EPA-660/2-74-031
May 1974
Environmental Protection Technology Series
Water and Waste Management
In Poultry Processing
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
ent
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related
fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
i*. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY series. This series
describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and
methodology to repair or prevent environmental
degradation from point and -non-point sources of
pollution. This work provides the new or improved
technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality
standards.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed "by the Office of Research and
Development, EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
EPA-660/2-74-031
May 1974
WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
IN POULTRY PROCESSING
By
Roy E. Carawan
William M. Crosswhite
John A. Macon
Byron K. Hawkins
Project 12060 EGV
Program Element 1BB037
Project Officer
Jack L. Witherow
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Environmental Research Center
Corvallis, Oregon
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $2.50
-------
ABSTRACT
A typical broiler processing plant was used to evaluate changes in
equipment and processing techniques to reduce water use and waste load.
Production at the plant was through two processing lines and totaled
approximately 70,000 broilers per day. Benchmark results indicated a
water use of 12.28 gallons per bird received which was reduced by 32
percent to 7.81 gallons per bird received. Benchmark results indicated
a daily waste load of 3970 Ibs 6005 which was reduced by 66 percent to
1355 Ibs BOD^. Changes made are detailed and economic analysis showed
all to be profitable for the plant with an average annual net savings of
$4.08 per 1000 broilers processed. An initial investment of $93,065
was needed. Annual operating costs were $31,023 with annual net
savings of $72,193. A water and waste management program is detailed.
Microbiological analyses indicated no deterioration in product quality
as a result of the changes*
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
I CONCLUSIONS 1
II RECOMMENDATIONS 4
III INTRODUCTION 6
Background 6
Poultry Processing Industry 7
Poultry Processing Operations 11
Water Supply in Federal Inspected Poultry Plants 20
Wastewater Treatment in Poultry Processing 22
Literature Review 24
IV METHODOLOGY AND BENCHMARK 32
Introduction - Gold Kist Study 32
Methods 40
Benchmark Information 50
V PROCESS CHANGES AND EVALUATION 65
Introduction 65
Process Changes 67
Results 135
Total Plant Evaluation 165
VI REFERENCES 171
VII PUBLICATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 173
Introduction 173
Presentation, Papers, Reports 173
Project Spinoffs 176
Guidelines for Water and Waste Management Program 176
VIII GLOSSARY 188
IX APPENDICES 195
iii
-------
FIGURES
No. Plfif
1 Broiler Processing Operations 12
2 Major Potable Water Uses in Broiler Processing 13
3 Water and Broiler Flow in Gold Kist With Wastewater 35
(Numbers) and Microbiological Sampling Points (Letters)
Identified
4 Water and Waste Schematic for Any Industrial Process 39
5 Water and Broiler Flow in Gold Kist Plant With Selected 51
Water Use and Waste Benchmark Results
6 Total and Coliform Counts of Water Samples 57
7 Total and Coliform Counts of Carcasses 58
8 Total and Coliform Counts by Swabs Technique 59
9 Total and Coliform Counts of Giblets 60
10 Coop Cleaner 69
11 Blood Tunnel Before Changes 71
fe Non-Stunned Birds Entering Scalder 72
13 Killing Station Showing Killing Machine 73
14 Stunned Birds and Bleeding Trough 75
15 Blood Collection System 76
16 Floor and Walls Under Blood Collection Trough 78
17 System for Utilizing Chiller Overflow in Scalder 82
18 Picker Fingers 86
19 Feather Flow-Away Flume 87
20 Picker Modifications 88
21 Picker Feather Flumes 90
iv
-------
FIGURES (cont.)
No. Page
22 Feathers on Screen 94
23 Feather Discharge Into Offal Truck 95
24 Whole Bird Washer With Shower Type Discharge Nozzles 97
25 Eviscerating Trough Showing Handwash Goosenecks 100
26 Evisceration Area During Lunch Break 101
27 Water Hoses to Gizzard Machines 102
28 Pressure Regulator on Eviscerating Supply 104
29 Nozzle Installed On Goosenecks for Hand Washing 105
30 Tickler Nozzle Activated 106
31 Quick Acting On-Off Valve, Body Operated 108
32 Final Bird Washer Supply Manifold 109
33 Final Bird Washer Spray Pattern 110
34 Collection Chamber - Final Bird Washer 111
35 Offal Recovery Screen 118
36 Settling Basin 120
37 Air Flotation Cell 121
38 Air Flotation Cell Scrapper Blade Discharging Skimmings to 122
Collector
39 Air Flotation Cell Skimmings Collection Tank and Pump 123
40 Poor Floor Washing Practice 129
41 First Water Meter Installed on Giblet Chiller 130
42 Quick Cut Off Valve 132
43 Returns Per Dollar of Annual Cost for Water Flow 143
Modifications
-------
FIGURES (cont.)
No.
44 Head Puller 152
45 Quantity of Water and Waste Per Broiler 155
46 Total Counts at Various Processing Points
47 Coliform Counts at Various Processing Points
48 Total and Coliform Counts of Whole Carcass I62
vi
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Broiler Production, Per Capita Consumption and Average 8
Prices for Selected Years
2 States In Poultry Inspection Regions 9
3 Wasteload and Wastewater Volume per 1000 Birds by 27
Type of Technology, 1966
4 Effluent of Canton, Georgia Poultry Plant 27
5 Composition of Combined Poultry Plant Wastes, 29
Porges and Struzeski (1962)
6 Wastewater Characterizations, Hamm (1972) 30
7 Microbiological Sampling Points 45
8 Notes on Initial Costs and Annual Budgets 49
9 Benchmark Water Use for Gold Kist Processing Plant, 53
Durham, N. C., 1969
10 Benchmark Wastewater Characteristics, Gold Kist Plant, 55
Durham, N. C., 1969
11 Selected Wastewater Characteristics 56
12 Benchmark Daily Process Loads 62
13 Benchmark Operating Characteristics 64
14 Initial Costs of Blood Collection System 80
IS Annual Budget for Blood Collection System 81
vii
-------
TABLES (continued)
No. Page
16 Initial Costs of Using Chiller Water Overflow in the 84
Scalder
17 Annual Budget for Using Chiller Water Overflow in the 85
Scalder
18 Initial Costs of Defeathering System Modifications 92
19 Annual Budget for Defeathering System 93
20 Initial Costs of One Whole Bird Washer Modification 99
21 Annual Budget for Modification of Two Whole Bird Washers 99
22 Initial Costs of the Rehang Belt Systems on 113
Eviscerating and Packing Lines
23 Annual Budget for Rehang Belt Systems 113
24 Initial Costs of the Side Pan Wash System for 114
One Line
25 Annual Budget for Side Pan Wash System for Two Lines 114
26 Initial Costs of the Modification of the Handwashers 115
27 Annual Budget for Handwashers 115
28 Initial Costs of the Final Bird Wash System 116
29 Annual Budget for the Final Bird Wash System 116
30 Effect of Settling Basin on Wastewater Characteristics 124
and Surcharge
viii
-------
TABLES (continued)
No. Page
31 Effect of AFC on Wastewater Characteristics and 124
Surcharge
32 Initial Costs of the Air Flotation Cell 125
33 Annual Budget for Air Flotation Cell 125
34 Initial Costs of Clean-Up Operation Changes 128
35 Annual Budget for Clean-Up Operation Changes 128
36 Initial Costs of Water and Waste Monitoring and 133
Control
37 Annual Budget for Water and Waste Monitoring 134
and Control
38 Potable Water Use After Processing Changes 136
39 Dairy Water Use in Poultry Processing 137
40 Observed Water Reductions 138
41 Investment and Annual Costs and Returns of 140
Water Flow Modifications
42 Annual Water Reductions and Ratio of Process Cost 141
and Water Reductions
43 Final Wastewater Characteristics 145
44 Waste Loads 147
45 Comparison of Benchmark and Final Results — 148
Waste Loads
ix
-------
TABLES (continued)
No. Page
46 Investment and Annual Costs and Returns for Waste 150
Reduction Modifications
47 Annual Waste Reductions and Returns per Dollar of 151
Annual Cost
48 Reduction in Cost of AFC Contrasted with Initial 157
Cost of Water Related Changes
49 Budgets for Flow Modifications Including Sewer 159
Surcharge Reductions
50 Biological Evaluation of Finished Carcass 164
51 Water and Sewer Cost Comparison Including Surcharge 167
52 Summary of Initial and Annual Costs and Income for 168
Process and Equipment Changes and Water and Waste
Management, 1972
53 Final Results Summary 170
54 Record of Water Use and Wastes in Poultry Processing 182
Plant
55 Daily Water Balance Sheet for Poultry Plant 187
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special appreciation is expressed to the entire Gold Kist organization
which contributed in so many ways to the success of this project.
Especial gratitude is expressed for the cooperation and understanding
of Mr. W. C. Pulliam, Manager of the Poultry Division and to Mr.
Harold Chitwood, Manager of the Poultry Processing Plants. The
knowledge and advise of Mr. W. J. Camp, Head of Engineering and
Dr. Jim Marion, Microbiologist, were invaluable in the planning
and execution of the plant work.
The project team cannot forget the efforts of Professor David H.
Howells for it was his efforts and funding by the Water Resources
Research Institute of the University of North Carolina which initiated
these efforts.
The cooperation forged at the campus of North Carolina State University
by Dr. W. M. Roberts, Head, Department of Food Science and
Dr. Touissant, Head, Department of Economics was instrumental in
assisting this project.
The USDA, CMS inspection staff was most cordial and assisted in
assuring product quality during all stages of testing. The rule
variance for the Special Study was also valuable as important research
was accomplished.
The City of Durham, particularly Mr. Leslie Matthews, Head of
Industrial Waste provided historical data and experiences that greatly
assisted in the completion of the project.
The personnel contributing to the project included:
GOLD KIST, INC.
Mr. Byron Hawkins, Project Director
Plant Manager, Durham Plant
Mr. Lawrence Carter, In—plant Director
Management Trainee
xi
-------
NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
Project Team
Dr. W. M. Crosswhite, Investigations Leader
Associate Professor
Department of Economics
Mr. John A. Macon, Research Associate
Department of Economics
Mr. Roy E. Caravan, Extension Specialist
Department of Food Science
Advisors and Consultants
Dr. James Seagraves, Professor
Department of Economics
Dr. M. L. Speck, WNR Professor
Department of Food Science
Dr. F. R. Tarver, Jr., Extension Associate Professor
Department of Food Science
Graduate Students
Mr. Robert Ward, Research Assistant
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Mr. Tom Cownes, Research Assistant
Department of Economics
Mr. Aimed Hamza, Research Assistant
Department of Civil Engineering
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. George Keeler, Food and Kindred Products Research
Mr. Harold Snyder, Project Field Director
Mr. Jack L. Witherow, Project Officer
The authors greatly appreciate the efforts of Ann LaPrade
who tirelessly typed and retyped this manuscript. We will
remain indebted to her for the energy and enthusiasm she
showed throughout the completion of this report.
xii
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
1. Most equipment and processes in a poultry processing plant can
be modified to reduce water requirements (water use per unit of
time). Waterborne wastes can be reduced by improved waste
recovery methods and through reduced water usage.
2. Changes made during the study were effective in reducing waste
loads and water use; however, maintaining lower levels of water
use and waterbome wastes requires a continuing commitment to
water and waste management.
3. The average daily potable water use of 850,000 gallons per day
(GPD) was reduced by 32%. Water use per bird declined from
12.28 to 7.81 gallons. A calculated achievable water use per
bird was 6.2 gallons.
4. The plants final effluent daily waste load of 3970 Ibs 6005 was
reduced by 66%. The pounds of BOD5/1000 broilers declined from
57.4 to 18.4. BODij concentration in the final effluent decreased,
during reductions in water use, from 580 mg/1 to 282 mg/1. The
greater reduction observed in waste load (66%) than in 6005
concentration (52%) was the result of: (1) increased
efficiencies of waste recovery due to reduced hydraulic loading
of offal and feather screens and air flotation cell
(2) improved practices of employees in water use and waste
reduction and (3) reduced use of water may have decreased the
loss of organics due to less washing of viscera and other
waterborne matter.
5. The dollar benefits from water flow modifications were
approximately tripled due to the complementarity of water and
waste reductions.
-------
6. The microbiological quality of the final carcass was not lowered
during water reductions.
7. Discharges of grease and feathers had been nuisance items at the
Durham municipal wastewater treatment plant. The grease
concentration was reduced 57% and feathers and solids in the
poultry processing plant effluent were controlled.
8. Water flow modifications included the use of high efficiency
nozzles in product washing equipment and hand washing operations,
reuse of water, new plant clean-up equipment, improved feather
flowaway and cycling of the side pan wash water. The impact of
these changes was to reduce annual water use by 74.3 million
gallons. The average cost of reducing water use was 8.6 cents per
1000 gallons which compared favorably with the water and sewer rate
of 44 cents per 1000 gallons.
9. The features common to each of the flow modifications were:
(1) Water flow rates were reduced. (2) There was a net addition
to Income as a result of reduced costs. (3) The initial costs
or investment could be recovered within the first year; and
(4) Initial investment was small compared with the total net
benefits.
10. Improved regulation of wastewater flows and lowered hydraulic
loading improved the performance and efficiency of offal and
feather screens. Because of technical linkage between water
usage and waste reductions, water flow modification will reduce
investment requirements in waste treatment and other facilities
because hydraulic loading is an important design parameter.
11. The return per dollar of annual cost for selected changes was
$29.96 for handwash nozzles, $7.50 for the final bird wash,
$6.80 for blood collection, and $4.86 for cycling the side
pan wash and $9.68 for plant clean-up.
12. Total investment for the changes was $93,065. This included
$20,754 for water and waste monitoring. Total annual capital
and operation costs including the salary of a full time water
and waste manager was $31,023. Monitoring costs and the salary
of the water-waste manager are included because the termination
of monitoring coincided with the termination of employment of
the water-waste supervisor and marked the end of the water and
waste reductions in the poultry processing plant.
-------
13. Annual benefits (increased revenues and reduced costs) associated
with the changes were $103,216. The net annual savings was
$72,193 or $2.33 net annual benefits per dollar of annual cost.
14. Whole bird washer water provided a substitute for chiller water
reuse in the scald vat with no decrease in microbiological
quality.
15. The reuse of combined chiller and final bird wash waters for the
flushing of gizzards in the gizzard splitting machines had no
detrimental effect on the microbiological quality of the
gizzards or whole birds.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. A well planned water conservation program should be instituted in
every poultry processing plant. The program, if properly under-
stood and managed by both the plant and USDA inspection staff,
would provide for minimum water use while maintaining a wholesome
and quality product. This will require the following as detailed
in SECTION VII - PUBLICATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
a. Full time water and waste supervisor.
b. Water and wastewater monitoring and control program.
c. Training program for employees.
d. Close coordination and support of regulatory agencies.
2. Significant further water and waste reductions will be possible in
poultry processing. Specific areas needing attention include:
a. Parameters should be identified and evaluated for the
control of continuous use water. Modification of
traditional plant design and equipment providing for
continuous water use may be required.
b. Research should be undertaken on the collection and
recovery of grease for human consumption from chilling and
other process waters.
c. Chemical and microbiological parameters should be
identified for measuring the quality of poultry products.
Also, the possible relationship between product quality
parameters and poultry wash water parameters should be
investigated.
d. Industry - University - Regulatory teams should continue
to evaluate the current controversial practice of chilling
of poultry in a chiller, the water pick-up practices
currently allowed by regulations and utilized by industry,
and characteristics of product chilled by other than
immersion chillers.
-------
c. Current potable water use practices for chilling and
scalding should be evaluated for possible water use
reductions.
f. A GIF (cleaning in place) system should be developed for
poultry processing to reduce water use, facilitate waste
recovery, improve sanitation, decrease the use of
detergents and sanitizers and reduce labor for clean-up
operations. Process and equipment redesign will be
required.
3. The results of this study should be used to improve equipment and
processes to minimize water use and wastes. Specific areas are:
a. feather removal systems
b. blood collection systems including cutting equipment
and stunners
c. gizzard splitters
d. cleaners
e. washers
f. flumes
g. offal handling equipment
h. coop cleaners
4. It is further recommended that state and federal agencies fund
additional investigations in water use and waste reductions in
poultry processing plants.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Water has many uses in poultry processing including scalding, product
preparation, cooling the whole birds and parts, transporting wastes
and cleanup. Wastes added in these processes result in high-strength
effluent when compared to normal municipal waste waters. Most of
these wastes are highly degradable by biological and chemical waste
treatment processes. A studyl predicted that water used for poultry
processing would total 26 billion gallons in 1970 with a BOD^ discharge
of some 147 million pounds.
Relatively low water and sewer costs and the absence of restrictions
and surcharges on waste loadings have resulted in a low priority on
research and the development of information on water and waste manage-
ment in poultry processing. Information on in-plant water and waste
reduction methods has been limited. More importantly, traditional
production techniques have not been engineered for water and waste
management.
The concern of poultry processors in providing clean, good tasting
poultry products coupled with the government's legal authority to
insure the sanitary processing of broilers has further increased the
use of water in processes throughout the plant. The large volumes
of water use and wastes in poultry processing have become a problem
for a number of municipalities.
The costs of upgrading and maintaining the water quality of our
streams is currently the responsibility of the users—municipalities
and industry. Enforcement of water-quality standards places important
restraints on discharging wastes to surface waters and streams.
These restraints are of much concern to the poultry processing industry
which is highly competitive and growing rapidly.
This study was undertaken with the belief that water and waste manage-
ment techniques provide an economical way for any poultry processing
plant to obtain per unit reductions in water use and wastes discharged
-------
in the plant effluent. Also, most poultry processing plant
managers do not know how much water they are using, where they are
using it, when they are using it, and in some cases, why they are
using it. Water, traditionally a resource of minor cost and great
convenience, has not occupied the attention of either managers or
their employees. Wasteful water practices were known to be common
throughout the industry.
POULTRY PROCESSING INDUSTRY
Poultry processing is a vital link in the poultry industry of the
United States. Poultry processing plants perform the functions of
slaughtering and eviseration of broilers, turkeys, mature chickens
and other classes of poultry. Plants may engage in cutting up of
these animals; and also, further processing may be executed with
canning, freezing or cooking into specialty items. The term poultry
processing as used for the remainder of this report will refer to
the slaughtering, evisceration and cutting of broilers.
The poultry firm is characterized today by vertically integrated
operations from laying flocks through hatchery, feed mill, growing
operations, processing, selling to the rendering of offal and feather
by-products. Broiler processing in the United States developed
very rapidly during the past two decades. Annual production increased
from 632 million birds in 1950 to over three billion birds in 1972,
Table 1. Annual per capita consumption of fresh dressed poultry
has risen from about 9 pounds to over 38 pounds during this same
period.
There are over 400 federally inspected broiler slaughtering plants
in the U.S. Approximately 218 plants are in the South Atlantic
and South Central Regions, Table 2. In these two regions, 9 percent
of the plants slaughtered less than 10 million pounds of live weight
in 1970, 58 percent processed between 10 and 50 million pounds per
plant in 1970, and 33 percent processed 50 million pounds or more.
These two regions accounted for 86.8 percent of the total U.S. broiler
production in 1970. The 1971 live weight average was 3.7 pounds
per bird. The percentage of total broiler kill that was Federally
inspected was approximately 80 percent in 1970.
The large size and concentration of the poultry processing industry
becomes important in view of its waste generation. In poultry pro-
cessing, inedible materials such as feathers, blood, dirt, and viscera
are removed from the carcass to make it acceptable for human
consumption. Large quantities of water are used to both wash and
clean the poultry in processing and also to transport large amounts
of waste to screening and ultimate disposal. The highly organic
-------
Table 1. BROILER PRODUCTION, PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION AND AVERAGE PRICES FOR SELECTED YEARSa
00
Production
Year
1934
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1972
Number
Produced
(millions)
34
143
366
632
1,092
1,795
2,334
2,987
3,075
Live
Weight
(million pounds)
97
413
1,107
1,945
3,350
6,017
6,907
10,819
11,478
Consumption
Per
Capita
(pounds)
0.5
2.0
5.0
8.7
13.8
23.3
29.4
38.3
-
Received
by Producer
19.3
17.3
29.5
27.4
25.2
16.9
15.0
13.6
14.1
Prices* »b
Wholesale
(cents per pound)
-
-
-
41.2
39.7
32.2
29.4
26.4
-
Retail
-
-
-
59.5
55.9
42.7
39.0
40.5
-
aU.S. Department of Agriculture, "Poultry and Egg Situation," ERS Report No. PES 264, November 1970,
p. 12 and "Chickens and Eggs", SRS Pou. 2-3 (73), April, 1973.
