SIGNIFICANCE OF FOOD PROCESSING
           BY-PRODUCTS AS
 CONTRIBUTORS TO ANIMAL FEEDS
                  PHASE I
        FOOD PROCESSING SURVEY
                 Prepared for:


U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

          Office of Pesticide Programs
              Washington, D.C.


  Contract Number:  68-02-4263, EPA/HED #08
                 Prepared by:

               Walter W, Rose
               Leo D. Pedersen
               Harold Redsun
      National Food Processors Association
             Dublin, California
               R. Scott Butner
     Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
            Richland, Washington
               October 1989

-------
                        DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored
by an agency of the United States Government.   Neither the
United States nor any agency thereof,  nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied,  or
assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the
accuracy, completeness, or usefulness  of any information,
apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents
that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product,  pro-
cess, or service by trade name, trade  mark, manufacturer,
or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United
States Government or any agency thereof.  The views and
opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily
state or reflect those of the united States Government or
any agency thereof.

-------
                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


This project was sponsored by the Office of Pesticide Programs,
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA/OPP) under contract
number 68-02-04263.  The guidance of the EPA project officers
Sami Malak and Philip Errico throughout the project is greatly
appreciated.

Staff members of The National Food Processors Association
responsible for the project included Walter W. Rose, Leo D.
Pedersen and Hal Redsun.  For Battelle, R.S. Butner of the Pacific
Northwest Laboratories was primarily responsible for the data
analysis and preparation of the draft reports.

Members of the Environment/Engineering Advisory Panel, Western
Research Laboratory Committee, were very helpful in the pre-
paration of the survey form.  Also appreciation is given to
selected industry members that reviewed and commented on the
first draft report.

Finally, the project could not have been carried on without the
voluntary assistance of numerous individuals from the food pro-
cessing industry.  Their cooperation in supplying the information
and data required to fulfill the objectives of this survey is
herewith gratefully acknowledged.

-------
                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

   This report presents the findings of a solid byproduct utilization survey
conducted by the National Food Processors Association (NFPA) and Battelle-
Northwest Laboratories  (BMW) for the I). S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Pesticide Programs (EPA/OPP).  The intent of the survey was to
assess the amount of solid byproducts which are fed to animals as a result of
food processing operations.  This information will be used by EPA/OPP in
determining what, if any, feed tolerance levels of pesticide residues should
be established for these materials.
   A Food Processing Byproduct Utilization Survey was prepared by NFPA in
conjunction with BNW.   The survey was mailed to 2092 food processing plants
throughout the continental United States and Hawaii.  The survey was mailed
to plants in the following three-digit Standard Industrial Classification
(SIC) groups:
   •    203x - Canned and Preserved Fruits and Vegetables
   •    204x - Grain Mill Products
   •    206x - Sugar and Confectionery Products
   •    207x - Fats and Oils (study includes vegetable and seed oils only)
   •    208x - Beverages
   •    209x - Miscellaneous and Prepared Foods
   •    4221 - Dried Beans
   Of the 2092 surveys mailed,  118 were returned undelivered, 337 were
completed and returned to NFPA, and 1637 were not returned.  Of the surveys
completed and returned, 18.7% responded that no raw agricultural commodities
(RACs) were processed and were therefore not used in the tabulation of
results.
   Although responses were received from slightly fewer than 16% of the
plants which were sent  the survey, comparison of the reported RAC tonnage
with 1986 agricultural  statistics (the most recent statistics for which
accurate data could be  obtained) show that the survey responses represent a
substantial portion of  the industry.  Overall, the survey represents
approximately 25% of the annual U.S. RAC processing volume,  on  a raw

-------
commodity basis.  Comparison by 3-digit SIC group show that the survey
responses represented approximately 48% of the total processing volume for
SIC 206x; approximately 30% of the total volume for 203x (frozen and canned
foods), down to a low of 6% for SIC 4221 (dried beans).  The data reported in
the survey responses were principally from the 1987 processing year, which
was the last completed season at the time the survey was sent.
   The completed surveys were checked for external and internal consistency
of data and were tabulated by SIC group, region, and RAC processed.  RAC
utilization for food ranged from a high value of 96% (cucumbers) to a low
value of 7% (cane sugar).  Utilization for feed purposes ranged from a high
value of 79%  (soybeans) to a low value of 0%  (olives, mushrooms, cucumbers
and green coffee beans).  Beef cattle, followed by dairy cattle and hogs,
were the most commonly reported animals fed.  In many cases, RAC processors
did not  indicate which animals were fed.
   A Research Needs Survey was also included  in the survey form which was
mailed to the RAC processors.  This survey was included to permit processors
to indicate which,  if any, topics related to  food processing waste management
should receive  additional research priority.  A clear majority  (82%) of the
respondents believed that some additional research was needed to improve
utilization of  food processing byproducts and wastes.  The survey identified
"Energy  Production  from Byproducts" and "Waste Treatment/Waste Minimization"
as the key research priorities among respondents.  Survey responses varied
significantly between SIC groups, reflecting  the existing differences in
byproduct utilization practices.
   The majority of  food processing operations included in this study reported
that some portion of their solid byproducts were fed to cattle or other
livestock.  Relatively few of these operations reported routine monitoring of
either their  incoming RAC or the byproducts themselves for pesticide residue
levels.  Currently, residue levels on food processing byproducts are
estimated on the basis of simulated processing tests conducted by the
pesticide manufacturer as part of the registration of the pesticide.  In the
event that EPA decides that closer examination of this practice is needed,
the EPA could require the pesticide manufacturers to do a more thorough study
of pesticide residue levels in selected food  industry segments.  By utilizing
                                      ii

-------
the results of this report to target industry segments which rely heavily on
byproduct feeding, the EPA can minimize the costs of this follow-up study to
both EPA and the industry.  The results of the present study provide an
excellent basis for prioritizing which industry segments should be examined.
In the event that EPA elects to conduct testing of RAC byproducts for
pesticide residues, a number of processing plants have been identified which
would be willing to share pesticide residue data with the NFPA.
   Assuming that such a study is performed, priority should be given to (a)
those food processing byproducts which due to processing methods or inherent
properties of the byproduct, are most likely to contain significant pesticide
residues; (b) byproducts which are likely to contain significant pesticide
residues as a result of agricultural practices; and (c) byproducts which are
fed to cattle and other animals in large quantities or represent substantial
portions of the animal's diet.

-------
                              TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 	 i
INTRODUCTION 	 1
   PURPOSE OF STUDY  	 1
   OVERVIEW OF WASTE GENERATION IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY 	 2
        Types of Waste Generated by the Food Processing Industry 	 2
        Food Industry Management of Solid Wastes and Byproducts 	 4
STUDY METHODS 	 6
   SURVEY DEVELOPMENT 	 6
   DATA HANDLING PROCEDURES 	 6
RESULTS 	 8
   SUMMARY BY RAC 	 11
        Overall Results  	 11
        Utilization Profiles 	 13
   SUMMARY BY SIC 	 14
        SIC Group 203x (Canned and Preserved Foods) 	 16
        SIC Group 204x (Grain Mill Products) 	 16
        SIC Group 206x (Sugar and Confectionery Products) 	 16
        SIC Group 207x (Edible Oils and Fats) 	 17
        SIC Group 208x (Beverages) 	 17
        SIC Group 209x (Miscellaneous and Prepared Foods) 	 17
        SIC Class 4221 (Dried Beans) 	 17
   SUMMARY BY REGION	 18
   RESULTS OF RESEARCH NEEDS SURVEY 	 22
DISCUSSION 	 25
REFERENCES 	 27
APPENDIX A - RAC Profiles	 A.I
APPENDIX B - Glossary of  Food Processing Terminology	 B.I
APPENDIX C - Database Integrity (QA) Plan	 C.I
APPENDIX D - EPA/NFPA Food Processing Byproduct Survey Forms	 D.I
                                      IV

-------
                                LIST OF  TABLES
                            Volume 1. Main  Report
Table 1.  Utilization Options for Food Processing Byproducts	4
Table 2.  List of Standard  Industrial Commodity Codes Surveyed	8
Table 3.  Survey Response Characteristics by SIC Group 	9
Table 4.  RAC Processing Volume  (tons RAC/year) and Utilization Rates	12
Table 5.  Unclassified Byproducts and Wastes from Several RACs	13
Table 6.  Total Tonnage Reported  (Grouped by SIC Group)	15
Table 7.  States in Survey  Regions	19
Table 8.  Imported RACs	20
Table 9.  RAC Utilization by Region	20
Table 10.  RAC Processing Volume  by  Region	21
Table 11.  Research Needs Survey  Results  (by SIC Group)	22
Table 12.  Research Needs Survey  Results  (by Region)	23
Table 13.  Percentage of Survey  Respondents Classified by SIC  and Region..23
Table 14.  Additional Research Needs Identified by Survey  Respondents....24

                               LIST  OF FIGURES
Figure 1.    NFPA  Processing Regions  	19

-------
                                 INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF STUDY
   The purpose of this study is to provide the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (EPA/OPP) information regarding the
disposition of solid wastes and byproducts generated by the commercial
processing of raw agricultural commodities (RACs).   Specifically, the EPA/OPP
is interested in those byproducts such as fruit pomace, spent brewer's
grains, and substandard produce, which are returned to the food chain through
regular feeding to livestock and poultry.

   The EPA/OPP sponsored this study in order to more adequately assess the
level of pesticide residues in meat, milk, poultry and eggs.  One potential
pathway for introduction of these residues into the food chain is via the
common practice in the food processing industry of feeding certain solid
wastes and byproducts to livestock and poultry.  These byproducts are
generally used as feed supplements and/or roughage and may account for a
substantial portion of the animal's diet.  This study identifies those
industries in which byproduct feeding is used and characterizes the solid
byproduct streams with regard to quantities produced, seasonality, and
disposition.
   The EPA/OPP will use the data in this report in the evaluation of requests
for tolerances of pesticide residues in or on raw agricultural commodities
(food crops and animal commodities), referred to as RACs, under Section 408
of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).  These tolerances are
regulated under 40CFR§180.  If studies indicate that residue levels in
processed foods and/or animal feeds exceed the level in a RAC, food/feed
additive tolerances (FAT's) for pesticides in the processed food/animal feeds
will be required under Section 409 of the FFDCA.  These tolerances are
regulated under 40CFR§180.185 & 40CFR§180.186.

-------
OVERVIEW OF WASTE GENERATION IN THE FOOD INDUSTRY


Types of Waste Generated by the Food Processing Industry

   Because of the wide variety of RACs which are processed to provide food,

as well as the variety of methods used to prepare them, food processing

wastes cannot be definitively described.  However, the types of solid wastes

generated by the food processing industry generally fall into one or more of

the following categories:
•  Stem/leaf waste.  This  includes  stem, woody vines,  leaves, etc that are
   incidentally collected with the  RAC during harvesting operations.  It is
   removed from the  commodity at the processing plant  and is generally a
   small  percentage  (by weight) of  the total RAC throughput.  It is usually
   not processed to  any appreciable degree, although it may undergo an
   initial washing or holding period in  a hydrocooler, holding tank or flume.
   Stem  and  leaf waste  is  generally landfilled or returned to the fields as a
   soil  enhancement.

•  Cleaning/washing  wastes.   This  includes  dirt, small stones, additional
   leaves, and  other material removed during the washing operations.
   Equipment  used  to perform  these  operations  include  flumes, wash tanks,
   scrubbers,  screens and  air scalpers.   In some cases, wet cleaning
   operations  result in the production of liquid wastes and a high-moisture
   sludge which  is  low  in  organic  content.  This material is usually disposed
   of in landfills  or by  field  application.

•  Sorting waste  and culls.   In most cases, the  incoming commodities are
   inspected  to remove  immature,  defective  or  discolored material which would
   adversely  affect  the  sensory quality  of  the finished food product.
   Defective  materials  are also removed  after  peeling  and cutting operations.
    In some cases,  this  culled material may  find  other  uses  in the production
   of more highly  processed food  items  (for example, culled apples  unsuitable
   for canning  or  applesauce  production  may be suitable for apple juice).   In
   most  instances,  however, culled  material is used  for non-food uses,
   including  livestock  feed.  Culls are  usually  subject to only minimal
   processing (generally  some preliminary washing takes place before the
   sorting operation).   The cull  waste may  or  may not  be mixed with  other
   processing wastes/byproducts,  depending  on  the specific  practices of the
   individual  processing  plant.

.  Peeling/coring  wastes.   Many RACs have protective outer  tissue which must
   be removed prior to  further  processing.  Examples- include most hard  fruits
    (apples,  peaches, pears),  root crops  (beets,  carrots,  potatoes)  and
   tomatoes.   These peels  are generally  removed  by mechanical means  (ie,
   abrasion)  or by thermal  and/or chemical  means (the  use  of  steam  or  caustic
   solutions,  respectively).  Cores are  removed  from some  fruits  (apples,
   pears) and certain  vegetables  (cabbage,  cauliflower).   In most cases,  this
   waste is  relatively  high  in  moisture  content,  which precludes  long-
   distance  hauling to  feed lots.  Although some of  the waste  may  be fed

                                       2

-------
   locally, most of the wastes are disposed of in landfills or are land
   applied.

•  Pit waste.  Fruit which contains hard pits (apricots,  cherries, peaches,
   etc) along with olives, generally are pitted during processing.  A small
   amount of fruit flesh often remains on the pit after the mechanical
   pitting operation.  The pits are typically a moderately wet waste (50 wt%
   moisture is typical) but can usually be burned as fuel.  In many cases,
   pit waste is burned as fuel to provide heat for process steam and/or
   electrical generation.  Pit waste is not generally used as a livestock
   feed because of its poor digestibility.  Most pit waste which is not
   utilized as fuel is disposed of in landfills.  In some instances local
   regulations may prevent landfill disposal of pits due to their high
   moisture content.

•  Milling waste.  Processed meal, bran and germ from grain milling
   operations are almost always fed to cattle and are therefore not
   classified as waste materials.  Most milling byproducts have been through
   -preliminary dry cleaning and screening operations, a rolling (milling)
   operation, and may or may not have been water washed.   Because the amount
   of byproduct generated is relatively large in such operations as soybean
   and cottonseed processing  (for oil extraction), these industries rely
   heavily on cattle feeding operations as a market for the meal.  The  feed
   value of the meal and other milling byproducts can be as much as 10% of
   the total value of the commodity  (Johnson and Peters,  1974).

   Corn is often processed by the "wet milling" process,  which is used  in the
   manufacture of corn syrup, starches, and sweeteners.  Wet milling of corn
   produces a variety of solid wastes and byproducts which are distinct from
   those produced in dry milling operations.

•  Wastewater screenings.  In some processing operations  (particularly  in the
   vegetable processing industry), substantial amounts of solid material are
   screened from wastewater streams before they are sent to further
   treatment.  Generally, these wastes were not quantified in the survey
   responses. The processors reported using these wastes for feed or soil
   enhancement, or they were landfilled.

   In addition to the wastes mentioned above, certain industries generate

specific wastes and byproducts which do not fall into these broad

categories.  The malting, brewing and distilling industries, for example,

generate spent brewer's and spent distiller's grains.  The sugar industry

generates bagasse (pressed sugar cane fiber) and beet pulp (from extracted

sugar beets).  Processors of juice, purees and fruit pastes generate pulp

and/or pomace, which is the solid pulp remaining after juice has been

expressed from apples, grapes, tomatoes, and other fruits.  Bagasse, beet

pulp, and fruit pomace are important in the context of this study because

they have the potential to concentrate pesticide residues  (EPA, 1982).

                                      3

-------
Food Industry Management of Solid Wastes and Byproducts
   Effective utilization of solid byproducts and residuals is a critical
issue for the food processing industry.  The industry generates substantial
quantities of solid byproducts because not all portions of the RAC are
edible, and because the visual appearance of food is often as important as
its nutritive or taste quality in establishing consumer acceptance.  These
factors result in a substantial portion of RAC being used for non-food
purposes.  In order to limit the range of responses to a manageable number,
survey respondents were asked to categorize their byproduct utilization in
one or more of the categories listed in Table 1.
Option
TABLE 1.  Utilization Options for Food Processing Byproducts
               Examples
Food

Feed

Other

Fuel
          Non-nutritive  fiber from  apple pomace; dried citrus peel;
          lecithin  from  soy  beans
          Desolventized  cottonseed  meal; sugar beet pulp; spent
          brewer's  grains; apple and tomato pomace
          Essential  oils from citrus;  tartrates from grape  lees;
          anthocyanin  dyes from grapes, cherries; starch derivatives
          Sugar cane bagasse; peach and olive pits; rice hulls and
          straw;  fuel  ethanol from  wet corn milling
Land Application   Land  farming  of  high-solids wastewaters;  land application
                   of  pomace,  stem  waste, and leaves.
Disposal
          Landfill ing of pit  wastes;  landfill  of  washing  mud  from
          vegetable processing.
    Implied  in the  order  of  these options  is a hierarchy of added value, with
the production of  food being  a  high value option and disposal  (by
landfilling) being a  zero-value-added  (or even  a value-subtracted)  option.
The use of  food byproducts  as a feeding material for livestock  is  relatively
high  in the hierarchy of use  options available  to the  food processor.
Feeding operations provide  critical revenue and may provide  the margin
between profit and loss  in  some industry  segments.

-------
   The feasibility of utilizing food processing byproducts and wastes for the
higher valued options is determined by a number of factors, including the
physical and chemical characteristics of the waste, seasonality of the waste,
quantity of waste produced, and other market and technical factors.
Tabulation of the survey data revealed wide differences in solid byproduct
utilization trends among commodities and between industry segments (as
classified by three-digit SIC groups).  Regional differences were also
observed, but these differences may be more directly related to regional
crop processing patterns than any other factor.
   These wastes each create unique utilization opportunities or problems, and
many of them represent potential pathways for pesticide residues to be
returned to the food chain.  Measurement of the amount of pesticide residues
which are found on food processing byproducts is beyond the scope of this
work and is discussed elsewhere (EPA, 1982).

-------
                                STUDY METHODS

SURVEY DEVELOPMENT
   The survey was developed by staff at NFPA in accordance with the
objectives of the study and consistent with the way that the information is
generally available to the processor.  A copy of the survey package is
included as Appendix D.  The survey was reviewed by BNW, EPA,  and food
industry representatives and suggestions were made to improve  its readability
and the survey response rate.  The final survey was then submitted for EPA
and OMB approval.  The survey was mailed during the month of October 1988.
Follow-up mailings and telephone calls were made by NFPA to non-respondents
during the period January through February 1989.
   The returned surveys were coded by the NFPA to protect the identity of the
respondent, and submitted to Battelle for processing.  The data was stored in
a database and checked for both internal and external consistency.  The
methods used for validating the data are described in the Database Integrity
Plan, which is included as Appendix C.  This report presents only the
compiled data, in order to protect any possible confidential business
information (CBI) which might be contained on the individual survey forms.

DATA HANDLING PROCEDURES
   In order to protect CBI and/or other potentially sensitive information
about the respondents operations, the surveys were sent by and returned to
the National Food Processors Association (NFPA), which is the major trade
organization serving the food processing industry.  The surveys were copied
by NFPA staff and sent to Battelle-Northwest (BNW) for processing only after
the identity of the respondent had been masked.  A numeric code was used to
uniquely identify each response.
   Data was entered into a commercial relational database file which
permitted the responses to be sorted and processed according to any
combination of fields.  The data was subjected to tests for internal and
external  consistency, as well as to minimize the problem of transposed data.
A random sampling of approximately 5% of the surveys was matched to the
entered data to check for errors and insure that data transcription was
                                      6

-------
proceeding accurately.  Some of the survey forms were returned to NFPA for
resubmission or follow up calls to the respondents in order to clarify data
which appeared to be in error.  Finally, surveys which still did not meet
tests for self-consistency, or where the respondent clearly misunderstood the
intent of the questions, were occasionally deleted from the database.  The
procedures used to check the data are described in more detail in Appendix C.

-------
                                   RESULTS
   The Byproduct Utilization Survey was mailed to 2092 processors of Raw
Agricultural Commodities distributed among the 26 SIC codes listed in
Table 2.  The distribution of surveys sent and response rate are shown as a
function of SIC group in Table 3.  This table also shows the reported
processing volume  (in ton/year of RAC processed) for the SIC groups in
comparison with reported 1986 agricultural statistics.
        TABLE 2.
  SIC number
2032-2035,
2037-2038
2041
2043
2044
2046
2061
2063
2065-2066
2074-2076
2079

2082-2085
2087
2095
2099
4221
List of Standard Industrial  Commodity Codes Surveyed
                     description
     canned  specialties; canned and  dehydrated fruits
     frozen  fruits, fruit juices, vegetables and
     specialties
     flour and  other grain mill products
     cereal  breakfast  foods
     rice milling
     wet corn milling
     cane sugar (except refining)
     beet sugar
     candy and  confectionery; chocolate and cocoa products
     vegetable  and  seed oils
     shortening, table oils, and other fats and oils not
     listed  elsewhere
     malt beverages, wines and  liquors
     flavor  extracts
     roasted coffee
     others  (potato chips, tea, spice preparation,  etc)
     dried beans
                                       8

-------
   TABLE 3.  Annual  RAC  Processing Volume Reported by Survey Respondents
Survey 1986
Response Processing
Volume Volume
SIC (tons RAC/yr)
203x,
204x(a)
206x, x
207x(a)
208x
209x
4221
total
9,637,066
6,969,808
26,690,575
5,347,531
1,116,986
614,392
72,796
50,449,155
(tons RAC/yr)
32,325,000
61,991,000
55,500,000
29,480,000
14,183,000
3,720,000
1,145,000
198,344,000
(%)
29.8%
11.2%
48.1%
18.1%
7.9%
16.5%
6.4%
25.4%
# of
Surveys
Sent
783
228
234
162
402
218
65
2092
                                                          # of
                                                       Responses
                                                          177
                                                           22
                                                           37
                                                           24
                                                           41
                                                           27
                                                            9
                                                          337
Response
    Rate
   33.2%
    9.7%
   15.8%
   14.8%
   10.2%
   12.4%
   13.9%
   15.6%
note: (a) 1986 data not available; 1984 data was used
   A total of 337 surveys were returned to NFPA for processing by BNW,  or
were completed as the result of phone calls by NFPA staff.  Approximately
18.7% of the respondents do not handle raw commodities and therefore did not
fall under the scope of the survey.  Of those respondents which do process
RACs, most reported processing more than one commodity; hence the total
number of data records was 500.  Freezing and canning operations (SIC group
203x) were more likely to process many different commodities, while oil seed
extraction plants, potato processing plants, and citrus juice plants
specialized in one or two principal commodities.
   Although responses were received from slightly fewer than 16% of the
plants which were sent the survey, comparison of the reported RAC tonnage
with 1986 agricultural statistics (the most recent statistics for which
accurate data could be obtained) show that the survey responses represent a
substantial portion of the industry.  The survey response represents more
than 50,000,000 tons of RAC processing, which is approximately 25% of the
amount of RACs processed each year in the U.S.  Comparison by 3-digit SIC
group show that the survey responses represented approximately 48% of the
total processing volume for SIC 206x; approximately 30% of the total volume
for 203x (frozen and canned foods), down to a low of 6% for SIC 4221 (dried
beans).  The data submitted by processors were principally for 1987, which
was the last completed season at the time the survey was sent.
                                      9

-------
   In total, the survey responses represent more than 50,000,000 tons per
year of raw commodity processing.  Material balances based on the survey
responses accounted for just over 75% of this material.  However, if the data
from SIC group 206x (sugar and confectionery) is subtracted from the survey,
the accountability for the remaining RACs improves to greater than 97%.
This is due to discrepancies in accounting for moisture losses, which
represent sizable, unreported material flows in the cane and beet sugar
industries.  Similar discrepancies also existed in the citrus juice industry
(primarily the frozen juice industry, represented by SIC 2037).  Although the
cause of the material balance discrepancy is clear in these cases, attempts
to resolve the balances were not successful.  The data was retained because
it provides useful information about sugar industry waste management
practices.
   Data validation was a major undertaking, as each response could have as
many as several hundred data items associated with it.  Approximately 10% of
the records were deleted from the tabulated results for one reason or
another.  The primary reason for deletion was the reporting of data which
were not self-consistent - ie, reported figures did not total correctly.  The
generally low percentage of unaccounted for byproducts (usually  less than 1
wt% by commodity) attests to the effectiveness of this approach.
   In some cases surveys were returned incomplete or with incorrectly summed
figures.  All reported totals were checked independently and the
discrepancies were resolved whenever the totals did not match to within a 5%
tolerance.  In particular, there were many discrepancies between the annual
processing weight reported on Page 1 of Part II, and the annual weight
reported on Page 2 of Part II.
   In most cases the respondents did a good job of using the convention of
reporting all byproducts in terms of the equivalent weights of the as-
received RAC.  Because of the influence of moisture content on reported
weights, this was probably a fortuitous result.  In several cases however,
analysis of the data revealed that if reported weights for all byproducts
were corrected to a common moisture content  (the moisture content of the
incoming RAC was used by convention), the total weight of unaccounted

                                      10

-------
material was eliminated and the mass balance around the operation was closed,
This was done for approximately 5% of the responses and found to be a
consistently effective approach for several completed surveys.

