capital costs will be high but labor costs would be reduced.
This process puts the birds through a tunnel type arrangement where
several openings are located along the tunnel bottom for the
collection of blood.  At the end of the processing period the tunnel
is washed and cleaned.  The advantage of tunnel bleeding is that more
blood is collected with the result that less blood reaches the
sewer.  Collection containers have to be emptied often enough to
guard against contaminating overflows.

        When bleeding areas of the type described are used, there
are the factors of associated conveyor, time lost, and labor costs
which must be considered in any estimation of costs involved in
the operation.  What must be guarded against is duplication of
costs in the estimate.  It is necessary for all plants to conduct
the bleeding operation; therefore, plant space and processing time
has to be set aside in any poultry slaughtering operation for the
carrying out of this process.  The difference between the plant which
collects blood and the plant which does not, is whether or not the
blood enters the sewer.  The non-collection plant discharges the
blood into the sewer while the collection plant disposes of blood in
some other manner.  Both types of plants will discharge blood into
the sewer during cleanup operations in approximately the same amounts,
        In conclusion, the estimates which are presented in Table
18 are based primarily on labor costs, with economic life representing
the life of the physical plant.  The actual cost to a plant which
collects blood is low because the collected blood may be sold to
a rendering firm.  Rendering of poultry by-products is a complete
business in itself, with different pollution potentials than the
processing industry.  Since about half of a bird's total liveweight
is lost during the processing, the amount of material available for
rendering is considerable, consisting of feathers, offal, and blood.

-------
                                                             43
oo
w














tJ
co <;
O U
0 M
Kf\
P-J
H >H
H H
^
<
0
2 o
M 2
CO M
CO CO
W tD
Bng
Prf 2 O
PH -^
t—> hH ^S
CO ffi
Q 0
fu W W
O N H
H-l
W CO ft.
fe O
M S
hJ 5 rJ
M W
U O >
M W W
g S »J
a i
^ 0
H J
CO PL,
O S
CJ W





















C 1
•r1^ r~H
tfl O
s •«
T3 C l-i
C -H cfl
03 CU
I! t^^
•+-1 »^»
C co
O O t-i
•H O CU
J-i Du
CO 0)
^J U CO
CU C l-i
P. CU CO
O 4J i— 1
cu
M-l
•1-1

U CO
•H 1-1
e co
o cu
13 >>
O
u
W




4-1
CO
o
o
CO
1-1 ^
CO cfl
4-1 i— 1
•i-l r-l
O, 0
cfl T)
U




SJ
u-i cu
o a.

c -a
O CO 4-1
•HOC
4-J r— 1 flj
O 01 O
3 4J
T3 W
CU cfl
pi, >

C!
O
•r-l
4-1 CO
U CU
3 3
T3 cr
0) -r-l
^J C
J2
01 O
4-> cu
CO 4-1
cfl
IS







O 0
o o
O 0
V\ f,
ul o
1— 1




< 0
-•-. CN
2














O I
















 r-l
C -r-l r-l
cfl cu o
cu o o
r-l CU
O >J t3
cfl 0
>~, cu cu o
>-l X rJ r-l
P 4J cfl pq

-------
                                                             44
Cost of Pollution Reduction by Industrial Waste Treatment

        According to "questionnaire data" the average cost of a
secondary sewage treatment plant was $60,000.  An average cost of
$60,000 and an estimated number of plants with their own waste
treatment facilities (ninety-six plants) means an estimated industry
investment in waste treatment facilities of almost six million dollars
in 1966.

        Operation and maintenance costs were estimated by the same
method to be approximately one million dollars.  The operation and
maintenance are a higher percentage of the capital costs for poultry
than for meat packing primarily because of the added expense of
feather removal.  If cost estimates are desired for specific types
of waste treatment facilities, the meat packing section of this
report should be consulted.  The meat packing section also contains
a description of each of the various types of waste treatment methods
employed by both the poultry processor and the meat packer.
Cost of Municipal Treatment of Poultry Processing Wastewater

        Poultry processors are different from meat packers in that
they tend to either treat waste themselves or to use municipal treat-
ment facilities but not both.  Less than five per cent of the plants
responding to the questionnaire used a method of joint treatment.
This is partly explained by the shifting location of the industry
in the past decade.  In order for cities to attract poultry processing
plants, the cities often agreed to provide treatment facilities for
the processing plants' waste.  This was one of the criteria
processors specified when  relocating.

        The average annual amount paid to the municipality by a
plant of a certain size was obtained in the following manner:  The
questionnaire asked each processor to report waste treatment charges
paid to municipalities.  Respondents were classified into three size
groups and the average annual payment by plants in each group was
determined.  The average charge was then assumed to apply to all
processors in the appropriate size group.  Table 20 shows the average
payment by a poultry processing plant, by size of plant and the
total payment by the industry for the year, 1966.  In 1966 it was
estimated that processors paid approximately $4.6 million to
municipalities to obtain waste treatment.

-------
45

































o\
, — 1


W
pa
^J
H



























































O
O
/***} . "1
H W O
53 SI is
W H K
g W C_>
H W
^ S EH
W i^
Pi H fM
H P O

O W
W W
pL4 ^) ij
H PQ
1— I hJ
n <:
u w o
H PH M
g O PM
O i-J >H
O §
o w <;
w
W O
P W 53
?3 H H
-i
0 -H
W iJ







4J
CO
O CD
O VJ
cO
i-l rH
CO rH
as
o.
cfl C
U -H








^
cO
O
rH

-------
                                              46
           TABLE 20

    WASTE TREATMENT CHARGES
PAID TO MUNICIPALITIES IN 1966
Size
Group
Small
Medium
Large
Total
Number of
Plants in
Size Group
140
239
44
401
Average Annual
Payment by
Processors in
the Size Group
$ 8,828
12,544
13,108

Total Annual Payments
by all Plants in Size
Group in Thousands
of Dollars
$1,042
2,998
578
4,616

-------
                                                                47
     VO
      W
rH.