National Commission on Food Marketing, "Organization and Competition in the Poultry and Egg
Industries," Technical Study No. 2, June 1966, p. 62.
-------
Table 2. STATES IN POULTRY INSPECTION REGIONS
North Atlantic
Maine
New Hampshire
Vermont
Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Western
Idaho
Colorado
Airzona
Utah
Washington
Oregon
California
East North Central
Ohio
Indiana
Illinois
Michigan
Wisconsin
South Atlantic South Central West North Central
Delaware Kentucky Minnesota
Maryland Tennessee Iowa
Virginia Alabama Missouri
West Virginia Mississippi Nebraska
North Carolina Arkansas Kansas
South Carolina Louisiana
Georgia Oklahoma
Florida Texas
-------
nature of the waste may cause bacterial blooms, depressed oxygen
levels, and severely disrupted biota where released directly to the
environment. Waste discharged to a sewage treatment system may
provide a substantial load in terms of population equivalent,
escaping grease, escaping feathers and offal. These items can
hamper treatment processes, and is subject to substantial sewer
use surcharges by municipalities.
The average price received by producers has dropped from a high
of 29.5 cents per pound in 1945 to 13.4 cents per pound in 1970.
Data for selected years are summarized in Table 1. Inedible parts
of a broiler such as feathers, feet, head and eviscera account for
25 percent of the live weight of the bird. Based on the average
price paid to producers in 1970, the cost of the potentially marketable
parts of a broiler averages 19.1 cents per pound which consists
of 13.4 cents per pound to the grower for the live bird and 5.7
cents per pound for discarded offal, feathers and other parts. The
wholesale price of 26.4 cents per pound includes the average cost of
edible chicken meat, 19.1 cents per pound, and 7.3 cents per
pound for processing, marketing and profits including live hauling,
processing, selling and delivery to markets.
All activities in and around a poultry processing plant are regulated
by the USDA. The Poultry Products Inspection Act was enacted in
August of 1957 and became effective on January 1, 1959, to ensure
the sale of wholesome poultry meat. The Consumer and Marketing
Service* of the United States Department of Agriculture was given
the responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the Act and
promulgating such rules and regulations as needed to implement this
Act. Three basic responsibilities under the Act are:
1. To inspect poultry for wholesomeness so as to determine its
suitability for human food.
2. To ensure that poultry and poultry products are processed in
a sanitary manner in an approved processing plant having proper
facilities.
3. To ensure that the product is not adulterated in any manner.
*Consumer Marketing Service now Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, Meat and Poultry Inspection Division.
10
-------
POULTRY PROCESSING OPERATIONS
o
A poultry processing plant has been defined by Porges and Struzeski
as a mechanical slaughterhouse in which live birds are converted
to dressed products for sale to distributors. In this section
the operations used to accomplish the above conversion will be
discussed in relation to their water use and waste discharge
characteris tics.
The processing operations can be divided into thirteen distinct
areas or activities as shown in Figure 1. These are receiving,
killing, bleeding and blood recovery, scalding, defeathering, feather
recovery, whole bird wash, evisceration, final wash, offal recovery,
chilling, packing, and final wastewater collection and control.
This listing roughly follows the path of the bird through the plant.
A flow chart illustrating potable water flow into the processing
scheme, using the path of the bird as orientation, is shown in
Figure 2. The thirteen activities as detailed by Ward3 follow.
Receiving Area
The live birds, contained in coops, are unloaded from incoming
trucks and sent by conveyor to the coop unloading area. Here the birds
are removed from the coops and are attached by their feet to shackles
suspended from an overhead conveyor line. The empty, uncleaned coops
are returned to the truck. This practice contributes to the number
of loose feathers present around the outside of processing plants
and along the route traveled by the trucks.
No water is used in this area except for cleanup purposes. Wastes
from this area consist of loose feathers, manure and dirt.
Killing Station
The birds on the conveyor move from the receiving area to the killing
station at a prescribed rate. They are usually slaughtered by cutting
the jugular vein. Slitting the jugular vein is done either by hand
or by machine. Stunning techniques are sometimes employed before
or after killing.
11
-------
BIRDS
RECEIVING
KILLING
BLEEDING
SCALDING
DEFEATHERING
BLOOD RECOVERY
FEATHER RECOVERY
WHOLE BIRD WASH
EVISCERATION
OFFAL RECOVERY
FINAL BIRD WASH
CHILLING
PACKING
PACKED BIRDS
WASTEWATER
COLLECTION AND
CONTROL
Figure 1. Broiler processing operations
12
-------
POTABLE
WATER
BIRDS
RECEIVING
KILLING
BLEEDING
SCALDING
H DEFEATHERING
HWHOLE BIRD WASH
EVISCERATION
FINAL BIRD WASH
CHILLING
PACKING
PACKED BIRDS
-+\ CLEAN-UP
BLOOD RECOVERY
FEATHER RECOVERY
OFFAL RECOVERY
WASTEWATER
COLLECTION AND
CONTROL
Figure 2. Major potable water uses in broiler processing
13
-------
Water is used at the killing station when a machine is employed
to do the slaughtering. It is used to wet the feathers in order
to provide an accurate cut. Wastes generated at the killing station
consist of some blood and feathers which usually enter the waste
stream of the plant during cleanup.
Bleeding and Blood Recovery
After the birds have been slaughtered, the conveyor line continues and
immediately carries them into the blood tunnel (a restricted area)
where blood is allowed to drain from the birds for approximately 1.5
to 2 minutes. Blood is allowed to collect in the tunnel and is
removed at the end of the processing day. The blood is usually
sold to a renderer. If not, it is discharged to the sewer.
During actual processing operations, no water is used and little or
no wastes are discharged from the blood tunnel. However, the waste
load can be high if blood serum is allowed to drain freely away from
the tunnel.
Scalding
The birds, still on the overhead conveyor, enter the scalder after
leaving the blood tunnel. This is usually a large tank of water with
a temperature of 128 to 140 degrees F. A few plants use a spray
scald. The birds remain in the scald tank for approximately one
to two minutes while water is continuously circulated around them.
The processor is required by regulations (U.S.D.A., Consumer and
Marketing Service, 1968)4 to add a minimum of one quart per bird
per minute of fresh water to the scalder. For a plant processing
9000 birds per hour this amounts to a minimum of 2250 gallons per
hour or 37.5 gallons per minute. Overflow from the scalder is
usually discharged into the feather flow-away drain. The actual
point of entry of this scalder discharge into the feather flow-
away is important when considering how useful it is in removing
the feather volume. If the scalder discharge is at the point of
origin of the feathers (defeathering machines) it is more useful
than if it enters the flow-away after defeathering has been completed.
Using water from other parts of the plant (for example, the chiller
water) in the scalder is one way to cut down the fresh water
input. There is also the possibility of using a heat exchanger
on the scalder outflow in order to conserve energy. This energy
would be used to heat the input water to the scalder.
14
-------
Wastes in the water discharged from the scalder consist of blood,
grease, feathers, and dirt.
Defeathering
After leaving the scalder the birds enter the defeathering operations.
There are several configurations available for accomplishing this
job, but use of three or four defeathering machines, one positioned
right after the other, is most common. Each machine has a special
area of the bird or type of feather which it is intended to remove.
The most common defeathering machine is a continuous one which
employs rubber fingers attached to cylinders to remove feathers
as the cylinder turns. Continuous water sprays are generally used
in these machines to flush out feathers. The feathers fall out
of the machine into a trough which serves as a flow-away removal
system for feathers, dirt, etc.
The amount of fresh water used in the defeathering operations varies
greatly from one plant to another and at different times in the
same plant. This great variation can be traced to the need for
hosing down feathers that pile up in or under the defeathering
machines. If improvements were made on the nozzles in the defeathering
machines and troughs more adapted to removal of feathers were used,
the system would operate more smoothly. Recirculation of wastewater
from other areas of the plant to supplement the feather flow-away
volume would definitely help prevent clogging. The removal of
feathers by auger may be more desirable than the present flow-away
system.
Wastes from the defeathering operation mainly consist of a very
large volume of feathers. Some heads are removed by the pickers
and there is some dirt and blood. This waste flows to a screening
area where the feathers are removed from the water,
Feather Recovery
The large volume of feathers represents a tremendous waste load,
but, if removed from the water, the feathers can be sold to a Tenderer.
In some cases a Tenderer may not be available and another method
of disposal will be required. Removal of feathers from the wastewater
can be accomplished by several different types of screens. The
vibrating screen, the reel screen, and the traveling screen are
three major types. The feathers, once removed from the water,
are generally augered into a truck for shipment to a Tenderer.
If the feathers are augered straight from the defeathering machines
to trucks, the need for a feather screen is eliminated.
15
-------
Screens require frequent repairs in order to prevent spills of wastes
into the sewer and stoppages due to screen breakdowns, employment of
a by-pass screen is necessary.
Whole Bird Wash
Once the birds have been defeathered, the few remaining pin feathers
are removed by hand and the body hair is singed off by having the
bird pass through a flame. The birds then go through the whole
bird wash. Here water is sprayed on the birds as they pass through
a washing chamber. Discharge from this operation goes into the
feather flow-away system beyond the defeathering machines.. This
discharge water is fairly clean, thereby lending it to recirculation
for a second use.
The whole bird wash water could be used in the scalder as a replacement
for the fresh water input. If this is not feasible at a particular
plant, redesigning the nozzles in the wash and using an automatic
cut-off for the water when no birds are on the line will reduce
the amount of fresh water used.
Evisceration
After leaving the whole bird wash the birds enter the evisceration
room which is segregated from the defeathering area. The separation
prevents wastes of the previous operations from coming in contact
with the eviscerated birds. The first operation in the eviscerating
room is removal of the feet. The feet can be collected in drums
or allowed to fall into the wastewater flow from the evisceration
trough. Use of fresh water at this point involves cleaning of the
area onto which the birds fall after the feet have been removed.
The birds are rehung on another overhead conveyor line which takes
them to the eviscerating trough.
Evisceration of the birds consists of exposing the viscera for
inspection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture; recovery, and
cleaning of the heart, liver, and gizzard; and removal from the
carcass of the head, inedible viscera, lungs, and any other remaining
material. The neck may be removed now or after chilling operations.
The heart, liver, gizzard, and neck are giblets and are wrapped
and packed into the bird just before the weighing operation.
The gizzard has to be processed separately from the bird and special
machines are available for this purpose. The gizzard must be split,
emptied of its contents (sand and grit), peeled of its inner lining
16
-------
and washed. Water may be used to transport the giblets to the giblet
wrap and pack area of the plant.
Evisceration of the birds occurs along an evisceration line. This line
usually consists of a trough down the center of which a large
volume of water is continuously flowing. This water originates
from hand washing faucets and side washing nozzles that are located
along both sides of the trough. Also contributing is the water from
the final wash chamber, located at the end of the eviscerating line,
and the gizzard machine.
Hand washing faucets are usually hook-necked pipes with no nozzles.
By using nozzles it would be possible to reduce the volume of flow
from these faucets and to improve the washing of the hands. It
may be possible to install body operated valves on these faucets,
thus reducing the water volume even further. Since the side pan
wash water never comes in contact with the bird or the employees
handling the bird, use of recycled water might be possible for the
pan wash.
Wastes from the evisceration room consist of inedible viscera, crops
and windpipes, heads, flesh trimmings, grit and sand from the gizzard
cleaning, fat, blood, grease, etc. These wastes are generally termed
offal and are carried from the evisceration room in the water that
flows down the eviscerating trough. The water serves as a transporta-
tion system to remove wastes from the plant. If improvements to
the eviscerating area cause the water volume in the trough to fall
below that necessary to remove the offal, it is usually possible
to reuse water from another area of the plant to increase the volume.
Final Wash
The birds receive a final wash after all evisceration operations
have been completed. The final wash is performed in a chamber where
spray nozzles cover the bird with a continuous stream of fresh water.
The wash serves to cleanse the bird of remaining particles inside
or outside of the carcass.
Water discharged from the final wash usually joins the water flow from
the eviscerating trough since the final wash is generally a part
of the eviscerating line. Final wash water is suitable for recircula-
tion and if it is not needed to carry offal away, it may be better
utilized in the defeathering area or along the eviscerating table
as side pan wash water. Those improvements suggested for the whole
bird wash may also be applicable to the final wash. These involve
better nozzles and an automatic water cut-off when no birds are on
the line.
17
-------
Offal Recovery
Offal resulting from the evisceration operations is screened from the
wastewater at the waste collection area. The offal can also be sold
to a Tenderer. Offal screens are similar to feather screens, but the
large amounts of grease present in this wastewater can cause trouble
by clogging the screens. The offal, once removed from the wastewater,
is augered to a waiting truck to be hauled away.
The frequency-of-repair of the offal screen, like the feather screen,
is high. Employment of a spare screen could serve as an insurance
against breakdown for both feather and offal screens. If this spare
screen was designed as a fine mesh screen, it could be used as a
final screening of the wastewater before it enters the settling
basin. The screen would have to also be able to handle the entire
feather or offal load in case of a breakdown. If a single-dual
purpose screen is not practicable because of Ibaction, two different
screens could be used.
Chilling
Chilling operations follow the final wash. Chilling is accomplished
by large horizontal tanks containing an ice and water mixture which
is stirred by a mechanical device. Two or three of these tanks
are usually employed with a counter-current recirculation of the
water and ice within each unit and between units. The Poultry Products
Inspection Regulations^ requires that there shall be not less than
1/2 gallon per frying chicken discharged from the first section
of the chilling unit. In this tank type of chilling the birds are
continuously moving through the system. Some smaller plants use
a batch process. Temperature of the bird is reduced to approximately
34 degrees F at the end of the chilling process.
The birds are removed from the overhead conveyor and placed in the
chilling tanks. They remain in the tanks for approximately 30 to
35 minutes. During chilling the birds pick up between 6 and 12%
moisture by weight.
The partial counter-current recirculation between chilling tanks
is a good water conservation measure presently being employed. Con-
verting this to a complete counter-current system may be better.
Making further use of the chiller water in other areas of the plant
such as in the defeathering area will cut down on fresh water input
to the plant. Using heat exchangers on the inputs-output of the
chilling operations will reduce the energy requirements for this
operation.
18
-------
Water discharged from the chilling operation contains parts of flesh,
grease and blood, but this material should not prevent reuse elsewhere
in the plant.
Weighing and Packaging
Upon leaving the chilling operations the birds are replaced on overhead
conveyors in order to allow the excess moisture to drain off and
to carry the birds through the giblet packing and weighing operations.
The giblets, that were removed during evisceration and other
operations such as removing the neck, are wrapped and packed into
the bird before the birds are sorted into various weight classes.
After sorting the birds are put into boxes, weighed and packed with
ice. They are then put into waiting trucks or are held in a cold
storage room for shipment later.
During actual processing there is no fresh water used in the weighing
or packaging area. There is an input of ice in this area but the
amount of water resulting from melting ice is.very small.
Final Wastewater Collection and Control
The wastewater, after having passed through the screening operations,
may or may not have further treatment before being discharged. Plants
discharging to a stream must have further treatment at the plant
site but those discharging to a municipal sewer may or may not.
In the past, few plants that discharge to a sewer have made serious
attempts to further treat their wastes after screening, but the
coming of surcharges may make this a profitable operation.
A settling basin with grease skimming would provide for removal
of settleable solids and grease. Grease could possibly become another
byproduct bringing in revenue.
19
-------
WATER SUPPLY IN FEDERALLY INSPECTED POULTRY PLANTS
Turner (1973) related the following official interpretation about
water supply in poultry processing plants. The amount of water per
bird used in poultry processing increased significantly during the
middle and late 1950's, when most poultry plants remodeled for Govern-
ment inspection and at the same time installed flowaway systems
for moving organic waste and flumes or pumps for moving giblets.
Since that time further mechanization, such as continuous chillers
and gizzard machines, has added still more to the demand for clean
water.
Section 381.50 of the Poultry Products Inspection Regulations
outlines the general requirements for water. More detailed
references may be found in the Poultry Inspector's Handbook
and The Guidelines for Implementation of Sanitary Requirements
in Poultry Establishments.^ Some of the provisions of section
381.50 are as follows:
1. The water supply shall be ample, clean, and potable; the
pressure and facilities for distribution must be adequate
and protected against contamination and pollution.
2. A water potability report issued under the authority of the
State health agency, certifying to the potability of the
water, must be provided.
3. Nonpotable water must be restricted to parts of the plant
where no poultry product is processed or otherwise handled
and then only for limited purposes such as condensers not
connected with potable water supply, vapor lines serving
inedible-product rendering tanks, and in sewerlines moving
heavy solids in sewage. Nonpotable water shall not be
permitted for washing floors, areas, or equipment, nor
in boilers, scalders, chill vats, or icemaking machines.
4. In all cases, nonpotable-water lines shall be clearly
identified and shall not be cross-connected with potable
water supply unless it is necessary for fire protection.
Any such connections must have adequate breaks to assure
against accidental contamination and must be approved by
local authorities and the administrator.
20
-------
5. Any untested water supply in an official establishment must
be treated as a nonpotable supply.
In reviewing section 381.50, it can be seen that the use of
nonpotable water is very restricted. Acceptible uses of
nonpotable water are given on pages 4 and 5 of the Poultry
Inspector's Handbook^ outline areas and conditions under which
water from chilling units, condensers, and compressors may
be reused. It might also be added that, while it is not mentioned
in any of these references, recirculated water from the refuse
room is permitted in the drains to float feathers in the picking
room. These drains are then considered the same as a sewer
and any carcass that makes contact is condemned.
In permitting chilling water reuse, the Handbook may appear
to contradict section 381.50. The Handbook is taken by U.S.
Department of Agriculture inspectors as the official, working
intepretation of section 381.50, and administratively is much
easier to update or amend.
The Handbook provides that water from poultry-chilling units may
be reused:
1. To aid in the movement of heavy solids in the eviscerating
trough, but not for flushing inner surfaces or side panels
of the trough
2. After removal of visible solids by screening for:
a. Scalding tanks
b. Flushing feathers from the picking-machine aprons
c. Feather flowaway
d. Washing down the floor in the picking room
e. Hardening the wax in pinning operations
Water from condensers or compressors may be used in any of the
locations stated above provided the system is closed and there
is a vacuum break in the line to prevent backsiphonage. It
may also be used for any other purpose in the plant where arti-
fically heated water is permitted, provided that it is covered
by a potability certificate issued under authority of the State
health agency.
21
-------
If pumps or pipes are required to convey water intended for
reuse from condensers, compressors, or chilling units, they
must be of the same type that can be readily dismantled as
required for sanitizing.
Specific amounts of overflow water in giblet and carcass-chilling
units are required, and the Handbook? suggests a minimum amount
of overflow from scalders. All other requirements regarding
the amount of water required are on an "adequate amount" or
what-is-necessary basis.
Sanitary processing requires enough running water on gooseneck
washers to keep hands and hand tools rinsed, enough on bird
washers to thoroughly wash each carcass, and enough on equipment
to keep contact surfaces rinsed. In addition, some noncontact
surfaces, such as the insides of troughs, must be rinsed
continuously to prevent accumulation of waste. There is, however,
a difference between an adequate amount of water and a wasteful
amount. Many plants waste water—by running more than is required
or necessary, or by failing to cut it off when no longer needed,
or both. In many instances, water can be saved by paying more
attention to plumbing.
Most plants now take advantage of melted ice to count toward
the required overflow in the first chilling unit, but there
appear to be few that have made any attempt to utilize the
overflow water from chillers. Perhaps that is because it is
not generally needed in the areas where permitted. Most plants
do utilize some source of recirculated water to move feathers
to the refuse room.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT IN POULTRY PROCESSING
Many communities are faced with having to provide advanced waste
treatment to comply with Federal and State regulations. Individual
industrial plants discharging directly to a water course are also
coming under more stringent controls. All poultry processors will
eventually come under direct or indirect^ pressure to reduce their
wastewater flows and strengths. Either wastewater characteristics
will be directly regulated or those processors using municipal facili-
ties will experience substantial sewer surcharges. While a consider-
able number of plants are being charged minimal rates for their
waste treatment, there is a rapidly growing trend among municipalities
to make industry pay for its share of waste treatment. As regulations
force municipal plants to improve their wastewater effluent qualities
22
-------
at greater treatment costs, the costs will be passed on to those
Industries discharging a significant amount of waste to the system.
Normal sewer charges to industry are based on flow rate and allow
up to 250 or 300 mg/1 of BOD and suspended solids in the waste stream.
Additional concentrations of BOD and suspended solids have been
charged at rates of $20 to $80 per thousand pounds of each. Incentive
for waste reduction is increasing.