SUMMARY BY RAC
Overall Results
   Survey responses were grouped by RAC, with a total of 41 RAC categories
being reported.  Table 4 lists the number of responses for each RAC and the
total annual tonnage of each RAC reported in the survey.  Byproduct
utilization rates for each of the listed use/disposal categories are also
shown.  When fewer than five responses were received for a given RAC,  the
number of responses is indicated as "<5" in order to prevent inadvertent
release of sensitive production data which could be inferred from more
detailed information.
   Other than the "Processing Volume" column, which is the total reported
processing volume for each RAC (expressed in tons/year of RAC), the data in
Table 4 are expressed as percentage utilization of the RAC for each of the
listed utilization options.  "Food Uses" included all identified food
products, including secondary food products such as dietary fiber from apple
pomace and bran products from grain milling.  "Feed Uses" are listed as
either wet feed or dry feed.  Although moisture content data were
occasionally provided by the food processor, the determination of whether a
feed material was listed as a wet feed or a dry feed was generally left to
the processor.  It was impossible from these data results to determine an
accurate distribution of feed markets, since processors generally did not
indicate which animals were being fed.  "Land Application" includes all
materials returned to land intended for agricultural use, regardless of the
purpose.  "Fuel" uses were limited to direct combustion or gasification and
did not include the generation of biogas or ethanol for fuel purposes.
   In Table 4, "Other" refers to byproduct uses not listed on the survey, as
well as to quantified losses of materials from the process (for example,
though solids lost in vegetable blanching operations, or roasting losses  in
the preparation of roasted coffee beans).  Table 5 lists byproducts and
wastes which were reported in the "Other" Column.
                                      11

-------
    TABLE  4.   RAC  Processing  Volume  (tons  RAC/year)  and Utilization Rates



RAC
RAC Util
f of Processing
Responses volume
RAC (count)
Almonds
Apples
Berries
Cabbage
Carrots
Cherries
Citrus
Coffee
Cottonseed
Cucumbers
Dry beans t peas
Grapes
Green beans
Green peas
Greens
Lima beans
Malt
Misc fruit
Misc vegetables
Mushrooms
Olives
Onions
Peaches
Peanuts
Pears
Peppers
Pineapples
Potatoes
Prunes
Raisins
Rice
Shel led corn
Soybeans
Squash
Sugar beets
Sugar cane
Sweet corn
Sweet potatoes
Table beets
Tomatoes
Wheat
<5
11
16
13
21
16
10
6
8
<5
39
20
19
26
6
9
10
8
12
<5
<5
<5
23
6
12
12
<5
30
11
<5
<5
15
12
9
18
<5
29
8
11
23
7
(tons/y)
258,
177,
29,
72,
118,
22,
839,
67,
1,036,
18,
133,
170,
210,
144,
21,
9,
997,
193,
402,
7,
18,
10,
532,
108,
294,
33,
214,
2,444,
93,
100,
826,
4,400,
4,314,
44,
10,972,
15,418,
962,
54,
97,
2,775,
1,800,
971
431
429
615
344
234
512
278
662
815
288
001
071
684
898
270
153
623
653
451
338
109
510
803
804
336
650
300
841
200
624
746
215
719
597
348
445
092
183
664
247
Food
69X
68X
80!!
73X
47X
75X
15X
90X
16X
96X
93X
88X
77X
88X
74X
91X
63X
BIX
49X
70X
71X
64X
79X
84X
77X
67X
86X
48X
62X
91X
65X
58X
20X
86X
13X
7X
34X
62X
48X
84X
74X
Wet
Feed
2X
15X
4X
4X
40X
2X
9X
0X
11X
0X
IX
2X
13X
11X
15X
7X
12X
2X
44X
0X
0X
20X
3X
0X
3X
17X
8X
25X
4X
0X
0X
14X
0X
9X
2X
2X
59X
20X
23X
3X
0X
Dry
ization
Land
Feed App 1 i ed
2X
0X
0X
BX
0X
eX
8X
0X
58X
0X
4X
0X
0X
ex
4X
0X
5X
0X
0X
0X
0X
5X
0X
7X
0X
0X
0X
4X
0X
2X
23X
12X
79X
0X
6X
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
24X
0X
3X
2X
19X
2X
9X
0X
0X
0X
0X
IX
6X
9X
IX
6X
IX
0X
0X
5X
0X
0X
IX
8X
2X
9X
2X
0X
8X
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
2X
0X
0X
2X
16X
23X
2X
0X
Rates (wtX of RAC)

Land-
Fuel filled
27X
0X
0X
0X
IX
IX
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
27X
0X
4X
7X
0X
0X
eX
0X
IX
0X
5X
0X
0X
0X
0X
19X
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
3X
9X
4X
IX
7X
0X
0X
IX
4X
IX
3X
IX
0X
IX
0X
IX
16X
0X
IX
2X
0X
4X
IX
6X
13X
6X
0X
16X
0X
IX
0X
0X
3X
0X
4X
_0X
2X
0X
0X
0X


Other Unaccounted
0X
4X
4X
0X
10X
6X
0X
10X
eX
0X
0X
IX
IX
0X
0X
eX
0X
0X
IX
28X
0X
9X
2X
0X
6X
IX
IX
0X
17X
6X
5X
0X
IX
0X
0X
0X
5X
0X
6X
0X
IX
0X
6X
ex
ex
ex
ex
68X
0X
14X
IX
0X
0X
0X
ex
0X
0X
19X
0X
0X
ex
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
ex
15X
0X
IX
IX
16X
0X
ex
79X
68X
0X
0X
ex
11X
IX
Total
500
50,449,155   30X   6X
                                       12X
                                 IX   6X
2X
IX
42X
                                           12

-------
       TABLE  5.   Unclassified  Byproducts  and Wastes  from Several  RACs


RAC               Waste/Byproduct
Apples            Pectin
Citrus            Peel, essential oils
Coffee            Roasting losses
Cottonseed        Linters
Malt              Carbon dioxide (fermentation byproduct)
Peaches           Peach pits for fragrance manufacture
Potatoes          Biogas (used for fuel), starch, moisture losses
Raisins           Fermentation of wet salvage raisins
Shelled corn      Industrial starches, steepwater losses
Soybeans          Moisture losses, soy solubles, soapstock from oil
Sugar beets       Moisture losses
Sugar cane        Moisture losses, bagasse board
Sweet corn        Soluble solids
Tomatoes          Evaporation losses
Vegetables        Blanching and cleaning losses
Wheat             Biogas


   The column labeled  "Unaccounted" includes all unquantified losses, and
therefore represents the error in the process material (mass) balance.  This

material is lost during product concentration (water losses), cleaning and

fluming (soluble solids losses), and spillage (RAC losses).  Moisture

(evaporation) losses are by far the greatest contribution to mass balance
errors.  The Unaccounted column was calculated from the total of all other

uses, including "Others."  In most instances, the unaccounted material

represents a small fraction (less than 1%) of the incoming RAC.  Exceptions

include citrus, sugar  cane and sugar beet, and tomatoes.  Each of these RACs

requires a substantial reduction of water content during processing, and the

large unaccounted portion represents this moisture loss.  Moisture losses in

other commodities were generally accounted for in the survey data.  Other

RACs with significant  moisture losses which could not be reconciled from

survey data included apples (6%); cottonseed (13.9%); malted products  (19.2%)

and potatoes (14.5%).  Soluble solids losses are a likely contributor to mass

balance errors for potatoes and wet milling of shelled corn.


Utilization Profiles

   Data for each of the 41 RACs included in the  survey responses were

compiled into a RAC profile in order to  identify trends with regard to

                                      13

-------
disposal of solid food byproducts.  The profiles are presented in Appendix A.
The profiles briefly describe the processing of the RACs, with emphasis on
identification of byproduct sources within the process.  The residual uses
listed in the profiles reflect only the responses to the survey and do not
include all known uses.  Detailed survey information which was judged to pose
a risk of disclosing confidential business information was not reported.
   The process flowsheets included with each RAC profile are representative
of the flowsheets returned with the surveys.  In some cases, additional
details from published food processing references (Johnson and Peterson,
1974) were utilized.  Generally, packaging and storage operations and other
processing operations which were reported to contribute  little to the
residual stream were not included in the flowsheets.

SUMMARY BY SIC
   Survey  respondents were asked to list up to five four-digit SIC codes
which applied to their processing plants.  Most respondents included only the
one or two codes, which were reviewed for correctness by NFPA staff upon
receipt of the completed survey forms.  For the purposes of data tabulation,
three digit categories were used because of the majority of the respondents
fell into more than one SIC code.  Table 6 shows the RAC utilization trends
and total  RAC processing volume  (in tons RAC/yr) by SIC group.  Listing
wastes by  3-digit SIC group is also a useful approach because many of the
wastes within a given group are relatively similar.  Wastes typical of the
SIC group  included in the study are described below.
                                      14

-------
                              TABLE  6.  Total Tonnage Reported (Grouped by SIC Group)

                                    RAC Utilization Volume (tons/yr)
SIC Group
203x
204x
206x
207x
208x
209x
4221
Total
Number of
Responses
380
17
27
19
22
23
12
500
RAC Wt.
9,637,066
6,969,808
26,690,575
5,347,531
1,116,986
614,392
72,796
50,449,155
Food Wt.
6,038,174
4,396,572
2,621,167
1,012,693
730,000
285,327
59,621
15,143,553
Wet
Feed Wt.
1,617,210
600,000
540,441
112,927
126,603
113,183
3,075
3,113,438
Dry Land
Feed Wt. Applied Wt.
170,153
1,136,396
625,668
4,009,651
49,987
9,076
6,242
6,007,172
445,365
1,559
23,230
0
7,447
3,755
0
481,356
Fuel Wt. Landfilled
28,601
42,648
3,059,992
5,080
0
0
0
3,134,320
149,748
7,546
686,462
11,866
10,767
3,262
756
870,406
Mass balance
Other Wt. Error (wtJS)
731,612
662,504
7,146,780
177,196
188,661
204,731
3,255
9,114,740
5X
2X
45X
0X
0X
-IX
0K
25X
note:   large mass balance errors on SIC 206x  are due to evaporation losses
       which were not reported.

-------
   SIC 203x (Canning, Freezing and Pickling)
   Canning and freezing byproducts are primarily derived from sorting and
grading operations, but include material removed during washing and cleaning
operations.  In some of the larger canning plants, wastes which are
associated with water treatment plants  (such as settled and screened solids,
digester sludge, etc) are also reported.  Spillage and defective products are
also commonly reported residual components, but generally these amount to
only a few percent of the total processing volume.  Disposition of canning
and freezing byproducts varied depending upon the quantity and
characteristics (digestibility, nutritive value, moisture content) of the
byproduct.
   SIC 204x (Grain Milling)
   Milling operations are generally limited to the processing of grains such
as wheat, corn and rice, although milling is also used as a preliminary step
in the extraction of oils from oil seeds.  This category also includes the
wet milling of corn to produce corn starches and sweeteners.  The purpose of
grain milling is to remove the tough outer portion of the grain (bran) and
facilitate separation of the other components (ie, germ).  Depending on the
RAC being processed the bran and germ may be treated as byproducts, rather
than as food products.  When they are not used for food purposes, they are
usually sold for their feed value.  Other sources of byproducts include
undersized or otherwise defective grain, and the dirt, sticks, and stones
removed during screening and air cleaning operations.  This material is
usually landfilled.
   SIC 206x (Sugar and Confectionery)
   Survey responses in this category represented the largest single
contribution to the total tonnage reported in the survey and therefore
heavily influence the overall byproduct utilization averages.  Byproducts
from the production of sugar include pressed sugar cane  (bagasse), extracted
sugar beet pulp, beet tops and leaves.  Processors which refined their own
sugar also produce waste molasses, which is usually fed to cattle.  Cane
sugar operations generally do not refine their own sugar; however, most of
the beet sugar processors reported having molasses available as a  residual.

                                      16

-------
Survey responses show that sugar cane byproducts are used primarily (about
90%) for fuel, while sugar beet pulp byproducts are used almost exclusively
(>90%) for cattle feeding.
   SIC 207x (Fats and Oils)
   This category includes cottonseed oil mills, soybean oil mills, and peanut
oil mills.  Refiners of edible oils (SIC 2079) were excluded from the survey
because they do not process RACs and do not generate RAC byproducts.  The
processes in this category are basically milling operations followed in most
cases by solvent (usually hexane) extraction of the milled meal.  Byproducts
include desolventized meal, along with dirt and trash from the screening and
cleaning operations.  Cottonseed mills also produce linters as a non-feed
residual.  Oil seed milling operations rely heavily on feeding operations as
a means of utilizing extracted meal byproducts.
   SIC 208x (Beverages)
   The primary respondents in this category were producers of beer and other
malt beverages (SIC 2082), although producers of distilled liquors (SIC 2085)
were also represented.  Spent brewer's and distiller's grains were the
primary residual reported in this category.  These byproducts are widely used
as livestock feed.
   SIC 209x (Miscellaneous Foods)
   This category included processors of raw (green) coffee beans, although
some potato and corn chip manufacturers were also included.  Coffee
byproducts are discussed  in the RAC Profiles (Appendix A).
   SIC 4221 (Dried Beans)
   This category includes processors of dry beans & peas who produce a
packaged, raw dry bean product.  Processing is generally limited to cleaning
and drying the beans.  Byproducts from this category are limited to dirt and
other trash separated during screening and air scalping and to spilled or
rejected beans.  These materials have usually undergone relatively little
processing, and are most often landfilled.
                                      17

-------
SUMMARY BY REGION
                                                                       0
   Survey results were also compiled against the geographic region of the
processing plant.  The survey regions are shown in Figure 1, and the states
belonging to each region are listed in Table 7.  Completed surveys were
assigned to one of eight regions by NFPA staff, based upon the business
address of the survey respondent.  Survey respondents were also asked on the
survey to list the state or country of origin for each commodity.  A state-
by-state breakdown of reported tonnage was not possible, since in almost
every case, the survey respondents did not provide this information.  No
surveys were sent to Region 8 (Alaska) because the principal food industry
(fish and seafood) was not within the scope of the study.  Although
individual states' contributions could not be quantified from the information
provided by the processors, RACs were reported as having originated in every
state and territory except Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Nevada,
Rhode Island, Virginia, West Virginia and Puerto Rico.
   RACs which have been imported from other countries are also of interest to
the EPA.  Few survey respondents reported processing imported RACs, and those
which did process imported RACs generally processed RACs from domestic
sources as well.  Since processing data did not differentiate between
imported and domestic RAC, the impact of imported RAC could not be
quantified.  Table 8 is a  list of imported RACs and the survey regions where
they were processed.
    A regional breakdown of reported processing volume and byproduct
utilization is shown in Table 9.  A tabulation of reported RAC processing
volume  (in tons RAC/year)  by RAC and region is shown in Table 10.  While
apparent differences in utilization trends were expected, and indeed observed
among regions, it is not clear whether the observed variations in utilization
are due to regional crop preferences, or to other regional factors such as
transportation costs, climate, etc.
                                      18

-------
Region
  1

  2
  3
  4

  5

  6
  7
  8
  9
         TABLE  7.   States  in Survey  Regions
States in Region
Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,  New Hampshire, Rhode Island,
Vermont
New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania
North and South Carolina,  Delaware,  Florida, Georgia, Maryland,
Puerto Rico, Virginia, West Virginia
North and South Dakota, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, Wisconsin
Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma,
Texas
Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming
Idaho, Oregon, Washington
Alaska  (not included  in survey)
Arizona, California,  Hawaii, Nevada
                                                                   Region 1
                   FIGURE 1.  NFPA Food Processing Regions
                                      19

-------
                            TABLE 8.   Imported RACs
RAC
Apples, berries
Coffee
Source of
Import
Canada
Asia
Dry beans and  peas,          Mexico
broccoli, brussel  sprouts,
carrots, celery,  cucumbers,
okra, peppers,  snap and
snow peas,  squash,  and
tomatillos  (green  tomatoes)
Region where  Processed

Region 7  (Pacific NW)

Region 4  (Midwest)

Region 4  and  5  (primarily Texas)
                      TABLE 9.   RAC Utilization by  Region
                                RAC Utilization Rate (X of RAC)

Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
Total
Number of
Responses
12
36
23
163
62
6
83
115
500

RAC »t.
493,670
1,201,850
1,083,698
13,947,077
3,445,801
1,636,998
2,917,570
25,722,491
50,449,155

Food
33X
69%
20X
39X
32X
13X
54X
22X
30X
Wet
Feed
24X
5%
IX
8X
2X
0X
30X
3X
6X
Dry
Feed
15X
18X
24X
28X
30X
5X
IX
IX
12X
Land
Mass balance
Applied Fuel Landfilled Other Error (a)
IX
2X
0%
IX
IX
0X
8X
0X
IX
0X
0X
IX
0X
5X
0X
0X
12X
6X
IX
IX
0X
0X
IX
0X
IX
3X
2X
27X
6X
7X
24X
23X
76X
10X
12X
18X
0X
0X
46X(b)
IX
6X
5X
-4X
46X(b)
25X
  notes: (a) mass balance error  is the relative error, 100X   E(RAC Use Rates)
                (b) error  is  traceable to large  evaporative losses  from sugar
                    beets  and sugar cane
                                        20

-------
TABLE 10.
Pr<
RAC (tons
A 1 Bonds
App 1 es
Berries
Cabbage
Carrots
Cherries
Citrus
Coffee
Cottonseed 1
Cucumbers
Dry beans t peas
Grapes
Green beans
Green peas
Greens
Lima beans
Malt
Misc fruit
Misc vegetables
Mushrooms
01 ives
Onions
Peaches
Peanuts
Pears
Peppers
Pineapples
Potatoes 2
Prunes
Raisins
Rice
Shel led corn 4
Soybeans 4
Squash
Sugar beets 10
Sugar cane 15
Sweet corn
Sweet potatoes
Table beets
Tomatoes 2
*heat 1
Tota 1 50
icessing
Volume -
RAC/yr)
258,971
177,431
29,429
72,615
118,344
22,234
839,512
67,278
,036,662
18,815
133,288
170,001
210,071
144,684
21,898
9,270
997,153
193,623
402,653
7,451
18,338
10,109
532,510
108,803
294,804
33,336
214,650
,444,300
93,841
100,200
826,624
,400,746
,314,215
44,719
,972,597
,418,348
962,445
54,092
97,183
,775,664
,800,247
,449,155
RAC Processing Volume by Region
Processing Volume
1
2,112
0
6,002
950
0
0
0
0
0
0
200
107
0
0
0
0
72,099
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
403,197
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,000
0
0
493,671
2
0
20,000
4,909
55,011
1,539
0
0
15,236
0
0
269
22,222
25,168
1,605
0
141
124,841
0
0
7,250
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37,217
0
0
0
3,923
0
0
0
0
36,421
0
18,846
20,000
807,253
1,201,852
3
0
1,208
0
0
0
0
656,778
3-, 934
0
0
9,284
0
83
0
354
0
39,532
0
0
0
0
0
0
35,410
0
0
0
71,500
0
0
0
15,114
240,000
0
0
0
0
5,500
0
5,000
0
1,083,701
in Region
4
0
30,443
0
16,654
31,587
3,000
0
16,500
0
18,815
25,933
1,843
127,610
101,228
789
4,308
102,759
0
49,210
0
0
2,187
5,032
5,249
3,957
155
0
283,519
4,071
0
0
4,371,337
3,813,312
2,801
3,144,491
0
660,297
0
37,189
89,806
992,994
13,947,081
(tons RAC/yr)
5
0
9,180
130
0
18,699
85
19,399
0
891,062
0
31,015
0
11,020
0
20,755
0
8,140
0
1,981
0
0
1,800
5,120
68,144
5,940
28,678
0
4,649
1,810
0
826,624
372
260,903
4,870
805,000
360,915
0
46,642
11,260
1,608
0
3,445,806
6
0
0
0
0
0
214
0
0
0
0
15,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,618,784
0
0
0
0
3,000
0
1,637,004
7
0
68,398
5,613
0
44,677
14,230
0
0
0
0
23,128
437
46,190
41,851
0
4,821
231,916
0
351,081
0
0
5,067
800
0
125,775
0
0
1,641,718
6,124
0
0
10,000
0
9,130
0
0
265,727
0
20,888
0
0
2,917,577
9
256,859
48,202
12,775
0
21,842
4,705
163,336
31,608
145,600
0
28,459
145,393
0
0
0
0
417,866
193,623
382
201
18,338
1,055
521,555
0
159,132
4,503
214,650
2,500
81,836
100,200
0
0
0
27,918
5,404,322
15,057,433
0
1,950
0
2,656,250
0
25,722,500
21

-------
Results of the Research Needs Survey
   In addition to waste utilization information, food processors were asked
to identify additional waste utilization research needs (see Part III of the
survey form in Appendix D).  The processors were also asked whether or not
they monitored for pesticide residues on RACs and/or byproducts, and whether
they would be willing to share this data with NFPA.  Space was also provided
for additional comments regarding the survey.
   A total of 281 Research Needs Surveys were completed and returned.  All of
the research needs surveys which were submitted were included in the
tabulation of results even if the byproduct utilization data was not used.
Tables 11 and 12 show the  survey results by region and by SIC, respectively.
   Table  13 shows the relative distribution of respondents within each region
and SIC group.  Responses  from the SIC 203x group predominate nearly every
region, although regions 5 and 6 show significant numbers of responses from
SIC group 207x and 206x, respectively.  It should be noted that these
distributions represent the numbers of respondents and do not take reported
RAC processing volumes into consideration.

          TABLE 11.  Research Needs Survey Results (by SIC Group)
                                        SIC Group
SIC Group
# of Responses
More Research
Energy from Waste
New Foods
Feeds from Waste
Waste Minimization
Waste Treatment
Other (see Table 14)
Monitor for Residues
Will Share Data
203x
153
86%
43%
30%
57%
40%
29%
3%
31%
14%
204x
18
72%
61%
33%
39%
33%
17%
0%
50%
22%
206x
26
81%
77%
15%
42%
46%
46%
19%
50%
19%
207x
23
70%
39%
4%
17%
22%
39%
0%
43%
22%
208x
33
82%
42%
48%
39%
30%
15%
6%
21%
6%
209x
20
90%
65%
20%
30%
55%
20%
0%
20%
5%
4221
8
63%
38%
25%
38%
0%
13%
0%
25%
13%
u u i v ^y
Total
281
83%
48%
28%
47%
37%
28%
4%
33%
14%
                                      22

-------
           TABLE  12.   Research  Needs  Survey  Results  (by  Region)
                                       Survey Region
# of Responses
More Research
Energy from Waste
New Foods
Feeds from Waste
Waste Minimization
Waste Treatment
Other (See Table 14)
Monitor for Residues
Will Share Data
1
5
80%
60%
20%
40%
80%
20%
0%
20%
0%
2
31
87%
61%
26%
39%
39%
10%
0%
32%
3%
3
18
83%
61%
22%
39%
39%
28%
0%
11%
6%
4
86
80%
50%
24%
51%
36%
24%
7%
22%
9%
5
39
79%
41%
28%
41%
26%
36%
0%
33%
21%
6
6
67%
50%
0%
0%
50%
50%
17%
67%
0%
7
32
81%
31%
28%
50%
31%
28%
3%
41%
16%
9
64
88%
48%
39%
53%
44%
34%
5%
48%
25%
o u r v ey
Total
281
83%
48%
28%
47%
37%
28%
4%
33%
14%
   TABLE 13.   Percentage of Survey Respondents  Classified  by SIC  and  Region

                            % of Survey Region in SIC Group
      #  of
SIC   Responses
203x
204x
206x
207x
208x
209x
422x
all
153
 18
 26
 23
 33
 20
  8
281
         1
overall
40%
0%
20%
0%
20%
20%
0%
2%
48%
7%
0%
3%
23%
19%
0%
11%
44%
0%
11%
6%
22%
17%
0%
8%
52%
13%
8%
12%
5%
8%
2%
30%
31%
13%
8%
26%
18%
5%
0%
14%
33%
0%
50%
0%
0%
0%
17%
2%
88%
0%
0%
0%
6%
0%
6%
11%
64%
0%
16%
2%
13%
2%
5%
22%
55%
6%
9%
8%
12%
7%
3%
100%
   The results of the research needs survey can serve as guidance for the

development of research programs addressing the food processing industry.

The data show fairly high support for additional research in general, with a

pronounced emphasis in the areas of energy recovery from food processing

wastes, waste minimization, and identifying new feed opportunities for

byproducts.  Other observations include the high interest in "energy from

wastes" indicated by SIC group 206x.  This group is dominated by the sugar

processing industry, which already uses a substantial portion of its

byproducts (bagasse) as fuel.  This result can be explained by the high

energy intensity of the sugar processing industry.
                                      23

-------
   Several respondents indicated the need for "Other" research needs - ie.,
those which were not listed as choices on the survey.  In fact, however,  many
of their comments indicated that they were simply elaborating on needs
already identified as survey choices.  For example, nearly 20% of the
respondents in SIC 203x (sugar and confectionery) had checked the "Others"
box on the survey.  A review of the comments which were included in these
responses show that several processors of sugar beets indicated that use of
beet pulp and other byproducts as soil enhancers needs further study.  This
is clearly a choice presented in the research needs survey; however, the
comments are noted as additional emphasis for that need.  Other research
needs mentioned in the comments included those listed in Table 14.

    TABLE 14.  Additional Research Needs identified by Survey Respondents
# of Responses    SIC Group      Identified Need
        6         203x, 206x     Secondary agricultural use (includes feeding
                                 and land application)
        2         203x           Cyclic nature of waste production/matching
                                 waste stream volume to user needs
        2         203x           Reduction/treatment of brine wastes
        1         203x           Liquefaction of solid wastes to permit spray
                                 irrigation/land application
        1         207x           Reduction of solvent  losses to atmosphere
                                 (oilseed processing)
        1         203x           Fuel use of cherry and plum pits
   A total of 93 survey respondents  indicated that they monitored either
RACs or the processed byproducts.  Of these, 39  (42%)  would be willing to
share pesticide monitoring data with the EPA.  Comments on survey responses
showed that plant managers often may not have the authority to disclose this
data without corporate approval.   In a number of other cases, the respondent
indicated that pesticide monitoring  data was being collected by an  outside
agency (such as the USDA) or by the  growers  (who then  must certify  the RAC  as
meeting pesticide residue standards).  A list of processing plants  willing  to
share monitoring data will be  kept by the NFPA for  later  use, if  needed.
                                      24

-------
                                  DISCUSSION
   The results of this survey make it clear that substantial  quantities of
food industry byproducts are used as feed for cattle,  hogs,  poultry,  and
other farm animals.  Furthermore, it is apparent that selected industries
rely heavily upon this practice, both for waste disposal  and for generation
of revenue.  Industries such as the oilseed extraction, brewing, and fruit
and vegetable processing industries rely on feeding of byproducts for
utilization of up to 70% of the total weight of RAC processed in their
plants.
   This data can be cited as good evidence that the food processing industry
is practicing effective byproducts management by finding relatively high-
valued uses for this material.  While there appears to be no immediate
conflict between this practice and the public health,  the data in this report
will provide EPA with a better understanding of industry byproduct
utilization trends which can be used by EPA in the assessment of pesticide
residue pathways through the food chain.  This data should prove useful,
since, although consideration of the effects of processing on pesticide
residuals is a prescribed part of the licensing process for new pesticides
(EPA, 1982), the extent of food processing byproduct feeding has not been
well documented in the past.  Even the most comprehensive documentation
identified by the author (Katsuyama, et al.  1973), while quite complete, is
somewhat dated.
   The full extent of any potential health risks posed by the industry
practice of byproduct feeding should be evaluated on the basis of actual
processing wastes.  A number of processors contacted through this survey
effort would be willing to share pesticide monitoring data.   A list of
processors has not been included in this survey in order to protect their
identities.
   The majority of food processing operations included in this study
reported that some portion of their solid byproducts were fed to cattle or
other livestock.  Relatively few of these operations reported routine
monitoring of either their incoming RAC or the byproducts themselves for
pesticide residue levels.  Currently, residue levels on food processing
byproducts are estimated on the basis of simulated processing tests conducted
                                      25

-------
by the pesticide manufacturer as part of the certification of the pesticide.
In the event that EPA decides that closer examination of this practice is
required, the EPA could require the pesticide manufacturers to do a more
thorough study of pesticide residue levels in selected food industry
segments.  By utilizing the results of this report to target industry
segments which rely heavily on byproduct feeding, the EPA can minimize the
costs of this follow-up study to both EPA and the industry.  The results of
the present study provide an excellent basis for prioritizing which industry
segments should be examined.  In the event that EPA elects to conduct testing
of RAC byproducts for pesticide residues, a number of processing plants have
been identified which would be willing to share pesticide residue data with
the NFPA.
   Assuming that such a study is performed, priority should be given to (a)
those food processing byproducts which due to processing methods or inherent
properties of the byproduct, are most likely to contain significant pesticide
residues;  (b) byproducts which are  likely to contain significant pesticide
residues as a result of agricultural practices; and  (c) byproducts which are
fed to cattle and other animals in  large quantities or represent substantial
portions of the animal's diet.
                                      26

-------
                                      REFERENCES


Johnson, A. H. and M. S. Peterson.  1974. Encyclopedia of Food Technology,
   AVI Publishing Co., Westport, CT.

