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
------- |