Q
A survey in 1970 of federally inspected slaughtering operations
indicated that 29 percent of the plants had some degree of private
waste treatment, 65 percent of the plants had final municipal waste
treatment and 6 percent had no waste treatment whatsoever. The
reduction of water usage in the poultry processing operations and
the water discharged will thus be a benefit to processors, municipal
waste treatment facilities and the general public whose environment
is affected.
Reduction of flows need not be completely at odds with the industry
trend toward modernization and improved,processing using flowaway
systems. It will remain for the industry to assess the costs of
process changes to either "dry" or recirculating systems and compare
them against wastewater treatment charges. In the event of borderline
decisions, one should be aware that wastewater quality restrictions
imposed by states and municipalities are likely to become more stringent
in the future and the most economical method to meet those restrictions
is often by in-plant process modifications.
Based on a sewer charge of 25 cents per 1000 gallons, typical water
use and waste discharges, and a wastewater flow of 18.4 billion
gallons, the USDA predicted8 a cost to poultry processors of municipal
waste treatment at $4.6 million. The live weight slaughter at the
plants surveyed by the USDA was 8.4 billion pounds with a calculated
sewer charge of $0.55 per 1000 pounds of live poultry. Inefficient
plants losing excessive solids to the wastewater streams stand to
have increased sewer surcharges and concomitantly increased processing
costs. Total treatment costs were estimated for anaerobic-aerobic
lagoon systems and extended aeration systems. Private waste treatment
by lagooning could cost the processor from $0.22 to $0.08 per 1000
pounds live weight for poorly to properly controlled plants;
respectively.
Extended aeration plants, which provide a higher degree of treatment
with less land area, would require investment, operating and
maintenance costs of $1.10 to $0.40 per 1000 pounds live weight for
hydraulically unmanaged and managed processing plants respectively.
Careful and diligent in-plant water use reduction by the poultry
processor may save him substantial quantities of money by realizing
23
-------
smaller waste treatment systems than those calculated here for
"typical" poultry processing plants in 1970. At a normal sewer
charge of $0.25 per 1000 gallons of waste, a water use charge of
$0.25 per 1000 gallons of water supplied, and a sewer surcharge
of $50 per 1000 Ibs. of BOD discharged over 300 mg/1 in concentration,
a typical 100,000 broilers per day poultry processor with poor water
and waste management may pay a monthly bill of $21,600. With proper
water management this bill can be reduced to approximately $11,520.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The poultry processing industry and its water and waste load has been
extensively studied by several agencies, FWPCA1, Forges and Struzeski2
and USDAr. The main efforts have been directed at establishing the
gross water use and waste load for poultry processing although
classification by area, size and technology were examined for
differences.
Forges and Struzeski2 made initial studies directed at understanding
the water demands and waste discharges of the poultry processing
industry. The authors prefaced their pamphlet in part with the
following words, "Protecting our water resources is essential to
health and economic growth. Stream pollution control provides benefits
to the industry, the individual citizen, and the nation. Since
the most economical operation is achieved when process water is
at a minimum, it is particularly advantageous for industry to understand
its waste problem." Obviously this study was attacking the same
goals as the present research and demonstration grant.
They found the average poultry processing plant of the early sixties to
be a "modern, highly automatic" establishment. The average kill for
the plants surveyed was 50,000 BPD while the larger plants handled
60-90,000 BPD. The largest plants processed in excess of 150,000
BPD.
The blood from the killing station was found by Forges and Struzeski2
to be waste of the greatest pollutional significance. They indicated
that blood was usually collected in a "bleeding tunnel" and removed
several times a day as a semi-solid in the better managed plants. A
study by Forges^ found that 8 percent of the body weight of the
chicken may be blood, of which 70 percent is drainable. BOD^ analysis
indicated that the mean BOD5 was 92,000 mg/1. Thus the drainable
blood was shown to have a pollutional load of 17.4 Ibs/1000 chickens
24
-------
processed. Bolton found that the BOD and suspended solids loads can
be reduced by 15 lbs/1000 birds and 6 lbs/1000 birds if the blood is
recovered.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration identified those
processes which have substantial impact upon wasteloads. Those
processes are: (1) Blood recovery, (2) screening of feathers, and
(3) cleanup. Blood recovery can reduce wasteloads by approximately
thirty-eight percent. With only fifty-six percent of all plants
reportedly recovering blood in 1966, this process is potentially an
area where substantial pollution reduction could occur. Defeathering
has a pollution potential of great magnitude because of the volume
of feathers involved. Because feathers are not easily degradable by
biological waste treatment, processing plants must use screens to
separate the feathers from the wastewater. Dry cleanup of manure and
feathers preceding the wet cleanup can reduce both the solids and BOD
concentration of the wastewater.
Technology was defined in terms of the subprocess mix. The three
levels of technology: "Old," "Typical," and "Advanced" were defined
as follows:
"Old Technology" (41% of all plants in 1966)
1. Holding of live poultry in storage batteries
2. Recovery of no blood
3. Nonflow-away system for removal of feathers and offal from
processing area
4. Removal of carcass body heat by submersion in portable vat
containing ice and water
5. Shipment of processed poultry in ice
6. Dry cleanup followed by wet cleanup
"Typical Technology" (56% of all plants in 1966)
1. Direct placement of birds on conveyor from receiving truck
2. Recovery of all blood due to immobilization of birds
3. Flow-away system for removal of feathers and offal from the
processing area
4. Shipment of processed poultry in ice
5. Wet cleanup of plant
"Advanced Technology" (3% of all plants in 1966)
1. Direct placement of birds on conveyor from receiving truck
2. Recovery of all blood dur to immobilization of birds
3. Flow-away system for removal of feathers and offal from the
processing area
25
-------
4. Removal of carcass body heat by submersion into mechanical chilling
tanks containing refrigerated water
5. Shipment of processed poultry frozen
6. Wet cleanup of plant (partial dry cleanup)
It was reported that technology is directly related to wasteload
reduction. The major reduction occurred as technology changed from
"old" to "typical". The waste reduction in this change was caused by
the introduction of blood recovery into the subprocess mix. The
"flow-away" system comes into existence with a consequent increase in
wastewater per unit of product.
The change from "typical" to "advanced" technology saw only a very
slight lowering of wasteload, due primarily to the introduction of
dry cleanup on a limited scale. The reduction of wastewater per
unit of product was caused by increased reuse of wastewater. The
effects of technology upon wasteload and wastewater volume are
summarized in Table 3.
The most common method of waste treatment used by the poultry processor
is municipal treatment. The plants of the typical and advanced
technology levels which employ the flow-away system of feather and
offal removal use a screening process to remove feathers and solids
from the plant effluent. In the majority of processing plants (eighty
percent) this is the only type of treatment employed. All further
treatment is done by the municipality.
previewed a new poultry processing plant with an elaborate
waste treatment system. He reported in-plant changes were instituted
to reduce water use and wastes from the plant. Water use was put
at 7.6 GPB and BOD5 waste load at 39 lbs/1000 B. The by-products
collector was removing 35-45% of the BOD (mean = 40%) , 54-70% of the
suspended solids (mean - 60%) and 56-71% of the grease (mean = 60%) .
Final effluent after extended aeration and polishing ponds showed
99% BOD removal or better.
1 7
Camp and Willoughby predicted strict water conserving practices
in a poultry processing plant could reduce the wastewater flow to
6 .GPB. Table 4 details the waste from one poultry processing plant.
2
Forges and Struzeski studied the wastes from poultry processing
plants. They recommended municipal plants receiving poultry
wastewaters should be designed with liberal allowances for plant loads
26
-------
Table 3. WASTELOAD AND WASTEWATER VOLUME PER 1000 BIRDS
BY TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY, 1966
Type of Wasteload Wastewater
Technology Ibs BOD/1000 birds gals/1000 birds
"Old Technology" 31.7 4,000
"Typical Technology" 26.2 10,400
"Advanced Technology" 26.0 7,300
Table 4. EFFLUENT OF CANTON, GEORGIA POULTRY PLANT
BOD
Solids Total
Suspended
Settleable
Grease
Range
(mg/1)
370-620
-
120-296
15-20
170-230
Average
473
650
196
17.5
201
27
-------
Peak and average loadings were urged for use in the initial design.
Reserve treatment capacity was a need in design considerations and
flow could be designed using a 16-hour discharge period.
Various treatment methods were explored for reducing the load from the
poultry processing plant. They noted that grease could be collected
in primary sedimentation basins with appropriate skimming and
collecting devices. Grease traps were mentioned as working but often
giving problems due to lack of operator attention. They expanded on
the findings of Teletzke1-* to conclude that air flotation systems are
practicable for the removal of suspended solids, grease and particles
of flesh where the floating material may be rendered into by-products.
Studies were noted that primary settling basins could be expected to
remove 17-28% of the BOD and 30-64% of the suspended solids.
Treatment methods practiced on poultry wastes were compiled by Forges
and Struzeski . Treatment and disposal by land irrigation was pointed
out as attractive and efficient. Large acreage required was a
deterrent, but the low initial and operational costs were the major
benefits. At the time, trickling filters and activated sludge
processes had not been widely used in the poultry plants because of
the costs and operational demands. An extended aeration system
was reported to be removing 90 percent of the BOD 5 and 79 percent of
the suspended solids. Stabilization ponds were reported being used
for poultry wastes and domestic poultry wastes at loadings up to
50 pounds BOD per acre per day with reductions of 70 to 90 percent.
discussed water conservation in a poultry processing plant in
broad terms. He presents a list of areas where he suggests particular
attention should be devoted. His suggestions mainly deal with good
housekeeping principles, such as using nozzles on clean-up hoses
avoiding unnecessary water overflows from equipment, and using nozzles
in washing operations which employ low-volume high-pressure principles.
BowerlS, in discussing the food processing industry in general,
indicates a need to incorportate wastewater handling into plant design.
He is mainly concerned with treatment of wastes with little mention of
in-plant modifications.
Kaplovsky16, Bolton10, Forges9, Barnard17, Miller18, Henkeledian,
Orford and Cherry19, and Wolf and Woodring ^ deal explicitly with
poultry processing waste characteristics. Forges and Struzeski ^
presented a table (Table 5) which illustrates the range of results
that are derived from these studies . Hamm^l reported on the analysis
of individual process effluents of 10 poultry processing plants. As
no wastewater flows are detailed, waste load calculations are
impossible without assumptions on flow rate which is a very risky
assumption. A summarization is contained in Table 6.
28
-------
Table 5. COMPOSITION OF COMBINED POULTRY PLANT WASTES,
FORCES AND STRUZESKI (1962)
Range
Five-day BOD, mg/1 150-2,400
COD, mg/1 200-3,200
Suspended solids, mg/1 100-1,500
Dissolved solids, mg/1 200-2,000
Volatile solids, mg/1 250-2,700
Total solids, mg/1 350-3,200
Suspended solids, % of total solids 20-50
Volatile solids, % of total solids 65-85
Settleable solids, ml/1 1-20
Total alkalinity, mg/1 40-350
Total nitrogen, mg/1 5-300
pH 6.5-9.0
29
-------
Table 6. WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION, HAMM (1972)
Process COD Fat
(median rng/1)
Scalder 2268 30
Feather flume 1919 135
Chiller 903 165
Giblet Chiller 988 54
Eviscerating Trough 687 149
Final Bird Washer 379 85
Viscera Flume 1005 185
30
-------
Most of these articles basically report of surveys comparing the
methods of waste treatment used by poultry plants. CampH presented
a detailed analysis of a poultry plant's waste treatment facilities.
Two of the United States Government publications, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration1 and Forges and Struzeski2, present
general descriptions of the poultry processing operation and informa-
tive reviews of the problems. The solutions presented are of a general
nature. The ranges shown in Table 5 indicate that specific solutions
can only be made after a specific plant is analyzed.
31
-------
SECTION IV
METHODOLOGY AND BENCHMARK
INTRODUCTION - GOLD KIST STUDY
Gold Kist, Inc.
The Gold Kist Poultry Processing Division is the third largest
poultry processing organization in the United States with six (6)
plants in North Carolina, Georgia and Florida. The Durham plant
processes an average of 70,000 birds each operating day using two
processing lines and can be classified as a medium-to-large size
plant. The plant employs 275 people. All products are inspected
by the United States Department of Agriculture with the direct
supervision of veterinarians. Mechanical Services and plant
maintenance are provided by a team of seven mechanics.
The Durham plant used typical technological methods as defined in
the Cost of Clean Water in its processing operations. Total water
intake was 192 million gallons in 1969 and required approximately
10 percent of the total water supply of the City of Durham. Product
composition at the initiation of the project in July, 1969 consisted
of whole birds (95 percent) and parts (5 percent). The product
composition in May 1972 was 70 percent whole birds and 30 percent
parts.
Purpose and Objectives
The research, development and demonstration project in water and
waste management in poultry processing was conducted at the Gold Kist
plant in Durham, North Carolina. The purpose of this project was to
use the whole operating plant for the development and modification
of process and equipment changes and for an evaluation of the
technical and economic feasibility of these changes. Specific
objectives were to:
32
-------
A. Develop and demonstrate process and equipment changes for water
and waste management.
B. Evaluate the impact of production methods, technical changes
in equipment, conditioning of water and by-product recovery
on water use and reuse and waste loads.
C. Determine the economic implications for water and waste reduction
methods demonstrated in the project.
D. Make recommendations for the management of water and water-borne
waste in poultry processing.
Technical and research requirements in support of the project were
provided by North Carolina State University. The University had
responsibility for:
1. Training key personnel to carry out measurement and control work
within the plant.
2. Sampling and testing of all process wastewater to determine both
quantities and characteristics.
3. Guidance and coordination in the development, fabrication and
installation of specialized equipment.
4. Development and implementation of technical changes in plant
processes.
5. Systems evaluation and partial budget analyses for the technical
alternatives demonstrated.
6. Publishing results and related information developed in all
phases of the project including recommendations for the management
of water and waste in poultry processing.
Special Features
This project has a number of features which are of special interest
which follow:
1. The project was jointly developed and conducted by a federal
agency, Environmental Protection Agency; by industry, Gold Kist;
and by an educational institution, North Carolina State University.
33
-------
2. An interdisciplinary research team worked cooperatively.
Members had training in microbiology, food science, engineering
and economics.
3. The project encompassed both water use and waste abatement
throughout the plant, from water intake through final waste
water collection and control. Systems analysis was applied.
4. A full-time staff in the plant worked on the project without
assigned production-related responsibilities.
5. The University provided supporting microbiological evaluation in
all phases of the project.
6. A cooperative working relationship with the USDA-CMS product
inspection staff was achieved which enhanced the effectiveness of
the project.
Plan-of-Work
The plan-of-work was organized into three phases: collecting benchmark
information (6 months), technical development (30 months) and
evaluation and preparation of the final report (9 months).
The Gold Kist Poultry Division provided its plant and processing
facilities at Durham, North Carolina, and made available the required
personnel for conducting this project. A wastewater testing laboratory
was installed and equipped at the plant for monitoring water and waste
systems. A subcontract, negotiated with North Carolina State Univer-
sity at Raleigh, provided technical and research requirements in
support of the project.
Approach
The plant was divided into thirteen separate operating areas, Figure 3.
(Appendix A provides a complete description of poultry processing de-
tails about the Gold Kist plant.) Preliminary studies and laboratory
analyses were made to establish benchmark quantities and character-
istics of water and waste in eleven areas. Sampling points are
numerically identified on the flow chart. Laboratory tests are
detailed in Appendix C, Table 1. Information from benchmark studies
was used in the development of plans and specifications for new
or modified process equipment.
Mechanical services for modification and installation of process
equipment were provided from the maintenance and repair labor force of
34
-------
POTABLE
WATER
(R)
BIRDS
Jl
RECEIVING
WATER
WASTEWATER
KILLING
BLEEDING
BLOOD RECOVERY
SCALDING
~\ DEFEATHERING ^Z^FEATHER RECOVERY
HWHOLE BIRD^WASH
(M
H EVISCERATION
OFFAL RECOVERY
-»» FINAL BIRD WASH
CHILLING
PACKING
PACKED BIRDS
WASTEWATER
COLLECTION AND
CONTROL
EFFLUENT
Figure 3. Water and broiler flow in Gold Kist plant with
wastewater (numbers) and microbiological
sampling points (letters) identified
-------
the plant. Special equipment and assistance was obtained from outside
firms as such requirements arose.
OBJECTIVE A: DEVELOP AND DEMONSTRATE PROCESS AND EQUIPMENT CHANGES
FOR WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT.
Specific process changes for accomplishing OBJECTIVE A in each of the
operating areas are listed as follows:
1. Receiving Area
a. Dry sweep of pad and docks prior to washing
b. Air system to clean coops
2. Blood Collection and Recovery
a. Blood collection trough
b. Tank collection on by-product truck
c. Installation of stunners
3. Scalding
a. Use of prechiller overflow for scalder make-up water
b. Directed discharge to feather flow-away flumes under pickers
4. Picking
a. Installed nozzles for uniform feather removal within pickers
b. Designed and install flumes under pickers to further facilitate
uniform feather removal
c. Eliminated use of potable water in feather flow away flume
5. Feather Recovery
a. Installed new screen media
6. Whole Bird Washers
a. Nozzles installed
b. Flow regulation devices installed
c. Discharge redirection to feather flow-away flume
7. Evisceration
a. Nozzles installed for rehang belts
b. Installed pressure regulating equipment for trough supply
36
-------
c. Installed regulated nozzles for handwash stations and put
body operated valves at selected locations
d. Isolated the water supply for the side pan wash and installed
time delay valve
e. Giblet flumes were eliminated where possible
f. Nozzle use and pressure regulation practiced for flow control
in final bird washer
8. Offal Recovery
a. Screen media changed
b. Screen addition to prevent solids overflow
9. Chilling
a. Nozzles installed for rehang belt
b. Collection box and pump added to distribute water to scalder
10. Grading, Weighing and Packing
a. Use of CO in packing reduced ice requirements
11. Clean Up
a. High pressure system utilized
b. Monitoring equipment installed
12. Final Wastewater Collection and Control
a. Primary separation chamber built
b. Air flotation cell with associated equipment installed
13. Water and Wastewater Measurement and Control
a. Installed meters
b. Pressure regulation devices were utilized
c. Placed flumes (Parshall)
d. Recorders-continuous and automatic were mounted
e. Sampler positioned in final effluent stream
f. Other flow measuring devices and techniques were utilized
37
-------
14. Waste Characterization
a. Laboratory(s) installed
b. Sampling practiced
c. Records kept
d. Laboratory testing continued
e. Microbiological sampling and testing performed
f. Training executed
OBJECTIVE B: EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF PRODUCTION METHODS, TECHNICAL
CHANGES IN EQUIPMENT CONDITIONING OF WATER AND BY-PRODUCT
RECOVERY ON WATER USE AND REUSE AND WASTE LOADS.
The analysis of water use and waste load was made for process and
equipment changes. Conceptually this is shown in Figure 4. Within
this framework, the plant was considered a production process in
making an analysis of total water used and the final wastewater
going from the plant. Also, as in-plant changes were made for the
control of water and/or treatment of the wastewater, the effluent
was monitored to establish the effect of the changes on the
wastewater characteristics.
OBJECTIVE C: DETERMINE THE ECONOMIC IMPLICATION FOR WATER AND WASTE
REDUCTION METHODS DEMONSTRATED IN THE PROJECT.
Budgeting procedures were used to determine changes in net revenue.
Economic factors inherent in the reduction of water and waste were
the associated reduction in the cost of fresh water supplies and
waste treatment. Additional benefits were derived from by-product
recovery and labor savings resulting from the mechanization of
manual operations.
OBJECTIVE D: MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF WATER AND
WATER-BORNE WASTE IN POULTRY PROCESSING.
Project results were used to develop recommendations for the manage-
ment of water and waste in poultry processing plants.
38
-------
I '
1
R
G
If*f\Ktr\t'
TIONING
PRODUCTION
PROCESS
I
J
i
— -CR
D / WASTE AND /
R
E fc
... -/ oi-rnv/uuoi f w -
WD / RECOVERY / WE
i
Cp
I = Intake Water
P = Production Process
R = Recirculated Water
G = Gross Water Applied for All In-plant Uses
C = Consumptive Use or Net Depletion of Water = Cp + CD + CR
D = Wastewater Discharge from Production Process
E » Final Effluent from Production Process (Available for Reuse)
W - Waste Load in D (Ib of BOD)
W_ = Waste Load in E (Ib of BOD)
c<
Degree of Recirculation = — x 100%
u
Figure 4. Water and waste schematic for any industrial
process
39
-------
METHODS
Water Measurement
Gold Kist purchases its supply of water from the city of Durham, N. C.