Katsuyama, A. M., Olson, N. A., Quirk, R. L., and W. A. Mercer.  1973. Solid
   Waste Management in the Food Processing Industry. EPA-SW-42C-73.
   National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1982. Pesticide Assessment
   Guidelines, Subdivision 0;  Residue Chemistry.  EPA-540/9-82-023.  U.S.
   EPA, Washington, D.C.
                                      27

-------
APPENDIX A - RAC Utilization Profiles

-------
                           CONTENTS OF APPENDIX A

INTRODUCTION TO RAC PROFILES	  A.I

RAC PROFILES
          Almonds	  A.3
          Apples	  A.6
          Berries	  A.9
          Cabbage	  A. 12
          Carrots	  A. 15
          Cherries	  A. 18
          Citrus	  A.21
          Coffee	  A.24
          Cottonseed	  A.27
          Cucumbers	  A.30
          Dry beans & peas	  A.33
          Grapes	  A.36
          Green beans	  A.39
          Green peas	  A.42
          Greens	  A.45
          Lima beans	  A.48
          Malt	  A.51
          Miscellaneous fruit	  A.54
          Miscellaneous vegetables	  A.57
          Mushrooms	  A.60
          Olives	  A.63
          Onions	  A.66
          Peaches	  A.69
          Peanuts	  A.72
          Pears	  A.75
          Peppers	  A.78
          Pineapples	  A.81
          Potatoes	  A .84
          Prunes	  A.87
          Rice	,	  A.90
          Shelled corn	  A.93
          Soybeans	  A.96
          Squash	  A.99
          Sugar beets	  A. 102
          Sugar cane	  A.105
          Sweet corn	  A. 108
          Sweet potato	  A.Ill
          Table beets	  A.114
          Tomatoes	  A. 117
          Wheat	-	  A. 120

-------
                         INTRODUCTION  TO  RAG  PROFILES

     The RAC profiles contained in this appendix have been included in order
to present more detailed information regarding the processing of the
individual RACs reported by food processors in response to the NFPA/EPA Food
Processing Byproduct Survey.  The profiles consist of five sections, which
are described below.

RAC Summary
     This section includes a listing of all food products made from the RAC
and reported in the survey; a list of all animals reported fed in the survey;
and the portions of the RAC which are reported fed.  In general, food
processors did not report the distribution of animals fed, and usually
reported more than one type of animal.

RAC Utilization Profile
     This table presents the survey statistics for the individual RAC,
including the range and mean of the reported moisture content for each RAC,
food, and byproduct stream for which data was provided.  The values listed
are the actual survey statistics; the processor's classification of feeds as
either wet or dry feeds were taken at face value, and in some cases, feeds
listed as wet feeds are well below the moisture content criteria for such
materials.  Where data was not provided by any of the survey respondents, the
missing data value is represented by  "n.r."  (not reported).  Also provided  in
this table are the total processing volume (in tons RAC/yr) and the range and
mean utilization rates for each of the listed utilization options.

RAC Processing Practices
     This narrative describes in general terms the processing of the RAC,
emphasizing the reported handling of the byproducts.  Alternate uses
(generally reported under the "Other" heading in the RAC Utilization Profile)
are also described.
                                     A.I

-------
RAC Processing Volume
     This section contains a table listing the RAC production volume
(expressed in tons RAC/yr) by region, and a figure showing the reported
processing volume (also in tons RAC/yr) for each of the 12 months covered by
the survey.  In most cases, the data covers the 1987 processing season.

RAC Processing Flowsheet
     Processing flowsheets were created based on the flowsheets submitted by
food processors in response to the survey.  Slight variations between
individual flowsheets were not included in the flowsheets, as in many cases,
this would have required several pages of flowsheets for each RAC.  The
flowsheets were simplified to emphasize the production of wastes and
byproducts, and in most cases, combine steps where byproduct production does
not generally occur.  For example, in canning operations, cooking operations
are always followed by cooling (quenching) operations, as well as labeling
and casing operations.  In the RAC processing flowsheets, this is usually
shown by the single step  labeled "cooking."
                                     A.2

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS  MADE:

       ANIMALS FED:

      PORTIONS FED:
         Almonds

         Roasted  whole and  cut almonds;  various confectionery.

         Beef  and dairy cattle.

         Skins fed as a wet (50  wt% moisture)  waste.
                TABLE Al.  RAC  Utilization  Profile for Almonds
                Moisture Content (wt!f)
                          RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Min   Max   Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl led
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
5.0
5.0
50.0
16.9
n.r.
n.p.
5.0
-

6.5
6.5
50.0
16.9
n.r.
n. r.
5.0


5.8
5.8
50.0
16.9
n.r.
n. r.
5.0


0.8
0.8
0.0
0.0
n.r.
n.r.
0.0


258,971
178,022
4,167
5,918
0
0
70,781
0
83
2,112
69%
0K
0H
0X
0!!
0H
0!?

256,859
96!?
2%
M
m
100H
23!!
0!!

129,486
69X
2X
2X
0K
0X
11%
0!!
0!!
note (a): Values are in wtH of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey  respondents.
       ()  around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing  Practices

   Following  harvest,  almond hulls  are removed  and  may be fed to  cattle.   In
some instances, hulls  are removed in  the field  and  are not included in
processing.   Nut meats (kernels) in  the shell are mechanically  shelled, and
the whole shelled  kernels are either packaged as whole, raw or  roasted
almonds or  blanched  and further processed prior to  packaging.   Blanching
generates a wet skin waste (50 wt%  m.c.) which  may  be fed to cattle.  Shells
are a dry waste  (5-8 wt% m.c.) and  may be used  as  a fuel, or other commercial
non-food  uses  (ie,  grinding/polishing  media).
                                        A.3

-------
BLE A2.   Reported Processing Volume (tons/year) for Almonds
Total Vol 	
(tons/yr)
258,971 2
* onnnn
1/lUUUU
H nnnnn
lUUUUU
oUUUU
0
n
s
Ocnnnn
oUUUU ~\
f
R
A
Cyinnnn
HUUUU
/dUUUU
n
Processed Volume in Survey Region (Tons RAC/yr)
1 2 3 4 S 6 7
,112 0 0 0 0 0

1

j


1

9
0 256,859



i


III
                     Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun   Jul  Aug  Sep Oct  Nov  Dec
                                          Month Processed
                   FIGURE Al.   Processing Volume (tons/year) -   Almonds
                                                                               HID Region 9
                                                                               H Region 7
                                                                               s Region 6
                                                                               H Region 5
                                                                               ^ Region 4
                                                                               H Region 3
                                                                               § Region 2
                                                                               D Region 1
                                             A.4

-------
             Almonds
           Stored Almonds
            Shelling
                Blanching
            Final processing
            may include
           ^roasting, chopping;
                                Shell waste
                                 Almond  hulls (skins)
                                 Small  pieces
       Almonds  for final packaging
FIGURE A2.  RAC Processing Flowsheet  for Almonds
                         A.5

-------
         COMMODITY:     Apples - includes  crabapples

     PRODUCTS MADE:     Apple and mixed fruit  juices and juice concentrates;
                        applesauce; canned apple slices; cider vinegar

       ANIMALS FED:     Dairy and beef cattle;  hogs

      PORTIONS FED:     Pomace (sometimes  includes filter aids);  culls;  peels;
                        cores.
                 TABLE A3.  RAC Utilization  Profile for Apples



                Moisture Content (wtX)              RAC Utilization (see note a)

Disposition       Min   Max   Mean    a    Weight       Min      Max      Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
80.0
80.0
80.0
n.r.
83.0
80.0
n.r.


89.0
89.0
85.0
n.r.
89.0
86.0
n.r.


84.2
84.6
82.8
n. r.
86.0
83.0
n.r.


2.4
2.7
1.8
n.r.
2.4
2.1
n.r.

-
177,431
121,472
26,516
0
5,350
5,479
0
7,944
10,670
370
7X
0X
0K
0X
n
0K
0X

45,820
100X
37X
0!?
91X
100H
0K
25X

16,130
68!?
15X
0Z
3X
3%
0X
4!f
6X
note (a): Values are in wtif of total  RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       ()  around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing  Practices

   The primary product reported by survey respondents was apple  juice
concentrate,  which  is  made from whole  crushed apples including cores, peels,
and some  leaves/stems.   Principal byproducts  are the pomace  (typically 75-85
wt% m.c.) which  is  mechanically screened  and  pressed to remove residual
juice.  Some  stem/leaf waste is also produced,  although this  is  a relatively
small portion of  the fruit waste.  The  stem/leaf waste is generally removed
in the washing step.  Applesauce is prepared  from washed, cored,  peeled
apples, with  the  core  and stems and peel  material making up  the  solid
byproduct stream.   Peels are removed either mechanically (ie, by abrasion) or
chemically  (caustic peeling).  Culls and  trim material from
grading/inspection  lines are also treated as  a byproduct.   In some instances,
this material is  used  as a feedstock for  the  production of vinegar.

Notes and Comments

   The wide range of utilization rates  is due to the mix of  juice and
applesauce  processors.   Apple juice processors generally have lower
utilization rates.   Unaccounted material  is assumed to be moisture losses.

                                      A.6

-------
  TABLE  A4.    Reported Processing Volume  (tons/year)  for  Apples
               Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
Total Vol 	
(tons/yr)   1
 177,431
 35000
0  20,000   1,208  30,443   9,180       0   68,398   48,202
       Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun   Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec
                              Month Processed

        FIGURE A3.   Processing Volume (tons/year)  -  Apples
                                                                       H Region 9

                                                                       M Region 7

                                                                       § Region 6

                                                                       H Region 5

                                                                       0% Region 4

                                                                       H Regions

                                                                       H Region 2

                                                                       D Region 1
                                    A.7

-------
                Apples for Juice, applesauce, and  canning
 Chopping and
 cooking
       1
Canning and
processing
 Apple sauce
                           Apples from harvest
                           or cold/ CA storage
                            iWash and sort  ,
                                  f
                              iPeeler/Corer;;
Inspection and
trimming
       I
     Slicing
 Canning and
 cooking
                                     1
                                                Defective  apples, leaves
                                              Peels and cores
                                                                     Pomace
   Crusher

    ;Press
Filtration and
juice finishing
                                   [
                            Canned apple slices          App,e  Jujce
      FIGURE A4.   RAC  Processing  Flowsheet for Apples
                                A.8

-------
         COMMODITY:



     PRODUCTS MADE:

       ANIMALS FED:

      PORTIONS FED:
         Berries (includes  Strawberries,  raspberries,
         blackberries, boysenberries,  gooseberries,
         blueberries, cranberries).

         Primarily canned  and frozen  berries and  puree; wine,

         Beef  cattle.

         Pomace, culls
                 TABLE A5.   RAC Utilization  Profile  for Berries
                Moisture Content (wtX)
                               RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Min   Max
Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
80.0
80.0
80.0
n.r.
80.0
80.0
n. r.


92.0
92.0
92.0
n.r.
80.0
90.0
n. r.

-
86.2
85.8
85.6
n.r.
80.0
85.0
n.r.
-

3.7
3.9
4.5
n. r.
0.0
5.0
n.r.


29,429
23,646
1,271
0
589
2,790
0
1,143
(9)
2
35K
0X
0X
0K
0K
0X
0K

7,200
99X
11X
0X
20X
100X
0X
63X

1,839
80X
4%
m
2K
9!!
0K
4X
e%
note (a): Values are in wtJf of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       ()  around data value indicates a negative mass balance error
Processing  Notes

   Incoming berries  are water-washed, dewatered,  generally frozen  either in
bulk or  IQF.   Most berries are  processed as  soon  as possible after harvest;
cranberries are stored frozen and processed  year-round.   Cranberries  are
generally  canned as  cranberry cocktail or  IQF berries,  or pressed  and
processed  to juice.
                                        A.9

-------
   TABLE A6.    Reported Processing Volume  (tons/year)  for Berries

                 Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
  Total  Vol	
  (tons/yr)   12345679
    29,429   6,002   4,909      0      0     130      0   5,613  12,775
   14000
   12000
   10000
T
o
n
s   8000

0
f
R
A
C
    6000
    4000
    2000
                          i     i     i     i     i      i     i
SHU] Region 9

H Region 7

m Regions

H Region 5

M Region 4

H Region 3

H Region 2

^ Region 1
         Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul   Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec

                                Month Processed

           FIGURE  A5.   Processing  Volume  (tons/year) -   Berries
                                      A.10

-------
   Frozen &  Canned  Berries
        Berry harvest
      ^Washing, stemming;
      { and sorting      '
              \
         \ Inspection and;
         Isorting     s
           Canning
            Cooking
              T
                             Defective  berries,  stems,
                             leaves
                               Defective  berries
Freezing and
packaging
                    Storage  &  Distribution
FIGURE A6.   RAC Processing Flowsheet  for Berries
                         A.11

-------
         COMMODITY:     Cabbage (both  red  and white cabbage included).

     PRODUCTS  MADE:     Red cabbage  is  canned or sold  as uncooked,  packaged
                         shredded cabbage.   It is pickled and used  in  Oriental
                         specialty products.   White cabbage is used  in
                         sauerkraut or  frozen and shredded.

       ANIMALS FED:     Cattle and hogs.

      PORTIONS FED:     Outer leaves and  culled heads  are the primary
                         byproduct but  cores  are also  fed.


                 TABLE  A7.  RAC Utilization Profile for Cabbage

                Moisture Content (wtK)              RAC Utilization (see note a)

Disposition       Min    Max   Mean    
-------
 TABLE A8.    Reported Processing Volume  (tons/year)  for Cabbage

               Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
Total Vol ——	
(tons/yr)   12345679
  72,615     950   55,eil
0  16,654
25000
                                                                      HID Region 9

                                                                      H Region 7

                                                                      S Region 6

                                                                      ^ Region 5

                                                                      H Region 4

                                                                      M Region 3

                                                                      H Region 2

                                                                      Hi Region 1
      Jan   Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep   Oct   Nov  Dec
                             Month Processed
        FIGURE A7.   Processing Volume (tons/year)  -  Cabbage

                                  A.13

-------
                     Cabbage (Red or White)
 Sauerkraut  line
 (white cabbage)
  Slicing and
  Fermentation
     Canning
                        Cabbage harvest
                         , Coring
                            T
                                           Cores and  defective heads
                           Sorting
                                         Defective heads
                         IWash and Trirm I
                                          Defective  leaves
Canning/freezing  line
(red  cabbage)
     Canning or
     Freezing
                                                      T
                                               Finished product
Finished product
   FIGURE A8.  RAC Processing  Flowsheet  for Cabbage
                           A.14

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS MADE:



       ANIMALS  FED:

      PORTIONS  FED:
         Carrots

         Frozen and  canned whole  and diced/sliced  carrots;
         carrot puree;  infant food;  specialty sauces;  carrot
         and mixed  vegetable juice.

         Beef and dairy cattle; hogs;  sheep; goats.

         Crowns; peels, culls,  spillage; pulp (from juice).
                 TABLE A9.  RAC Utilization  Profile for Carrots
                Moisture Content (wW)
                              RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Min   Max   Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
60.0
60.0
60.0
n.r.
60.0
67.0
n.r.
-

91.0
90.0
88.0
n. r
88.0
67.0
n. r.


82.3
84.1
83.2
n.r.
74.0
67.0
n. r.
-
~
11.1
9.9
10.4
n.r.
14.0
0.0
n.r.


118,344
55,032
46,990
0
1,859
1,599
804
11,904
155
81
32X
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
0!?

19,000
94X
67X
0X
60X
100X
59X
54X

5,635
47X
40*
0X
2X
IX
IX
10X
0X
note (a): Values are in wtX of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year

       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       ()  around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.
Processing  Notes

   Carrots  are  washed, blanched,  and peeled  prior to canning operations.
Byproducts  include off-grade carrots, crowns,  peels, and  pulp;  small pieces
from cutting  operations may  be land applied  or mixed with  other wastes.   The
peels may include some abrasive material  (an artifact of  the mechanical
peeler).  Dirt,  small stones,  and other  foreign material  may be present  in
small quantities, but is  usually removed  in  the washing step.  At least  one
processor reported that carrot peel/pulp  was being burned,  presumably  as
fuel.
                                       A.15

-------
 TABLE  A10.    Reported Processing Volume (tons/year)  for Carrots

                Processing Volune in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
Total Vol 	
(tons/yr)   12345679
 118,344
45000
40000
35000
T  30000
o
n
o
f
   25000
   20000
R
A
C  15000
10000
 5000
                0    1,539
0  31,587  18,699
0  44,677  21,842
      Jan  Feb  Mar   Apr   May  Jun  Jul   Aug  Sep  pet   Nov  Dec

                             Month Processed



        FIGURE  A9.   Processing  Volume  (tons/year) -   Carrots
                                                                      M Region 9

                                                                      H Region 7

                                                                      § Region 6

                                                                      ^ Region 5

                                                                      %% Region 4

                                                                      H Region 3

                                                                      M Region 2

                                                                      H Region 1
                                   A.16

-------
       Canned and Frozen Carrots
             Carrot harvest
                                      Dirt, stones, and mud
              ^Washing and
              ^sorting     f|



                             4          Settled Solids
               [Blanching:


               T~

                      ,,-.„„ sv.~           Peel waste
            iScrubbing/peeling;	




                                        Culls
               inspection and    	
               grading
             Final processing
             (may include cutting,
             cooking, canning,
              freezing, etc)
                    I
FIGURE  Al(h  RAC  Processing  Flowsheet  for Carrots
                           A.17

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS  MADE:

       ANIMALS FED:

      PORTIONS FED:
         Cherries  (includes both  sweet and  sour cherries)

         Canned  and/or cherry  products; brined cherries.

         Not specified

         Cull cherries, pits,  stems.
               TABLE All.  RAC  Utilization Profile for Cherries
                Moisture Content (wtX)
                               RAC Utilization  (see note a)
Disposition
Min   Max   Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
60.0
60.0
80.4
n.r.
80.0
60.0
n.r.


95.0
95.0
80.4
n.r.
80.0
95.0
n. r


81.0 7.7
80.9 8.0
80.4 n.r.
n.r. n.r.
80.0 0.0
80.1 10.2
n.r. n. r.

—
22,234
16,638
552
0
1,928
1,553
271
1,291
0
85
62X
0X
0X
0!?
0!?
m
M

7,464
100!?
22JS
0K
26X
100!!
12K
20X

1,390
75X
2X
0%
9X
7!?
IX
6X
0K
note (a): Values are in wtJf of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.

       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.

       () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.
Processing  Notes

   Incoming cherries  are soaked in  cool  water to  firm the fruit,  sorted and
graded both mechanically and visually,  and then pitted.   The pitted cherries
may be canned,  frozen  by IQF methods, made into puree,  or brined.   In each
case, the principal waste stream is  derived from  the upstream processes,
particularly the pitting operation.   The pits are landfilled (where
permitted), or crushed and land applied.  They are also be burned  as a fuel.
Only one processor reported feeding  the pits (along with the cull  cherries
and stems)  as cattle  feed.
                                       A.18

-------
TABLE A12.    Reported Processing Volume (tons/year)  for Cherries

               Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons  RAC/yr)
TotaI  Vo I	
(tons/yr)    1
  22,234
 12000
0   3,
                                       85
                                             214   14,230   4,705
       Jan   Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep   Oct  Nov  Dec
                             Month Processed


     FIGURE All.   Processing Volume (tons/year)  -   Cherries
                                                                     H Region 9

                                                                     e Region 7

                                                                     H Region 6

                                                                     H Region 5

                                                                     '%& Region 4

                                                                     H Region 3

                                                                     H Region 2

                                                                     D Region 1
                                 A.19

-------
        Cherries
        Cherry Harvest
             T
         'Dump Tank
        ^Sizing/Sorting;:
               I
            Pitting
       Final processing
       and packaging
                            Leaves
                            Culls and undersized
                               Pits
         Canned, frozen,  or  brined cherries
FIGURE A12.   RAC Processing Flowsheet  for Cherries
                          A.20

-------
         COMMODITY:


     PRODUCTS MADE:

       ANIMALS  FED:

      PORTIONS  FED:
Citrus  (includes oranges,  lemons,  grapefruit  and
limes).

Frozen juice concentrate;  peel  and essences.

Dairy  and  beef cattle.

Pulp  (from juice pressing  operation)  and peel  (from
mechanical  peeler).
             TABLE A13.   RAC Utilization Profile for Citrus Fruit
                Moisture Content (wt!5)
                     RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Min   Max   Mean
                                     Weight
                        Min
Max
         Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
40.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
-
-
95.0
95.0
75.0
95.0
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.

-
75. 3
65.9
40.0
61.2
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.


21.6
32.1
30.8
43.3
n. r.
n.r.
n.r.

-
,839,512
128,020
73,251
67,298
0
1,600
0
1,164
568,180
112
7X
0X
0H
0X
0X
0K
0!?

360,000
93K
55%
26X
0X
100X
0X
60X

83,951
15%
9X
8X
0X
0K
0X
0%
68X
note (a): Values are in wtJf of total  RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.

       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.

       () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.
Processing Notes

   Incoming  fruit is washed and  residual twigs,  leaves  and stems are  removed
prior to grading.  Graded whole  or halved oranges  are individually  pressed to
remove the juice, which is then  further processed  prior to packaging  as a
frozen concentrate or canned  ready-to-drink juice.   The wastes from the
pressing device contains the  membrane material  (pulp),  seeds, and residual
juice; the peel is generally  removed as a separate byproduct stream.   The
pulp is dried  (11.6 wt% m.c.)  prior to its use  as  a cattle feed.  The peel is
processed to recover essential oils and flavorings,  along with minor  co-
products including pectin.  Residual peel waste (53 wt% m.c.) is also fed to
cattle.  The large amount of  unaccounted for material is due to the failure
to report moisture losses during juice concentration.
                                      A.21

-------
   TABLE A14.    Reported Processing  Volume  (tons/year) for Citrus
                                Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
  TotaI  VoI 	
  (tons/yr)   12345679

   839,512       0       0  656,778      0  19,399      0      0 163,336
   160000
   140000
T
o
n
s

o
f

R
A
C
   120000  -s
100000
 80000 -i
 60000
    40000  -
    20000  -
        n  __*V.WV SVWVVS/ NXVh.V.4.\MVV. .VtfAXh^wX^NvaMXwAV^wXCCwhl^^^vaOl
          Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May Jun   Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct Nov  Dec
                                Month Processed

          FIGURE  A13.   Processing  Volume  (tons/year)  -   Citrus
m Region 9

e Region 7

M, Region 6

H Regions

M Region 4

US Region 3

HI Region 2

D Region 1
                                     A.22

-------
                      Citrus
    Pulp
: iPuip
stabilizer^
  I
 T
                  Citrus from harvest-
                     iGrading and
                     ^washing    ?\
                     iiJuice extractor;;
                      Uuice finisher;
                           T
                                         Culls and  leaves
                                          Peel and seeds
               Juice processing  -  usually evaporated
               and  re-mixed with essence from
               evaporator overhead
iPeel processing for
iioil, pectin, feed
        i
        T
FIGURE A14   RAC Processing  Flowsheet for Citrus Fruit
                            A.23

-------
          COMMODITY:
     PRODUCTS  MADE:
        ANIMALS FED:
       PORTIONS FED:
Coffee
Roasted and  ground coffee beans
None.
NA
                  TABLE  A15.   RAC Utilization Profile for Coffee
                 Moisture Content (wtX)
                       RAC Utilization (see note a)
Min
3.0
10.0
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
n. r.
n. r.


Max
20.0
20.0
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
n. r.
n.r.