W




PQ

1
X
rt
Ou

r— (
cd
4-1
0





—4
2
c
c
<^




i— i
cd
3
C
C






'crt
3
C
C
<3,



4-1
C
CO
6
0)
u
td
-i
ft
g


rH
O
HH

1/1
4.J
C

s

0
4-i

cn
jj
C
CU
p^l
cd
PL,

*
Jg^

^£J

•
O



4-1
C
CU
rH
cd

•H
3
tr
w



14-4
O

0)
3
rH
cd
>
4->
cd
0>
^
H

0
1 >
t/1
cr)
S=
M
0)

4->
•^
cd
I
•H
^

C
•H

^j
C
CD
B

CO
C
O
•H
	 J
^^
1— I
•3*2
O
•H
1

C
•p4

CO
4J
CO
O
O

CO
£3
o
•!-(
rH
rH
.,_(
jj^

rj
•1-4


4J
C

Cj
4J
cd
0)
M
H

C

o

CO
c
o
.,-j
rH
rH
•H
s

CO
J_l
cd
rH
rH
O
Q

t_|_J
0

CO
01
•l-t
4J
•i— j
rH
•H
O
cd


*-H
o

!/l
C
o
•H
i-H




CO
rJ
cd
I—I
O
Q

<4-l
O


CO
p
cd
rH
rH
O
Q











CO
C
0
•i-l
rH
rH
•i-4
2

C
•H


V)
£-,
cri
i — i
i — i
O
Q

































CO
r4
cd
rH
rH
0
Q

<4-l
O

-------
                                                      48
                         SPECIFIC  REFERENCES
(1)   United States Department of Agriculture,  "Costs and Economics
     of Scale  in Turkey Processing Plants," Market  Research  Report
     #627,  Economic Research Service,  Marketing  Economics Division.

(2)   United States Department of Agriculture,  Poultry Inspectors'
     Handbook,  Agricultural  Marketing  Service, Poultry Division-
     Inspection Branch  of the U.S.D.A.

(3)   Strueski,  "Wastes  from  the  Poultry Processing  Industry,"  The
     Robert A.  Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Public Health
     Service,  Cincinnati, Ohio.

(4)   Barton A.  Westerland, "Broiler Market Prospects for the
     Independent Processor,  with Special Reference  to Arkansas,"
     University of Arkansas, College of Business Administration,
     1963.

-------
                                                               49
                      GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY
"Agricultural Markets in Change," Agricultural Economic Report  #95,
     Economic Research Service, U.S.D.A.

Agricultural Statistics, 1950-1966,  United States Department  of
     Agriculture, United States Government Printing Office.

Babbitt, Harold and Baumann, Robut,  "Sewerage and Sewage Treatment,"
     John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1965.

Bolton, John M.,  "Wastes from Poultry Processing Plants," 13th
     Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue  University, 1958.

"Costs and Economics of Scale in Turkey Processing Plants,"
     Market Research Report #627, Economic Research Service,
     Marketing Economics Division, U.S.D.A.

"Irrigation as a low cost Method of Sewage Disposal for the Poultry
     Processor,"   Marketing Research Report #306, Agricultural
     Marketing Service, Marketing Division,  U.S.D A.

"Marketing New England Poultry," by George Rogers, William Henry,
     et. al., Agricultural Experiment Station University of New
     Hampshire, Durhon, N.H., September,  1958.

"Methods and Equipment for Eviserating Chickens,"  Marketing
     Research Report #549, U.S.D.A.

Nemerow, Nelson,  L.   Theories and Practices of Industrial Waste
     Treatment,  Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc.,  1963.

"1966 Census of Manufacturers," Meat Products, Bureau  of Census,
     U.S. Department of Economics.

"Organization and Competition in the Poultry and Egg Industries,"
     Technical Study #2, National Commission on Food Marketing,
     June, 1966.

Porges, Ralph.  "Characteristics and Treatment of Poultry Processing
     Wastes,"  Water Pollution Control Journal, Volume 38.

Poultry Inspectors' Handbook,  Agricultural Marketing  Service,
     Poultry Division-Inspection Branch of the United  States
     Department of Agriculture.

"Poultry Market Statistics 1966," Statistical Bulletin #394,
     Consumer and Marketing Service, U.S.D.A.

-------
                                                                50
"Processing Poultry By-Products in Poultry Slaughtering Plants,"
     Marketing Research Report #181, Agricultural Marketing
     Service, Marketing Research Division, U.S.D.A.

Roberts, J.M.  "Combined Treatment of Poultry and Domestic Wastes,"
     Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Volume 30, September, 1958.

Strueski.  "Wastes from the Poultry Processing Industry,"  The
     Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Public Health
     Service, Cincinnati, Ohio.

"Utilization and Disposal of Poultry By-Products and Wastes,"
     Marketing Research Report #143, Agricultural Marketing
     Service, U.S.D.A.

Westerland, Barton, A.  "Broiler Market Prospects for the
     Independent Processor, with Special Reference to Arkansas,"
     University of Arkansas, College of Business Administration,
     1963.

"Who's Who in the Egg and Poultry Industries," 1967 Edition, Watt
     Publishing Co., Mount Morris, Illinois.

Wolf, H.W. and Woodring, W.T.  "Wastes from Small Poultry Dressing
     Establishments," Sewage and Industrial Wastes, Volume 25,
     December, 1953.
                                      U S. GOVERNMENT PBIN'IINC OFFICE  1968 O - 237-031

-------