The city's water meters were already in operation for the purpose of
measuring the amount of water used by the plant. These main water
meters were checked monthly by the city's personnel for consequent
monthly water-sewer billing by the city for such services.
Meters
The main water meters were monitored throughout the project to
establish the volume of in-coming fresh water being used during any
given period of time. Smaller size water meters (5/8 in. to 3 in.)
were used to develop the amount of water used within units of
equipment, water hoses, and any system where the uses were defined.
All water use was supplied from the main water supply lines within
the plant. All meters are cumulative use type units and could be
checked at any frequency desired for the volume during the chosen
period. They were also used for flow rate measurements when timed
with a stop watch.
Stop watch and Calibrated Containers. In many instances it was
impractical to apply water meters to all uses of potable water. An
example would be a hand wash nozzle along the eviscerating trough
where the flow would be supplied from a common supply line and could
be regulated at the worker's station. For our project the flow rate
at each nozzle was checked several times and combined with the average
rates for other nozzles along the entire eviscerating line to get
the total flow of water for this system. The flow was determined
with a calibrated container and a stop watch.
Wastewater Measurement, Sampling and Testing
Volume
The measurement of unit process wastewaters is usually much different
than the fresh water entering a plant or the water supply to a unit
of operating equipment. Several factors contribute to the problems
of such volumetric determinations, some of the most important are
as follows.
1. Undefined discharge points,
2. Nonuniform distribution of water flow patterns within and from
the equipment,
40
-------
3. Contaminants that are entrained in waters that are used as carriers
of waste or by-products from specific processes,
4. Intermittant use and variable flow operations,
5. Absorption or fluid release by the product in process, and
6. The mixing of waste waters from several unit operations in a central
or complex drain system.
However, when these factors could be neglected, the volume of water
used in a unit of process equipment or a system within the plant was
measured by a meter in the water supply line to the unit or system.
Where a defined source and a uniform rate of wastewater were
discharged, the flow rate and volume were determined with devices
such as:
1. A container which will hold a known volume of liquid and a stop
watch,
2. Area measurement of a drain pipe or channel with depth and velocity
recordings,
3. Flow indicating devices that can be installed in a defined
discharge stream such as weirs, parshall flumes, and other
calibrated units of comparative design.
Solids or fluids introduced in a unit process will increase the
wastewater volume and should be accounted for by physical or chemical
determinations if differentiation is desirable. An example is a
chiller where ice and potable water combine to form a chiller overflow.
For irregular and intermittant discharge of wastewater from a defined
discharge point, source flow indicating devices such as weirs and
flumes can be used with the addition of a flow recorder. Both should
be capable of indicating variations in flow rates representative of
the volume being discharged during the entire processing and other
water use periods. Also, they must be installed so that solids and/or
other materials in the wastewaters will not interfere with the proper
indications of flow.
The most difficult wastewater sources to measure were the undefined or
blended effluents. A typical example of such flows are described
by the combination of effluents along an eviscerating line. Wastewater
from the final bird washer, side pan wash, giblet splitters and
washer, hand wash stations, etc., all enter the eviscerating trough in
41
-------
widely dispersed areas, along long lengths of trough and from many
variable flow rate nozzles. The solution to these volumetric measure-
ments is a sequential series of measurements by use of a flow measuring
device to be used where each unit process is shut off and the
difference in wastewater flow is determined at the end of the system
or in the above case the eviscerating trough. Through the process of
•elimination the volume discharged from each unit process can be
established during its operating period.
Measuring Waste Materials in process Wastewaters
The sampling of process wastewaters can be categorized in two groups.
(1) Those sources where automatic proportional samples could be
obtained during a complete cycle of the specific process operation,
(2) Hand sampling by a collection of a series of repeat proportional
samples on a regular timed interval during a specified unit process
cycle or period. In both cases the total sample must be both
representative and preserved during collection to prevent deteriora-
tion or change in characteristics.
In this study determinations of the wastewater characteristics were
*? 9
made according to Standard Methods, z (see Appendix C for reference
to specific tests). Both volume of wastewater and the quantitative
amounts of chemical and/or organic materials were determined to
establish the waste loads being discharged from point sources or
combined flows being discharged into the major drains of the plant.
By comparing the individual sources with the total plant effluent
both a hydraulic and waste material balance were made for the complete
wastewater system.
Microbiological Sampling and Testing
Introduction
With current technology, there is no better method for determining
the actual (consumer) safety of a product, particularly a product
such as poultry, than by the use of microbiological evaluation.
For this reason, microbiological testing for total count, coliform
count and presence of salmonella was conducted in conjunction
with water use and wastewater evaluations. The initial phase
of the microbiological evaluation was to establish the benchmark
for the microbiological content of broilers and broiler contact
waters throughout the processing line. Also, a determination was
needed of the "normal" microbiological load to be found on carcasses
at the processing plant under investigation. Literature figures
42
-------
were not sufficient nor were they felt to be representative of
the plant under investigation. Anticipated problems included
factors such as the lack of standard test procedures for poultry
parts and carcasses, lack of day-to-day consistency of samples
due to variations such as weather and age of birds, seasonality
effects and correlation of microbiological and wastewater data.
The overall thrust of the microbiological investigations was to
assure that no significant adverse changes or trends in the
microbiological content were evidenced during or because of changes in
water use patterns or process equipment modification.
An indicator of microbiological fitness is the total numbers of the
microorganisms present both in rinse water in various points through-
out the plant as well as on the final carcass. The total number of
bacteria present is one of the overall measurements that can be used
to determine the sanitary quality of any given food. The fewer
microorganisms that are present, the more likelihood that good sanita-
tion has been used in producing the food and, furthermore, the better
likelihood that the product is going to have adequate and desirable
shelf life during its storage before the consumer receives it.
In the poultry operations, there are a number of sources that can
add to microorganisms, particularly of the bird itself. First
of all, the feathers will harbor a tremendous number of microorganisms
so that the total outside portion of the carcass is going to be
a source of great numbers of microorganisms. Many of these could
be very undesirable. The next largest source of microorganisms
is the intestinal tract and also the respiratory tract. It is from
these sources that most of the carcass microorganisms originate.
The next group of organisms that were monitored were the coliform
bacteria. The coliform bacteria are residents primarily of the
intestinal tract and low numbers of coliforms indicate the extent
of contamination from this source. Finally, the final carcasses
for the occurrence of salmonella were monitored.
43
-------
Methods for the Microbiological Examination of Water and Carcass
Samples
Total counts and colifonn counts were performed on samples collected at
various points on the processing line. Total counts were determined on
Difco Plate Count Agar (PCA) after 48 hr incubation at 32°C. Coliform
counts were made on Violet Red Bile (VRB) Agar (Difco). Plates were
incubated at 35°C for 24 hr.
Essentially four types of samples were collected:
1. Water samples were diluted and plated. Counts were recorded on a
per ml basis.
2. Cotton swab^samples of carcass surfaces. Approximately 1 sq in. of
surface was swabbed and the swab placed in a test tube containing
6.45 ml of 10~3M phosphate buffer (1 in.2 - 6.45 cm2). Contents
from the swab containing tube were diluted and plated. Counts
recorded on per cm2 basis.
3. Giblet samples were divided into three types: (a) liver,
(b) hearts and gizzards, and (c) necks. These samples were
collected in plastic bags. The samples were weighed and a
volume of phosphate buffer equal to the weight of the giblets
was added to the bags. The contents were shaken and the rinse
water diluted and plated. Counts were recorded on a per gram
basis.
4. Total carcass counts were determined by adding 1500 ml of sterile
water to a bag containing the carcass. The bag was shaken for
1 min. Care was taken to ensure that water went inside the body
cavity. The rinse water was diluted and plated. Counts per ml
of rinse water were multiplied by 1500 to obtain counts per
carcass.
Sample Points and Methods of Sampling
The following procedures were used in obtaining samples (see Table 7):
Point A. Scald water. Samples of water were collected in sterile
bottles at the point where excess water overflows the tank. Freshly
killed or stunned birds (with feathers) are fed into this tank.
The water is maintained at approximately 125°F (52°C).
Point B. Whole Bird Washer. At this point the feathers have
been removed but the carcasses are non-eviscerated. The carcasses
44
-------
Table 7. MICROBIOLOGICAL SAMPLING POINTS
Sampling Point To Sample
A Scald Water
B Whole Bird Washer
C Final Bird Washer
D First Chiller
E Second Chiller
F Giblet Chiller
G Ice
H Input Water
I Finished Carcass
45
-------
have passed through a flame intended to singe pin feathers and
body hair. The carcasses were rinsed by passage between a row
of sprays. Samples taken at this point were:
(a) Swabs before rinse. One side of two tagged birds was swabbed
before the carcasses entered the rinse.
(b) Swabs after rinse. The opposite side of the birds swabbed in
(a) were swabbed for this sample.
(c) H20 from birds or carcasses. Water dripping from birds as they
exited from the rinse was collected. Each sample represented
the drippings from several carcasses.
(d) H-O from trough. This 1^0 was collected where water exited from
the rinse chamber.
Point C. Final Bird Washer. This rinse occurs after evisceration.
The samples taken at Point B were also taken at this point. In
addition, whole carcasses, two before rinse and two after rinse,
were collected.
Point D. First chiller. At this point the carcasses were submerged
in a large tank of water maintained at approximately 52°F (10°C).
Two types of samples were collected: (a) H20 as it exited from the
chiller and (b) two whole carcasses as they exited from the chiller.
Point E. Second chiller. Similar to Point D except that water
temperature is about 33°F (0°C). The samples taken at this point
were the same as Point D.
Point F. Giblet chiller. Livers, hearts, and gizzards are transported
from the eviscerating line to the giblet chiller by a combination
of flumes and belts. The chiller is a revolving drum. Ice is
added periodically to maintain a temperature of ca. 32°F (0°C).
Point G. Ice. The ice was collected in plastic bags from an ice
machine used to fill packing boxes. This ice is also fed into
the various chillers.
Point H. Input ^0. This sample was taken from a water tap in the
loading area.
46
-------
Point I. Finished carcasses. These samples, stuffed with giblets,
were collected at the weighing bins before final packaging. The
samples were selected to represent the most common weight of carcass
at the time of sampling.
The finished carcasses were tested for the presence of salmonella.
One hundred ml of rinse water was pre-enriched in 400 ml of lactose
broth (Difco). One ml of the incubated lactose broth culture was
transferred into selenite cystine broth (BBL) and one ml was inoculated
into selinite cystine made from the individual ingredients with
dulcitol substituted for lactose. Streak plates on Brilliant Green
Agar, Bismuth Sulfite Agar, and Salmonella-Shigella Agar, all Difco
products, were prepared from the above selenite cystine tubes
showing growth. Suspect colonies from the selective media were
transferred to triple sugar iron (TSI) agar slants. The time-
temperature for incubation was the same for the above tests, 24
hr at 35°C. Isolates showing salmonellae-like reactions on TSI
slants were tested for the presence of urease and lysine decarboxylase
and their ability to ferment lactose and dulcitol to acid and gas.
Finally, suspect isolates were tested for agglutination in poly-o-
antiserum.
Economic Evaluation
Introduction
The Gold Kist plant is considered to be representative of plants pro-
cessing approximately 70,000 birds per day. Conclusions should be
generalized with caution because of the limited operating experience
during the project. However, most changes were not complex and are
generally applicable in poultry processing.
Research and development activities consisted of two parts: (1) a
detailed analysis of major process and equipment changes; and (2) an
overall plant evaluation. The overall reduction in potable water use
and waste costs were expected to be greater than the sum of the costs
of the process major changes. Increased worker awareness of water
and waste problems were expected to improve housekeeping procedures
through closer attention to minor water uses such as turning off
hoses and other details that affect water use and waste. A reduced
hydraulic load was expected to improve the efficiency of pretreatment
methods such as screens and the air flotation cell.
Initial Costs
Budgets were developed for major process and equipment changes made
to reduce fresh water use and waste levels in the final plant effluent.
47
-------
Existing processes were modified to improve waste recovery, lower
water requirements, and/or reuse process water where feasible. A
combination of commercially available and project developed equip-
ment were used for most changes.
Investment or initial costs included the materials cost, installation
and tax associated with equipment and process modifications. Equipment
and operating costs of the equipment already in place and not
affected by process and equipment modifications were not included.
Neither were research and development costs included. Details on the
computations of initial costs are tabulated in Table 8.
Annual Budget
Annual cost includes depreciation, maintenance, interest on invest-
ment, and operating expenses. Straight line depreciation schedules
were based on the expected useful life of the equipment. Annual
maintenance was charged at a rate of ten percent of materials costs
except for the laboratory. An interest rate of 7 percent on one-half
of the initial costs of materials and installation was included in
annual costs. Notes detailing annual budgets are included in Table 8.
Benefits included (1) reduced costs from savings in water, sewer
services, labor, and cleaning chemicals, and (2) revenues from by-
product sales of feathers, offal, and blood. The Gold Kist plant
purchased municipal water and sewer services from the City of Durham,
North Carolina. Water and sewer rate for the largest water use
increment was 44 cents per 1000 gallons of water which included
21 cents per 1000 gallons of water and an add-on of 110 percent,
23 cents, for sewer services. In addition, there was a sewer surcharge
of $80 per 1000 pounds of BOD5 discharged in the plant effluent for
BOD5 greater than 250 mg/1.
The wage rates for estimating the value of labor costs and savings
were $2.05 and $2.15, depending upon the wage rate of the worker.
The price of cleaning chemicals was $3.20 per gallon. By-products
of feathers offal and blood averaged $19.48 per ton during the study
period.
Total Plant Analysis
An overall analysis was made to determine the net effect of all
process and equipment changes made in the plant on fresh water use,
waste load, costs and income. A comparative analysis was made of
annual benefits and costs associated with the changes made during
the three year period from July, 1969 to July 1972. Water flow
48
-------
Table 8. NOTES ON INITIAL COSTS AND ANNUAL BUDGETS3
1. All installation labor charged at $10/hour.
2. Interest on one-half of initial costs at a rate of 7%.
3. Maintenance is 10% of material cost unless otherwise noted.
4. Depreciation
Item Useful Life
Nozzles 2 years
Piping 10 years
Valves, gauges 2 years
Sampler, regulators, meters 5 years
Troughs, pan (SS) 10 years
AFC 20 years
Pumps 1 year
5. Tax at 2% of materials cost.
6. Recurring labor @$2.15/hr for daily operation (cleaning and
adjustment) and including labor not otherwise allocated
7. Water and sewer rate of 0.44/1000 gal - although average water
and sewer rate is $0.51/1000 gal because of a higher rate for first
increments of water. Reductions occured at lowest cost increment.
8. All daily savings and costs are computed for annual budgets using
a 240 work day year with a 540 minute work day.
9. Surcharge costs and savings computed at $80/1000 Ibs BOD5.
a Research and development costs are not~ "included in budgets for
changes made during this project.
49
-------
regulation and control, water and waste monitoring, laboratory
operation and maintenance, and supervision of water and waste
operations were important portions of the total plant costs which
were not included in budgets for individual changes.
BENCHMARK INFORMATION
Benchmark information was obtained on water and waste quantities,
wastewater characteristics and microbiological characteristics of
both the product and process water at selected points throughout
the plant. A flow chart was developed for identifying processes,
water sources, sampling points, by-product recovery sources, product
flows and wastewater flows, Figure 5.
Water Use
Several problems were encountered in obtaining water measurements.
Methods for measuring the amount of water uses in major processes
varied widely. In general, the process equipment was neither designed
nor installed for consistent water use or ease of water measurements.
Worse yet was the intermittent uses of water particularly in the use
of clean-up hoses. Two workers would use different amounts of water
to wash an area of the plant or piece of equipment under similar
conditions.
The nonuniformity of use made obtaining water use information
difficult. Every effort was made to determine the use at a given
application point and then to observe several times later to confirm
earlier measurements. Flow regulation and control was noted as being
necessary for water management. The amount to use had to be dictated
by management through water pressure control or valve regulation or
employees made their own decision about the amount of water needed.
Average water use for the three month benchmark period amounted to
850,000 GPD with average daily broiler receipts of 69,200 birds.
Live weight (LW) of broilers for this period was 3.65 Ib. with a
processed weight (RW) of 2.70 Ib. The use rate was 12.28 GPB
received or on a weight basis was 3,365 gal/1000 Ib. LW or 4,549
gal/1000 Ib. KW.
50
-------
POTABLE
WATER
USE (G/D)
850,000
»•
BIRDS
69,200/DAY
WATER
WATER REUSE
WASTEWATER
RECEIVING
KILLING
BLEEDING
21,000
71,000
SCALDING
DEFEATHERING
20,000
*HWHOLE BIRD WASH
396,000
EVISCERATION
54,000
^^^
39,000
*-l FINAL BIRD WASH
CHILLING
PACKING
PACKED BIRDS
112,000
WASTEWATER
COLLECTION AND
CONTROL
77?
EFFLUENT
3970 Ibs BOD5
1063 Ibs GREASE
Figure 5. Water and broiler flow in Gold Kist plant with
selected water use and waste benchmark results
51
-------
Details of water use can be observed in Table 9. One should note
24% of the water use was in the evisceration trough for hand wash
facilities and for side pan washing. Hand wash goosenecks were
observed to use approximately 3 GPM each. Also, 23% of the total
potable water use was for the gizzard machine and giblet flumes.
These two areas accounted for almost 50% of the total water use.
The feather flume utilized 51,000 GPD (6%) of the potable water use
which was recognized as being unneeded in initial observations.
Hoses used for washing and cleaning equipment averaged 34 GPM each.
Most employees did not turn off the hoses when not in use but laid
them on the floor until needed again.
The wasting of water is probably the number one criticism of all wet
industries. Since our society has had a plentiful supply of water,
in general little concern has been given in the past to its
conservation. Poor work habits and uninformed supervision has
resulted in most of the unused and misused water. Here are some
examples of misuses observed in the poultry processing plant:
1. A worker would drop a hose and let it run rather than walk back
to the valve and shut the water off between needs.
2. The supply valve on a washer would be turned wide open regardless
of how much water was needed.
3. Process waters would be left running during lunch periods when
no birds were being processed.
4. The scalder would be filled a second time to flush solids rather
than wash them away with a hose.
5. A full-flowing hose has been used to prevent blood accumulation
at the kill station rather than catch this blood in a collection
chamber.
6. Excess water has been used by some cleanup personnel to create
overtime.
Wastewater Characteristics
The amount of waste produced per bird is dependent upon the technology
within the plant. The Gold Kist plant in 1969 was using a "typical
technology" which included recovery of some of the blood from the
killing room, a wet flow-away system and a wet cleanup of the plant.
52
-------
Table 9. BENCHMARK WATER USE FOR GOLD KIST POULTRY PROCESSING PLANT,
DURHAM, N. C., 1269.
Process
Scalder
Pickers
Feather Flume
Whole Bird Washers
"Hand-Back" Belt
Eviscerating Trough
a. Hand Wash Outlets
b. Side Pan Wash
Final Bird Washers
Lung Vacuum Pump Effl.
Gizzard Machine and
Gib let Flumes
Gib let Chiller
Neck Cutter
Chillers
Packing Ice
Bird Pickup
Cleanup Hose
Stations
Total use in processing
Clean-up
Undetermined use
Source Flow Rate
Potable
Potable
Potable
Potable
Potable
Potable
Potable
Potable
Potable
Potable
Potable & Ice
Potable
Potable
Ice 15
Potable
Potable
(GPM)
38.7
38.0
94.3
37.3
9.1
285.0
90.0
100.0
14.2
360.0
4.5"
4.0
72.1
Ibs/box
—
—
Volume
(GPD)
20,898
20,520
50,922
20,142
4,914
153,900
48,600
54,000
7,668
194,400
2,430
2,160
38,934
6,111
8,640
9,760
643,990
112,000
94,010
Average use per day
850,000
53
-------
The flow-away system uses a water stream to transport dirt, blood,
feathers and parts. The larger solid particles are separated from the
waste flow by screens. Cleanup, chilling and packing waters are also
passed through screens before discharge to the municipal system.
Process water samples were collected at 11 points, Appendix C, Table 2.
Samples were taken from the scalder vat at both the points where
birds enter and exit because water overflows at each point. The
giblet chiller was sampled where the water overflowed. Chiller
I represents the prechiller overflow and Chiller II the final chiller
effluent. Feather and eviscerating flume samples were taken following
the vibrating screens following by-product separation. The first seven
sampling points involve wastewater from selected processes in the plant.