Mean
14.6
17.5
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
n. r.
n. r


a Weight
7.0 65,405
4.3 58,565
n.r. 0
n.r. 0
n.r. 0
n.r. 95
n.r. 0
6,745
(0)
Min
2,061
85X
0H
01?
0X
0K
0X
0X
-
Max
31,608
100%
0H
0X
0K
100H
0K
15X

Mean
13,081
90X
0K
0X
0K
0X
0X
10K
0!?
Disposition

         RAC
  Food Product
     Wet Feed
     Dry Feed
  Land Applied
   Land Filled
       Burned
        Other
Unaccounted for
note (a): Values are in wt){ of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are  in total tons/year.
        n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
        () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing Notes
   Green coffee beans are roasted to  remove moisture and  bring out the
characteristic flavor of the coffee.   Solid wastes  are  limited to dust and
spillage from bean  transfer operations.
                                          A.24

-------
 TABLE A16.    Reported Processing  Volume  (tons/year)  for  Coffee

                          Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
Total Vol 	
(tons/yr)   12345679
  65,405
 7000
0  15,236   2,061   16,500
0  31,608
  1000 -
     0 -f
       Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr   May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec

                              Month Processed


        FIGURE  A15  Processing  Volume (tons/year) -   Coffee
                                                                       H Region 9

                                                                       M Region 7

                                                                       H Region 6

                                                                       H Regions

                                                                       %% Region 4

                                                                       H Region 3

                                                                       H Region 2

                                                                       D Region 1
                                  A.25

-------
             Coffee Beans
              Coffee Beans
               -Cleaning
                 T
                               Reject Beans
                Roasting
                              Smoke and burned beans
               iGrinding and
               ipackaging   ^   ;
                               Coffee dust
             Finshed product
FIGURE  A16.  RAC  Processing  Flowsheet  for Coffee
                        A.26

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS  MADE:

       ANIMALS FED:

      PORTIONS FED:
         Cottonseed

         Crude  and refined cottonseed oil

         Dairy  and beef cattle;  hogs.

         Extracted meal and hulls.
              TABLE  A17.   RAC Utilization Profile  for Cottonseed
                Moisture Content  (wt!?)
                              RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Min   Max   Mean
Weight
Min
                                          Max
                                                   Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
8.5
0.0
8.5
0.0
n.r.
9.5
n.r.


12.0
0.0
12.0
10.6
n.r.
9.5
n.r.

-
9.9
0.0
10.3
8.2
n. r.
9.5
n. r.


1.1
0.0
1.8
3.4
n.r.
0.0
n.r.


1,036,662
170,325
112,527
-—-600,725
0
8,475
0
126,391
18,219
28,127
14H
e%
0X
0!?
0X
05f
0X

192,000
18!?
69!?
76!?
0X
100%
08
34%

129,583
16X
11!?
58!?
0%
1!?
0!?
12!?
2!?
note (a): Values are  in wt!( of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are  in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       ()  around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing  Notes

   After  removal of the cotton fibers, cottonseed is  sent to a cottonseed
mill for  oil  extraction.   There, they  are air scalped to  remove dirt  and
other field trash  (9  wt% m.c.) The raw seeds are stripped of the remaining
fibers ("1 inters") in  1-3 passes.  The seeds are then de-hulled to  remove the
tough outer covering  from the seed.  The dehulled seed  is then pressed
through a roller mill  to produce a flake which can be more readily  extracted.
Extraction  is typically by solvent  (hexane)  although  mechanical methods are
also used.   The primary byproducts are the hulls and  the  desolventized  meal,
which are generally fed (10 wt% m.c.).   The 1 inters have  commercial  value as
a source  of low grade cellulose fibers.
                                       A.27

-------
TABLE  A18.    Reported  Processing Volume  (tons/year)  for  Cottonseed

         Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
 Total Vol 	
 (tons/yr)   12345679
 1,036,662     0
0      0
0 891,062       0
                                  0 145,600
  120000
                                                                      M Regions

                                                                      H Region 7

                                                                      H Region 6

                                                                      H Region 5

                                                                      M Region 4

                                                                      H Regions

                                                                      S Region 2

                                                                      d Region 1
         Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun   Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov Dec
                               Month Processed


      FIGURE A17.   Processing  Volume  (tons/year)  -  Cottonseed
                                   A.28

-------
         Cottonseed  (Crude  Oil Production)
                Cottonseed from

                fiber  production
                     .*	      Dirt, stones, sticks and

                 Arr'deanand- '--	-defective- beans	

                 iscreen      '    	^






                       r


                         ,           Linters
                 i        >
                 ,Delmting       t	>•










                                     Hulls

                 Hulling






                       i'


               Conditioning and

               rolling





                       11


                      - -•-           Extracted  meal
                   ;Extract oil	 ^



                                               i
                                               i





                                          Desolventize meal




                                               i






                                        meal for feeding;
                                               i
                                               i
                                               i

                                               T
              Crude Cottonseed Oil     Processed meal
FIGURE  A18.   RAC  Processing  Flowsheet  for  Cottonseed
                               A.29

-------
          COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS  MADE:

        ANIMALS FED:

       PORTIONS FED:
          Cucumbers

          Pickles

          None.

          NA
Disposition
                TABLE  A19.   RAC Utilization Profile for  Cucumbers
                 Moisture Content (wtX)
                                 RAC Utilization (see note a)
Win    Max   Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
85.0
85.0
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
85.0
n.r.


95.0
85.0
n.r.
n.r.
n. r.
85.0
n.r.


90.0
85.0
n.r.
n. r.
n. r.
85.0
n.r.


5.0
0.0
n. r.
n.r.
n.r.
0.0
n.r.


18,815
18,001
0
0
0
694
0
0
120
6,940
90X
0!?
m
0X
0X
0H
0X

11,875
99!?
0H
0X
0!?
100X
0X
0K

9,408
96X
0!?
0H
0!?
4X
0X
0X
IX
note (a): Values are in wtX of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year
        n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
        () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing Notes

   The small  amount  of  waste reported  for cucumbers  is primarily off-grade
material not  suitable for pickling.  The only  reported end-use of  this waste
was  land filling.
                                          A.30

-------
      TABLE  A20.    Reported  Processing  Volume  (tons/year)  for Cucumbers
               Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
      Total Vol
       (tons/yr)   1
        18,815
        12000
	15000  - —
0  18,815
              Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May Jun   Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct   Nov  Dec
                                    Month Processed

            FIGURE  A19.   Processing Volume  (tons/year)  -  Cucumbers
                                                                             ED Region 9
                                                                             Si Region 7
                                                                             M Region 6
                                                                             H Region 5
                                                                             W* Region 4
                                                                             H Region 3
                                                                             M Region 2
                                                                             D Region 1
                                        A.31

-------
                        Cucumbers  (for  Pickles)
      Pickle Line
        Blanching
                          Cucumber harvest
         Sorting
                        Undersized

       Size sorting











        Washing








                    !    Culls
       Sorting       ;	^.




                            Relish  Line









                            	y




                               Fermentation








Culls            Waste

                                Desalting
     Canning and cooking
                                 Canning and

                                 cooking
                                   Product
FIGURE A20.   RAC Processing Flowsheet for Cucumbers
                            A.32

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS  MADE:


       ANIMALS FED:

      PORTIONS FED:
         Dried  Beans and  Peas

         Canned beans, dried  beans and  peas,  specialty
         products.

         Hogs,  cattle, poultry

         Split  beans and  other culls,  leaves,  bean chips,
         TABLE A21.   RAC Utilization Profile  for Dried Beans  and Peas
                Moisture Content (wtK)
                               RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Win   Max   Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl led
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
3.0
3.0
12.0
10.0
12.0
10.0
n.r.
-

93.0
21.0
12.0
16.0
21.0
15.4
n.r.


15.5
13.3
12.0
11.7
15.3
12.9
n.r.


13.0
3.5
0.0
2.0
2.6
2.0
n. r

-
133,288
124,395
1,505
5,603
838
1,040
0
59
(152)
8
73X
0X
0X
0!?
0%
0%
0X

15,000
100%
27X
20X
4X
100!?
0X
0X

3,418
93X
IX
4!?
IX
1%
0X
0K
0%
note (a): Values are  in wtX of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       ()  around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing  Notes

   Incoming peas and  beans are generally received  free of foliage.  A variety
of methods  are  used to  clean and sort  the beans,  including  aspiration, air
scalping, etc.   The beans  are then  inspected, and  may be cooked  and filled
(canned beans)  or air dried (dry packaged beans).   Byproducts  are primarily
derived from screening  and cleaning  operations.   Some of this  waste material
(from primary cleaning  operations)  is  landfilled since it is  high in dirt
content.  The remainder is fed.
                                       A.33

-------
TABLE  A22.    Reported Processing  Volume  (tons/year) for Dry beans &  Peas

                      Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
    Total Vol	
    (tons/yr)    12345679

     133,288    200    269   9,284  25,933  31,015   15,000   23,128   28,459
     50000
     45000
  R  20000
  A
  C
     15000
     10000
      5000
            _
         Q  _JW-W A
HE Region 9

B Region 7

B Region 6

H Region 5

M Region 4

H Region 3

S Region 2

CH Region 1
           Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr   May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep   Oct   Nov  Dec
                                  Month Processed

       FIGURE A21.   Processing  Volume  (tons/year)  -   Dry beans & peas
                                        A.34

-------
                  Dry Beans
                 Dry Bean Storage
                  ,Air scalping,
                  ^screening
Dirt,  undersize beans
                   Bean soaking
                                    Defective beans
                     Washing"
                                     Defective  beans
                   IBIanching and
                   iinspection
 Bean skins,  defective beans
                    Filling and
                    cooking
                        T
             Canned beans & bean products
FIGURE A22.  RAC Processing Flowsheet  for Dried  Beans  and Peas
                                  A.35

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS MADE:

       ANIMALS  FED:



      PORTIONS  FED:
         Grapes

         Wine; grape  spirits; grape  juice; fruit cocktail.

         Grape solids tend to be  high  in tannic acids  and do
         not make  suitable feeding material.  However,  one
         processor reported feeding  pomace to hogs.

         Pomace
Disposition
                   TABLE A23.  RAC  Utilization Profile for Grapes
                Moisture Content (wtX)
                              RAC Utilization (see note a)
Min   Max   Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
»et Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
64.0
64.0
80.0
n.r.
75.0
75.0
n.r.


90.0
90.0
80.0
n.r.
90.0
82.0
n. r.


81.1
80.8
80.0
n.r.
81.1
78.5
n.r.


6.3
8.5
0.0
n.r.
4.3
3.5
n.r.


170,001
149,962
3,629
0
10,748
4,764
0
864
35
7
64X
e%
0X
0S
0K
0X
0H

65,124
97*
6X
n
36X
100X
n
6K

8,500
88X
2X
0K
6!!
3!!
m
i%
0X
note (a): Values are in wtif of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       ()  around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing Notes

   Depending  on  harvesting methods, grapes arrive for processing with some
leaves and stems.   Leave and  stem waste  is generally landfilled.  Juice and
wine making  operations  produce pomace, which  may contain some filter aids
such as rice  hulls or paper.   Small portions  of other semi-solid wastes
include tank  sludge  and lees,  which were not  reported in the survey but are
universal to  grape processing.  These wastes  are high in tartaric acid and
generally landfilled.
Additional  Comments

   Grape  processing is  extremely seasonal,  with
typically lasting slightly more than 30  days.
                                    the main  processing season
                                       A.36

-------
     TABLE  A24.    Reported Processing Volume (tons/year)  for Grapes

                     Processing Volume in Survey Region  (tons RAC/yr)
   Total Vol		
    (tons/yr)    1234S679

     170,001     107  22,222      0   1,843

   100000



    90000
R   40000
A
C
    30000
    10000
0    437  145,393
          Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May Jun   Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec

                                Month Processed


           FIGURE  A23.   Processing Volume (tons/year)  -   Grapes
                      ID Region 9

                      m Region 7

                      H Region 6

                      Hi Region 5

                      ^ Region 4

                      H Region 3

                      H Region 2

                      d Region 1
                                      A.37

-------
   Grapes for Wine  & Juice
     Grape Harvest
     iCrusing and
     ^stemming
       Pressing
                     Pomace
    Juice to further
    processing
         T
Wine, Grape Juice
        Grapes for Canning  & Freezing
                                                          Grape Harvest
                     Stem Waste         Stem  Waste
Culls
               Stemming
                                                               T
^Washing and
jsorting
                 Canning
                                                             Cooking
                                                          Canned Grapes
        FIGURE  A24.   RAC  Processing  Flowsheet for Grapes
                               A.38

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS MADE:

       ANIMALS  FED:

      PORTIONS  FED:
         Green beans  (includes  snap beans, wax  beans)

         Canned  and  frozen beans

         Cattle,  sheep,  goats,  hogs

         Off-size beans, culls,  leaves/stems, weeds and snipped
         bean ends.   Aggregate  average m.c.  is  85  wt%.
             TABLE A25.  RAC  Utilization Profile for Green  Beans
                Moisture Content (wtX)
                               RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Min   Max
Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
80.0
0.0
60.0
n.r.
80.0
n.r.
n. r.

-
93.0
93.0
93.0
n.r
85.0
n.r.
n.r.


88.6
75.9
88.0
n.r.
82.5
n.r.
n.r.


3.9
31.3
4.5
n.r.
2.5
n.r.
n.r.


210,071
161,338
26,316
0
18,442
1,775
0
2,219
(19)
83
67X
0X
0!!
0X
0!?
0X
0!?

48,004
100X
SIX
0X
27X
100X
0X
15X

11,056
77*
13X
0X
9X
IX
0x
IX
0X
note (a): Values are in wtX of total RAC,  except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       ()  around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing Notes

   Harvested  beans,  including varying degrees  of foliage,  are air blown  to
remove loose  leaves  and dirt, washed, and  cut  from the  vines with a cluster
cutter.   A second air scalping step removes undersized  beans, and the
remaining beans  are  washed again, end-snipped, inspected  and graded.
Following a final  removal  of  any remaining stems, the beans  are cut for
packaging, and  undersized  cut pieces are  removed.  The  beans are then
blanched  and  packaged,  either in cans or  frozen.  The wastes include  the stem
and leaf  waste  from  the various cleaning  steps, as well as  culled beans  and
undersized beans and pieces.
                                       A.39

-------
 TABLE A26.    Reported Processing  Volume  (tons/year)  for  Green beans

                    Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
   Total Vol	
   (tons/yr)    12345679
    210,071
0  25,168     83  127,610   11,022
0  46,190
   90000
   80000
   70000
T  60000
0
n
s
o
f
   50000
   40000
R
A
C  30000
   20000
   10000
                                                         fflE Region 9

                                                         e Region 7

                                                         M Region 6

                                                         H Regions

                                                         M Region 4

                                                         H Region 3

                                                         H Region 2

                                                         D Region 1
         Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul -  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec
                               Month Processed

        FIGURE  A25.  Processing  Volume  (tons/year) -   Green  beans
                                      A.40

-------
       Green Beans
    -Green-Bean-harvest-
    .„ ..SortanoLwash
          ^nipper
       i Inspection,   "  '
       "  cutting and ,
       ^grading    }
        jBlanching
           Canning
            Cooking
                            Leaves, stems, dirt
                            and stones
                             Stem and end waste
Off-grade material, small pieces,
wood and weeds
                                Frozen Green  Beans
                               	»1
                                  Blanching
                                        T
                                                      Solids
          Freezer
               To packaging and storage
FIGURE  A26.   RAC  Processing Flowsheet  for Green  Beans
                               A.41

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS MADE:

       ANIMALS  FED:

      PORTIONS  FED:
         Green  (sweet)  peas  (includes snow peas).

         Canned  and IQF peas and  vegetable mixtures,

         Beef cattle and hogs

         Pods,  stems/leaves, culls,  spillage.
              TABLE  A27.   RAC Utilization Profile  for Green Peas
                Moisture Content  (wtX)
                               RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Min   Max   Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
53.0
0.0
0.0
n. r.
0.0
n.r.
n.r.
-
-
92.0
92.0
90.0
n.r.
92.0
n. r.
n.r.
-

79.5
67.8
68.1
n.r.
55.7
n.r.
n.r.
-

9.1
30.3
33.3
n.r.
40.0
n.r.
n.r.


144,684
126,641
16,495
0
938
0
0
613
(2)
390
76X
0K
0X
m
0x
vt,
0x
-
17,000
95H
24X
0X
20!!
100X
0X
3X

5,565
88X
11X
0K
IX
0X
0X
0X
0X
note (a): Values are in wtX of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing Notes

   Harvested  green peas  (which  may  include  pods and some  stem/leaf waste)  is
air cleaned to  remove trash  and loose  pea  skins, washed,  sorted and blanched.
This may be followed by  a  second air cleaning to remove  split peas and  skins
loosened by the blanching  process,  as  well  as a second,  visual inspection.
Waste from the  washing,  sorting, blanching  and reinspection  steps is  often
combined and  is treated  separately  from  the waste stream  generated by the
preliminary air cleaning.
Notes & Comments
   Pea vines,  pods, and  stems are generally left in  the field.
in-plant wastes are also land applied.
                                                     Some  of  the
                                       A.42

-------
TABLE A28.    Reported  Processing Volume  (tons/year) for Green  peas

                   Processing Volume  in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
 Total Vol	
 (tons/yr)   12345679
  144,684
   80000
   70000
   60000
   50000
n
s
O  40000
f
R
   30000
   20000
   10000
0   1,605
0 101,228
0      0  41,851
                                                          Hffl Region 9

                                                          s Region 7

                                                          H Region 6

                                                          Hi Region 5

                                                          W* Region 4

                                                          H Region 3

                                                          H Region 2

                                                          [H Region 1
         Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul   Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec

                                Month Processed


       FIGURE A27.   Processing Volume (tons/year) -   Green peas
                                    A.43

-------
                  Green Peas
                 Pea harvest
                   ,Air scalpers
                   Washing
                (Blanching and ,
                'sorting     j;
      Canned Peas
                     Canning
                     Cooking
                       T
                                     Leaves, stems and pods
                                    Splits,  debris, and dirt
 Off-grade material


     Frozen Peas
	>1
                                            Freezer
                       To packaging  and storage
FIGURE A28.  RAC Processing Flowsheet  for  Green  Peas
                            A.44

-------
         COMMODITY:


     PRODUCTS  MADE:

       ANIMALS FED:

      PORTIONS FED:
         Spinach and other greens  (includes col lard and turnip
         greens).

         Canned  or frozen  greens.

         Cattle  and hogs

         Reject  leaves,  small solids  separated  from blanching
         water.
       TABLE A29.   RAC Utilization Profile for Spinach and Other Greens
                Moisture Content (wtX)
                               RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Min   Max   Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
90.0
91.0
90.0
n.r
91.0
n.r.
n. r.
-
-
91.0
91.0
91.0
n.r.
91.0
n.r.
n.r.


90.3
91.0
90.5
n.r.
91.0
n.r.
n.r.


0.5
0.0
0.5
n. r.
0.0
n. r.
n.r.


21,898
16,220
3,308
875
1,380
115
0
0
0
174
61X
0X
0X
0/5
0X
0X
0X

16,680
100K
39X
30X
ex
100H
0H
0K

3,650
74X
15X
4!?
&%
IX
m
w
0X
note (a): Values are in wtH of total  RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r  indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing  Notes

   Harvested greens  are dry (air) cleaned  to  remove  dirt, insects,  then
inspected to remove  defective  leaves and weeds.  The inspected greens are
then washed to remove  any remaining dirt,  and are blanched prior  to chopping
and filling.  Wastes  and byproducts (91 wt% m.c.) are derived from the
inspection  and filling steps.
                                        A.45

-------
 TABLE A30.    Reported Processing Volume (tons/year)  for Greens

                 Processing Volume in Survey Region  (tons RAC/yr)
Tota I  Vo I ——	
(tons/yr)    12345679
  21,898
 6000
0   "354 	789   20,755
0      0
       Jan   Feb  Mar  Apr  May Jun   Jul   Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec

                             Month Processed


       FIGURE A29.   Processing  Volume  (tons/year) -  Greens
                                                                      H Region 9

                                                                      M Region 7

                                                                      § Region 6

                                                                      H Region 5

                                                                      0% Region 4

                                                                      11 Region 3

                                                                      H Region 2

                                                                      D Region 1
                                  A.46

-------
           Canned and Frozen Greens
                 Harvest
                 Washing
                 ^Inspection
                iBIanching;
                   Canning
                    Cooking
                                        Loose leaves, weeds, and dirt
                                              Off-grade material
                                       Frozen  Greens
                                         Blanching
                                                           Solids
Freezer
                       To packaging and storage
FIGURE A30.   RAC  Processing  Flowsheet  for Spinach  and  Other Greens
                                     A.47

-------
          COMMODITY:
     PRODUCTS MADE:
       ANIMALS  FED:
      PORTIONS  FED:
Lima  Beans
Frozen  and  canned  lima beans and  vegetable blends
Beef  and dairy cattle, hogs
Pods,  weeds,  culls  and undersize  pieces
               TABLE A31.   RAC  Utilization Profile for Lima  Beans
                 Moisture Content  (wtX)
                       RAC Utilization  (see note a)
Disposition
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
Min
12.0
12.0
65.0
n.r.
12.0
n.r.
n.r.

-
Max
85.0
85.0
85.0
n. r.
85.0
n.r.
n. r.


Mean
67.1
63.6
77. 0
n.r.
48.5
n. r.
n. r.
-
-
a
23.7
26.7
8.6
n. r.
36.5
n.r.
n.r.


Weight
9,270
8,428
682
0
130
0
0
30
(0)
Min
141
80X
0X
0X
0K
0X
0X
B%

Max
3,927
95X
20X
0!?
16X
100X
0!?
IX

Mean
1,030
91X
7X
0!?
IX
0X
e%
0X
0X
note (a):  Values are in wtit of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total  tons/year
        n.r.  indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
        () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.
Processing Notes
   See  entry for "Green Beans"
                                          A.48

-------
TABLE  A32.    Reported  Processing Volume (tons/year) for Lima  beans

                  Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
 Total Vol 	——	
 (tons/yr)    1      2      3       4      S      6      7      9
   9,270      0     141
   4500
4,308      0       0   4,821      0
        Jan  Feb   Mar  Apr  May  Jun   Jul  Aug   Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec

                               Month Processed


      FIGURE A31.   Processing Volume (tons/year)  -   Lima beans
                                                                        m Region 9

                                                                        ii Region 7

                                                                        M Region 6

                                                                        H Region 5

                                                                        W,. Region 4

                                                                        H Region 3

                                                                        H Region 2

                                                                        D Region 1
                                   A.49

-------
               Lima Beans
            Lima Bean Harvest
              Air scalpers
                   T
                Washing
             Blanching and
             ;sorting
                  Canning
                  Cooking
                               Leaves, stems, beans and pods
                                 Splits, debris, and  dirt
                                 Off-grade  material
          To packaging and storage
FIGURE A32.   RAC  Processing  Flowsheet for Lima  Beans
                            A.50

-------
         COMMODITY:


     PRODUCTS MADE:

       ANIMALS  FED:

      PORTIONS  FED:
         Barley malt,  hops  and other cereal  grains used to
         produce alcoholic  beverages.

         Beer, distilled  liquor, malt.

         Cattle, poultry,  sheep.

         Dried  (9 wt%  m.c.)  or wet  (74 wt%  m.c.)  distiller's
       - -spent- grain-.
            TABLE  A33.   RAC Utilization Profile for Malt  Products
                Moisture Content (wtX)
                              RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Win   Max   Mean
Weight
Min
Max
                                                  Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Fi 1 led
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
4.0
11.0
4.0
6.0
n.r.
n.r.
n. r.


13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
n.r.
n.r.
n. r.


9.7
12.3
9.0
11.2
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
-

2.9
0.7
3.2
1.9
n.r.
n.r.
n. r.


1,241,481
623,812
229,054
93,741
0
8,567
0
254,230
32,077
259
0X
0X
0H
0X
0X
0X
0K

237,984
88X
100X
37%
0X
100X
0H
66X

62,074
50X
18X
8K
0X
IX
0X
20X
3X
note (a): Values are in wttf of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       ()  around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing Notes

   In the malting  process,  air-scalped barley is cleaned, graded, and then
steeped to induce  germination  of the  grains.  The  germinated grain is then
dried to  stop growth and enzyme  activity.  The dried  malt is then used
(either in-house  or by second  party)  as the basis  for brewing beer.  The
malt, along with  other cereal  grains  and hops, are  extracted to remove
fermentable sugars and flavoring.   The byproducts  are the spent brewer's  (or
spent distiller's) grain, which  may be used either  wet or dry.  Other
byproducts are  derived from the  barley malt drying  process, and from the
grain cleaning  operations.
Additional Comments

   Although  the malting of barley (usually for beer)  is a distinct process
from the production of cereal mash (usually for distilled spirits), most  of
the surveys  tended to lump all  of the ingredients  together.  Since most of
the byproducts  are very similar in character and end  use, they are reported
under a single  heading.

                                       A.51

-------
  .TABLE A34. ' 'Reported  Processing Volume  (tons/year)  for  Malt

                 Processing Volume  in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
Total Vol	"—'	~-^~	•—
(tons/yr)  .1      2      3       4      5      6      7      9

997,153   72,099 124,841   39,532 122,759    8,140       0  231,916  417,866
  120000
  100000 -
         Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun   Jul  Aug Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec
                               Month Processed

           FIGURE  A33.   Processing Volume (tons/year)  -  Malt
                                                                        M Region 9

                                                                        H Region 7

                                                                        H Region 6

                                                                        ^ Region 5

                                                                        WA Region 4

                                                                        H Regions

                                                                        M Region 2

                                                                        D Region 1
                                     A.52

-------
           Beer and Other  Beverages
              Barley, other grains
                  iAir clean grain;
                                    Dirt, stones, undersize grain
                       V

                 Malting (may be
                 done by second
                 party)




                                      Tramp metal, trash
                   Malt cleaner;



                     	\ <	


                     Masher





                                       Spent brewer's grains
                      Lauter        	^.





                                       Yeast waste
                     Fermentation    	^






                      ....   .            Yeast, protein  waste
                      Filtration                 r
                        Beer

FIGURE A34.   RAC Processing  Flowsheet for Malt Products
                              A.53

-------
         COMMODITY:
     PRODUCTS MADE:
Miscellaneous  Fruit.  This category includes a variety
of fruits including papaya,  kiwi,  and other tropical
fruits  which could not  be reported individually
because it would reveal  potentially proprietary data.
This  category  also includes  respondents for which no
individual RAC's were identified  in the survey.
The fruits reported here are processed to  make fruit
purees.
       ANIMALS FED:
      PORTIONS FED:
Beef  cattle
Culls and pomace (80 wt% m.c.)
         TABLE A35.   RAC Utilization  Profile for Miscellaneous Fruit
                Moisture Content (wtJf)
                      RAC Utilization  (see note a)
Win
71.9
0.0
0.0
n.r.
n. r.
71.9
n. r.
_

Max
92.0
92.0
92.0
n.r.
n.r.
85.0
n. r.