The feather flume and eviscerating flume wastewater are the two major
flows of wastewater from the plant and are combined in the final plant
effluent. The feather flume wastewaters consist of fresh water
(94 GPM), chiller effluent (54 GPM), and recirculated eviscerating
flume wastewater (112 GPM) , final bird wash water (100 GPM) , and
scalder wastewater (39 GPM). The eviscerating flume wastewaters
consist of wastewater from the eviscerating trough including handwash
outlets (285 GPM) side pan wash (90 GPM), gizzard splitters and
giblet flume (360 GPM) and wash down from packing room. Character-
istics of these and other wastewater flows are detailed in Tables
10 and 11.
Microbiological
The range, median and mean total counts and coliform counts for the
different samples taken at various processing points are shown in
Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9. These tables also show the number of times
samples were collected and the number of replicates obtained at each
sampling. The range and median counts for the different type samples
are shown graphically; water samples (Figure 6), carcasses (Figure
7), swab samples (Figure 8), and giblet samples (Figure 9). Vertical
lines on these graphs represent the range of counts. Lines connecting
the median counts were drawn.
The median total count in water decreased from a high of 2xlO"/ml of
scald water (Point A) to 3.3xl03 and 3.4xl03/ml of chill water at
Points E and F (Figure 6). The high count in the scald water might be
expected due to the high levels of microorganisms in soil, fecal
material and other debris in the feathers and feet of the freshly
killed birds. Water contacting the carcasses at Point B generally had
less than 1% of the total count in the scald water. Note, however,
that the coliform count was slightly higher in water at Point 5 than
at Point D. The coliform count in the scald water was only 0.02% of
the total count. This may simply reflect the relative percentage of
54
-------
Table 10. BENCHMARK WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS, GOLD KIST PLANT, DURHAM, N. C., 1969
Ul
Sampling point
Process
Scalder Vat Entry
Scalder Vat Exit
Whole Bird Wash
Final Bird Wash
Giblet Chiller
Chiller I
Chiller II
Major Flows
Feather Flume
Eviscerating Flume
Plant Effluent
Waste Load
Plant
BOD^
J
1,180
490
108
442
2,360
442
320
590
233
560
3,970
COD
2,080
986
243
662
3,959
692
435
1,080
514
722
5,118
Total
1,870
1,050
266
667
2,880
776
514
894
534
697
4,941
Solids
Dissolved
(mg/1)
1,190
580
185
386
1,900
523
331
382
232
322
(Ib/day)
2,283
Suspended
687
473
81
281
976
253
183
512
302
375
2,658
Grease
350
200
150
580
1,320
800
250
120
430
150
1,063
-------
Table 11. SELECTED WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Ui
Sample
Feather Flume
it ii
it ii
M II
II It
II II
II II
Evis c . Flume
M it
M ii
Feather Flume
Evisc. Flume
M it
it n
BODc
COD
(tng/1) (mg/1)
~_
450
440
560
580
400
450
100
160
120
—
100
150
170
__
1100
1440
_- .
2000
980
1160
350
200
200
1400
—
390
440
Settleable
Solids
(% volume)
0.2
0.2
0.25
0.2
0.18
0.2
—
— -
0.05
0.08
0.25
—
—
—
NH3-N
(mg/1)
12.5
14
12.8
— -
14.5
15
—
3.2
4
3
__
2
1
—
N03-N N02N
(mg/1) (mg/1)
5 0.02
3.5 0.06
1 0.03
— —
— —
4
— —
1
— —
„.. —
— —
—
— —
— —
P04P
(mg/1)
9.5
11
15
11
10
—
—
1
2
9
24
4
1.2
1.8
Alky.
(mg/1)
160
88
120
138
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
45.2
—
40
Cl.
(mg/1)
49.63
55.6
50.2
52.0
—
_- .
—
—
—
—
—
27.9
—
29,7
-------
Ixl07|—
IxlO'
cr
UJ
u_
o
IxlO'
(£
UJ
a.
CO
w 1x10^
o:
o
IxlO'
IxlO'
MEDIAN
RANGE
TOTAL COUNTS
T ^WATER FROM BIRDS
K
1 I
WATER FROM i
TROUGH
COLIFORM COUNTS
POINT A POINTS POINT C POINT D POINT E POINT F
SCALD BEFORE a AFTER VFIRST SECOND GIBLE1>
WATER EVISCERATION CHILLER WATER
Figure 6. Total and coliform counts in water at various
processing points
57
-------
Ixl08|—
IxlO1 —
CO
CO
<
o
cr
<
o
>w
CO
2
CO
cr
o
a:
UJ
oo
IxlO"-
Ixl0w —
IxlO —
IxlO*
MEDIAN.^
— RANGED, >
-1
1
1 J
^
•
••
TOTAL COUNTS
s. S
X "
f\
ft \
! i
1 i
^
^^
^^^
i i x j
V
r
^^
r
j
•
»
^
S- « !
1 «^i COLIFORM 1 -r
1 i \ ./COUNTS 1
1 \
\ l \ T
1 \
i
-L 1 V.
1
1
1
1
I
_ ±
s\
^
1 1
1
•MM
POINT C
RINSE AFTER
EVISCERATION "*•
B C
; [
) E
}
:
BEFORE a AFTER POINT D POINT E POINT I
RINSE FIRST SECOND FINISHED
CHILLER CHILLER CARCASS
Figure 7. Total and coliform counts on carcasses at various
processing points
58
-------
IxlO
CO
CO
<
o
o:
<
o
u_
o
CM
E
o
X.
CO
I Ixl0:
z
o
o
Lu
O
(T
UJ
m
IxlO1
IxlO*
TOTAL COUNT
MEDIAN
COLIFORM
COUNT
POINT B
RINSE BEFORE
EVISCERATION
POINT C
RINSE AFTER
EVISCERATION
BEFORE a AFTER BEFORE S AFTER
RINSE RINSE
Figure 8. Total and coliform counts as determined by swab
technique
59
-------
IxlO
IxICT
o»
\
CO
2
CO
£E 2
O IxlO
a:
UJ
CD
IxlO
I
11
RANGE
MEDIAN
TOTAL COUNT/g LIVER
FTOTAL couNT/g
.(HEARTS_a GIZZARDS — ^
-H
COLIFORM
COUNT
-s
I
L
I
I
I
I
I
i
JL
COLIFORM
COUNT
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
IxlO1
\
BEFORE
CHILL
I
AFTER
CHILL
Figure 9. Total and coliform counts on giblets before and
after chill
-------
collforms to other organisms which enter the scald tank on the
carcasses. Also, it may mean that the coliform count was initially
higher than what was measured in water collected at the exit point
and that some coliforms were killed by the temperature (ca. 125°F)
of the scald water. There was little difference in total~~counts
in water at Points B and C. However, the coliform counts at Point C
were nearly twice as high as at Point B. This increase in coliform
counts is no doubt related to the evisceration process. Two types
of water samples were collected at Points B and C (Water from Birds
and Water from Trough). Only three Water from Trough samples have
been collected and more samples are needed to establish more mean-
ingful microbial levels. However, the levels in the two types of
samples appear to be nearly the same.
Total and coliform counts per carcass decreased as the carcasses
advanced through the various processing stages (from before rinse
at Point C to after chill at Point E) (Figure 7). Based on the
median counts, total and coliform counts per carcass were reduced by
more than 90% between these two processing points. The counts for
the finished carcass (Point I) were higher than at Point E. The
finished carcasses contained giblets, thus, organisms added with
the giblets plus those added by handling of the carcasses between
Points E and I could account for the increased counts.
Total and coliform counts/cm^ of carcass, as measured by the cotton
swab technique, decreased slightly from before rinse to after rinse
at Point B (Figure 8). Both sets of counts increased, probably as a
result of contamination during evisceration, between Point B Cafter
rinse) and Point C (before rinse). After rinse at Point C, however,
both the total and coliform counts/cm^ were reduced to levels
comparable to those at Point B.
Total and coliform counts of livers were less after chill than before
chill (Figure 9). Coliform counts of hearts and gizzards also were
lower after chill, although total counts were essentially the same on
these samples before and after chill.
Salmonella was detected on 9 of 23 finished carcasses examined.
Waste Load
The total average daily BOD^ load during the benchmark observations
was 3,970 Ibs/day. The COD discharged equalled 5,118 Ibs/day while
the grease discharge level was 1,063 Ibs/day. Attempts to equate the
respective unit processes with their waste load were not satisfactory
due to the daily variation, the location of discharges, difficulties
in sampling and the combined sewers. However, Table 12 provides some
61
-------
Table 12. SELECTED DAILY PROCESS WASTE LOADS
Process Waste Load
(Ibs BOD5/day)
Scalder 145
Whole Bird Washer 18
Final Bird Washer 199
Giblet Chiller 48
Chillers 143
62
-------
average relative unit process loads that should be used with caution
because of the uncertainty associated with the individual unit pro-
cesses. Over 51% of the total 601)5 l°ad was determined to originate
either in the blood collection tunnel, in clean-up operations, or in
other miscellaneous activities. A large contributor observed but not
detailed was the truck drains on the offal trucks. Especially when
the lung tanks were emptied was highly concentrated wastewater
containing blood and other solubles released.
Operating Characteristics
A summarization of water use, waste load and production data is
compiled in Table 13. Production, water use and wastes are averaged
for results obtained during an approximately 90 day period beginning
in July of 1969. An average of 12.28 gallons of potable water was
used for each broiler received and the average BOD5 load was 15.72
lbs/1000 Ib LW.
The production is indicated by mean broiler receipts of 69,200 per
day. Live weight of these broilers was 3.65 Ib. The mean hours of
payroll time worked was 9.48 hours/day.
Water use and wastes varied widely from day to day. However, the
means established indicate an approximate benchmark for comparison
with operating characteristics after changes. The Durham plant was
known to be very similar to other poultry processing plants.
Water and sewer costs averaged $4.92/1000 birds received as shown
in Table 13. If the city of Durham had their surcharge in effect
the water, sewer and surcharge would have totaled
$9.56/1000 birds received. One must note that all water use, waste
and costs are detailed on birds received and not on birds sold. This
was due to company recordkeeping procedures. By-product sales
averaged $7.38/1000 broilers received.
63
-------
Table 13. BENCHMARK OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS
Production
Water Use
Wastes
BOD
COD
Solids Total
Dissolved
Suspended
Grease
69,200 broilers/day (Received)
— broilers/day (Packed)
LW 3.65 Ib
KW 2.70 Ib
9.48 hours/day (Mean)
3,365 gallons/1000 Ib LW
4,549 gallons/1000 Ib KW
12.28 gallons/broiler
lbs/1000 Ib
Total Load
(KW)
21.24
27.39
26.44
12.22
14.23
5.69
(LW)
15.72
20.26
19.56
9.04
10.52
4.21
(Ib/day)
3970
5118
4941
2283
2658
1063
Monthly Costs/Revenues
Water and Sewer Costs $ 6,954.
By-product sales* $10,950.
$4.92/1000 birds
$7.38/1000 birds
* August, September
64
-------
SECTION V
PROCESS CHANGES AND EVALUATION
INTRODUCTION
A necessary consideration in the development of water conserving and
waste reducing practices was that the quality of the finished product
must not be lowered. During the benchmark study, many of the unit
processes were found to be inefficient in the use of water and the
recovery of waste. Water use and waste reduction aspects of each
operation were evaluated separately because of the variation in
circumstances and factors affecting use and waste recovery.
Research and development efforts focused on the modification of in-
plant processes and equipments. The "Gold Kist" plant was used as a
"laboratory in action." Each process was examined to determine the
way in which water was used and waste was generated. Modifications
were made to increase the efficiency of water .use or to reduce the
waste load from the process. Additional benefits were expected in
the form of reduced labor requirements, increased efficiencies of
pretreatment and conditioning processes such as screening, settling
and flotation, lowered chemical use in the form of cleaners and
sanitizers and reduced down time.
The amount of water used and waste produced in processing a given
number of birds can be generalized as follows:
WU = f (LS, PP, PM, SR, WP)
WL - f (WU, PP, PM)
WHERE: WU = Quantity of water LS = Line speed
PP = Production processes PM = Product mix
65
-------
SR = Sanitation requirements WL = Quantity of waste
WP = Water pressure
The number of birds processed in a given time period is determined by
the speed of the line and the efficiency of the line. An upper limit
of the line speed is provided by the design capacity of the plant and
the number of inspectors on duty. (USDA-APHIS regulations limit the
number of inspections per inspector per time period).
Production processes were found to vary in water requirements per unit
of time and in the waste load discharged into the plant wastewater
system. Opportunities explored for water and waste management included
new and modified in-plant equipment and processes, pretreatment of
wastewaters and wastewater treatment. Most traditional production
techniques were known not to be compatible with economic water and
waste management. These management techniques were also modified to
achieve water use reductions and waste load reductions.
Optimum water use is influenced by sanitation requirements in
processing, packaging and shipping the poultry product. Regulations
enforced by the USDA limit the reuse or continued use of water in most
poultry processes.
The product mix of most poultry processing plants is changing rapidly.
There has been a continued expansion of cut-up, pre-cooking and
prepackaging operations which concentrate more operations at the
processing plant.
This section contains a discussion of the problems of water and waste
management for the several operating areas in the plant. Specific
changes are outlined and described in detail. Specific changes may not
be applicable to every plant but each should attempt to attack each
problem area. Water use will be curtailed and waste loads decreased if
the changes are followed.
A most critical aspect of any in-plant process changes is the under-
standing of the line foreman and employees of the necessity for the
change. The water-waste supervisor is the key to this understanding
and to the continued success of any changes.
The discussion of costs and benefits are specific for the research and
development activities performed in the Gold Kist plant. Budgets were
developed for process and equipment changes made to reduce potable
66
-------
water use and waste loads in the plant effluent. Some processes in
the plant were modified to improve waste recovery, lower water
requirements and/or reuse process water where feasible and allowed by
USDA regulations. In some instances, new equipment was added using
commercial equipment. Development of equipment and equipment modifi-
cations were required in some processes.
Partial budgets include acquisition, installation and operating costs.
Budgets for equipment modifications do not include equipment and
operating costs of the equipment already in place, but only those costs
affected by the modifications. The cost of equipment developed for the
project does not include development costs but only the required
materials, installation and operating expenses.
Annual costs include depreciation, maintenance, interest on investment
and operating expenses. Straight line depreciation schedules were
based on the expected useful life of the equipment. Annual mainte-
nance unless otherwise noted was charged at a rate of ten percent of
the materials cost. An interest rate of 7 percent on one-half of the
initial costs - materials and installation - was used. Benefits
included (1) reduced costs for savings in water, sewer and sewer
surcharges, (2) revenues gained from by-product sales of feathers,
offal and blood, (3) reduced costs of labor. An overall analysis was
made of a summation of the individual process changes to determine the
net effect of process and equipment changes on potable water use,
waste load and income. A comparative analysis was made of benefits
and costs associated with each process change.
PROCESS CHANGES
Solids Removed from Receiving Area and Coops
Problem
Two major problems were found in the receiving area. Large water
hoses were used to "sweep" manure, feathers and other trash to drains
in the receiving area. As a result of these employees actions, water
was being used for a purpose for which it should not have been used
and the solids washed to the wastewater system created a major waste-
load. The second problem existed with the feathers and manure left in
the coops. Citizens around the plant complained of the aesthetic
problems associated with feathers leaving the coops during the back-
haul to the farms and being deposited in their yards.
67
-------
Description of Change
The first problem associated with the misuse of water for sweeping was
simply one of management inaction. Flans were made and implemented
to use stiff bristle brooms and flat shovels to remove the solids from
the docks and receiving pads. The solids were shoveled into empty
55 gallon drums and hauled to the sanitary landfill.
Impact
No accurate measurements of water use reductions or waste load
reductions were possible due to the frequency of the cleaning cycle
and the lack of uniformity of the deposition of the solids. Budgets
were not prepared as reasonable estimates of costs and benefits were
not feasible.
Description of Change
Feather and manure removal from coops after the birds have been
removed was accomplished by passing empty coops through a short wind
tunnel as shown in Figure 10. Air is blown directly into the bottom
of the coops at a rate equivalent to a sixty mile per hour wind. The
heavy solids are set in motion, caught in the lower chamber of the
unit, and removed dry at the end of a working period. Light materials
such as fine feathers are pulled by suction up to a water spray chamber
located on the roof of the building. Within the spray chamber, the
feathers are wetted by a baffled arrangment with 5 gallons of water
per minute. This small amount of water and solids are then discharged
by gravity into the feather flow-away system. The feathers and large
solids are passed over the feather screen for removal with the feather
from the pickers. Figure 10 highlights design elements of the unit.
Impact
The measurement of the before and after water use and waste load was
not possible. Therefore no comparison can be presented. However, it
was obvious by observation that the system performed a large part of
its task. Further developments are needed to improve the cleaning
of the coops.
68
-------
Figure 10. Coop cleaner
69
-------
Blood Collection
Problem
Blood is the major contributor of BOD from a poultry processing plant.
It was pointed out that 40 percent of the BOD will originate in the
blood tunnel . This plant as most poultry plants did not have an
efficient blood recovery system. Recovered blood can be processed
with the offal into poultry feed.
A tile walled, cement floored blood collection room existed. Blood
spattered freely on the walls and floor as shown in Figure 11. Clean-
up of blood was accomplished at the end of the day by shoveling the
blood out a discharge chute to waiting by-products trucks. The blood
was dumped on the feathers. Considerable serum and blood solids
leaked directly to the floor drains from the truck drains.
Blood before congealing continuously flowed into the floor drains in
the blood collection tunnel. The liquid portion (serum) of the blood
went down the drain and became a major part of the plant waste load.
Blood was spattered on the birds and adjacent birds after their
jugular veins were severed. This is evidenced in Figures 11 and 12.
Blood was washed off in the scalder or carried over with the feathers
to the feather pickers.
The blood was shoveled and scraped to the discharge chute and floor
drains whichever was more conventient. After gross cleaning, hoses
and detergents with brushes were used with the resulting blood solids
going "down the drain".
The mechanical, automatic killing operation as shown in Figure 13 was
often inefficient as problems were presented in the diameter and
length of chicken necks, amount of feathers along the neck and the
relative position of the main artery to the mechanical automatic,
killing machine. Poor adjustment of the cutting blades would allow
improperly cut birds so that good bleeding would not be obtained.
Feathers caused even the sharpest of blades to do a poor job by
preventing accurate cutting on some birds.
Description of Change
The curtailment of the loss of blood into the wastewater system was a
major goal of this project. The ineffective cutting and killing
machines were modified for more efficient killing. Stunners were
installed to quiet the body movement of the cut birds
70
-------
Figure 11. Blood tunnel before changes
71
-------
Figure 12. Non-stunned birds entering scalder
72
-------
Figure 13. Killing station showing killing machine
73
-------
scattering blood all over the killing area. A stainless steel trough
was fabricated to contain and collect the blood. The trough was
connected by direct piping into the by-products truck. Details of
each of these changes follow.
The dry feather interference to the efficient use of the automatic
cutters was eliminated by applying 2 GPM of water to each of the
cutting and killing machines. The water wet the feathers and
lubricated the blades for more efficient cutting.
Electrical stunners (General Research Co., Model-Special) were
installed to still the birds immediately after the veins were severed
in the automatic killing and cutting machine. These stunners did
still the birds and thus controlled the wild body movements which had
previously spattered blood all over the room on the floor, walls and
ceiling. Compare Figure 14 with Figures 11 and 12 for a picture of
the dramatic results.
After the killing machines were made more efficient and the stunners
installed to control the blood spattering, a collection system was
installed to achieve the maximum recovery of blood. This consisted
of a blood collecting trough and a piping system to a collection tank on
the by-products truck. A stainless steel, sheet metal trough was fabri-
cated as shown in Figure 15 and installed in the blood tunnel. See
Figures 14 and 16 to observe the containment of blood in the trough.
The trough was connected directly to a collection tank through a gravity
4 inch flexible hose with a quick connect coupling to the collection
tank. The collection tank installed on the by-products truck was
sufficiently large to contain both the blood from the blood collection
tunnel plus the blood and lung tissue from the lung vacuum chamber.
Impact, on Water Use
Water use reductions could be accurately estimated for the changes
made in the killing and blood tunnel area. Observation of
the clean-up of these areas presented the view that much less water
was used for only the trough needed extensive cleaning where before the
floor, walls and ceiling required extensive cleaning. Water meter
readings indicated a reduction in clean-up water of 1,050 gal per day or
some 252,000 GPY. The water added to the killers to aid in efficient
cutting increased the water consumption by some 4 GPM or a yearly
increase of 518,400 gallons.
74
-------
Figure 14. Stunned birds and bleeding trough
75
-------
BLOOD
COLLECTION
PAN
I4GA.-304
/
.
/
SS/
/
/
j
1
,
'<(
/ TO I
-
*
/ SCALDER
/ —
^^
^^
k/|
/
t
,
•M
•^i
Bt.
•i •
•>•••
I
r y '
^
£
.
r*t P"
mu M
I* "
.
( ""
••••
' * -V* \
\ 1
r T
^
l"
« -
,
o
*s
\
— _
r-
i
i
***
\
41
1
'
^
/
t
/
••
^
'
x
im
'
/
4
f
XI
t
\
r
\
—
^•^
...
BIRD
CONVEYOR
KILL MACHINE
BLOOD
COLLECTION
TROUGH
14 GA-304 SS
DRAIN
BLOOD COLLECTION SYSTEM
Flgura 15. Blood collection system
76
-------
SECTION B-B
SLOPE 1/8" TO I1
^ ^ •*
SECTION A-A
Figure 15. Continued
77
-------
Figure 16. Floor and walls under blood collection trough
78
-------
jmpact on Waste Load
The water flowing to the killing machines discharges into the blood
collection system. The blood is diluted but is contained in the blood
collection tank. These dilutions of the blood makes the by-product
processing of the blood more expensive. The tank installed on the
by-products truck to receive the discharge of the blood and lung
collection tank prevents much of the loss of blood to the wastewater
system. Poultry blood has a BODc of approximately 100,000 mg/1 and
even small amounts put an increase in the waste load of a poultry
processing plant. The advantage of the collection tank is that blood
and pieces of solids are not discharged from the by-product truck
drains. These drains are left open to let the fluids leave the offal
and traditional practice has the collected blood and lungs discharged
on the feathers or offal with subsequent draining and eventual
discharge. Total collection of blood probably accounts for 18 pounds
of BOD5 per 1000 broilers per day.
Initial Costs and Annual Budget
Costs for improvements in the blood collection area are detailed in
Table 14. Major initial cost items included the trough at $5,069. and
the stunners at $1,250. each. A net savings per year of $15,742. was
earned on an initial investment of only $7,674 (Tables 14, 15).
Reduced costs were sewer surcharge and labor savings in the clean-up
of the tunnel.
Scalder
Problem
23
The use of prechiller overflow in the scalder was permitted but was
not practiced in this plant. This resulted in the use of some 40 GPM of
potable water for the scalder make-up to provide for USDA requirements
of a minimum of 1 quart/broiler overflow from the scalder.
Description of Change
A collection chamber of stainless steel with a sanitary pump, valves
and tubing allowed a portion of the prechiller overflow to be used
for scalder make-up. The collection system was fabricated as shown
in Figure 17. The chamber allowed the grease and feathers to float
from the surface and the underflow was piped to the scalder. The
prechiller overflow was screened before it entered the collection
chamber.
79
-------
Table 14. INITIAL COSTS OF THE BLOOD COLLECTION SYSTEM
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Material: $ 5,269.
Stainless steel sheets 2,215 lbs.a $ 2,769.
Stunners - 2 @ $1,250 each 2,500
Tax - 2% of material cost 105.
Labor - Approximately 230 hours @ $10/hr.b 2,300.
Total Costs $ 7,674.
a The material for the troughs were charged by the pound (@1.25/lb) to
Gold Kist.
b The cost of labor for making and installing the blood troughs was
comprehensively charged to Gold Kist.
80
-------
Table 15. ANNUAL BUDGET FOR BLOOD COLLECTION SYSTEM
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Reduced costs: $ 9,623.
Labor - 1,560 hrs. @$2.15/hr a $3,354.
Chemicals - 72 gals. @$3.20/gal.b 230.
Surcharge - $503.22 per month0 6,039.
Increased revenue: 7,791.
Blood - 400 tons @$19.48/ton
Total savings per year $17,414.
^
Increased costs: $ 1,672.
Water - 266,400 gals. @.44/1000 gals.d $117.
Electricity - 194.4 KWH @$.009076/KWHe 2.
Maintenance 527.
Depreciation:
Stainless steel sheets 277.
Stunners 100% in 10 years 250.
Recurring Labor Cost 230.
Interest on investment 1/2 of initial cost @7% 269.
Net saving per year $15,742.
a There was a reduction from 10 to 3.5 hours per day for clean-up
labor. This savings totals 1,560 hours of labor per year.
An estimate of 10 percent reduction in chemicals used due to the
modification. The use of chemicals before the change was 3 gallons
per day. This saving of 0.3 gallons per day is multiplied by 240 days
per year to obtain 72 gallons per year.
c The average monthly surcharge to Gold Kist from July 1970 through
November 1970 was $1,188.98. A saving of $503.22 is multiplied by
12 months per year to obtain $6,039 per year.
An increase in water use of some 4 GPM was necessary to aid cutting
while water use for clean-up was reduced by 1,050 GPD.
£
The average rate charged to Gold Kist from October 1969 through March
1970 was $.009076 per kilowatt-hour. Each stunner uses 45 watts per
hour.
81
-------
Figure 17. System for utilizing chiller overflow in scalder
82
-------
Impact on Water Use
Water use was reduced by some 32 G3PM (some potable water was added
to the tank to keep up the overflow) for 8 hours every day. The
reduction in water on an annual basis would be some 3,686,400 gallons.
Also, the scalder overflow was redirected to the feather flowaway
system allowing a decrease in potable water use. This is a good
example of the continued use of water as the water entered the chiller
first; passed through the prechiller, the collection chamber, and the
scalder; and was last used to flush feathers down the feather flume.
Initial Costs and Annual Budget
Annual benefits were $445 from the reduction in water of 3,686,400
gallons (Table 17). Reduced purchases of water amounted to $1,622
from an initial investment of $1500 and a yearly cost of $1177.
(Tables 16, 17). Better care of the pump to extend its useful life
from 1 to 3 years would increase the yearly savings by $319. This
may be possible as plant maintenance and clean-up crews become
knowledgeable in the care of sanitary pumps.
Defeathering
Problem
After the conditioning of the feathers in the scalding operation, the
feathers are removed from the broilers in a series of pickers. The
pickers are machines with various arrangements of rotary drums to
which are attached rubber fingers (See Figure 18). Problems existed
in that the feathers clumped in the pickers, fell to the floor drains,
matted and caused the floor drains to overflow on the floor which
required the plant to cease operation until the situation was
corrected (See Figure 19). These fingers flailed the feathers from
the birds. Water was used to lubricate the fingers, wash the feathers
from the machines and to prevent clusters in the picker interiors.
The irregular flow of feathers from the pickers let feathers accumulate
on the floor and the ever present clumping problem in the floor drains
required that 4 potable water hoses be used continuously to help assist
in feather flushing. A full time man was assigned to police these
areas and prevent work stoppages.
Description of Change
Potable water application in the pickers had been done utilizing holes
in pipes. The first two pickers on each line were modified by re-
piping and the addition of nozzles to reduce the water use and permit
a more uniform application. Figure 20 depicts the changes made.
83
-------
Table 16. INITIAL COSTS OF USING CHILLER WATER OVERFLOW IN THE SCALDER
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Materials: $ 1,284.
5 HP stainless steel pump $478.
Piping and valves 731.
Chamber 75.
Tax: 26.
Labor: 19 hr @ $10/hour 190.
Total Costs $ 1,500,
84
-------
Table 17. ANNUAL BUDGET FOR USING CHILLER WATER OVERFLOW IN THE
SCALDER
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Reduced Costs: $ 1,622.
Water 3,686,400 gal <§ $.44/1000 gala
Increased Costs: 1,177.
Maintenance
Depreciation
Valves
Pump
Piping
Chamber
Interest on investment
Utilities^
Recurring labor
Net savings per year
$ 76.
140.
478.
45. >
8.
52.
78.
300.
$ 445.
a Reduction of 32 GPM for 8 hours each day.
° Assumes that the overflow water from the chiller requires no more
heat than the incoming city water.
85
-------
Figure 18. Picker fingers
86
-------
Figure 19. Feather flow-away flume
87
-------
DEFEATHERING MACHINE
RUBBER
PICKER FINGERS
WATER NOZZLES
ON PIPES
SIDE PANS
ADDED
REDESIGNED
FLUME
Figure 20. Picker modifications
88
-------
The Main Picker (head, shoulder and breast) and the body picker (lower
body) each had 22 nozzles installed with the water jet oriented
horizontal to the picker side wall. Nozzles used were 57° spray
angle at 20 psi (Spraying Systems, Inc., Model Vee Jet, Type U - No.
1/8 U 6510) which deliver 0.5 GPM (10 psi) and 0.61 GPM (15 psi) with
an equivilent orifice diameter of 5/64". Pressures were regulated
to 10-12 psi for operation with a valve - pressure gauge assembly.
The design of the under picker stainless steel flume was modified as
shown in Figure 21 to reduce the need for water which was being
recirculated from the offal screens. The modification also better
directed the feathers from the picker bottoms to the floor flow away
drains.
Impact on Water Use
The 4 hoses that had previously been used to assist in feather move-
ment were stopped. The resulting decrease in potable water use was
94 GPM or a yearly savings of 12,221,000 gallons. A considerable
labor expense was eliminated as the feathers flowed freely. Work
stoppages due to feather clumping almost ceased and had previously
been a frequent daily occurance.
Initial costs and Annual Budget
The annual budget for the changes presents an annual savings of some
$7,013, Table 19. The initial costs were only $2,123, Table 18. Reduced
costs included water savings but labor savings were also a major factor.
Feather Recovery
Problem
Clumped feathers from the feather flow-away drain were discharged on
the feather recovery screen (Figure 22). The clumped feathers bulked
together caused a flooding over the screens and a subsequent flooding
of the offal room. Feathers after screening were discharged into a
by-products truck (Figure 23), later to be hauled to the rendering
plant. Unfortunately, many feathers got past the screens. Since
feathers are long range BOD solids, it is essential that complete
removal be made. Feathers were known to be very troublesome to
municipal treatment systems^. Feathers often clog pumps and since they
decompose very slowly, tend to fill up digesters with a subsequent
detrimental effect.
89
-------
\\\\\\\\\\\\\
GALVANIZED ANGLE
SECTION
-^NN
S^\A
"^%
.•ill.
v\\
Figure 21. Picker feather flumes
90
-------
-29'- 6"-
PICKER
FEATHER
FLUME
FLOOR DRAIN TROUGH
TOP VIEW
186A. TYPE 304 STAINLESS STEEL TROUGH
SLOPE 3"PER 4'
SIDE VIEW
Figure 21. Continued
91
-------
Table 18. INITIAL COSTS OF THE DEFEATHERING SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS.
Item Quantity and/or cost Amount
Material: $ 1,179.
88 Brass nozzles $160.
60 ft. stainless steel sheet 741.
2 stainless steel pans 267.
12 ft. 3/4" galvanized pipe 3.
2 3/4" gate valves 8.
Tax: 24.
Labor: 92 hrs. @ $10/houra 920.
Total costs $ 2,123.
a See Table 19.
92
-------
Table 19. ANNUAL BUDGET FOR DEFEATHERING SYSTEM
Item Quantity and/or cost Amount
Reduced Costs: $ 7 59^
Water 12,221,280 gals. @$.44/1000* $5,377.
Labor 1080 hours @ $2.05/hourb 2,214.
Increased Costs: 578.
Maintenance 1% of material cost 12.
Depreciation
Nozzles 80.
Valves 4.
Stainless Steel 101.
Galvanized Pipe 100% in 10 years - 0.
Interest on Investment 1/2 of initial
cost at 7% 74.
Recurring Labor Cost 307.
Net saving per year $ 7,013.
a Due to the modification the need for fresh water was eliminated here.
The use of fresh water before the modification was 94.3 gallons per
minute.
Labor cost for clean-up has been reduced. The change is from a full-
time employee at $2.05 per hour to a half-time employee at $2.05 per
hour. There is a reduction of labor time by 4.5 hours per day. This
savings is multiplied by 240 days per year to obtain a savings of 1080
hours per year.
93
-------
Figure 22. Feathers on screen.
94
-------
Figure 23. Feather discharge into offal truck
95
-------
Description of Change
the mesh of the recovery screen was increased to help better recover
the feathers. The vibratory screen media were changed from a 10 mesh
to 20 mesh at the time of normal screen replacement.
Impact on Waste Load
The total impact on waste load of this change could not be identified.
However, visual observation of the effluent and discussions with
municipal officials indicated a significant change did take place.
Whole Bird Washer
Problem
An early conclusion was that the holes-in-pipe potable water
applicators as found in the whole bird washer were not efficient
water spray applicators. Excessive water was used in areas that did
not wash the birds. Also the effluent fell to the floor and was not
utilized.
Description of Change
The whole bird washer was modified by replacing the pipe hole nozzles
with commercial nozzles. A variety of nozzles were tested including
shower heads of several designs, square pattern heads of several
designs, square pattern nozzles (Full Jet, Spraying Systems, Inc.),
off center projection (Vee Jet, Type U-OC; Spraying Systems, Inc.)
and the Vee Jet, Type U (Spraying Systems, Inc.). Each whole bird
washer was equiped with 16 nozzles located on pipes horizontally
arranged in the washer (Figure 24). The nozzles selected were the
No. 1/4 - U 6510 and the No. 1/4 - U 6515. At 10 psi, the U-6510
delivers 0.5 GPM and the U-6515, 0.75 GPM. At 15 psi, the U-6510
delivers 0.61 GPM and the U-6515, 0.92 GPM. The pressure was
controlled by hand with a valve-gauge assembly at 12 psi. A quick
shut-off ball valve was installed on each washer to permit quick and
easy shut off of water during breaks and periods of inactivity.
Impact on Water Use
The shower nozzles tried increased the water consumption from 37 to 45
GPM in the two whole bird washers (Figure 24). The selected nozzles
reduced the flow to 25 GPM or a reduction of some 12 GPM. The net
yearly water savings would be over 1,500,000 gallons.
-------
Figure 24. Whole bird washer vriLth shower type discharge nozzles
97
-------
Initial Costs and Annual Budget
The budgets are presented in Tables 20 and 21. Total net savings
amounted to more than $501. per year from a reduced cost of water
alone. Initial costs indicate a cost for one washer of $256 or
a cost for two washers of $512, Table 20. Thus, yearly savings
almost equal initial costs.
Evisceration
Problem
The evisceration area is the major water using section in the plant.
Total water consumption indicated in the benchmark studies that the
eviscerating area used some 458,400 G3PD, 6.6 GPB or 63 percent of
the total water used for processing.
Excessive water use was the rule rather than the exception in this
water use area. The excess water use in handwash goosenecks was
especially obvious to the critical observer. The scene shown in
Figure 25 was taken 30 minutes before scheduled production. No
control of water use was practiced during breaks, lunch or down time
periods (see Figure 26). The water supply pressure was found to
fluctuate between 10 and 85 psi. Excess water demands often reduced
the pressure in the gizzard machines below the critical operating
point (20 psig). The giblet handling area generally presented a poor arrange-
ment of washing and fluming operations when water use was considered.
Figure 27 shows water hoses feeding a set of gizzard machines. Excess
water use often created flood over conditions on the offal screen
and solids were washed over into the floor drains.
There are three major water using processes in the eviscerating area.
The three were: (1) flushing the sides of the evisceration trough;
(2) water used for rinsing hands and knives; and (3) water used in
the gizzard processing system. These received extensive efforts to
reduce the water use and waste load generated in each process. The
water use was found to be continuous even though the need for water
was often intermittent. Other processes receiving attention in the
evisceration area included the final bird wash and the rehang belt
washers. Also, water pressure regulation was recognized as needed
to prevent excessive water use and to control the rate of water use.
98
-------
Table 20. INITIAL COSTS OF ONE WHOLE BIRD WASHER MODIFICATION
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Materials: $ 163.
16 brass nozzles $29.
Piping 76.
Gauges 7.
Union and valves 51.
Labor: 9 hrs @ $10/hr. 90.
Tax: 3.
Total Costs $ 256.
Table 21. ANNUAL BUDGET FOR MODIFICATION OF TWO WHOLE BIRD WASHERS
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Reduced Costs: $ 684.
Water 1,555,200 gala
Increased Costs: 183.
Maintenance $ 32.
Depreciation
Piping 16.
Gauges 7.
Nozzles, Union and valves 80.
Interest on Investment 18.
Recurring Labor Cost 30.
Net Savings Per Year $ 501.
a Reduction from 37 GPM to 25 GPM.
99
-------
Figure 25. Eviscerating trough showing handwash goosenecks
1QQ
-------
Figure 26. Evisceration area during luncti breatc
101
-------
Figure 27. Water hoses to gizzard machines
102
-------
Description of Changes
Several techniques and changes in the design were applied in the
eviscerating area to increase water use efficiency and to eliminate
excessive wastes from entering the wastewater stream. These
changes were as follows: (1) Installed nozzles on handwash goosenecks
and body operated valves where feasible and permitted by USDA-CMS,
(2) Installed spray nozzles in the final bird washer to replace the
hole-in-pipe nozzles, (3) Installed pressure regulator to main
supply for eviscerating trough excluding the side pan wash,
(4) Isolated the water supply for the side pan wash and installed
a time delay valve. The details of these changes follow.
The second largest volume use of water in the poultry processing plant
was from the hand wash goosenecks. Benchmark results showed each of the
goosenecks was using some 2.85 GPM. Water pressure was found very
important in the flow rate from these goosenecks. Pressures in
excess of 80 psi were encountered which would allow the shower nozzles
to fog and wet everything in the plant. A pressure regulator was
installed on the supply line to help prevent this problem (see Figure
28).
The nozzles selected for installation on the goosenecks were the
FullJet, No. 1/4 - HH6.5 with a 3/32" orifice diameter (Spraying
Systems Co., North Avenue at Schmale Rd., Wheaton, 111. 60187).
These nozzles had approximately a 45 degree spray angle. The flow
from these nozzles is 0.55 GPM (7 psi) and 0.65 GPM (10 psi). The
pressure found best for handwashing was 8 psi and this is where
regulation of pressure was set. Figure 29 shows a gooseneck with
nozzle attached.
Other nozzles tried included the VeeJet, Flood Jet, Whirl Jet and
Hollow Jet with the cone and hollow cone spray pattern all from the
Spraying Systems Co. Also, home shower heads and automotive washing
hose nozzles (tickler nozzles with hand activated bar - see Figure 30)
were tried. The automotive washing hose nozzles were not entirely
satisfactory to the USDA-CMS inspection staff. The nozzles selected
performed the best in the judgment of the plant management and
employees.
A valve was installed at each station to regulate pressure and water
flow. The flow was set using a bucket and stop watch and the valve
adjusted for minimum desired flow which was 0.6 GPM.
Eight stations on each line had body operated valves installed. These
valves were the Quick Acting On-Off Valve (Spraying System Co., Type
AA 36) and quarter inch valves. These valves were placed on the head
103
-------
Figure 28. Pressure regulator on eviscerating supply
1Q4
-------
Figure 29. Nozzle Installed on goosenecks for hand washing
105
-------
Figure 30. Tickler -lozzle activated
106
-------
of each line where the birds enter the process area. The valves were
positioned such that the employee could activate flow using either his
hip or leg between the knee and hip (see Figure 31) .
Higher efficiency commercial nozzles were installed in the final bird
washer to replace the hole-in-pipe nozzles. A variety of nozzles as
tested in the whole bird washer were tried but finally the VeeJet
(Spraying Systems Co.), Type U, No. 1/4 - U 6550 or U 6560 were
selected for maximum coverage of birds for washing and minimum water
use.
The flow was regulated by a valve-pressure gauge assembly to approxi-
mately 8 psi. The nozzles selected delivered 2.1 and 2.5 GPM (7 psi)
and 2.5 and 3.0 GPM (10 psi). A quick shut off valve (ball) was
installed to enable workers to cut off the flow during breaks,
lunch and downtime periods. Figure 32 shows a ball valve, the flow
regulating valve and the pressure gauge used for setting the
regulating valve to desired flow rate. Thirty two nozzles were
installed in each washer on 4 rectangular pipe sections mounted
vertically, parallel to the washer wall. Nozzles were oriented at
various angles to give maximum coverage by best utilizing the spray
pattern of the nozzle (Figure 33).
The final wash water was noted to be "clean" in the benchmark results.
A chamber was installed under the washer to collect the water and
condition it by the removal of settling and floating solids (Figure
34).
The side of the eviscerating trough was washed with water to flush the
solids into the trough bottom for flushing to the sewers. An electric
on-off switch with a tl*ne delay was installed on the side pan wash..
The most effective combination of time delay was 20% on and 80% off
by time. The actual on time was 0.4 min and the off time 1.6 min. A
problem existed in that the reduced pressures in the regulated
eviscerating supply line would not flush the sides of the pan.
Therefore, the side pan wash supply was isolated and the pressure
regulated at 60-80 psi which was found optimum for good cleaning
during the on periods.