Mean
84.7
72.7
60.3
n.r.
n.r.
79.6
n.r.
-

cr
6.1
30.3
42.7
n. r.
n.r.
5.6
n. r.
-
_
Weight
193,623
156,695
4,693
0
0
31,498
0
636
102
Min
745
17X
0H
ex
0K
0X
0X
0K

Max
180,000
85%
74X
0X
0!!
100X
0X
9X

Mean
24,203
81X
2%

-------
Total Vol -
(tons/yr)
193,623
3000 -y



_
o
h
s
01 c^nn
IDUU
f
R
A
c 1000 -

500 -
n
Processing Volune in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
1 2
0 0
„

345679
00000 193,623


/
1
I

I

ill

...

\
\












Hffl Region9
i= Region 7

S Region 6

H Region 5
H Region 4
H Region 3

S Region 2
D Region 1

UlUiilillU
  Jan   Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun   Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec
                       Month Processed

FIGURE A35.   Processing Volume (tons/year)  -  Misc fruit
                           A.55

-------
             Fruit processing  operations
             for  "Miscellaneous  Fruits" are
             not shown since  process
             specifics  were not reported.

             For general processing
             flowsheet for fruits,  see
             pears or berries,  as these  are
             representative of
             many  fruits.
FIGURE A36.  RAC Processing Flowsheet for Miscellaneous Fruit
                           A.56

-------
         COMMODITY:



     PRODUCTS MADE:

       ANIMALS  FED:

      PORTIONS  FED:
         Miscellaneous vegetables  (includes broccoli,
         cauliflower,  okra, turnip  roots and mixed
         corn/peas/beans)

         Canned  and  frozen vegetables

         Beef and  dairy cattle,  hogs,  sheep

         broccoli  butts and discolored florets,  leaves,
         cauliflower cores and  leaves, defective  vegetables,
       TABLE A37.  RAC  Utilization  Profile for Miscellaneous Vegetables
                Moisture Content (wtX)
                              RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Min   Max   Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
78.0
78.0
80.0
n. r.
0.0
78.0
n. r.


95.0
95.0
90.0
n. r.
85.0
78.0
n. r.


86.5
84.6
83.8
n. r.
42.5
78.0
n. r.


6.2
5.7
3.7
n.r.
42.5
0.0
n. r.


402,653
198,057
176,419
0
22,035
135
0
5,837
170
180
23!!
0X
0X
0!!
0!!
0X
0!!

40,740
98K
74X
0!?
6!!
100!!
0!!
9X

33,554
49!!
44!!
0!!
5!!
0!!
0!!
1!!
0!!
note (a): Values are in wtK of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       ()  around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing Notes

   This category  includes vegetables processed for canned and  frozen
products, but which were not  represented  in  sufficient quantities to treat  as
individual commodities.  This  category also  includes responses which reported
their data without distinguishing between  RACs.   An approximate  breakdown of
RACs included in  this category is: mixed  corn/beans/peas/beets,  375,000 tpy;
cauliflower,  24,000 tpy; okra,  1,300 tpy;  broccoli, 1,100 tpy; rhubarb, 1,000
tpy; turnip roots, 670  tpy;  and tomatillos,  380  tpy.
                                       A.57

-------
TABLE  A38.    Reported  Processing Volume  (tons/year) for  Misc vegetables

                     Processing Volutte in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
    Total Vol	.	——	
    (tons/yr)    12345879
                              0   49,210   1,981      0 351,081     382
         o -f
                                                                         BE Region 9

                                                                         H Region 7

                                                                         H Region 6

                                                                         H Region 5

                                                                         W* Region 4

                                                                         H Region 3

                                                                         H Region 2

                                                                         CH Region 1
           Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun   Jul  Aug  Sep   Oct  Nov  Dec

                                 Month Processed


      FIGURE  A37.  Processing  Volume  (tons/year)  -   Misc  vegetables
                                      A.58

-------
          Canned and Frozen Vegetables
                   Canning
                    Cooking
                      T
            Vegetable harvest





                                            Culls and undersize

                 Grading







                                             Stems, leaves, and dirt
                  Washing






                                              Off-grade material
                 ^Inspection;

                                        Frozen Vegetables

                                        	&h
                                                V __^__^

                                                            Solids

                Blanching                  Blanching
Freezer
                       To packaging and storage
FIGURE  A38.   RAC Processing Flowsheet  for Miscellaneous  Vegetables
                                      A.59

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS  MADE:

       ANIMALS FED:

      PORTIONS FED:
         Mushrooms

         Canned & IQF mushrooms

         None.

         NA
               TABLE A39.   RAC Utilization Profile for Mushrooms
                Moisture Content (wtH)
                               RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Min   Max   Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
65.0
85.0
n.r.
n. r.
n. r.
n. r.
n.r.


93.0
93.0
n.r.
n.r
n.r
n.r
n.r


90.8 3.3
90.3 3.8
n.r. n. r.
n. r. n.r.
n. r. n.r.
n. r. n.r.
n. r. n.r.
-
-
7,451
5,246
0
0
0
107
0
2,098
(0)
201
60X
0H
0H
0K
0X
0!?
0X

4,344
99X
0X
0X
0!?
100!?
0!?
38S

1,863
70X
0!?
0!!
0X
1!?
0!?
28X
0X
note (a): Values are in wtK of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       ()  around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing  Notes

   Mushroom processing  operations  consist  of  the familiar  sequence of
washing,  sorting,  (slicing) and  packaging.  Both canned  and  IQF mushrooms are
represented in the  survey.  Wastes consist of small pieces  screened  from the
wash water,  dirt, defective mushrooms and  reject batches.   No waste  moisture
content data was available from  the survey responses, but  this type  of waste
material  would be expected to  have similar moisture levels  as the raw
commodity (91 wt% m.c.).  All  reported wastes were landfilled.
                                        A.60

-------
TABLE  A40.    Reported  Processing  Volume  (tons/year)  for Mushrooms


                 Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
Tota I Vo I		:	
(tons/yr)   12345679
    0  -f
      Jan  Feb  Mar   Apr   May  Jun  Jul   Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec

                             Month Processed



     FIGURE A39.  Processing  Volume (tons/year)  -   Mushrooms
                                                                     ED Region 9

                                                                     M Region 7

                                                                     H Region 6

                                                                     H Regions

                                                                     W* Region 4

                                                                     H Region 3

                                                                     H Region 2

                                                                     D Region 1
                                 A.61

-------
                Mushrooms
              Mushroom Harvest
                    Cooler
                     T
                ^Washing and
                iinspection
                     T
                    Slicing
                  Canning or
                  freezing
                                   Dirt and  stones
                                  Dirt  and defective mushrooms
                                  Small pieces
         Product packaging and  storage
FIGURE A40.   RAC  Processing Flowsheet for Mushrooms
                           A.62

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS MADE:

       ANIMALS  FED:

      PORTIONS  FED:
Olives

Brined  canned olives

None  reported.

NA
                TABLE  A41.   RAC Utilization Profile for Olives
                Moisture Content  (wtX)
                      RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Min   Max   Mean
                                      Weight
                         Min
Max
Mean
:^==^==
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
n.r
n. r.
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
n. r.

-
n.r.
n. r.
n.r.
n.r.
n. r.
n.r.
n.r.


83.0
83.0
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.


n.r.
n.r.
n. r.
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.


18,338
13,020
0
0
0
367
4,951
0
0
n.r.
n.r.
0X
0K
0K
n.r.
n.r.
e%

n.r.
n.r.
0K
0K
0X
n. r.
n. r.
0!?

18,338
715f
0K
0X
0X
2%
27X
0H
0X
note (a): Values are in wtH of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       ()  around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing Notes

   Slightly under-ripe  olives are sized and sorted to eliminate culls  and
undersize olives.   Sorted  olives are stored in brine  for processing  to extend
the processing  season.   Stored olives  are pitted and  inspected, and  may be
canned either whole or  sliced.  Byproducts  consist of pits, culls, and
undersize olives,  along with leaves that may have been shipped with  the raw
olives.   The  leaves and some of the undersized olives are landfilled,  and the
remainder of  the wastes (51 wt% m.c.)  are burned for  process heat.

Additional Comments

   Survey statistical data was omitted  to protect against disclosure of
confidential  business information.
                                       A.63

-------
TABLE A42. Rep
Pro
Tnf 3 1 Vn 1
orted Processing Volume (tons/year) for Olives
cessing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
(tons/yr) 1234
18,338 800
ocnn

i ,
T jl
o
1500 -
s
o
f
R 1000 -
A
C
500 -
n
;
5679
0000 18,338

I!
I
I I
I


	 i
i
llTrrr^
IK J
IM!

HIQ Region 9
si Region 7
=== Rpninn fi
M Region 5
H Region 4
^ Regions
H Region 2
D Region 1

Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov Dec
                     Month Processed

FIGURE  A41.   Processing Volume  (tons/year)  -  Olives
                         A.64

-------
                          Olives
Storage in
holding
tanks
                     Olives from
                     harvest or storage
jSize and sort;
                           Brining
                           Pitting
                         Inspection;
                          Canning and
                          cooking
                   Culls and undersize
                                           Pit waste
                                           Defective olives
       FIGURE  A42.   RAC Processing Flowsheet  for Olives
                                  A.65

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS  MADE:
Onions

Onion  rings; specialty  sauces; IQF  baby onions;
pickled/brined  onions.
       ANIMALS FED:     Cattle  and hogs.

      PORTIONS FED:     Skins,  roots, tops,  weeds  and culls.


                 TABLE A43.   RAC Utilization  Profile  for Onions
                Moisture Content (wtX)
                      RAC Utilization  (see note a)
Disposition
RAC
Food Product
«et Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
Min
87.5
88.0
88.0
n. r.
88.0
92.0
n.r.


Max
92.0
92.0
88.0
n.r.
88.0
92.0
n.r.
-

Mean
89.2
90.0
88.0
n. r
88.0
92.0
n.r.

-
cr
2.0
2.0
0.0
n. r.
0.0
0.0
n.r.


Weight Min
10,109 1,055
6,423 49X
2,058 0X
540 0!?
109 0!?
42 0!?
0 0!?
937 0X
0
Max
5,067
96!?
46!?
30!?
5!?
100!?
0X
18!?

Mean
2,527
64X
20!?
5X
IX
0!!
0!?
9!?
0!?
note (a): Values are in wtJf of total RAC,  except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing  Notes

   Onions for canning  are stripped of  their  outer skin, blanched and  canned.

Additional  Comments

   Relatively little information was provided  by onion  processors  responding
   to the survey.
                                        A.66

-------
 TABLE A44.    Reported Processing Volume  (tons/year)  for Onions

                 Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
Total Vol 	
(tons/yr)   12345679
     0  -r
            0      0
0   2,187    1,800      0   5,067   1,055
      Jan   Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun   Jul   Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec
                             Month Processed


        FIGURE A43.  Processing  Volume  (tons/year) -   Onions
                                                                       Hffl Regions

                                                                       is Region 7

                                                                       H Region 6

                                                                       H Region 5

                                                                       ^ Region 4

                                                                       H Region 3

                                                                       H Region 2

                                                                       D Region 1
                                   A.67

-------
                Onions for IQF
                  Onion Harvest
                  jAir scalping;
                   'Inspection;
                     ^Topping
                                   Dirt, stones,  tops and roots
                                     Roots, skins, tops and undersize
                                     Culls,  foriegn material
Washing
i
r
Blanching
i

^Inspection;
^
r
Freezing
                                    Loose skins, onions w/root hairs
                    Frozen Onions
FIGURE  A44.   RAC  Processing Flowsheet for Onions
                           A.68

-------
         COMMODITY:     Peaches (includes  apricots and nectarines)

     PRODUCTS MADE:     Canned halved/sliced/diced peaches  and fruit cocktail;
                        wine.
       ANIMALS FED:     Beef cattle.

      PORTIONS FED:     Culls, leaves,  "wet waste"  (settled  solids, etc)


               TABLE A45.   RAC Utilization  Profile for Peaches
               Moisture Content (wt!f)
                              RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Win   Max
Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
85.0
85.0
85.0
n.r.
87.0
87.0
90.0


91.0
89.0
90.0
n. r.
91.0
87.0
90.0


88.0
86.9
87.6
n. r.
89.3
87.0
90.0


1.9
1.5
2.2
n. r.
1.7
0.0
0.0


532,510
422,311
15,903
0
40,880
23,784
20,059
10,813
(1,240)
3
59K
0X
0X
0H
0X
B%
0X

86,696
92X
27X
0X
26X
100X
7X
16X

23,153
79H
3X
0K
8X
4X
4X
2X
0K
note (a): Values are in wt!( of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing Notes

   Harvested peaches are generally  hydrocooled  (immersed in water to  reduce
their temperature quickly)  and  may  be stored in  cold  storage prior to
processing.  Attached leaves  are removed and the fruit is inspected and
graded to eliminate decay and split  fruit prior  to pitting.  Several
processing plants reported  either using the pits (38  wt% mean m.c.) as  fuel
or selling them  as a fuel to  a  second party.  The  halved, pitted fruit  is
peeled (steam  or caustic peeling methods are both  used).  The peel waste is
often discharged to the gutter  for treatment (ie.,  pH neutralization  of  the
caustic used for peeling) and is recovered on the  wastewater screen along
with other solids from the  process.   Peel waste  was not reported as a
component of the livestock  feed, but rather was  either land applied or
landfilled.  The mean m.c.  of the aggregate non-feed  waste was 80-87  wt%.
                                       A.69

-------
TABLE A46.    Reported Processing  Volume (tons/year)  for Peaches
Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
Tnt 3 ] Vn 1
(tons/yr) 12345679
532,510
300000 -,
250000 -
T 200000 -
o
n
s
o 150000 -
f
R
A
C 100000 -
50000 -
n
300 5,032 5,120 0 800 521,555

1
I
1
I

1
I
1
j
t
A
\ LilllllH ,|| : iLL.
/
1







S%^j^xM 11IK 1
      Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec
                           Month Processed

      FIGURE A45.   Processing Volume  (tons/year) -  Peaches
                                                                JUD Regions
                                                                H Region 7
                                                                H Region 6
                                                                H Region 5
                                                                M Region 4
                                                                H Regions
                                                                H Region 2
                                                                EH Region 1
                                A.70

-------
                     Peaches
                      Peach Harvest
                         Dump Tank
These steps
may be-repeated -
2-3  times
                                              Leaves
Sizing
                             T
                           Pitting
                         ijSorting and ,
                         trimming  |
                   Undersize
                                              Pits
                                              Culls  and trim  waste
                            Cutting
                                          Small  pieces
                       Canning and cooking
                Canned  peaches and  fruit cocktail
 FIGURE A46.   RAC Processing Flowsheet  for  Peaches
                            A.71

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS MADE:

       ANIMALS  FED:

      PORTIONS  FED:
         Peanuts

         Peanut  butter, peanut oil, shelled peanuts

         Cattle,  hogs, poultry

         Meal  (from oil processes) and  hulls; skins,  hearts,
                TABLE A47.   RAC Utilization Profile  for Peanuts
Disposition
                Moisture Content (wtJf)
                               RAC Utilization (see note a)
Min   Max
Mean
Height
Min
Max
Mean
=^==^=-^1
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
6.7
6.7
n.r.
6.8
8.0
n.r.
n.r.
-

10.0
10.0
n.r.
6.8
8.0
n.r.
n.r.


7.7
7.9
n.r
6.8
8.0
n.r.
n.r


1.2
1.3
n.r.
n.r.
0.0
n.r.
n.r.

-
108,803
91,046
0
7,376
1,879
723
7,405
543
(168)
1,750
33X
0%
0X
0X
0X
0K
0K

45,394
96%
0X
60S
10X
100X
228
5X

18,134
84X
0X
7X
2X
IK
7H
0H
0!!
note (a): Values are  in wtX of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       ()  around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing  Notes

   Peanuts  processed  for peanut  oil  are air cleaned, hulled  and cooked  prior
to pressing and solvent extraction.   The primary byproducts  are the hulls  and
the desolventized peanut meal, which  can be used for cattle  feed.  The  hulls
may also  be used for  non-feed uses  (ie, horse  bedding was one reported  use)
or burned.   Peanuts for other products  do not  generate a meal fraction.   The
skin waste,  which is  a  byproduct from non-oil  processing, is alternately
landfilled  or fed to  cattle.
                                        A.72

-------
 TABLE  A48.    Reported  Processing Volume (tons/year)  for Peanuts

                 Processing  Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
Total Vol
(tons/yr)
 108,803
 14000
 12000
0  35,410  .5,249  .,68,144
     Q  _&&&&ti&&£^^

       Jan  Feb  Mar   Apr  May  Jun  Jul   Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec
                              Month Processed


       FIGURE A47.   Processing  Volume  (tons/year)  -  Peanuts
                                                                      ffl Region 9

                                                                      ii Region 7

                                                                      H Region 6

                                                                      H Regions

                                                                      0% Region 4

                                                                      H Region 3

                                                                      H Region 2

                                                                      D Region 1
                                   A.73

-------
                 Peanuts









1"
iWhole peanuts;
..sorting :-^i
1
To further
processing i
Peanuts from storage
1
„
iCIeaneri

1 '


1
1
'Split peanuts

5
To further
processing


Stones and sticks



Peanut hulls

te-
* *
^ Oil stock

i
Oil stock is
processed simik
          Broken and defective peanuts
desolventized and used
for feed.
FIGURE A48.  RAC Processing Flowsheet for  Peanuts
                         A.74

-------
         COMMODITY:

    PRODUCTS MADE:


       ANIMALS FED:

      PORTIONS FED:
         Pears

         Canned pears  and fruit cocktail;  blended fruit juice
         concentrates.

         Hogs and  cattle.

         Processing  for canning produces  a waste stream
         composed  of cores, peels,  and  culls.  Processing  for
         juice operations produces  a  pomace waste.  Aggregate
         wet feed  is 71 wt% m.c.
                TABLE  A49.--RAC-Utilisation Profile for  Pears
               Moisture Content (wtX)
                              RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Min   Max
Mean
Weight
Min
Max
                                                                 Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
81.0
81.0
81.0
n.r.
84.0
81.0
n. r.


91.0
91.0
91.0
n.r.
89.0
91.0
n. r.


85.6
85.5
85.3
n.r.
86.5
84.4
n.r.


3.8
4.0
4.2
n.r.
2.5
3.4
n.r.


294,804
226,629
7,454
0
25,730
19,091
0
16,474
(573)
235
40%
0K
0X
0X
0X
0X
0K

70,759
81!?
43K
0H
22X
100%
0K
25X

24,567
77X
3X
08
9!?
6K
0!?
6X
0S
note (a): Values are in wtK of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing Notes

   Pears are stored under controlled  atmosphere  or  in cold storage  to
lengthen the processing season.   Prior to processing, they may be treated to
promote further  ripening  (ripe  pears  tend to bruise very easily and are
harvested slightly "early").  The  ripened pears  are sized, stripped of
leaves, washed,  and sorted.  Top-grade pears are peeled and cored prior to
cutting and canning.  Peels, cores,  and culls from  the canning lines may be
processed to produce pear juice, which is often  blended with other  juices.
These wastes may  also be  land applied or  landfilled.

Additional Comments

   Presence of  "stone cells" in  pear  pomace  limits  the feeding of pear pomace
somewhat.
                                       A.75

-------
Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
Total Vol
(tons/yr) 12345879
294,804 000 3,957 5,940 0 125,775 159,132
100000
QOOOO
ROOOO _
70000
T
0
n finnnn -
s
Ocnnnn
f
R 40000 -
A
C
30000 -
20000 -
10000 -
0 -

- 	 - - /

/
I

I
	 II
I .

!




•A-

Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul   Aug Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec
                     Month Processed

FIGURE  A49.   Processing Volume  (tons/year) -   Pears
                                                            M Region 9
                                                            s Region 7
                                                            M Region 6
                                                            H Region 5
                                                            W* Region 4
                                                            M Region 3
                                                            M Region 2
                                                            CH Region 1
                         A.76

-------
                   Pears for  canning and  purees
 Chopping and
 cooking
Canning and
processing
 Pear puree
                          Pears from harvest
                          or cold/ CA storage
                                            Defective pears,  leaves
                           iiWash and sort;




                              	^-\$c  -:  Peels and cores
                             SPeeler/Corer;!    	•*•




                                              Culls and  trim  waste
                            ;Inspection and
                            itnmming




                                               Small  pieces
                                'Slicing
                            Canning and
                            cooking
                           Canned pears and pear pieces
      FIGURE A50.   RAC  Processing  Flowsheet  for  Pears
                                A.77

-------
         COMMODITY:


     PRODUCTS  MADE:

       ANIMALS FED:

      PORTIONS FED:
         Peppers (includes Jalapeno,  bell, Cascabel and  Chili
         peppers)

         Specialty sauces  and Salsas.

         Dairy cattle

         Peels and seeds
                TABLE A51.   RAC Utilization Profile for Peppers
Disposition
                Moisture Content (wtX)
                               RAC Utilization (see note a)
Win   Max
Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
15.0
15.0
92.0
n.r.
80.0
80.0
n.r.


92.0
92.0
92.0
n.r.
80.0
90.0
n.r.

-
79.2
77.8
92.0
n.r.
80.0
84.1
n.r.


19.6
22.5
0.0
n. r.
0.0
2.6
n.r.

-
33,336
22,411
5,604
0
802
4,197
0
322
0
7
39X
0X
0!!
0X
0%
n
0X

20,013
98X
28X
0X
11X
100K
0X
20K

2,778
67H
m
0X
2X
13X
0K
IX
0X
note (a): Values are in wtK of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       ()  around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing  Notes

 -  Harvested  peppers  are washed  and sorted, with misshapen or defective
peppers culled and  sent to  landfills.  Depending on the type of pepper being
processed,  the pepper may be  steam peeled  prior to dicing  and
cooking/canning, or it may  be processed with  the peel.   Some of the peppers
are also  processed  through  a  finisher to extract seeds  and other material,
which may be  land-filled, land applied, or  fed to cattle.
                                        A.78

-------
  TABLE A52.    Reported Processing Volume (tons/year)  for Peppers

                  Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
 Total Vol —	     	
 (tons/yr)    12345679
   33,336

   16000



   14000



   12000

T
0  10000
n
s

O   8000
f

R
A   6000
c

    4000



    2000
0      0
              0     155   28,678
0   4,503
       0  -ps^^f	1	1	1	
         Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul   Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec
                                Month Processed
                                                          M Region 9

                                                          H Region 7

                                                          M Region 6

                                                          H Region 5

                                                          WA Region 4

                                                          H Region 3

                                                          M Region 2

                                                          Cl Region 1
        FIGURE A51.   Processing  Volume  (tons/year)  -  Peppers
                                   A.79

-------
                     Canned Peppers
                   Peppers from harvest
                      iWashing and
                       sorting
                                            Culls
iiSteam Peeling
  Dicing
   Sorting
^Dicing/Slicing
   Sorting
IFinisher
                                                                Pomace
                                                         Culls  and small pieces
                                       Final processing includes
                                       batching, cooking,
                                       filling and pasteurization
FIGURE A52.   RAC Processing Flowsheet for  Peppers
                             A.80

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS MADE:

       ANIMALS  FED:

      PORTIONS  FED:
Pineapple
Canned sliced/chunked pineapple
Beef  cattle  and goats
Skins
               TABLE A53.  RAC Utilization  Profile  for Pineapple
                 Moisture Content (wtX)
                       RAC Utilization  (see note a)
Min
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
n. r.
n.r.
-

Max
n.
n.
n.
n.
n.
n,
n,


.r.
.r.
.r.
.r.
. r.
.r.
.r.

-
Mean
84.0
84.0
84.0
n.r.
n.r.
84.0
n.r.


a
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
n. r.
n.r.
n.r.
n. r.


Weight
214
184
16


12

1

,650
,599
,192
0
0
,483
0
,376
0
Min
214,650
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.
n.r.

Max
214,650
n.r.
n. r.
n.r.
n.r
n.r.
n. r.
n. r.

Mean
214,650
86!?
8X
0!!
0!?
6!?
0!?
IX
0!?
Disposition

         RAC
  Food Product
     Wet Feed
     Dry Feed
  Land Applied
   Land Filled
       Burned
       Other
Unaccounted for
note (a):  Values are in wW of total RAC,  except RAC and weight figures,  which are  in total tons/year.
        n.r.  indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
        () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing Notes

   Whole pineapples are sorted and mechanically  cored to  remove  the skins
which comprise  the  bulk of the solid  wastes.  The  cored fruit is then
further processed  (usually sliced or  chopped)  prior to canning.
                                          A.81

-------
Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
Total Vol 	
(tons/yr) 12345679
214,650 0000000 214,650
•
onnnn
ouuuu
T |
n /
S 1
0 20000 	 • *
R |f|K /f|||
^ 15000 - —
C k A
10000 - 1 1
5000 -
0 UllllIllJllIjIlMMlJ

K
i
\
i
\


i i i
                                                              H Regions
                                                              = Region?
                                                              M Region 6
                                                              H Regions
                                                              ^ Region 4
                                                              II Region 3
                                                              H Region 2
                                                              D Region 1
   Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May Jun  Jul   Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec
                        Month Processed

FIGURE A53.   Processing  Volume (tons/year)  -   Pineapples
                           A.82

-------
                           Pineapples
                              Pineapple
                              harvest
                            Peeler/coreri
                                 1
                                              Peels and cores
           Reject  fruit
                             Grading
  Crushing
       1
                 Small
                 pieces
                     Slicing/chunking
Canning and
processing
                       Cann ng and
                       cooking
I
                                  I
 Crushed pineapple
                    Sliced/Chunked
                    pineapples
Pulp and
peel processing
   ' Press
                                               Pineapple  syrup
                                               for packaging of
                                               fruit
                                                                       Pulp
  FIGURE A54.   RAC Processing Flowsheet for Pineapple
                              A.83

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS MADE:
       ANIMALS FED:


      PORTIONS FED:
         Potatoes

         Canned and  frozen whole/sliced  potatoes;  dehydrated
         potatoes  (instant mashed potatoes);  frozen french
         fries and specialty potato products;  stuffed potato
         skins; potato  chips.

         Cattle (principally beef cattle);  hogs;  goats;
         mariculture.

         Wet waste (76  wt% m.c.) includes  peels and peeling
         waste, fluming sludge and other settled  solids from
         waste water; culls, trimmed portions,  and water
         treatment sludge.  Dry wastes constituted a much
         smaller portion (11 wt% m.c.) and included scrap and
         rejected product, recovered starch and dried wet
         waste.
Disposition
               TABLE A55.   RAC Utilization  Profile for Potatoes
                Moisture Content (wtX)
                              RAC Utilization (see note a)
Min   Max   Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
72.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
72.0
72.0
n.r.
-
-
90.0
90.0
90.0
85.0
90.0
78.5
n.r.