Nozzles were installed on the two rehang belts locations. Nozzles
selected were the same as those used in the final bird washer. Six
nozzles were installed at the rehang belt before the eviscerating area
and 4 nozzles were installed on the rehang after eviscerating.
107
-------
Figure 31. Quick acting on-off valve, body operated
1Q8
-------
Figure 32. Final bird washer supply manifold
109
-------
Figure 33. Final bird washer spray pattern
110.
-------
Figure 34. Collection chamber - final bird washer
111
-------
Impact on Water Use
The installation of the controlled handwash nozzles reduced water use
by 2.2 GPM for each of 96 handwashers. The annual water savings from
this change was 27,372,000 gallons. The side pan wash system yielded
a net water savings of 7,776,000 GPY. The rehang belt wash system
nozzles produced a water savings of 751,680 GPY. Changes brought
about in the final washer made savings of 5,184,000 GPY. Total impact
on water use in the eviscerating area was a yearly reduction of
41,084,000 GPY or a mean daily savings of 171,182 gallons.
Initial Costs and Annual Budget
The initial costs for the rehang belt modifications are shown in
Table 22 with a total cost of $49. The annual budget relates a
reduced cost of water and a yearly net savings of $314 (Table 23).
Changes in one side pan wash cost $871 initially as depicted in
Table 24. Total initial investment was $1742 with the annual
budget showing a net yearly savings of $2,718 (Table 25).
The initial costs of installation of nozzles and flow regulation on
the handwashers are shown in Table 26. The initial cost of $820 will
give a yearly savings of $11,654 as shown in the annual budget in
Table 27.
Tables 28 and 29 tabulate the initial cost at $609 and the annual
savings from the final bird wash changes at $1,977. Thus, for the
total initial cost of $3,220, yearly savings of $16,663 can be
realized in the eviscerating area.
Chilling
Although a large volume of water was required in the chilling
operation, no changes were made during this project. However, the
prechiller overflow was used as reported under the Scalder.
Grading, Weighing and Packing
Normal operations do not require a large amount of water in this area.
Product drippage and ice spillage problems were encountered but not
attacked. Effective cleaning methods were developed for this area.
112
-------
Table 22. INITIAL COSTS OF THE REHANG BELT SYSTEMS ON EVISCERATING
AND PACKING LINES.
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Material: $ 9.
10 veejet brass nozzles $5.60
8 1/4" couplings 2.72
2 3/4" galvanized caps .74
Tax: 2% of material cost 0.
Labor: 4 hours @ $10/hour 40.
Total Costs $ 49.
Table 23. ANNUAL BUDGET FOR REHANG BELT SYSTEMS
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Reduced costs: § 331.
Water 751,680 gals. (§$.44/1000 gals.a
Increased costs: 37.
Maintenance $ 1.
Depreciation 24.
Interest on Investment 2.
Recurring Labor Cost 10. '
Net savings per year $ 294.
a Six nozzles in eviscerating area brought about a reduction from 9.1
to 4 gallons per minute and 4 nozzles in the pack-out area reduced
water from 1.5 to 0.8 gallons per minute, a savings of 5.8 gallons
per minute.
113
-------
Table 24. INITIAL COSTS OF THE SIDE PAN WASH SYSTEM FOR ONE LINE
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Material: $ 605.
12" electrical solenoid valve $186.
1 timer 16.
Timer accessories 13.
Piping and fittings 324.
1 pressure gauge 4.
1 galvanized pipe and angle iron 27.
22" gate valves 35.
Tax: 2% of material cost 12.
Freight:a 2.
Labor: 25.2 hours @ $10/hour - 252.
Total costs $ 871.
a Shipping charge for the timer.
Table 25. ANNUAL BUDGET FOR SIDE PAN WASH SYSTEM FOR TWO LINES
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Reduced Costs: $ 3,421.
Water 7,776,000 gals @ $.44/1000 gals.a
Increased Costs: 704.
Maintenance $120.
Depreciation
Valves and timer 254.
Piping 70.
Interest on Investment 60.
Recurring labor cost 200. ' ' '
Net savings per year $ 2,718.
a Each side pan wash operated with a continuous flow of fresh water at
45 GPM before the modification. The timing mechanism provides a
periodic flow of fresh water during a two minute cycle. The flow is
cycled with a ratio of 20 percent on and 80 percent off. The new flow
rate is 15 GPM or a reduction of 30 gpm for each pan.
114
-------
Table 26. INITIAL COSTS OF THE MODIFICATION OF THE HANDWASHERS
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Material: . $ 539.
96 unijet brass nozzles @ $.95 $ 91.
20 valves 166.
96 gas cock valves 123.
3/8" 90° galvanized ell 10.
aluminum piping 94.
fittings and 4 gauges 55.
Tax: 2% of material cost 11.
Labor: 27 hours @ $10/hour 270.
Total costs $ 820.
Table 27. ANNUAL BUDGET FOR HANDWASHERS
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Reduced costs: $12,043.
Water 27,371,520 gals. @ $.44/1000 gals.a
Increased costs: 389.
Maintenance $ 54.
Depreciation
Nozzles 46.
Vatves 144.
Piping, fitting and gauges 16.
Interest on investment 29 .
Recurring labor cost 100.
Net saving per year $11,654.
a The installation of nozzles on the 96 handwashers brought about an
average reduction from 2.85 GPM to 0.65 GPM, a savings of 2.20 GPM.
115
-------
Table 28. INITIAL COSTS OF THE FINAL BIRD WASH SYSTEM
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Material: $ 421.
2 lunk ball valves and
3 galvanized unions (1 1/4") $ 61.
64 brass nozzles 116.
4 pressure gauges 15.
4 gate valves 70.
piping and galvanized caps 159.
Tax: 2% of material cost 8.
Labor: 18 hours @ $10/hour 180.
Total costs $ 609.
Table 29. ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE FINAL BIRD WASH SYSTEM
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount '
Reduced costs: $ 2,281.
Water 5,184,000 gals. @ $.44/1000 gals.a
Increased costs: 304.
Maintenance $ 36.
Depreciation
Valves, nozzles and other 131.
Piping 16.
Interest on investment 21.
Recurring Labor Cost 100. _^
Net savings per year $ 1,977.
a The modifications brought about a reduction from 100 to 60 GPM. This
savings of 40 gallons per minute is multiplied by 540 minutes per day
and 240 days per year to obtain the water savings.
116
-------
Impact on Water Use
The conversion of the plant from ice pack to dry pack using CC>2
snow reduced the water use for packing. Although this was primarily
a marketing move, a water reduction of 5000 GPD or 1,200,000 GPY was
realized.
Offal Recovery
Problem
Flume waters from the eviscerating area and the chiller overflow water
transport the offal (flesh, pieces of fat, trimmed pieces and
intestinal materials) to the offal recovery area. The prime means
of separation was a vibrating screen (Figure 35). Clogging problems
often allowed solids to pass the screen and flush over to the floor
drains. The shape and nature of the solids made the clogging
problems. Grease often congealed on the surfaces of the screen and
in acute situations, would completely bind the screening preventing
water through the screen with water and solids overflowing the screen.
Description of Change
A 20 mesh screen was used to replace the 10 mesh screen with an
increase in problems of binding and solids flush over. However,
vigilent attention to the washing of the screen and the installation
of 1/4" by 1/4" hardware cloth to the bottom of the screen to prevent
solids carrying over combined to give better recovery of solids. As
the water use was decreased, the problems became minimal and it was
concluded that the screens had been previously hydraulically over-
loaded .
Impact on Water Use and Waste Load
Water use was increased as the smaller screen mesh required more
washing. No record of water use was available as the bird age, condi-
tion, size and time of the year all influenced this operation. Waste
load was believed to be decreased as evidenced by the overall results
observed.
Final Wastewater Collection and Control
Problem
Wastewater from all areas of the plant flow into the final wastewater
collection system. Solids of all types that pass through or over the
.117
-------
Figure. 35. Offal recovery screen
118
-------
screens were encountered. There was a lack of control of solids
including grease that were discharged to the municipal system. Graase
and solids recovery were thought necessary to alleviate the observed
problems.
Description of Change
A small scale settling basin with approximately 7 minutes retention
time was installed as shown in Figure 36. The basin was baffled to
recover grease. Grease and solids recovery were practiced.
To further reduce the solids and grease (and BOD) in the
plants final wastewater effluent a commercial air flotation cell (AFC)
and skimming mechanism was purchased including the associated pomps,
sumps, tanks and by-product holding chamber. The unit installed was
a Pacific Flotation Separator, Model 1250 (Carborundum Co.) as shown
in Figure 37. The system pressurizes 100 percent of the wastewater
from the plant before discharge into an all steel chamber (diameter =
50 ft). Air is infused into the pressurized stream through anjejector.
Grease and other solids come to the surface on the air bubbles where
these materials are skimmed from the surface by a scraper blade
assembly (Figure 38). The waste materials are collected in a 1000
gallon holding tank for discharge into the by-product truck for
processing by the renderer (Figure 39).
Impact on Wastewater Characteristics
The reduction in selected wastewater parameters by the basin and the
AFC are contrasted, Tables 30 and 31. The settling basin provided a
16 percent reduction in BODc which was greater than anticipated.
Reductions by both units combined were 28% for BOD-, 45% for suspended
solids and 56% for grease. These removals are equal to or less than
what air flotation commonly obtains by itself on this industrial
waste. However, flocculants or other chemical aids are often used
to increase recovery in AFC units.
Initial Costs and Annual Budget
An initial cost and annual budget was not computed for the settling
basin because the construction methods employed could not be duplicated.
However, the reduced costs of the surcharge were equivilent to $5626.
Initial costs of the settling basin are thought to be less than $1000.
The initial cost of the air flotation cell was $50,082. (Table 32).
Annual net savings were found to be $4040. (Table 33) assuming that
the AFC would perform singly as it performed in tandem with the
settling basin.
119
-------
I 2-6"
•25-3"-
TOP VIEW
STILLING WELL
-3-CA
PARSHALL
FLUME
TT STEEL PLATE
"-l-lQ'REASEr-^
//////////////////////
%
SECTION
Figure 36. Settling basin
-------
Figure 37. Air flotation cell
121
-------
Figure 38. Air flotation cell scrapper blade discharging skimmings
to collector
122
-------
.
-
""• .;!-,
Figure 39. Air flotation cell skimmings collection tank and pump
123
-------
Table 30. EFFECT OF SETTLING BASIN ON WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND
SURCHARGE
Wastewater Characteristic
BOD
COD
TS
ss
Grease
Surcharge Reduction
Plant
Effluent
(mg/1)
390
936
729
390
144
$5,626/yr
After
Basin
329
708
599
267
130
Table 31. EFFECT OF AFC ON WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND SURCHARGE
Wastewater Characteristic
After
Basin
After
AFC
BOD
COD
TS
SS
Grease
Surcharge Reduction
(mg/1)
329
708
599
267
130
$4,339.20/yr
282
617
521
214
64
124
-------
Table 32. INITIAL COSTS OF THE AIR FLOTATION CELL
.— Quantity and/or rate Amount
Material: $31,883.
Chamber and Pumps
Installation - including site preparation,
welding, plumbing and electrical 18,199.
Total (Includes tax and labor) $50,082.
Table 33. ANNUAL BUDGET FOR AIR FLOTATION CELL
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Revenue: Grease and materials3 @ $19.48/ton $ 899,
Reduced Costs: 9,946,
Surchargea
Increased Costs: 6,859,
Maintenance - 2% of cost $1,002.
Cleaning and Operation - 1/4 man 1,350.
year
Depreciation 2,504.
Utilities - water and electricity 250.
Interest on Investment 1,753.
Net savings per year $ 3,986.
a Assuming that the AFC would attain the combined reduction of the
primary settling chambers and the AFC if the primary settling chamber
was removed.
125
-------
Clean-up
Problem
The clean-up of the processing equipment, building and receiving yard
area required a large and quite variable volume of water. Excess water
was used to "sweep" the floor and hoses were left running when not in
use. The areas where blood and drippings from the chickens contacted
materials were very difficult to clean. Large quantities of sanitizers
and detergents were used to assist the workers in their chores.
Description of Changes
Management control of the operation materially reduced the excess
water and chemical usage. Meters were installed on the clean-up hoses
to psychologically remind the worker to turn off the water when it
was not in use. Also, nozzles and quick cut-off valves were installed
on the end of the hoses to assist the worker in cleaning and to enable
him to easily shut off the water hose when not in use. Changes were
made in the chemical formulation to evaluate the effectiveness of other
cleaning compounds.
A high pressure cleaning system with a foaming attachment (Bionics -
Hydromate, American Chemate Corporation, Maywood, Illinois) was
installed. This system was used with various chemical formulations
until the best combination was reached for quickest cleaning without
damage to equipment. The selection of the machine and chemicals was
based on minimum volume of water, reducing the time needed for clean-
up, reducing the chemicals used and reducing the overall costs of the
total clean-up operation.
Impact on Water Use
Water use in clean-up was found to be very dependent on the attitude
of the clean-up crew and the USDA inspection staff. A new USDA
inspector almost always signaled a 1-6 month increase in water use
for clean-up after which a reduction could be accomplished. The
changing of the clean-up foreman usually signaled an increase in
water use for only the best practices lead to reduced water use. A
foreman with several months experience and training could achieve a
daily reduction of 66,000 GPD using the equipment installed for this
study. This is assuming the USDA inspector had a reasonable attitude.
This resulted in a potential yearly savings of 15,840,000 gallons.
126.
-------
Initial Costs and Annual Budget
The cost of the cleaning systems was only $7,200 as shown in Table 34.
Other costs are budgeted in the Water and Waste Monitoring and Control
Budget as they are also used during the day. Reduced costs as shown
in Table 35 indicate labor is the major reduced cost with water and
chemical savings other major components. Increased costs are minimal
and the net yearly savings are projected at $31,853. Clean-up
operations were found to be very controlable with strict management
control and poor employee attitude can make the projected savings
disappear. Figure 40 demonstrates poor practices during clean-up as
a clean floor is being washed with a hose that has no nozzle.
Water and Waste Monitoring and Control
Problem
This is a overview of the problems presented in each separate process
change. The major difference is that the poultry plant lacked the
management mechanism to respond adequately to water and waste problems.
Therefore, the first priority was on setting up a management scheme to
respond not only to this research and development activity but to the
normal water and waste needs of a poultry processing facility. The
evaluation of the water use and waste load from any facility requires
water meters and some methods of representative sampling of the waste-
water flow. A real problem in evaluating changes is the maintenance
of the necessary records on production, water use, wastewater char-
acteristics and other pertinent factors that influence the water use
and waste load. The testing of representative wastewater samples is
needed to establish wastewater characteristics and coupled with
effluent flow to establish the plant waste load.
Description of Changes
Cumulative use water meters were installed in the following locations
to establish the rate of use and the total use of each location
(Figure 41): (1) Hose stations, (2) Scalder, (3) Chiller, (4) Pre-
chiller, (5) Main-water supply, (6) Main lines feeding the evis-
cerating area, (7) Final bird washer, (8) Whole bird washer,
(9) Gizzard splitters and (10) other irregular or major flows as
needed. Water meters installed varied from 5/8 inch to 3 inch with an
8 inch and two 4 inch meters on the supply lines. Adjustable pressure
regulators were installed on the eviscerating trough supply and on the
side pan wash (Figure 28). A Parshall flume was utilized on the
feather recovery effluent and the offal recovery effluent. The final
plant discharge was monitored using a Parshall flume, a flow totalizer
and a Trebler sampler installed for composite and proportional samples.
127
-------
Table 34. INITIAL COSTS OF THE CLEAN-UP OPERATION CHANGES
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Material: $ 7,200.
2 High pressure cleaners with foaming attachments
Total Costs (includes tax) $ 7,200,
Table 35. ANNUAL BUDGET FOR CLEAN-UP OPERATION CHANGES
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Reduced Costs: $35,050.
Water 15,840,000 GPY @ $.44/1000 gal $ 6,970
Chemicals $72.00/day to 57.50/day 3,480.
Labor 160 man hrs/day to 119 man hrs/
day @ $2.50/hr 24,600.
Increased Costs: 3,197.
Maintenance (20% of cost) $ 1,440.
Electricity 65.
Depreciation - 5 years 1,440.
Interest on Investment 252.
Net savings per year $31,853.
128
-------
Figure 40u Poor floor washing practice
129
-------
Figure 41. First water meter installed on giblet chiller
130
-------
Benchmark information indicated a wide range in volume of water being
applied to the many unit operations. Many of the variations could be
attributed to fluctuations in the city water main pressures. However,
many of these fluctuations were compounded by the excessive use of
water throughout the plant.
Several regulating and control devices were installed to take the
guess work out of adjusting water valves and regulating water flows to
operating equipment. Water meters were installed on main water lines
and at central water distribution points. Pressure regulating valves
were installed on equipment where varying pressures affected the
efficiencies of product cleaning and limited the functions of the
equipment. Water pressure gauges were installed at almost every place
in the plant where an employee is responsible for the adjustment of a
water valve or water regulating unit. Employees were taught to adjust
the pressure with a regulating valve to obtain proper flow rate.
Quick cut off valves were installed to assist employees in cutting off
water flows when not needed (Figure 42). Wherever possible the flow
rates for individual outlets have been set by a stopwatch at a fixed
valve. The valve handles were removed to prevent workers from
changing the flow rate. Another simple method utilized for regulating
the flow was to install restricted plumbing which was capable of only
delivering the desired amount.
An in-plant project director was appointed to work on this project and
to supervise the water and waste activities in the plant. He was
responsible to see that modifications, sampling and testing were
performed. An old kitchen was modified to serve as a wastewater
analysis laboratory.
Initial Costs and Annual Budget
Total costs were$20,754, Table 36. The annual budget is different from
other annual budgets in that reduced costs are assigned to the respec-
tive process change, Table 37. Thus a yearly cost of $16,123 is
projected with no revenues shown.
131
-------
Figure 42. Quick cut off valve
132
-------
Table 36. INITIAL COSTS OF WATER AND WASTE MONITORING AND CONTROL.
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Laboratory Space Renovation (200 ft2) $ 3,000.
Laboratory
Equipment $ 4,466.
Glassware 875.
Chemicals 1,250. '
$ 6,591.
Sampling
Sampler with Refrigerator $ 1,000.
Flow Recorder with Totalizer 1,000.
Flume 100.
Installation Materials 250.
$ 2,350.
Pressure Regulators
Plant Source $ 700.
Eviscerating 400.
Materials 500.
$ 1,600.
Water Meters $ 2,500.
Materials 500.
$ 3,000.
Flow Regulation
Gauges (Pressure) $ 500.
Valves 850.
Materials 250.
$ 1,600.
Materials: $18,141.
Labor: 225 hours @ $10/hr 2,250.
Tax: 2% of Material Cost 363.
Total Costs $20,754.
133
-------
Table 37. ANNUAL BUDGET FOR WATER AND WASTE MONITORING AND CONTROL
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Increased Costs
Salary - Water and Waste Supervisor $ 8,500.
Maintenance 1,814.
Depreciation 3,683.
Meters, Regulators, Sampler $ 1,390.
Valves and gauges 675.
Laboratory - 100% in 5 years 1,318.
Laboratory Space -
100% in 10 years 300.
Interest on Investment 726.
Utilities expenses 150.
Recurring Costs 1,250.
Supplies $ 500.
Chemicals 750.
Cost per Year $16,123.
134
-------
RESULTS
Water Use
Water Use Reductions
The quantity of water used in the operation of equipment and/or
process in the poultry processing plant is listed in Table 38. The
use is given in terms of gallons per minute (GPM) for the constant
uses and a total is given for all uses. The rate was found to be
independent of the number of birds processed in a given time period.
The focus of the developmental activities was to change the rate of
use for selected water using processes. The number of birds processed
in a given time period is determined by the speed of the line. An
upper limit on the line speed is provided by the. design capacity of
the plant. The most important factor influencing the rate at which
the line can move is the quality of birds entering the plant. The
incidence of diseased birds increases tfte inspection time, decreases
the line speed and increases the water use.
A significant point observed in Table 38 is that the gizzard operation
uses 31 percent of the total daily water use and 45 percent of the
process water use. Major efforts in this area are detailed in
Appendix B, Special Study. The. handwash-outlets are the next largest
uses of water.
The total water use in the plant was some-576,000 GPD for processing
and clean-up. During the project water used in clean up was reduced
to 40,000 GPD. However, clean-up use when the final tests were made had
increased from 46,000 GPD to some 164,574 GPD. This can be attributed
to changes in management, foremen, inspectors and cleaning procedures.
Major water users include the handwashers at 56,000 GPD and the
chillers at 40,000 GPD.