-
80.5
76.3
77.1
70.8
81.1
76.4
n. r.
-

4.0
17.4
18.0
26.8
6.2
2.6
n. r.


2,444,300
1,164,628
621,902
89,178
206,776
7,215
0
471,029
(116,428)
225
14X
0X
0!?
0X
0K
0K
0X
-
389,687
87X
60H
45K
142X
100!!
0X
87X

81,477
48X
25X
4!?
6!?
0X
0K
19*
-5X
note (a): Values are in wtH of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing Notes

   Potatoes are shipped to processing plants stripped of vegetation.   Primary
source of processing waste is  in the  peeling operation,  which can be  by
either steam peeling or caustic peeling methods.  Other  sources include
culls, trimmed portions  (ie, bruised  areas, rot, green portions and other
blemished portions).  Potato processors also reported recovery of settled
solids from washing  and transport wastewater.  These  materials were generally
not reported by other RAC processors  in the survey.
                                      A.84

-------
   TABLE A56.    Reported Processing  Volume  (tons/year)  for Potatoes

                    Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
   Total Vol 	
   (tons/yr)    123
  2,444,300403,197  37,217  71,500 283,519   4,649

   500000
0 1,641,718    2,500
   450000
   400000
   350000
T
o
n  300000
s

O  250000
f

R  200000
A
C
   150000
   100000
    50000  -
          Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul   Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec
                                 Month Processed


      FIGURE A55.   Processing Volume (tons/year)  -   Potatoes
                        H Region 9

                        II Region 7

                        H Region 6

                        ^ Region 5

                        ^ Region 4

                        H Region 3

                        H Region 2

                        CD Region 1
                                  A.85

-------
        Processed Potatoes
             Potato harvest
             Washing and
             sorting
          iScrubbing/peeling
              Blanching
             ^Inspection and
              grading
            Final processing
            (may include cutting,
            cooking, canning,
             freezing, etc)
                   I
                                     Dirt, stones, and mud
                                     Settled Solids
                                     Peel waste
                                      Culls
FIGURE  A56.   RAC Processing  Flowsheet  for  Potatoes
                            A.86

-------
         COMMODITY:


     PRODUCTS MADE:


       ANIMALS  FED:

      PORTIONS  FED:
              Prunes (dried,  reconstituted, and  ripe prunes  and
              plums)

              Canned pitted prunes,  dried prunes,  and prune  juice;
              canned and  frozen plums.
              Cattle

              Whole prunes,  pits, pulp (from juice operations).
TABLE  A57.
                            Utilization Profile for Prunes and Plums
                Moisture Content (wtX)
                                   RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
    Min    Max
Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
16.0
16.0
19.0
21.0
21.0
16.0
n.r.


81.0
81.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
81.0
n.r.


39.6
42.2
20.0
21.0
21.0
39.7
n.r.
-

28.1
28.7
1.0
0.0
0.0
28.2
n.r.


93,841
57,977
4,043
112
73
14,956
500
16,279
(100)
575
20X
0!?
0X
0X
0X
0X
0K

53,642
97X
34X
4%
2X
100X
5K
30X

8,531
62X
4%
ex
m
16X
IX
17X
0H
note (a): Values are in wtH of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing Notes

   Plums are  graded,  washed and  either canned  or used to make prunes.   Prunes
are plums which  have  been dehydrated, and may  be canned or  soaked in  water
to produce prune juice.   The waste include pits, culls, and filter cake
(pomace) from juicing operations.   The wastes  are landfilled, land applied,
or fed.  Relatively clean pits may be burned  as fuel.
                                        A.87

-------
 TABLE A58.    Reported  Processing  Volume  (tons/year) for  Prunes

                 Processing Volune in Survey  Region (tons RAC/yr)
Total Vol	•	.	
(tons/yr)   12345679
  93,841


  12000
4,071   1,810
0   6,124  81,836
  10000
      0
        Jan   Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep   Oct   Nov  Dec

                               Month Processed



        FIGURE A57.  Processing  Volume  (tons/year) -   Prunes
                                                                       H Region 9

                                                                       e Region 7

                                                                       M Region 6

                                                                       II Region 5

                                                                       H Region 4

                                                                       HI Region 3

                                                                       M Region 2

                                                                       D Region 1
                                   A.88

-------
              Dried  Prunes
                Dried Prunes
              iWash and sort;
                   T
                               Defective prunes
              sSizing and sorting,
                                Culls and undersize
                   Fitter
                    T
                                Pit  waste
                Canning and
                cooking
                    T
          Canned  re-hydrated prunes
FIGURE A58.   RAC  Processing  Flowsheet for  Prunes  and  Plums
                               A.89

-------
         COMMODITY:

    PRODUCTS MADE:
       ANIMALS FED:

      PORTIONS FED:
         Rice

         Rice reported in this category is restricted  to rice
         use for milled (cleaned and  hulled) rice  for  domestic
         consumption  and does not  include use for  fermented
         beverages.

         Cattle, hogs, poultry

         Rice hulls  and bran, broken  grains.
                 TABLE A59.   RAC Utilization Profile for  Rice
                Moisture Content (wtX)
                              RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Min   Max
Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
12.0
12.0
n.r.
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.0
-

12.5
12.5
n.r.
12.5
12.0
12.0
12.5


12.1
12.1
n.r.
12.1
12.0
12.0
12.3


0.2
0.2
n.r.
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
-

826,624
539,091
0
190,458
1,559
4,199
42,648
41,022
7,647
63,518
55X
0X
5!?
0X
0X
0!?
0X

466,579
74X
0X
30X
IX
100X
20X
16X

206,656
65!?
0x
23X
0X
IX
5X
5X
IX
note (a): Values are in wtX of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing Notes

   Rough rice  is  screened to  remove straw, stones and dirt prior to hulling.
It is hulled by  passing it  through  counter-rotating rubber rollers.  The
hulls, which make up 17-21  wt% of  the weight  of the rice  ()  are  used as
feed, or burned  (8 wt% m.c.)  for process heat,  or a variety  of non-feed uses
(including as  a  filter aid  for fruit juice processing).   The de-hulled rice
is then further  processed,  which can include  removal of the  bran by rubbing
the rice grains.   The removed  bran  is aspirated and used  as  a feed material.
The rice may also be further  treated to brighten its color.   Broken grains
are separated  by  a variety  of  classifiers and are either  fed or  used in
brewing.
                                       A.90

-------
   TABLE A60.   Reported  Processing  Volume  (tons/year)  for  Rice

                 Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
Total Vol	
(tons/yr)   1      2      3      4 "    5       6      7      9

 626,624       *
80000
70000
 20000
 10000
     0  -f
0      0
0 826.624      0
                                  0      0
                                                                     iH Region 9

                                                                     M Region 7

                                                                     M Region 6

                                                                     ^ Region 5

                                                                     H Region 4

                                                                     H Region 3

                                                                     § Region 2

                                                                     D Region 1
       Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun   Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec

                             Month Processed


         FIGURE A59A   Processing  Volume  (tons/year)  -   Rice
                                   A.91

-------
           Rice Milling
            Stored Rice
           'Air scalping and
           'screening
                            Straw, stones,  dirt
               jHulling
               iPearlers-
                  T
            Finished rice
                                 Rice hulls
                                 Rice bran
FIGURE AGO.   RAC  Processing  Flowsheet  for  Rice
                         A.92

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS  MADE:

       ANIMALS FED:
      PORTIONS FED:
Shelled  corn  (dry milling  and popcorn)
Corn  chips, corn  flour, popcorn, corn  starch and  dried
corn  syrup
Cattle,  hogs, horses and poultry
Husks,  bran,  germ,  culls,  scrap product and spills
             TABLE  A61.  RAC Utilization Profile  for Shelled Corn
                Moisture Content (wt!t)
                      RAC Utilization (see note a)
Min
3.0
3.0
12.0
3.0
n.r
15.0
n.r.

-
Max
38.0
38.0
38.0
38.0
n.r.
15.0
n.r.


Mean
15.0
14.0
19.8
15.8
n.r.
15.0
n. r.


CT
8.2
7.7
10.3
8.1
n.r.
0.0
n.r.


Weight
2,194,530
803,928
7,621
648,636
0
1,405
0
569,731
163,210
Min
152
0X
0X
0X
0!?
0X
0K
0X

Max
750,717
100X
29X
100X
0X
100X
m
73X

Mean
137,158
37X
0X
30X
0X
0X
0!!
26X
7X
Disposition

         RAC
  Food Product
     Wet Feed
     Dry Feed
  Land Applied
   Land Filled
      Burned
       Other
Unaccounted for
note (a): Values are in wt8 of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total  tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing  Notes
   Corn  for dry milling may  arrive  at  the processing plant  either with  or
without  husks.   It  is  inspected, cleaned (either dry or wet),  and treated to
raise the moisture  content prior to  milling.   In the milling  process, germ is
separated from the  rest of the corn  meal.  Byproducts include cull ears and
grains,  germ and  bran,  scrap products  (ie,  corn  chips).  Husks  and cobs may
also be  produced.
                                        A.93

-------
-TABLE A62V   Reported Processing  Volume  (tons/year)  for  Shelled


                   Processing Volune in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
  Total Vol —,,	;		

  (tons/yr)   1      2      3      4     "E"      «       7
                              corn
  4,400,746      0   3,923   15,114 4,371,337
  400000
  350000  -
372
        0   10,000
          I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I
                                                                       U Region 9


                                                                       H Region 7


                                                                       H Region 6


                                                                       H Region 5


                                                                       M Region 4


                                                                       H Region 3


                                                                       H Region 2


                                                                       D Region 1
        Jan   Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul   Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec

                               Month Processed



     FIGURE A61.   Processing Volume  (tons/year)  -  Shelled corn
                                    A.94

-------
Germ drying
-Oil expellers
       T
Crude corn oil
to  refiners
                           Corn  Milling
                            Stored corn
                           ijAir scalping and?
                           ^screening     ?"
                                            Straw, stones, dirt  (and cobs)
                           Water tempering
                            Degermination
                             Grinding
                           iProduct separation:
                                                  Bran
                            Corn  meal, flour
                            grits
                                             Germ cake
    FIGURE A62.  RAC Processing  Flowsheet for Shelled Corn
                                 A.95

-------
         COMMODITY:

    PRODUCTS MADE:

       ANIMALS FED:

      PORTIONS FED:
Soybeans

Soy oil,_ soy flour,  lecithin.

Poultry,  cattle, hogs.

Extracted spy meal  (from oil  extraction);  hulls, flour
and spillage"."	
               TABLE A63.   RAC Utilization  Profile for  Soybeans
               Moisture Content (wt!S)
                      RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Min   Max   Mean
	Ieight
                                                Min
                                 Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
8
0
13
0
n.
12
13


.0
.0
.0
.0
r
.0
.0
-

13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
n.r.
13.0
13.0
-

11.9
10.4
13.0
10.8
n. r.
12.7
13.0


1
4
0
3
n.
0
0


.5
.0
.0
.6
r.
.5
.0

--
4,698
849

3,702

2
5
130
	 	 Q
,623
,083
400
,269
.15
,773
,080
,330
,&73 	
2,760
0K
0X
0X
0!?
0X
0K
0X

675,000
99S
0X
82X
08
100X
2X
30!?

361,433
18H
0X
79X
0!?
08
08
3X
0S
note (a): 'Values' arelrr wtX of total RAC, exeept.-BAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing  Notes

   Soy beans are air scalped  and screened  to  remove foreign  material and
small beans, then pressed in  a roller mill  to separate the  seed from the
hull.  The  rolled beans are  aspirated to remove the hulls,  and solvent
extracted to remove the oil,  which  is the  primary food product.  The main
sources of  byproduct are the  hulls  and the meal (11 wt% m.c.), although
spillage of whole beans is  generally included in the portion that goes to
the feedlot.   Trash from the  air scalper  (12  wt% m.c.) consists of beans  and
dirt, small stems and other  plant material  ("stick waste")  and sweepings  from
the processing  plant.


Additional  Notes

   Processed soy meal  is actually nutritionally enhanced  with respect to  the
raw beans when  used for livestock feed.
                                       A.96

-------
TABLE A64.    Reported  Processing  Volume  (tons/year) for  Soybe


                 Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
TotaI  VoI 	
(tons/yr)    1234K«'n
ans
4,314,215      0       0  240,000 3,813,312  260,903       000


 450000
 400000  H
              I      I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I
  50000  -i
        Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun   Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec

                              Month Processed



     FIGURE A63.  Processing  Volume  (tons/year) -   Soybeans
                                                                       DIE Region 9

                                                                       H Region 7

                                                                       M Region 6

                                                                       H Region 5

                                                                       W* Region 4

                                                                       H Region 3

                                                                       H Region 2

                                                                       D Region 1
                                  A.97

-------
          Soybeans (Crude Oil  Production)
                —Soybeans from-— -
                 storage
                 
-------
         COMMODITY:
     PRODUCTS  MADE:
Squash  (includes  Zucchini  ,  yellow  squash, and
pumpkins)

Canned  and frozen squash  slices; canned pumpkin
products (ie,  pumpkin pie filling)
       ANIMALS FED:     Beef cattle; sheep;  hogs.

      PORTIONS FED:     Squash  ends, green  squash,  and decayed  material


                 TABLE A65.   RAC Utilization  Profile for  Squash
                Moisture Content (wtX)
                      RAC Utilization (see note a)
Min
82.0
82.0
82.0
n.r.
82.0
96.0
n. r.

-
Max
96.0
96.0
93.0
n.r.
82.0
96.0
n. r.


Mean
90.0
90.3
87.5
n. r.
82.0
96.0
n.r


a
4.8
6.0
5.5
n.r.
0.0
0.0
n. r.


Weight
44,719
38,256
3,861
195
1,055
1,208
0
145
(0)
Min
30
63K
0K
0X
0X
0%
0X
0X

Max
25,005
96%
34X
17!?
6X
100!?
0!?
IX

Mean
4,969
86!?
9X
0!?
2X
3X
0!?
0!?
0S
Disposition

         RAC
  Food Product
     Wet Feed
     Dry Feed
  Land Applled
   Land Filled
      Burned
       Other
Unaccounted for

note (a): Values are in wtX of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures,  which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
        () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing Notes

   Processing of  squash follows the  usual  canning/freezing  steps of  washing,
sorting/grading,  blanching  and packing (or freezing).  Wastes are primarily
derived  from the  sorting  operation,  although most  processors reported that a
portion  of the squash (the  vine end)  is cut  and  discarded  at the processing
plant.
                                        A.99

-------
 TABLE A66.    Reported Processing  Volume  (tons/year)  for  Squash

                 Processing Volume in Survey  Region (tons RAC/yr)
Total Vol 	
(tons/yr)   1
  44,719
 25000
0   2,801    4,870
                                               0   9,130   27,918
       Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul   Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov Dec
                              Month Processed

       FIGURE A65.   Processing Volume  (tons/year)  -   Squash
                                                                      M Region 9

                                                                      H Region 7

                                                                      M Region 6

                                                                      H Region 5

                                                                      ^ Region 4

                                                                      H Regions

                                                                      M Region 2

                                                                      CD Region 1
                                 A.100

-------
               Squash
             Squash harvest
                Grading
               ^ Washing
             'Inspection and;
             lend trimming
  Canned Squash
                  Slicing
                  Canning
                  Cooking
                    T
                                Culls and   undersize
                                 Stems, leaves, and dirt
                                 Off-grade  material and  end cuts
                                     Frozen Squash
                                        Slicing
                                         Freezer
                      To packaging and storage
FIGURE A66.   RAC Processing Flowsheet for Squash
                         A.101

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS MADE:

       ANIMALS FED:

      PORTIONS FED:
         Sugar beets.

         Refined-sugar.

         Primarily beef  cattle; also  hogs and goats.
        "Tops", leaves, beetchips and wet pulp are  fed as a wet
         byproduct ( 79 wt% m.c.); molasses is sometimes
         blended with these materials  for feeding  purposes.
         Dried  beet pulp  (12-15 wt% m.c.) is also  fed.
              TABLE A67.   RAC Utilization Profile for Sugar Beets
                Moisture Content (wtH)
                              .RAC Utilisation (see note a)
Disposition
Min   Max   Mean
Weight
Min
                                           Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
15.0
n.r.
15.0
0.0
15.0
80.0
n.r.

-
82.0
n.r.
80.0
82.0
80.0
60.0
n.r.


76.9
n. r.
71.6
76.0
70.4
80.0
n.r.
-
-
15.5
n. r.
21.4
19.0
22.6
0.0
n.r.


10,972,597
1,384,018
240,635
619,750
6,269
6,000
0
7,031,251 (b)
1,684, 675 (b)
37,357
m
0!?
0X
0K
0!?
0X
0!?
-
1,028,113
33!?
63!?
7X
0!?
100!?
0!?
83!?
-
609,589
13X
2!?
6X
0X
0X
0X
64!?
15X
note (a): Values are in wt!S of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.
    (b): Large 'Other" and 'Unaccounted1 weights represent moisture losses during processing of
       sugar beets.  "Other1 results from processors who reported this loss as a line item;
       'Unaccounted' results from those who did not itemize the moisture losses.

Processing  Notes

   Incoming  sugar beets are topped  and trimmed  and washed  prior to being
extracted.   Extraction is  facilitated by slicing the beet  into strips  which
are then  soaked  in  water to remove  the sugar  content.   The pulp which  remains
is the principal byproduct stream,  and contains a mean  m.c.  of 80 wt%.   The
pulp  is  sometimes dried to approximately 12-15  wt% m.c. prior to being sold
as cattle feed.  Both  the  wet and  dry pulp may  be mixed with molasses  (from
the sugar refining  process) prior  to being fed.  The. large unaccounted for
material  is  unreported moisture  losses (not all beet processors reported
moisture  loss data  on  the  survey).

   Discrepancies in the reported mean moisture  content  of  the "Dry Feed" are
due to inconsistencies in  processor's classification of these materials.  No
attempt was  made to correct this classification while tabulating  the results.
                                       A. 102

-------
 TABLE  A68.    Reported Processing Volume (tons/year)  for Sugar beets

                   Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
  Tota I Vo I	
  (tons/yr)     12345679
  10,972,597


   2500000
   2000000
T
o
n  1500000
s

o
f

R  1000000
A
C
    500000  i
0 3,144,491  805,000  1,618,784
0 5,404,322
                                           m Region 9

                                           ^ Region 7

                                           D Region 6

                                           ^ Region 5

                                           M Region 4

                                           H Regions

                                           H Region 2

                                           D Region 1
           Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec

                                 Month Processed



       FIGURE A67.   Processing Volume (tons/year)  -  Sugar beets
                                     A.103

-------
             Sugar Beets
            Beet Harvest
                              Tops and  tap  roots
             Pile Storage
            I Beet Washer
                               Dirt, stones
              Beet slicer
              Diffuser (water
             jlextraction)    f
jPulp presses
                                                      Beet pulp
           iLiquor processing
           :to produce sugar and
           imolasses
                                 Waste molasses
            Sugar and Molasses
FIGURE A68.   RAC  Processing  Flowsheet  for  Sugar  Beets
                             A.104

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS MADE:

       ANIMALS  FED:

      PORTIONS  FED:
         Sugar  Cane

         Raw and  refined sugar,  molasses

         Not specified

         Rough  molasses
              TABLE A69.   RAC Utilization Profile for  Sugar Cane
                Moisture Content (wtX)
                               RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Min   Max
Mean
We i ght
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
14
14
70
n.
72
70
14


.0
.0
.0
r.
.5
.0
.0
-

74
74
74
n.
72
74
74


.5
.5
.5
r.
.5
.5
.5


57.8
57.8
72.3
n. r.
72.5
72.3
57.8
-
-
25.3
25.3
2.3
n.r.
0.0
2.3
25.3

-
15,418
1,026
295

16
660
2,981
115
10,301
,348
,547
,639
0
,961
,357
,806
,105
,934
42
6!?
m
m
m
sn
19*
0X

14,527,000
13X
4!!
0!?
5X
100!!
32X
16X

3,854,587
7X
2X
0X
0!?
4X
19H
IX
67X
note (a): Values are in wtX of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       ()  around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing Notes

   Cane sugar processors generally  produce a raw sugar  which is then  refined
elsewhere.   Sugar cane  processing is  limited to pressing  of the raw cane to
extract the  juice, which is  then evaporated  and sent elsewhere for
refining.  The primary  byproduct is  bagasse (the pressed  cane fiber - 50 wt%
m.c.) which  is used  as  a fuel,  often  to  provide heat for  the evaporation
process.   Feeding of wastes  appears  to be limited to integrated operations
(ie, those which also refine the sugar).  In this case, a waste (sub-food
quality)  molasses product is produced which can be  fed  to cattle.  The large
amount of unaccounted for material  reflects moisture losses during processing
of the sugar cane.
                                       A.105

-------
TABLE A70.    Reported Processing Volume (tons/year)  for Sugar cane
Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
Tota 1 Vn 1 • •
(tons/yr) 12345679
15,418,348 0000 360,915 0 0 15,057,433
"nnnnnn
mnnnnn
i cnnnnn
4 >tnnnnn
T
o
n4 ^r\r\r^r\r\
s
f\ -innnnnn
t
Ronnnnn
A
C
cnnnnn
400000 -
200000
n
•
	 	 	 -----

-------
                    Sugar Cane
                  Cane Harvest
                       T
                   > Clean Cane
Leaves, rock,  rocks
 & tramp  metal
                   sCrush and Press;
                                      Bagasse
                  Crystallization   *
                  'and refining (on or
                  ^off-site)        |
                         T
 Waste  molasses
                Raw  and/or Refined Sugar
FIGURE A70.   RAC Processing Flowsheet for  Sugar Cane
                          A.107

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS  MADE:


       ANIMALS FED:

      PORTIONS FED:
         Sweet Corn

         Canned and frozen  corn (on  and  off the cob);  corn
         starch and sweetener.
                         - cattle; hogs.

         Husks,  cobs, some leaves and  stalks, silk.
              TABLE A71.  RAC  Utilization  Profile for  Sweet Corn
                Moisture Content (wtX)
                               RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Win   Max
Mean
Weight
Min
Max
                                                    Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
16.0
0.0
0.0
16.0
70.0
n.r.
n.r.
-

80.0
80.0
80.0
16.0
80.0
n.r.
n.r.


71.1
67.0
66.5
16.0
73.0
n.r.
n.r.


11.7
20.2
20.6
0.0
4.1
n. r.
n.r.


3,302,445
2,077,404
1,163,618
0
23,336
1,686
0
93,778
(57,379)
4,773
16*
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X
0X

2,340,000
94X
11%
0%
31X
100X
0X
29X

110,081
63X
35X
0X
IX
0X
0X
3X
-2X
note (a): Values are in wtX of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r  indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing  Notes

   Harvested corn  is  husked,  after which the  corn kernels  may be left  on the
cob or cut  off, depending on  the end use.  The corn is  then  blanched,
cooled,  inspected  and sent  on  to appropriate  processing line (ie, either
canning  or  freezing).   The  principal  byproduct is the husk and cob,  although
unusable whole cobs may also  be  included in this material.  The byproduct (73
wt% m.c.)  is fed  to cattle  and can be ensilaged to improve its feedability.
                                       A. 108

-------
 TABLE  A72.    Reported  Processing Volume (tons/year) for Sweet  corn

                   Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
  Total Vol	
  (tons/yr)    12345679
   962,445      0  36,421      0 660,297      0       0  265,727      0
R  200000
A
C
   150000
   100000
    50000
Hffl Region 9

ii Region 7

M Region 6

H Region 5

^ Region 4

H Region3

H Region 2

d Region 1
          Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec

                                Month Processed



        FIGURE  A71.  Processing  Volume  (tons/year)  -  Sweet corn
                                    A.109

-------
                      Canned and Frozen Corn
 Frozen Co'rn on
 the Cob
Cob saws and
washers
 Blancher
  Freezer
To  packaging
and storage
                             Stalks and leaves (field
                           --.rasdiues)
Sweet corn harvest;




                  :             Husks, leaves, silk and reject
  ,,„,.  ,„..••.;'   ,:             ears of corn
Huskers and Graders;	^.





                  ..I             Cobs
     ^Cutters    ,  :	>•





                               Fines from wash water
      Washers
                             Visual inspection
       Canning
                                Cooker
                                                       Frozen Cut Corn

                                                      	*i
Cut corn blancher
                                                           Freezer
                            To packaging and storage
  FIGURE A72.   RAC  Processing  Flowsheet for Sweet  Corn
                                A.110

-------
         COMMODITY:

     PRODUCTS MADE:


       ANIMALS  FED:

      PORTIONS  FED:
         Sweet  Potatoes  (includes yams).

         Canned sliced sweet  potatoes;  frozen yam patties;
         dehydrated sweet  potatoes.

         Hogs;  Beef cattle;  horses.

         Ends  and defects;  peel  waste.
            TABLE A73.   RAC Utilization Profile for Sweet  Potatoes
                Moisture Content (wtJf)
                               RAC Utilization (see note a)
Disposition
Win   Max   Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl led
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
70.0
73.0
74.0
n.r.
73.0
73.0
n. r.


78.0
78.0
78.0
n.r.
78.0
73.0
n.r.


73.4
75.0
76.0
n.r
75.0
73.0
n. r.


2.7
2.2
2.0
n.r.
2.2
0.0
n.r.


54,092
33,781
10,612
0
8,434
1,175
15
0
75
300
44X
0X
0X
0H
0K
0X
0K

12,512
95Z
50X
0X
50!!
100!?
5%
0K

6,762
62X
20K
0K
16*
2%
0X
0X
0X
note (a): Values are  in wtX of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       ()  around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing Notes

   Sweet  potatoes are  washed to  remove soil  and  stones prior  to  preheating
and steam peeling.  The steam peeling step is  followed by a scrubbing step  to
remove eyes.   The potatoes are then  mechanically size-sorted  and may be
visually  inspected  prior to canning  (especially  for small potatoes which  are
canned whole).   Wastes are derived primarily from the steam peeling step  and
inspection;  some wastes are produced in the  slicing operations.
                                       A.Ill

-------
TABLE  A74.    Reported Processing Volume (tons/year) for  Sweet potatoes

                    Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
   Total Vol——	:	=	
   (tons/yr)   12345679
   .  54,092


   18000



   16000



   14000
T   12000
0
n

s   10000
 f
	8000
 R
 A
 C    6000
     4000
     2000
0   5,530       0   46,642
0   1,950
                                                  HUD Regions

                                                  e Region 7

                                                  H Region 6

                                                  H Region 5

                                                  ^ Region 4

                                                  M Regions

                                                  H Region 2

                                                  D Region 1
         Jan   Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec
                                Month Processed


       FIGURE  A73.   Processing Volume (tons/year)  -   Sweet  potatoes
                                     A.112

-------
             Sweet  Potatoes
             Sweet Potato harvest
                 Washing
                 Peeling
                  Trimming
             Final processing
             includes packing whole,
             sliced or mashed;
             syrup processing
             and shipping
                     J
                                     Dirt, stones,  and mud
                                      Peel waste
                                      Trimming  waste
FIGURE A74.   RAC  Processing  Flowsheet  for Sweet  Potatoes
                              A.113

-------
         COMMODITY:
     PRODUCTS MADE:
       ANIMALS  FED:

      PORTIONS  FED:
 Table beets  (red beets).
__Camied whole/sliced beets;  pickled  beets.
 Cattle (only beef cattle  were specified) and  hogs;
 sheep.
 Peel waste,  culls, crowns,  taproots and screened
.solids from  downstream cooking  operations.  Aggregate
 feed waste had a mean  m.c.  of 79.2  wt%
          TABLE A75.  --RAG-Uti 1 ization Profile for Table  (red) Beets
                Moisture Content (wtX)
                        RAC Utilization (see note a)
Min
50.0
50.0
50.0
n.r.
50.0
n.r.
n. r.

_
Max
87.6
87.0
87.0
n. r.
87.0
n.r.
n.r.


Mean
81.3
79.3
79.2
n. r.
68.5
n.r.
n-r.


a
12.1
13.3
14.6
n. r.
18.5
n.r.
r\rr-.


Weight
97,183
46,207
22,346
0
22,698
115
0
5,741
76
Min
460
30X
0X
0!?
0K
0X
0X
0H

Max
20,888
75X
47X
0X
50X
100H
0X
27X

Mean
8,835
48X
23X
0X
23X
0X
0!!
6X
0!?
Disposition

         RAC
  Food Product
     Wet Feed
     Dry Feed
  Land Applied
   Land Filled
       Burned
       Other
Unaccounted for
note (a): Values are in wtH of total  RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       ()  around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing  Notes
   Beets  are washed  to remove  stones and  dirt prior to peeling.   Caustic  and
mechanical  peeling methods  are used.   The peeled beets are hand  inspected
and the culls are combined  with peel waste prior to being fed  to cattle.
Minor waste contributions come from cooking/spillage and other canning-
related sources.
                                        A.114

-------
TABLE A76.   Reported  Processing Volume  (tons/year) for Table  beets

                   Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
  Tota I  Vo I  	—	.——	
  (tons/yr)    12345679
    97,183   9,000   18,846
   40000
   35000
   30000
0  25000
n
o  20000
f
   15000
   10000
    5000
0  37,189   11,263
0  20,888
       0  -•
                                            Ml Region 9

                                            s Region 7

                                            H Region 6

                                            H Region 5

                                            ^ Region 4

                                            H Region 3

                                            M Region 2

                                            D Region 1
         Jan  Feb   Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep   Oct   Nov  Dec

                                Month Processed


       FIGURE A75.   Processing Volume  (tons/year)  -   Table  beets
                                    A.115

-------
                          Table Beets
                          Beet Harvest
                              T
                                               Dirt, stones and defective beets
                          Wash and sort






                           _ .    	             Tops, leaves, and tap roots
                           •Trimming



                           	V	

                                                Small pieces
                            'Blanch       	





                                                  Peel waste
                        Scrubbing/peeling  	





                                              Culls, small pieces  (beet chips)
                          : Inspection and
                          grading
                    To final  processing  (slicing,
                    canning or pickling) and
                    packaging/storage
FIGURE A76.   RAC Processing  Flowsheet for Table (red) Beets
                                A.116

-------
         COMMODITY:     Tomatoes  (includes tomatillos and  green tomatoes)

     PRODUCTS  MADE:     Catsup, puree,  paste, juice, sauces  and canned
                         tomatoes.
       ANIMALS FED:     Primarily  cattle; hogs.

      PORTIONS FED:     Pomace, seeds,  skins,  culls and  loose pieces


               TABLE A77.   RAC Utilization  Profile  for Tomatoes
Disposition
                Moisture Content (wtX)
                               RAC Utilization (see note a)
Win   Max   Mean
Weight
Min
Max
Mean
RAC
Food Product
Wet Feed
Dry Feed
Land Appl ied
Land Filled
Burned
Other
Unaccounted for
68.0
68.0
90.0
94.0
85.0
68.0
n.r.
-
-
96.0
96.0
95.4
95.0
96.0
94.0
n.r.


91.0
89.7
93.8
94.5
93.0
83.6
n.r.


6.8
8.2
1.8
0.4
4.0
9.0
n.r.
-

2,775,664
2,333,418
72,806
13,715
46,819
13,630
0
311,438
(16,162)
359
17K
0K
0X
0K
e%
0X
0X
-
354,870
99!?
12H
2X
31%
100H
0X
82X

120,681
84X
31?
0K
2X
0X
0X
11X
-IX
note (a): Values are in wtX of total  RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
       n.r. indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
       () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.

Processing  Notes

   Ripe  tomatoes  are  soaked and washed to  remove dirt,  then scalded to
facilitate  the removal  of the  skins.  Canned  tomatoes may then be filled and
exhausted.   Tomatoes  processed to produce  paste or  catsup are also pulped  and
screened to remove  seeds, and  the resultant juice is  evaporated  to the
desired  solids concentration.
                                       A.117

-------
TABLE  A78.   Reported Processing  Volume (tons/year)  for Tomatoes
                Processing Volume  in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
IOl/dl VOI
(tons/yr)
2,775,664
i4nnoon -,
ipnnnnn

i nnnnnn
1UUUUUU
T
o
n
_ onnnnn
S ouuuuu
0
f
nnnnnn
OUUUUU
R
A
C
400000 -

200000 -
n
12345
0 20,000 5,000 89,808 1,608
1
— - - - 	 	 	 	

i
/
1
1
/
/

I 1 -1 	 1 	 / ^^
6 7 9
3,000 0 2,656,250

-- 	 - -

1




,




11 Region 9
H Region 7
H Region 6
S Region 5
^ Region 4
H Region 3
H Region 2
D Region 1


       Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec
                           Month Processed

      FIGURE A77.   Processing  Volume  (tons/year) -  Tomatoes
                                A.118

-------
                      Tomatoes for Canning and Juice




Canning Line

1
""'- -^Sorting
1 	
Peeling
V
More sorting
V
Cutting , canning,
cooking, cooling
!
Canned Tomatoes


f ~~~




--->»



	





Tomato Harvest

u
. f fftf
Wash, sort?

1
1
Chop and hot break
1
Holding
^r
Pulping and
finishing
1

'Concentration:
I
Communition and
final packaging,
cooking



Defective tomatoes, dirt




i r
Pomace
r^-- Juice extraction
i r
Further processing
and packaging
1 Tomato Juice
: 1 - 	 _,._.- h.
; Pomace


More sorting, cutting
canning, cooking
Tomato Paste,  Catsup
          FIGURE A78.   RAC Processing Flowsheet for  Tomatoes
                                  A.119

-------
          COMMODITY:
     PRODUCTS MADE:
       ANIMALS  FED:
      PORTIONS  FED:
Wheat
Flour,  bran,  germ and  starch
Cattle,-fiogs
Midds,  bran,  germ and  fiber
                  TABLE  A79.  RAC Utilization Profile for  Wheat
                 Moisture Content (wtX)
                       RAC Utilization (see note a)
Min
11.3
11.3
12-.5" -
11.3
n.r.
12.0
n.r.
-
-"
Max
12.7
12.7
12.5
12.7
n.r
12.0
n.r.

-
Mean
12.1
12.1
12.5
12.1
n. r.
12.0
n.r.


a
0.5
0.5
0.0
0.5
n.r.
0.0
n.r.

-
Weight Min
1,800,247 67,569
1,335,907 37X
,„ „_ . 0_ . — gj[
429,954 5X
0 0X
1,947 0X
0 0X
15,576 0X
16,864
Max
441,360
95X
0X
27X
0X
100S
0X
16X

Mean
257,178
74X
0X
24X
0%
0X
0X
IX
IX
Disposition

         RAC
  Food Product
     let Feed"
     Dry Feed
  Land Applied
   Land Filled
       Burned
       Other
Unaccounted for
note (a):  Values are in wtJt of total RAC, except RAC and weight figures, which are in total tons/year.
        n.r.  indicates that data was not reported by survey respondents.
        () around data value indicates a negative mass balance error.
Processing Notes
   Stored wheat is cleaned  (by air  scalping  or aspiration) to  remove  dirt,
stones,  wheat  hairs  and loose bran.   The cleaned wheat is tempered and
milled  between rollers.  The  milled  wheat can  then be  separated into  the
various  fractions  (germ, bran, etc)  which can  either be used  as food  or feed
products.
                                         A.120

-------
  TABLE A8°-    Reported Processing Volume (tons/year)  for Wheat
TotaI  VoI 	
(tons/yr)    1
                 Processing Volume in Survey Region (tons RAC/yr)
1,800,247     0  807,253      0  992,994

180000
160000
     0  -
       Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun   Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov Dec
                             Month Processed
      FIGURE A79.  Processing  Volume  (tons/year)  -  Wheat
                                                                     II Region 9

                                                                     § Region 7

                                                                     M Region 6

                                                                     H Region 5

                                                                     ^ Region 4

                                                                     H Region 3

                                                                     H Region 2

                                                                     D Region 1
                                A.121

-------
          Wheat  Milling
            Stored Wheat
          lAir scalping and
          iscreening     J
                          Sticks,  stones, dirt
              Milling
          \ Product separation
                             Depending on processor,
                             residual  stream may
                             include germ, midds, bran
     Wheat products  may include
     flour,  bran, germ,  gluten, other
     products
FIGURE A80.   RAC Processing  Flowsheet  for Wheat
                         A.122

-------
APPENDIX B.  GLOSSARY OF FOOD PROCESSING TERMINOLOGY

-------
            APPENDIX  B.   GLOSSARY  OF  FOOD  PROCESSING  TERMINOLOGY
Air Scalping
Aspirated




Bagasse



Beetchips

Blanching
Byproduct
CA Storage
Culls
Ensilage
A cleaning operation which uses high-velocity air streams
to remove foreign material from a dry RAC.  The process
requires a difference in size, density, or shape between
the RAC and the foreign material, and is used to separate
dirt and stones from dry beans, shelled corn, and other
grains.  It is also used to remove leaves and twigs from
some RACs.

A method of removing fiber from milled grains.  It is
similar to air scalping, in that it relies on size and
density differences between the intermediate product and
the waste.
Extracted sugar cane fiber.  It
although it may also be used to
materials (bagasse board).
is generally used for
produce structural
fuel
Waste material from the processing of sugar beets.

Heat treatment of vegetables prior to canning.  Blanching
is done using either hot water or live steam, and helps to
stabilize the product with regard to flavor and volume.
Blanching processes may produce a wet solids waste of
insoluble solids removed during the step.

A useful product derived from RAC processing, but not the
primary food product which is produced from the RAC.
Examples of byproducts include cattle feed, citrus peel,
almond hulls, and cottonseed linters.  Effective byproduct
utilization is critical to the food processing industry.

Controlled Atmosphere storage.  A preservation technique
which involves storing a RAC under an inert atmosphere
(generally either carbon dioxide or nitrogen) to permit
extended storage prior to final processing.  CA storage has
been used to extend the processing season of certain RACs
(for example, apples).

RAC which has been removed from the processing line due to
some deficiency - ie., immature, damaged, or otherwise
unusable.  Culls are often fed to livestock.

The process of making silage.  Silage is vegetative
material which is stored for long-term feeding to livestock
and undergoes partial fermentation during storage.  This
increases the digestibility of the material.
                                     B.I

-------
Fiber
Florets
IQF
Linters
m.c.
Midds
Pearlers
Pomace
RAC


Residue
In a food processing context, fiber is the structural
portion of the processed plant material.  It may be left in
the food product (as in vegetable processing) or removed
(as in sugar cane processing).  Many food processing
byproducts are fibrous materials.

As in the term "discolored florets."  Individual sections
of plants such as broccoli and cauliflower.  Discoloration
is an indicator of overripeness and deteriorated quality.
Discolored florets are generally trimmed by hand and
treated as waste.

Individually Quick Frozen.  A method of rapidly freezing
RACs for sale as a frozen product.  Quick freezing improves
product quality and appearance relative to older freezing
techniques.

Cotton fibers which are removed from cottonseeds prior to
processing for oil extraction.  They are often removed in
more than one step, leading to the terms "first-cut
1 inters," "second-cut 1 inters," and so on.  They are often
used as a source of non-dietary fiber.

Moisture content.  In this report, moisture content is
always expressed on a wet basis - that is, the percentage
of a RAC's initial weight which is lost during drying to
constant weight under controlled conditions of temperature
and humidity.

A byproduct from grain milling (particularly wheat flour)
processes which comprises bran and germ removed from the
milled grain by screening and/or aspiration.

Equipment used in the milling and finishing of white rice.
Pearlers are used to remove the outer material from the
rice grain and impart a polished, clean surface to the
rice.

Skins, seeds, and fiber which remain after the pressing of
fruit to produce juice.  Common types of pomace include
apple, grape, and tomato.  Pomace may be fed to livestock,
fermented to make vinegar, or disposed of as waste.

Raw agricultural commodity.  Fruit, grain, produce or other
agricultural crop in its raw, unprocessed state.

Chemical compounds derived from pesticides or other
agricultural chemicals, which remain on RACs following
harvest.
                                     B.2

-------
SIC               Standard Industrial Code.  Classification system used to
                  categorize industries by the type of product or services
                  they provide.

Snipper Waste     A waste generated in the processing of certain RACs such as
                  green peas and green beans.  The waste comprises portions
                  of the RAC which are too tough or fibrous to eat, and
                  usually comes from the flower end of the pod.

Spent Grain       (Also Spent Brewer's Grain, Spent Distiller's Grain)  Solid
                  byproducts remaining after crushed or rolled grain  (barley,
                  rice, corn, oats, etc) is extracted to remove soluble
                  sugars and flavor agents.  The extracted material is
                  fermented and further processed to produce beer, liquor,
                  etc., while the spent grains are pressed to remove  free
                  water, and are used as a livestock feed.  Processors may
                  dry the grain prior to selling as a feed material,
                  especially if the feed markets are relatively distant.
                                      B.3

-------
DATABASE INTEGRITY PLAN (DIP) FOR THE FOOD PROCESSING
      SOLID  WASTE CHARACTERIZATION  SURVEY  (FPWC)
                     REVISION 1.0
     Prepared by Battelle-Northwest Laboratories
             Richland, Washington  99352

-------
            DATABASE INTEGRITY PLAN (DIP) FOR THE FOOD PROCESSING
                  SOLID  WASTE CHARACTERIZATION  SURVEY  (FPWC)
   This report documents the methods and procedures which will be used to
insure the integrity and accuracy of data compiled from the Food Processing
Solid Waste Characterization Survey (FPWC).  The survey was prepared by the
National Food Processor's Association (NFPA) and Battelle-Northwest (BNW),
and requests information concerning the fate, amount, and type of solid
wastes produced in the food processing industry.  The data will be used by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in determining the need for the
establishment of maximum allowable tolerance levels for pesticide residues
which may be present on solid wastes produced by the food processing
industry.  The data will be collated and analyzed by BNW under a sub-
contractual agreement with the NFPA.

   This document comprises the quality assurance plan called for in Task 3b,
and will henceforth be known as the Database Integrity Plan (DIP), or simply
the Plan.  The Plan is provided to insure that adequate forethought has been
given to the methods and procedures used in the various stages of the
project.  Specifically, the DIP addresses the following:


   1.  design and validation of the database;

   2.  standard procedures for data entry and follow-up;

   3.  procedures for protecting data in the database.


Source of Data - The Food Processing Solid Waste Characterization Survey

   The survey will be mailed to approximately 3000 food processing plants
throughout the United States.  These plants will include representatives of
processors in selected food processing industries.  Table 1 lists the
Standard Industrial Code (SIC) categories which have been included in the
study.

   Information requested on the survey (which is attached as  Exhibit 1)
includes plant location, raw agricultural products (RAC's) processed, and
source, quantity and waste disposition data for each of the RAC's.  A process
flowsheet is also being requested from each survey respondent.  The flowsheet
will permit further characterization of the waste streams produced in these
plants.

   The information collected on the survey will be entered manually into a
personal computer  (PC) based database produced specifically for the purpose
of organizing, collating, and analyzing the data.  The collated data will
then be incorporated into a final report as called for in Task 5  of the
Statement of Work, and will provide breakdown by raw agricultural commodity
(RAC)  source of RAC, quantity of RAC processed  (by month/season) and parts

-------
used or produced from each RAC.  The tabularized data will provide detailed
information for each part used or product produced  (including waste
byproducts) including average moisture content, annual total output, percent
of RAC processed, and fate.  Fate will include major categories such as
human or animal consumption, burial, incineration,  land application, etc.  If
possible, the type of animal fed will also be included.  This final report
will be used by the EPA  in determining the need for FAT's on a commodity by
commodity basis.


TABLE 1.  List of Standard Industrial Commodity Codes Included in the Survey

  SIC number                           description

2032-2035, 2037-2038        canned  specialties; canned and dehydrated fruits
                            frozen  fruits, fruit juices and vegetables

2041                        flour and other grain mill products

2043                        cereal  breakfast foods

2044                        rice milling

2046                        wet corn milling

2061                        cane sugar  (except refining)

2063                        beet sugar

2065                        candy and other confectionery products

2066                        chocolate and cocoa products

2074-2076                   vegetable and seed oils

2079                        shortening,  table oils, margarine, etc

2082-2085                   malt beverages, wines  and  liquors

2087                        flavor  extracts

2095                        roasted coffee

2099                        others  (potato  chips,  tea,  spice  preparation,
etc)

4221                        dried  beans

-------
DESIGN AND VALIDATION OF THE DATABASE

   The Food Processing Solid Waste Characterization Survey (FPWC) is a multi-
page document which will contain a large amount of information when it is
completed.  In order to utilize this information, a computerized database
will be employed to organize the data and facilitate retrieval of individual
responses (also known as database "records") based upon user-provided
criteria.  A commercial database program (dBASE III Plus, published by
Ashton-Tate) will be used to create the structure for the database.  Data for
analysis will be selected from the database using the program's built in
query features, and selected records will be exported from the database in
ASCII format and analyzed using commercially available statistical packages.
A number of statistical software packages are being considered for use.

   Due to the complexity of the survey forms, the structure of the database
has been designed to incorporate three separate database files which are
related via shared data fields.  The database has been designed to allow
linking of records in one file with records in the other files via use of a
common field which is shared between them (this is known as a "relational"
database).  The database structure is shown schematically in Figure 1.  Note
that the database does not conform exactly to the physical layout of the
survey form; this is due to differences in data representation between the
survey form and the database.  All information contained on the survey forms
(parts II and III) will be available in the database.

   Sorting and record recovery is generally performed by using pre-selected
fields, which are often called "keys".  In Figure 1, the key fields have been
listed in bold type.  These represent the fields which will most commonly be
used as criteria for sorting and selecting records.

   Validation of the data extracted for analysis and tabulation will be
performed by random manual checks of the data against the written and
original database entries.  Extensive validation will occur during the first
several queries made using the completed database.  Subsequent checks will be
performed to select approximately 10% of the data records which are extracted
from the database.


Adequacy of the Survey Form and Distribution Plans

   The primary responsibility for the development of the survey form  lies
with the NFPA.  The adequacy of the survey form was insured by subjecting it
to review by professional staff at Battelle Northwest, NFPA,  and the  EPA.
Draft copies were sent to selected industry contacts for evaluation.
Comments and suggestions made by these reviewers have been incorporated  into
the revised form.  The form was also been subject to approval by both  the EPA
and the Office of Management and Budget  (OMB).

-------
                    PART-III.DBF

                    Field Name     Type Field

                    PLANTCODE   numerical
                    QUEST1A     logical
                    QUEST1B     logical
                    QUEST1G     character
                    QUEST2A     logical
                    QUEST2B     logical
PART-IIA.DBF

Field Name    Type Field
PLANTCODE
RAG
SIC
JAN
FEB
numerical
character
numerical
numerical
numerical
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
TOT-REP
TOT-CALC
numerical
numerical
T.
                         PART-IIIB.DBF

                         Field Name     Type Field
PLANTCODE
RAC
SIC
Q113
Q114
Q115
Q116
numerical
character
numerical
numerical
numerical
numerical
character
Q233
Q234
Q235
character
numerical
numerical
                                       L
FIGURE  1.   Schematic Representation  of the FPWC Database

-------
   The survey will be mailed to approximately 3000 food processing plants in
the United States, which were selected from an estimated 6145 plants which
process foods in the targeted SIC categories.  Sampling protocol, including
sample selection, follow-up strategy, and sample stratification, will be
based upon sound statistical practices and will be in accordance with
procedures developed by Battelle-Northwest and agreed to by NFPA and the EPA.
An analysis of the sample distribution and response rate will be included in
the final report.  The mailing  list represents a substantial fraction of
those plants believed to be processing RAC's.


PROCEDURES

Protection of Confidential Data Contained in Survey Responses.

   The data which is contained  on the completed survey responses will include
specific plant operating characteristics.  Unauthorized release of this
information could potentially damage the competitive position of survey
respondents.  Therefore, it is  important to take steps to maintain the
confidential nature of the survey responses.

   For the sake  of this project, confidentiality will be maintained by
limiting access  to the raw data (ie, survey responses) and by processing the
RAC information  separately from the plant information.  The combination of
these safeguards will prevent the purposeful or accidental release of
information about specific plant operating characteristics.

   The processing of completed  surveys will be handled in a multi-step
process, illustrated schematically in Figure 2.  In the first step, the
completed survey responses will be sent to NFPA.  NFPA staff will log the
survey form into its records, assign each survey a unique plant code
identification number, and detach the first page (Part I on the attached
Exhibit  1).  The plant code identification number will be written, along with
a  geographic region code (assigned using standard EPA regions), in the upper
right hand corner of the survey response sheets (see Parts II and III of
Exhibit  1).  The coded survey responses will then be sent to BNW for entry
into the main database and subsequent analysis.  All survey responses will be
kept in  locked file cabinets when not actually in use.  Battelle-Northwest's
role as  a Department of Energy  laboratory  (operating as Pacific Northwest
Laboratory) further insures a high level of security, since general public
access to all BNW facilities  is severely restricted.  Parts  I and II of the
survey form are  considered Confidential Business Information  (CBI) and will
be destroyed by  NFPA subsequent to the  approval of the final  report  by EPA.

   The use of a  unique plant  identification number will permit  individual
responses to be  identified for  follow-up calls  if data testing  indicates  that
such follow-up is required  (see following  sections).

-------
  NFPA Assigns Plant
 Code*, Region Code;
Forwards Survey to BMW
  Survey Recieved by
   BNW, Logged into
    Project Record
                                              NFPA Performs
                                                 Follow-up
   Data Entered Using
   Data Entry Template
                                                Submit SFR
                                                  to NFPA
         Is Data
        Internally
      Consistent '
                                        Has A
                                       Follow-up
                                    Contact Already
                                        Been
                                        Done?
Transfer Data to
Database; Print
 Copy of Data
         Does
       Data Match
       Original 1
         Is Data
        Externally
       Consisten
           9
                                          Are
                                         There
                                      Unresolved
                                       Questions
                                         About
                                         Data?
        Process
          Data
          FIGURE 2.   Information Flow Diagram for FPWC  Survey

-------
Insuring the Accuracy of Survey Responses

   Any plan to insure the quality of the data collected from survey responses
must include some procedures to check the quality of the original data.
Errors in the survey responses may be due to poor plant records, failure to
follow survey directions, or errors in filling out the survey.  Procedures
developed to check for these errors must be "passive" in the sense that they
do not require that BNW or NFPA staff have direct access to plant records.
Two primary approaches will be employed which meet this criteria; external
consistency checks and internal consistency checks.

   The check for external consistency is comprised of a series of simple
statistical tests.  The tests rely on the assumption that similar operating
conditions often evolve out of efforts to optimize the plant configuration
for a given RAC/product combination.  Based on this assumption,  "outlier"
records within a group of similar plants will be  "flagged".  These flagged
responses will then be checked for accuracy by verifying the survey responses
with the plant contact.  This follow-up contact will be made by  the NFPA.

   As an example of an external consistency check, we can compare the  solids
content of  all wastes  described as  "grape pomace"  or "grape pressings".
Since the solids content of  grape pomace  (pressings  from the manufacture  of
grape juice and wine)  does not generally vary much beyond the  typical  range
of 35-55 wt%,  the  database could be  searched  for  records which report
significantly  higher  or  lower  solids  content.  These records would be  flagged
for  verification of the  data,  first  by  comparing  the data in  the database to
the  original  survey form,  then  by the use of  follow-up  contacts  with the
survey  respondent.  NFPA will  conduct the follow-up  surveys using  a
combination of written and  telephone communications, and/or site visits.   The
procedures  for conducting  these  follow-up contacts are  described in the
following  section.  These  contacts  would  establish whether  the reported data
was  in  error,  or  a result  of some  unique  configuration  of the  processing
plant.

    In  actual  practice,  of  course,  tabulated values of  these parameters may
 not  exist    In lieu  of this  data,  means and standard deviations will be
 determined  from  the  survey population itself.   Data  outliers  within each  sub-
 population  can then  be identified.   Several  data  fields may be employed to
 perform this  screening of  data,  as  will  derived  values  obtained from
manipulation  of  survey data.   Table 2 illustrates the  parameters which will
 be used as  initial  criteria for flagging records. Others may be added as
 required,  or  if  examination  of the survey responses  indicates that other
 parameters  would  be  useful  as screening criteria.

    Survey  responses  can also be checked for internal consistency.  For
 exam le?Ya ma?eHal  balance around the plant can  be  determine  by comparing
 the commodity inputs  with  the product and waste output.  An initia  tolerance
 of ±5% will  be used,  although this tolerance may be adjusted  at a later point
 depending  upon the accuracy of the completed surveys.   The tolerance  will be
 adjusted to flag approximately 5% of the surveys.

-------
           TABLE  2.   Parameters  Used  for  Flagging  Questionable Data


variable                 reported/derived  correlates to:
moisture content            reported       type of waste
plant throughput            reported       type of commodity
waste/product ratio         derived        type of commodity
peak processing month       derived        type of commodity, region
Procedure for Establishing Follow-up Contacts

   Copies of all flagged survey responses will be promptly returned to NFPA
along with a description of the indicated discrepancy.  The returned survey
responses will be attached to a completed "Survey Follow-up Request" (SFR),
which is included as Exhibit 2.  This form will be used by both BNW and NFPA
to track flagged surveys during the follow-up process.  A unique follow-up
reference number will be assigned to each SFR by BNW upon initiation of a
follow-up request.  This identification number will include the plant code to
provide further traceability.  Each SFR which is initiated by BNW will be
logged into a "Follow-up Request Log", which  is included as Exhibit 3.

   After receiving  and  logging the SFR, NFPA  staff will follow up with a
written and/or telephone communication with the survey respondent in order to
clarify the discrepancy.   Site visits may also be used to clarify information
from the survey form.

   After investigating  the discrepancy, NFPA  will complete the SFR  and
return it to  BNW.   The  completed form will contain a brief explanation of any
discrepancy,  along  with any  changes to the original survey response.  The
revised data  will then  be  entered  into the database, and appropriate
notations made  in the database change  log.

   If the follow-up communication  does not resolve the discrepancy, the data
will be remain  in the database  in  its  original form, under the assumption
that some plants may be run  in highly  unusual configurations.  Data fields
will be set aside in the database  to  identify and annotate records which
require follow-up contacts.


Maintaining the  Integrity  of Data  During  Transfer to the Database

   The most effective means  of  insuring the  integrity  of data  during  transfer
from the survey  responses  to the computerized database is to  incorporate
well-designed user  interfaces  into the database.  A key aspect to this
approach is the design  of  input  "forms" which are similar  in  appearance to
the survey forms.   In this technique,  the data can be  easily  compared to  the
printed survey  form.  The  data  is  then transferred by  the  program to  the
database.  Figure 2 illustrates  the  flow  of  information during the  processing
of survey response  data.

                                       8

-------
   The capability to produce data entry forms is integral to the dBASE III
Plus software, which provides a complete programming language for creating
the forms.  The programming language allows the incorporation of internal
data "filters", which allow only certain values or ranges of values to be
entered for selected data ranges.  An example of this filtering would be the
limiting of percentage data to the range of 0-100%.  Other filters will check
for consistency of units used in responses, and appropriate SIC codes.

   A printed record will be generated for each record in the database.  This
record will echo the recorded data in a format which is very similar to that
found on the survey forms.  This output will be compared to the original
survey and maintained as a project document and will be attached to the
original survey form for storage.  Any questions about the accuracy of the
data transcription can then be answered quickly.


Database Maintenance and Protection of Data

   Protecting the integrity of the database during data manipulation will  be
accomplished in several ways.  The primary means of protection will be to
limit access to the database and to protect the data from accidental erasure
by maintaining duplicate copies on separate floppy disks.

   Access to the database will be limited and controlled according to an
adaptation of Pacific Northwest Laboratory's internal Software Control
Procedures (SCP's), which were developed primarily for license related work.
Specifically, access will be limited to users approved and trained in the  use
of the database by the project manager; a written log of all changes to the
database will be maintained; and the project manger will approve any changes
which are made to the database.  A written  log of all backup copies will also
be maintained as a project record.  The appropriate forms are included as
Exhibits 4 and 5.

   Once the data from the completed survey  forms has been entered into the
database, the data will be manipulated to develop useful tabulations of data
by geographical area, season, RAC, and waste destination.  In order to
prevent the disruption of the database during this manipulation, the original
database will not be changed during the required searches.  Rather, the
selected records will be exported via ASCII data files to a statistical
analysis program, which will also run on an IBM-PC or compatible machine.
These extracted data sets will be stored on disk for later reference.  A
printed listing of the search criteria, filename, and extracted data will  be
maintained for each such extracted data set.
Backup Copies

   Duplicate copies  (backups) of the database will be maintained by the
Project Manager.  During the creation of the database, backup copies will be
made each time new records are added to the database.  During the tabulation
and manipulation of  data, backup copies will be made on a bi-weekly basis.  A

-------
"hard copy" (ie, printed record) will be made for each of the bi-weekly
backups.  These will be kept on file until the termination of the project.
The duplicate copies will be kept separate from the written records and also
be physically separate from one another.


Training of Database Users

   Access to the database, including data entry functions, will be strictly
limited to the project manager and other personnel assigned by him.  The
project manager will provide a training session for all users of the database
to familiarize them with the basic functions of the data entry program.


SUMMARY

   Procedures have been developed to insure the quality of data collected
from the Food Processing, Solid W.aste Characterization Survey.  These
procedures address the entry of data into the database, checks for internal
and external consistency of the data, and survey follow-up procedures.  Also
discussed are standard procedures for protecting the integrity of the data in
the database and procedures for backing up data.  Each of these procedures
will be implemented in order to provide the best possible information to EPA
for use in determining the need for Food Additive Tolerance levels.
                                       10

-------
                 EXHIBIT  2.   Example  Survey Follow-up Request


FOLLOW-UP REFERENCE NUMBER:              #2037-A
PLANT CODE NUMBER:                       #2037
RECORD NUMBER:                            256
TODAY'S DATE:                           12/04    / 87


DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM:
(Indicate the reason for requesting follow-up contact with respondent.
Include relevant question numbers, responses, or other information to
identify problem.  If more than one problem is reported, please number
problems consecutively.  Attach copy of completed survey if necessary).


EXAMPLE:

#1 Part II, page 2 of 3, Question 1.0, column 4; reported moisture content
for apples is 13 wt%.  This is substantially lower than normally reported.


#2 Part II, page 2 of 3, Question 1.0, column 5; reported processing weight
for apples is 200,000,000 tons per year.  Assume they meant tons per year?
 (use additional sheets if required)


 RECEIVED BY NFPA:                       12/07   / 87

 DATE OF FOLLOW-UP:                      12/08   / 87

 EXPLANATION:
 (Explain source of problem if determined.  Number responses when more than
 one problem is addressed.  If new data is included, indicate original data
 and replacement data.)

 #1 Reported solids content instead of moisture content.  Replace 13 wt% with
   87 wt %

 #2 Reported value using wrong units.  Replace 200,000,000 tons per year with
   100,000 tons/year

-------
                  EXHIBIT 3.  Follow-up Request Log
 FOLLOW-UP
REFERENCE #
REASON FOR FOLLOW-UP
DATE
SENT
DATE
RET'D

-------
..EXHIBIT 4.  Database  Change  Log
DATE









PLANT CODE








	
RAC#









DESCRIPTION AND REASON FOR CHANGE










-------
                       EXHIBIT 5.   Database Back-up  Log





DATE              FILENAMES                           LOCATION OF BACKUP

-------
Appendix D.  EPA/NFPA Food Processing Byproduct Survey Forms

-------
nFPa
National  Food Processors Association
6363 Clark Ave.
Dublin, Calif. 94568-3097
415/828-2070
    TO:            Processors and Handlers of Raw Agricultural Commodities

    FROM:        Charles J.  Carey, President, National Food Processors Association

    SUBJECT:     EPA Food Processing Byproduct Survey

    When Raw Agricultural Commodities (RAC's) are converted into food products or
    ingredients for human consumption, certain portions are removed to be discarded as waste
    byproducts. Some or all of the waste byproduct may be used as animal feed or disposed
    of in some other way.

    Your participation in this survey will aid your industry  in the safe disposal of wastes
    from processing RAC's. It will help to assure that no overtolerances of pesticide
    residues in meat,  milk, poultry, or eggs will occur from feeding solid waste byproducts
    from your plant.  Information that will allow the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA) to properly assess the risk of pesticide residues in RAC waste byproducts may
    allow continued or increased use for animal feed.

    The EPA Office of Pesticide Programs desires this survey to adequately assess the level
    of pesticides in RAC waste byproducts fed to animals producing meat, milk, poultry, and
    eggs.  For  this reason, the EPA has  obtained NFPA assistance to conduct the survey and
    to ensure that accurate information is collected for the  purpose of updating EPA's
    database for tolerance setting.  Current  EPA data are based on a survey made by  NFPA
    15 years ago and needs to be updated.  The survey will include processors and handlers
    of RAC's, including cereal grains, sugar crops, legumes,  root crops, fruiting
    vegetables, fruits, oil and fiber crops.

    Confidential business information collected will be handled in a manner that will
    maintain its confidentially.  Published data will be presented in a way that will not
    identify it with any individual company.  All data collected will be  reported so that
    only the overall status of pesticide residues in  RAC waste byproducts used for feed will
    be known.

    Please complete these enclosed forms at your earliest convenience for each RAC for each
    respective plant.  Return the completed forms in the enclosed,  self-addressed envelope
    by December 16, 1988. Forms may be duplicated.  If more forms are needed or if there
    are any questions, please contact Leo Pedersen or Wally Rose at (415) 828-2070  at NFPA,
    6363 Clark Avenue, Dublin, California 94568.  Your cooperation,is greatly appreciate "

    HR:ceh/5C:46
    Enclosures
WASHINGTON, D.C.        •        DUBLIN,  CALIF        »       SEATTLE,  WASH

-------
                               1988 EPA FOOD PROCESSING  BYPRODUCT SURVEY
                                    Part  I:   Confidential Information, Page  1 of  1
                                                                                     Form Approved OMB No. 2070-0097 Expires 9/30/1989
      1.  Plant Code No.
     2.  Region
           For NFPA  use only
Please type or print legibly.
Public reporting  burden for this collection of information  is estimated  10 overage 5.5 hours  per
response,  including lime for reviewing instructions,  searching existing data sources, gathering
and hunting the data  needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.  Send
comments regarding the burden estimate  or any other  aspect of this collection of information,
indicating suggestions  for reducing this burden to:
Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM-223
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460	
and   Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
      Office of Management and Budget
      Washington, D.C. 20503
3. Company
5. Street/P.O. Box
7. State/ZIP
9. Contact Person
1 1 . Address if different than above
4. Plant No.
6. City/County
8. Telephone Number
\
10. Title
Today's Date
12. Standard Industry Classification(s) (from attached list)

Raw Agricultural Commodity(ies) (RAC) Processed at This Plant
13. RAC
I
•>
1
4
S
f,
7
R
0
in

14. State or
Country of Origin











15. Product(s) Produced











If more RAC's are processed,  please duplicate page and continue list.
                                                                         ceh/lF:2

-------
                             STANDARD INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION (SIC) NUMBERS
                             FOR ESTABLISHMENTS INCLUDED  IN THIS EPA SURVEY


Please enter the appropriate SIC number or numbers for your plant as item 12 on page 1, Part I.

SIC
No.      Description

2032     Canned Specialties: Baby food, baked beans, Chinese foods, Mexican food, puddings.

2033     Canned Fruits, Vegetables, Preserves, Jams and Jellies:  Canned fruits, vegetables, juices, tomatoes and tomato
          products, olives, etc. in cans or glass.

2034     Dried and Dehydrated Fruits, Vegetables, and Soup Mixes: Dried fruits, nuts, beans, potatoes, and other
          vegetables.

2035     Pickled Fruits and Vegetables, Vegetable Sauces and Seasonings, and  Salad
          Dressings:  Brined fruits and vegetables, brined cherries, olives, pickles,  relish, etc.

2037     Frozen  Fruits, Fruit Juices, and Vegetables:  Frozen fruits and vegetables, frozen fruit and vegetable juices
          and concentrates.

2038     Frozen  Specialities: Frozen food specialties, frozen soups, frozen meals  using RAC's.

2041     Flour and  Other Grain Mill Products:  Grain mills producing flour from buckwheat, corn, rye,  and wheat as we
          as other grain mill products.

2043     Cereal  Breakfast Foods:  Cornflakes, hominy, oatmeal, wheat flakes from whole grains.

2044     Rice Milling: Mills producing rice flour and other rice products.

2046     Wet Corn  Milling: Mills producing  corn syrup and sugar, corn oil, corn starch, rice starch,  potato starch,
          tapioca, and wheat starch, etc.

2061     Cane Sugar, Except Refining Only:  Raw sugar and molasses from sugar cane.

2063     Beet Sugar:  Sugar, molasses, and dried beet pulp.

2065     Candy and Confectioners Products:  Peanut, nut, and seed processing operations found here.

2066     Chocolate  and Cocoa  Products:  Cocoa bean shelling, roasting, and grinding for making chocolate.

2074     Cottonseed Oil Mills:  Cottonseed oil, cake,  and meal.

2075     Soybean Oil  Mills: Soybean oil, cake, and meal,  lecithin.

2076     Vegetable  Oil Mills, Except Corn, Cottonseed and  Soybean: Castor oil, coconut  oil,  linseed oil, peanut oil,
          saffiower oil, vegetable tallow, etc.

2079     Shortening, Table Oils, and Other Fats and Oils Not Elsewhere Classified: Olive oil.

2082     Malt Beverages: Breweries producing beer, ale, brewers grits, malt extracts, etc.

2083     Malt:  Malt products from barley, rye, wheat, and corn.

2084     Wines,  Brandy,  and Brandy Spirits:  Establishments producing and blending wines and brandies.

2085     Distilled, Rectified, and Blended Liquors:  Establishments manufacturing alcoholic liquors by distillation and
          rectification.  Bourbon, rye, scotch, corn, neutral  spirits except fruit.

2087     Flavoring Extracts and Flavoring Syrups Not Elsewhere Classified:  Flavoring concentrates,  beverage bases.

2095     Roasted Coffee:  Coffee roasting, grinding, instant and freeze-dried coffee.

2099     Food Preparations Not Elsewhere Classified:  Producers of  corn chips,  potato chips, pectin, spice cleaning,
          grinding and  blending,  tea, etc.

4221     Farm Products Warehouse and  Storage:  Bean cleaning and storage, bean elevators, grain elevators, potato
          storage, etc.

ceh/lF:40

-------
                             1988 EPA FOOD PROCESSING BYPRODUCT SURVEY
                                        Preparation Instructions for Part II

Page 1:   Please describe the raw agricultural commodity (RAC) as it enters the plant, e.g., a root with
          or  without leaves; corn with or without husk; nuts with or without shells; vegetables with or
          without foilage.

          Show weight in  pounds or tons (please specify) processed by month during  your last season or
          production year.   Show total for year on  an annual basis.

          ?oace is provided for 10 RAC's.  If more space is needed, duplicate page or request additional
          copies from us.

Page 2:   Please complete for each RAC processed.  Note: Responders need only submit'readily available
          information and there is no need to recalculate data in order to address any part of the survey.
          Separate data sheets are required for each RAC  used  in a mixture to produce a food for humans
          (e.g.. fruit cocktail, mixed vegetables, flour blends).  Separate data sheets are also required
          where the same RAC is used to produce  different human foods with different waste products  (e.g.,
          applesauce or apple juice).  When waste products  are combined, then one data sheet is needed.
          Duplicate page as needed or request additional copies from us.

          Column 2 identifies possible distribution of the various parts of a RAC.  Any distribution not
          shown should be listed under "Other."

          Column 3:     Line 1.0:      Describe the RAC received by the plant.
                         Line 1.1:      List human food product or products produced from RAC.
                         Line 1.2:      List the wet waste byproduct(s) used for animal feed or ensilage
                                        (e.g., seed, skin husks, cobs, etc.).
                         Line 1.3:      List the dried waste byproduct(s) used for animal feed  (e.g.,  dry
                                        citrus pulp, sugar beet pulp, spent hops, etc.).
                         Line 1.4:      List the waste byproduct(s) used as soil conditioner.
                         Line 1.5:      List the waste byproduct(s) burned as fuel.
                         Line 1.6:      List the waste byproduct(s) buried in landfill.
                         Line 1.7:      List undetermined losses (e.g., lost soluble  solids, etc.).
                         Line 1.8:      List waste byproduct(s) and describe  uses not listed above (e.g.,
                                        alcohol,  biogas, charcoal, etc.).
                         Line 1.9:      Same as  1.8.
                         Line 2.1:      Describe parts of RAC left after harvest.
                         Line 2.2:      Describe parts of RAC left after harvest.
                         Line 2.3:      Describe parts of RAC left after harvest.

          Column 4:    All lines:      Show percentage of moisture for each product or byproduct:   % w/w.

          Column 5:     All lines:      Show weight used for each raw product(s) and waste byproducts pro-
                                        duced.  Circle reporting weight, pounds or  tons.

          Column 6:    All lines:      Show percent by weight for product(s) and  byproducts produced from the
                                        RAC.

          Column 7:                    Show type of animal(s) fed,  if known (e.g., beef cattle, hogs, etc.).

          An example of a completed page  2 is shown on  the back of page 2.

Page 3:   Draw or attach a simplified diagram for  each RAC as it enters the plant through final
          processing.  Show where byproducts are generated.  If possible, cite published literature
          describing the processing of each RAC.  Use commonly used terms  to describe the production
          processes.

          An example of a completed page 3 is shown on the back of page 3.
ceh/lF:4

-------
                                                                -CONFIDENTIAL-

                                              1988 EPA FOOD  PROCESSING  BYPRODUCT SURVEY
                                                               Part II, Page  1 of 3
Plant Code No.
Region
                                                                                                                          For NFPA use only
Instructions:  Show, for the appropriate month, the total weight of each raw agricultural commodity (RAC) received by this plant and processed during the
last completed year.  Show total weight processed for the year or season in the "Total" column.  Report weight in pounds or tons.  Circle reporting method:
Pounds/Tons
                                                                                                                          Type or print legibly
RAW AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS PROCESSED BY THIS PLANT
RAC
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Jan










Feb










Mar










Apr










May










Jun










Jul










Aug










Sep










Oct










Nov










Dec










Total
annual wt.










ceh/IF:5

-------
                                                              - CONFIDENTIAL -

                                               1988 EPA FOOD PROCESSING BYPRODUCT  SURVEY
                                                               Part  II, Page 2 of 3
                                                                                                                       Plant Code No.
Region
   For NFPA use only
Please complete one sheet for each raw agricultural commodity (RAC) processed.  Duplicate page as needed or request additional copies.  Circle method for
reporting weight:    Pounds/Tons

Column 2
1.0 RAC

1.1 Processed human food
1 .2 Animal feed or ensilage,
wet
1.3 Animal feed, dry
1 .4 Soil conditioner
1 .5 Burned for fuel
1.6 Buried (landfill, etc.)
1 .7 Undetermined losses
1 8 nthrr*

1 Q r>ihrra

2.1 Field residue:
animal feed
2.2 Field residue:
soil conditioner
2.3 Field residue: burned

3
Part(s) used or product(s) produced

















4
Avg.
percent
moisture

















5
Annual
Total weight
Ibs/tons

















6
Percent by
weight
&^5&&$vv'













<<<<<<<<-,
<->A~Ax?"-

7
Animal(s)
fed

^^^^^.^j^xTxTx^VVV.'V
<<<^>^<<<<<^<<-


<~<'
^<><<^<<<-
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<•





$>;$$;$;^>$>;^
"i~A^~~~>~^~*~t- A~~-~ '
aList of other products or byproducts produced from RAC, RAC byproducts, or waste not listed.
bEstimate weight of residue remaining in field and how it  is disposed.

See back of ihis page for an example oj completed form.
                    ceh/lF:6

-------
                                                              - CONFIDENTIAL  -

                                              1938  EPA FOOD PROCESSING BYPRODUCT SURVEY
                                                              Purl II, Page 2 of  3
                                                                                                                       Plain Code No.
Re»ion
   For Nb'TA use only
Please complete one sheet forj^iJi raw agricultural commodity (RAC) processed.  Duplicate page as needed or request additional copies.  Circle method lor
reporting weight:    PoundsmDniT)
                        ^	                                                                                                    Type or piiiil U'^i
Column 2
1 .0 RAC
1.1 Processed human food
1.2 Animal feed or ensilage,
wet
1 .3 Animal feed, dry
1 .4 Soil conditioner
1 .5 Burned for fuel
1.6 Buried (landfill, etc.;
1.7 Undetermined losses
| 8 <~>||i<»ra Atflf, uii»C

| Q n|h«-ra


2 1 Field residue'
animal feed
2.2 Field residue:
soil conditioner
2.3 Field residue: burned
J
Part(s) used or product(s) produced
/\oO\e.$ ~~ i/w^o ic. ; T'c./o rvn
. i • C*'*yJ
rtfflt, «>^lv'c^) iffflf^ v'Jte'*i •* l"-t*' fjff](& fllfi\
(/
»Vk
/^/, co^>. &lls , bfffc. ^o»->.««^-
/ / ; »«
/'ee./. C^ftiy £v>/'i ^*#/t rOM«c<. /.CA •*<.,>
	 r'ff^*/ S^' a^ 	
f *" **^





L««,, Wi4

4
Avg.
percent
rnoiiiure
^J
#t>
go

go
?0
— - —
(f> J





/%

5
Annual
Total weight
lbs/f<5ris)
^>^ os~o
£lj^O
3 9 ^^

3?*°
^
A//A
"/ft





/ ^x
/ ^^

6
Percent \>y
weight
^>>">;;!;>;
7?


(.
7




•- " . ^"/c% * . ' . W
A -^^- ^ ^ - V ^ -
."^-V^^"*' ^* ~ V^.
ft;>$<;>>:

7
Animal(s)
fed

"' ^"VV'V'x"^~^"X/V~^' ."*
/y,^«.*fe


->>K:-X>>;->>:^ • x •
-:•:-: »:-?->:-»:>v-c--






AA>-:;>:-:$>':;><;-
*^>c%'^>.*l«."fcj*i' "v'u"1,. "VA* *"'>l'*p.'
'List of other products or byproducts produced from RAC, RAC byproducts, or waste not listed.
'Estimate weight of residue remaining in field and how it is disposed.
                                                                                                                                            ceh/lF:6

-------
                                          - CONFIDENTIAL -
                                                                              Plant Code No.
                                                                              Region
                                                                                For NFPA use only
                          1988 EPA FOOD PROCESSING BYPRODUCT SURVEY
                                           Part II, Page 3  of 3

Please draw a simplified process flow diagram for each RAC processed, indicating sources of waste byproducts.
Cite any published literature describing the processing of the RAC(s) you process.
                                       c
Sec example on bock.

ceh/lF:7

-------
                                         ~ CONFIDENTIAL -
                                                                             Plant Code No.
                                                                               For NFPA use only
                          1988 EPA FOOD PROCESSING  BYPRODUCT SURVEY

                                          Part II,  Page 3 of 3



Please draw a simplified process flow diagram for each RAC processed, indicating sources of waste byproducts.

Cite any published literature describing the processing of the RAC(s) you process.
                                      V

                    I
            c I     -
            S U «-t r -
PoaJ 4-Ccrcb-
                                              -^— T
                                            • CA^1
                                 
-------
                                            - CONFIDENTIAL  -

                            1988  EPA FOOD  PROCESSING BYPRODUCT SURVEY
                                                    Part  III
     Research needs

     Do you feel more research should be devoted towards disposal and/or utilization of food processing
     wastes?

                           I	1  Yes              I	1  No

     If your answer is yes. which of the following would you like to see investigated?  (You may indicate
     more than one.)

     '	'   Energy production from waste and byproducts.

     '	'   New food products from waste and byproducts.

     '	'   Better utilization  of waste and byproducts for animal feed.

     '	'   Process modification to reduce waste and byproduct production.

     '	'   Treatment of wastewater streams.

     '	'   Other (please explain):
2.   Does your plant monitor for pesticide residues in or on RAC(s) and/or its (their) processed byproduct?

                           I	1  Yes             I	1  No

     If your plant does monitor for pesticide residues on the RAC(s) and/or processed byproduct(s), would you
     be willing to share the data with NFPA?

                           I	1  Yes             '	'  No              '	'  No comment



3.   Other remarks:  Any additional information pertinent to this survey and/or comments regarding this
     questionnaire would  be greatly appreciated.  If additional space is required, please attach a separate
     page.
ceh/lF:9

-------
nf?a
National Food Processors Association
6363 Clark Ave.
Dublin, Calif. 94568-3097
415/828-2070
    TO:        PROCESSORS AND HANDLERS OF RAW AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES

    FROM:      WALTER W.  ROSE

    SUBJECT:   1988 EPA FOOD PROCESSING BYPRODUCT SURVEY

    DATE:      JANUARY 2, 1989


    This  is  a  follow-up  to remind you to please complete and submit the
    1988  EPA Food Processing Byproducts Survey forms sent you in November
    of  1988.   If you have already sent it to us, then disregard this
    reminder.

    If  you have  not completed and submitted the survey forms, we urge you
    to  do so as  soon as  possible.  Your participation in this survey will
    aid the  food industry in the safe disposal of wastes from processing
    RAC's (Raw Agricultural Commodities).  Survey information will allow
    the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to properly assess the
    risk  of  pesticide residues in RAC byproducts used for animal feed.
    This  information is  needed by EPA so that tolerances for pesticide
    residues in  RAC byproducts fed to animals may be appropriately
    established.

    Even  if  you  do not handle RAC's, please complete the first page of the
    survey form  showing  products you produce.  Such information helps de-
    termine  which SIC (Standard Industry Classification) group does not
    handle RAC's that may contain pesticide residues.  This information is
    important  to EPA for future planning purposes.

    Confidential business information will be handled in a manner that
    will  maintain its confidentiality.  Published data will be pre-
    sented only  in a form that will not identify it with any individual
    company.   All data collected will be reported so that only the overall
    status of  RAC waste  by products used for feed will be known.

    If  you have  lost or  misplaced the survey forms originally sent you, we
    would be happy to send you another set.  Call Leo Pedersen or Wally
    Rose  at  (415) 828-2070 for survey forms or for information about this
    survey.   Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
   WWR:kh/84:26
WASHINGTON, D.C.      »      DUBLIN,  CALIF.      »      SEATTLE, WASH

-------