The pattern of daily water use can be observed in Table 39. We note
that the mean water use is 5.58 GPB for processing, 2.23 GPB for
clean-up and 7.81 GPB total use. Water use on Mondays and clean-up
water use on Fridays were eliminated because of the difficulty of
obtaining water meter readings during the weekend that were
representative.
The effect of modifying plant processes to reduce water use had a
major impact on water use in a number of processes, Table 40. The
most predominate among these was the hand-wash outlets along the
eviscerating lines. The reduction in water use from 285 GPM to 100 GPM
135
-------
Table 38. POTABLE WATER USE AFTER PROCESSING CHANGES
Process
Killing Station
Scalder
Pickers
Neck Scalder
Whole Bird Washer
Hang Back Belt
Eviscerating Trough
Hand Wash Outlets
Side Pan Wash
Gizzard Machine and Flume
Final Bird Wash
Lung Vacuum Pump
Giblet Chiller
Neck Chiller
Chillers
Packing Ice
Bird Pick Up
Hoses
Clean-up
Unaccounted Uses
Total Use
Potable Water Use
(GPM)
4
38
1.5
30
9.1
100
30
320
60
14.2
4.5
4.0
72.1
Total
Volume
(gal)
2,242
5,892a
21,295
841
16,812
5,100
56,040
16,812
179,328
33,624
7,958
2,522
2,242
40,405
1,200
2,941
5,440
164,574
10,732
576,000
Potable water use for start-up only.
136
-------
Table 39. DAILY WATER USE IN POULTRY PROCESSING
Use Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Mean
(Gallons/Broiler)
Processing 5.93 5.05 5.89 5.43 5.58
Clean-up 1.97 2.06 2.68 ^_ 2.23
7.90 7.11 8.57 5.43 7.81
137
-------
Table 40. OBSERVED WATER REDUCTIONS
OJ
00
Area of
plant
Evisceration
Scalding and
defeathering
Reduction in potable water use
Activity
Use of improved nozzles
Final bird washers
Hand washers
Cycling of side pan wash
Rearrangement of giblet handling
Use of improved nozzles in
whole bird washers
New design of feather flume for
reuse of offal flume waters
Use of chiller water in scalder
to replace fresh water
From
(GPM)
100
285
. 90
360
37
94
40
To
(GPM)
60
100
30
320
30
0
0
Clean-up
New high-pressure cleaning system
with foam
(GPD)
112,000
(GPD)
46,000
-------
represents a yearly savings of 27,000,000 gallons. The cycling of the
side pan wash reduced the water use by 60 GPM. The large variation
between measured water flow Table 40 and total water use on Table 38 can
be explained by the fact that water use is dependent on management and
employees. Overall water use increased after the water-waste super-
visor left the project. The water use figures on Table 40 represent a
compilation of earlier water use figures for individual processes and
the total water use for a selected series of process days. The
compilation in Table 38 does not define the best possible operations
for each process. An example is clean-up which was reduced to 46,000
GPD with strict attention but went up to 164,574 when management
pressure was released and inspection procedures changed.
Due to the pressures of production and outside factors, water use
changes were made in individual units at different points in time.
Thus, totals of individual units could not be merged to form a
combined day agreeing with observed use. The total use of 7.81 GPB
would be reduced to 6.20 GPB if the clean-up operation was at its
lowest observed level of water use. This lower figure represents the
best achievable water use without major equipment or process changes.
Costs and Revenues of Water Flow Modifications
Water flow modifications were of three types: (1) modification of
processes and equipment already in the plant; (2) reuse of water; and
(3) new processes and equipment. A summary of the budgets for changes
to reduce fresh water use is given in Table 41. These changes required
an investment of $14,555 with an annual cost of $6,369.
The impact of these changes was to reduce annual water use in the
plant by 74.3 million gallons (Table 42). The average cost of reducing
water use was 8.6 cents per 1000 gallons. This compares favorable
with the water rate of 21 cents per 1000 gallons and the combined
water and sewer rate of 44 cents per 1000 gallons at the lowest cost
increment. Water reduction changes had a net benefit of 35 cents per
1000 gallons and provided an annual net savings of $56,454 above
process costs (Table 41).
These features were common to water flow modifications. (1) Flow
rates for the various processes were reduced. (2) There was a net
savings or reduction in total cost from each of the changes. (3) The
initial cost or investment could be recovered within the first year
except for the use of chiller water in the scalder. (4) Initial
investment was small in comparison with annual net benefits.
139
-------
Table 41. INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL COSTS AND RETURNS FOR WATER FLOW MODIFICATIONS
Annual costs and returns
Water flow modifications
Rehang belt washers
Hand washers
Final bird washers
Whole bird washers
Improved feather flow- away
Cycling of side pan wash
Chiller water in scalder and
feather flow- away
Whole bird .washer in
scalder
Plant clean-up
Total1
+
Inves tment
49
820
609
512
2,123
1,742
1,500
804
7,200
14,555
Process
cost
37
389
304
183
578
704
1,177
578
3,197
6,369
Water
Labor
reductions savings
331
12,043
2,281
684
5,377
3,421
1,622
2,281
6,970
32,729
(Dollars)
— —
—
—
—
2,214
—
—
— — o
24,600
26,8142
Net
savings
294
11,654
1,977
501
7,013
2,717
445
1,703
31.8532
56,454
in total.
2
Includes $3,480 in reduced chemical use.
-------
Table 42. ANNUAL WATER REDUCTIONS AND RATIO OF PROCESS COST AND WATER
REDUCTIONS
Water flow modifications
Annual water
reduction
Process cost per
1,000 gallons of
water reduction
Rehang belt washers
Hand washers
Final bird washers
Whole bird washers
Improved feather flow-away
Cycling of side pan wash
Chiller water in scalder and
feather flow-away
Whole bird washer in
scalder
Plant clean-up
Total1
Average
(Million gallons)
0.8
27.3
5.1
1.6
12.2
7.8
3.7
5.4
15.8
74.3
(Cents)
4.6
1.4
6.0
11.4
4.7
9.0
31.8
10.1
22.2
8.6
Whole bird wash water is an alternative source to the use of chiller
water and is not included in total or average.
141
-------
The relative profitability of water flow modifications and the impact
on reductions in fresh water use indicate that in-plant changes
provide major opportunity for reducing the level of fresh water use
in similar processes in other plants. Individual process and equip-
ment changes can be made. That is, making one change does not require
that other changes be made at the same time.
Process and equipment changes should not only be technically but
economically feasible. Thus, the annual return on the process cost
which includes capital and operating costs is important in deciding
on both the modifications to be made and the sequence in which they
are made.
Returns per dollar of annual process cost are displayed in Figure 43.
The display facilitates a comparison of the relative profitability of
each change and the impact on fresh water use. The highest return of
$30 per dollar of annual process cost occurred with the use of high
efficiency nozzles and valves on the handwashers. The reduction in
water use was large. Approximately one third of the water reduction
was achieved in this one change. All changes except two provided a
return of more than a dollar for each dollar of process cost.
The firm's profit would be increased by these changes since each
provided a return on annual process cost greater than one dollar.
Priority can be given to the changes on the basis of returns. Also,
information displayed in Figure 43 highlights the water reduction
achieved by each change. This may also be a prime factor in deciding
on the sequence in which modifications are made.
Water flow modifications that reduce process water requirements improve
the efficiency of water use. Water reductions may, through technical
linkages, improve the waste recovery efficiency of pretreatment
methods. This is discussed in a later section of this chapter on joint
water and waste reductions.
Each of the water flow modifications was economically feasible and
reduced potable water use. Opportunities for further water reductions
were identified during the study for which additional research is
required to determine the technical, economic and operational feasi-
bility of these processes. These include:
1. Modifications in giblet processing. Giblet processing required
approximately 40 percent of the fresh water used in the Gold
Kist plant at the end of the study. Gizzard splitters require
240 gpm with the gizzard contents providing an important part of
waste load in the final effluent. There may be situations in
142
-------
o w
(X fD
H- ft
H) CO
It
(-U-O
p g
p
(0
p-
o
p
n
o
M>
O
o
(A
8
Hi
H
1
i: HAND WASHER
2. IMPROVED FEATHER FLOW AWAY
1- 50
0 45
tr 40
i
d 35
O
51 30
Z 25
H 20
1 1 1
DOLLAR RE
O Ol O Ol
3. PLANT CLEAN UP
~~ 4. REHANG BELT
_ 5, FINAL BIRD WASHERS
6. CYCLING OF SIDE PAN WASHER
_ 7. WHOLE BIRD WASHER
8, CHILLER WATER FOR SCALDER
__
—
—
—
i i
.
*
^ &
V S^ ^
r eT ©
^x^@
1 1 | Jq ir®
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ANNUAL WATER USE REDUCTION, million gallons
-------
which discarding the gizzard and rearranging the handling of other
giblets parts may be economical. Reuse of process waters in the
gizzard splitter was found to be technically feasible. Additional
study is needed to determine acceptability from the standpoint of
sanitation, Appendix B.
2. Development of improved nozzles. Hand and product washing are
main uses of fresh water. Further research on improved nozzles is
needed to determine effective processes, spray patterns, droplet
sizes and ease of operation for the many uses of nozzles through-
out the plant.
3. Reuse of water. Sanitation requirements limit the reuse of water
in poultry processing. Areas of potential reuse include the
gizzard splitter and side pan rinse.
4. Scalding and chilling. New approaches to scalding and chilling
that minimize the use of water are needed.
5. Packing. Dry ice is used in packing and has the advantages of
replacing the use of ice. A main advantage may be the reduction
in the weight of the final pack which reduces shipping weight and
storage space.
Wastewater Characteristics
The compilation of wastewater characteristics can be observed in
Table 43. One must note that the figures represent sampling at the
plant drain, after the settling basin and then the effluent after the
AFC on its way to the city sewers. Wastewater from poultry processing
is best characterized by using waste load as is reported in the next
section.
The BODc of 390 mg/1 is less than figures commonly found in the
literature such as 427 mg/1 and 473 mg/1 for poultry processing
effluents. Industrial contacts have indicated higher BOD is common
in the poultry processing industry and the 615 mg/1 BOD_ reported by
Camp may be more representative of the industry although good data
is not available. The COD/BOD,- ratio varies from 2.2 to 2.7 for these
wastewaters. The BODj of 390 mg/1 can be compared with the Benchmark
results of 560 mg/1. The observed reduction occured because of changes
made and was simultaneous with water use reductions.
144
-------
Table 43. FINAL WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Sampling Point
Process Effluent
After Settling Basin
After AFC
BODc;
390
329
282
COD TS
(mean mg/1)
936 729
710 599
621 521
SS
540
267
214
GREASE
141
98
64
145
-------
Waste Load
Introduction
The opportunities explored for waste load reduction included isolation
and collection of blood, improvements in offal and feather recovery and
decreases through removal in the settling basin and in the AFC. The
special tank installed on the by-products truck to collect the blood
and lung tank discharge should have also eliminated a large source of
waste.
Production processes were found to be constant in water use per unit
of time while the amount of waste which gets into the plant wastewater
is constant per. unit of product. Opportunities explored for water and
waste load reductions included improved management, new and modified
in-plant equipment and processes, pretreatment of wastewaters and
primary wastewater treatment. Most traditional poultry processing
techniques were not compatible with economic water and waste management
and were modified to achieve reductions in water use and waste load.
Waste reduction methods involved improving and developing pretreatment
and by-product recovery methods to reduce the waste load per unit of
product in the final effluent.
Waste Load
The waste load from the plant is displayed in Table 44. The process
wastewater BODeof 390 mg/1 is less than the normal 427-615 mg/1 often
seen for the wastewaters of poultry processing plants. More important
is the waste load of 25.38 Ibs BOD5/1000 broilers received. Most
poultry processing plants have waste loads of approximately 2 to 3
times this figure. CampH reported a most modern plant that discharged
39 Ibs BOD^/IOOO broilers. Most poultry processing plants discharge
approximately 60 Ibs BODc/1000 broilers as found during the Benchmark
studies.
The waste load after pretreatment and after the AFC is displayed in
Table 44. The BODr load has been lowered from 25.38 to 18.36 lbs/1000
broilers received by settling and AFC treatment. The grease has been
lowered from 9.37 to 4.16 lbs/1000 broilers through these
same two processes.
The real significance of the water and waste improvements in the plant
can best be demonstrated by Table 45 which gives a comparison of the
Benchmark and Final Results. The BODc load has been reduced from a
level of 3,970 Ibs/day to 1,355 Ibs/day with an increase in production.
The decrease is perhaps best demonstrated by the lbs/1000 broilers
received reduction of 57.37 to 18.36. Grease has been reduced from
146.
-------
Table 44. WASTE LOADS
Characteristic
BOD5
COD
TS
SS
Grease
BOD 5
COD
TS
SS
Grease
BOD5
COD
TS
SS
Grease
Ong/1)
390
936
729
390
144
329
710
599
267
98
282
621
521
214
64
Process Effluent
(Ibs/day)
1,873
4,496
3,502
1,873
692
After Settling
1,580
3,411
2,878
1,283
471
After AFC - Effluent
1,355
2,964
2,503
1,028
307
(lbs/1000
broilers rec'd)
25.38
60.92
47.45
25.38
9.37
21.41
46.21
38.99
17.38
6.38
to Durham
18.36
40.16
33.92
13.93
4.16
147
-------
Table 45. COMPARISON OF BENCHMARK AND FINAL RESULTS - WASTE LOADS
Waste
BOD_
,)
COD
Solids
Grease
Load
Ibs/day
lbs/1000 broilers
lbs/1000 Ib LW
lbs/1000 Ib KW
Ibs/day
lbs/1000 broilers
lbs/1000 Ib LW
lbs/1000 Ib KW
Total Ibs/day
lbs/1000 broilers
lbs/1000 Ib LW
lbs/1000 Ib KW
Dissolved Ibs/day
lbs/1000 broilers
lbs/1000 Ib LW
lbs/1000 Ib KW
Suspended Ibs/day
lbs/1000 broilers
lbs/1000 Ib LW
lbs/1000 Ib KW
Ibs/day
lbs/1000 broilers
lbs/1000 Ib LW
lbs/1000 Ib KW
Benchmark
3,970
57.37
15.72
21.24
5,118
73.96
20.26
27.36
4,941
71.40
19.56
26.44
2,283
32.99
9.04
12.22
2,658
38.41
10.52
14.23
1,063
15.36
4.21
5.69
Final*
1,355
18.36
4.89
6.63
2,964
40.16
10.56
14.50
2,503
33.92
9.04
12.24
1,475
19.99
0.33
7.21
1,028
13.93
3.71
5.03
307
4.16
1.11
1.50
* Final effluent after settling and AFC treatment.
148
-------
15.36 to 4.16 lb/1000 broilers received. Suspended solids was reduced
from 38.41 to 13.93 lbs/1000 broilers received.
Costs and Revenues of Waste Reduction Changes
Two approaches were followed in reducing the waste load in the final
plant effluent. First, a method was developed for improving the
collection of blood. Second, existing pretreatment processes were
improved and an air flotation cell was installed. The first approach
involved keeping the waste out of the effluent while the second in-
volved recovery of waste from the effluent. All wastes can be used in
by-product processing for animal and poultry feed.
A summary of the budgets for changes to reduce the waste load in the
plant effluent is given in Table 46. Waste abatement changes reduced
the annual waste load by 204,300 pounds of BOD5 (Table 47). These
changes required an investment of $57,756 with an annual net savings
$19,728. The average cost of reducing the waste load was 4.1 cents
per pound of BOD^ (Tables 46 and 47). These costs compare favorably
with a surcharge rate of 8 cents per pound of BOD^.
Annual waste reductions totaled some 204,300 pounds of BOD^ for the
blood recovery modifications and the installation and operation of the
AFC (Table 47). The return per dollar of annual cost averaged $5.00.
Limitations on the level of grease and feathers permitted in the plant
effluent, imposed by the Durham waste treatment authorities, increased
the need for improved recovery of these materials. An air flotation
cell was installed to remove solids and grease. The use of screens of
a higher mesh was feasible after fresh water use had been lowered and
the hydraulic load on the screens reduced. Reducing water use in
order to achieve improved waste recovery was quite important.
A modification that intuitively reduces the waste load is a head
puller as shown in Figure 44. Heads were removed, deposited in
plastic trash barrels and disposed of as offal. Use of the system
shown is questionable with some USDA inspectors. No costs were
developed for this item and reductions in waste load could not be
determined. The dry carry-off of solids should reduce the waste load
by preventing the leaking of solubles from the solids and also the
washing off of bits and pieces. A good example of this is the use of
the "dry belt" to carry away viscera.
149
-------
Table 46. INVESTMENT AND ANNUAL COSTS AND RETURNS FOR WASTE REDUCTION MODIFICATIONS
Annual costs and returns
Waste reduction
modifications
Improved blood recovery
Air flotation cell
Total
Investment
7,674
50,082
57,756
Process
cost
1,672
6,859
8,531
Surcharge
reduction
6,039
9,946
15,985
By-Product
Sales
7,791
899
8,690
Labor
and
Chemical
saving
3,584
3,584
Net
saving
15,742
3,986
19,728
-------
Table 47. ANNUAL WASTE REDUCTIONS AND RETURNS PER DOLLAR OF ANNUAL
COST
Waste reduction
modifications
Return per
dollar of
annual cost
Annual
waste
reduction
Improved blood recovery
Air flotation cell
Total
Average
(dollars)
9.42
0.58
5.00
(1,000 Ibs
BOD5)
80.0
124.3
204.3
151
-------
Figure 44. Head puller
152
-------
Feathers and trash lost from empty coops on return trips in the hauling
of broilers is a major problem. A coop cleaner was installed to remove
feathers and trash in the plant. Budgets could not be prepared for the
coop cleaner nor could absolute figures be applied to waste reductions.
Opportunities for Further Waste Reductions
Opportunities for further waste reductions include:
1. Modifying giblet processing. It was estimated that approxi-
mately 25 percent of the waste load resulted from giblet
processing and handling. Discarding gizzards and hearts and
modifying the handling of livers and necks provide an
opportunity to reduce the waste load. Studies are needed to
determine under what conditions this would be economically
feasible.
2. Grease recovery is possible from the final bird wash water
and chiller water and is a potential source of animal fat
that has commercial uses.
3. The elimination of the scald tank and its replacement with a
steam or water mist system should help to reduce waste load
by concentration of wastewater.
4. The elimination of the immersion chiller with water spray,
conventional refrigeration or cryogenic systems should prove
beneficial in reducing waste load.
5. A most important change forseen for current processors
could be the "dry belt" transport of viscera, heads and feet
to the offal truck.
Water and Waste Reduction Relationships
Interdependence of Water and Waste Reductions
A relationship between water and waste reductions was not apparent when
individual process and equipment changes were reviewed. This would be
expected as water flow modifications did not involve either waste
recovery or limiting the amount of waste entering the feather or offal
flow-away flumes. Neither did waste reduction modifications limit
water use. However, improved employee attitudes toward water use and
waste provided observable reductions in both.
153
-------
Water use per unit of time and waste load per unit of output are
technically fixed parameters. A reduction in water use with a fixed
waste load leads to an increased concentration of all waste character-
istics in the wastewater. However, the concentration of BOD,., grease
and solids decreased during the water use reductions of this study,
Figure 45. A major result of the study was to uncover this important
relationship between water and waste reductions. During the 14 month
period from October, 1969 to December, 1970, in plant changes were
limited to water reducing modifications. Reductions in water use per
bird during this period resulted in a corresponding reduction in
waste discharges per bird (Figure 45). The amount of BOD5 per bird
declined at approximately the same rate as the reductions in potable
water use. This relationship reflects improved efficiencies of the
pretreatment process-screening and solids removal in the basin and AFC
as the hydraulic loading was lowered. Further research is needed to
evaluate the importance of operating pretreatment processes at or near
design capacity in achieving reductions in waste loading. Since the
selection and sizing of pretreatment and waste treatment processes
depend to a major extent on hydraulic loading, the implication of
complementarities between water and waste reduction are important in
assessing the cost of achieving environmental objectives.
This relationship between water used reductions and waste discharge
may have also been a result of improved employee attitudes and practices
or a result of reduced water use leading to less washing of organics
from viscera, feathers and other waterborne matter. Water use
reductions at hose stations were partially a result of employees getting
less waste on the floor. The hose station water use reductions were
also indicative of dry/solid waste clean-up instead of washing to the
drain as had been the previous practice. We can postulate that less
water use in the evisceration trough, the feather flume and the viscera
flume mean less washing of the waterborne matter and therefore less
removal of organics. However, this has not been tested by experimenta-
tion.
This major finding involved the interdependence of water and waste
reductions. The technical linkages between water and waste reduction
are of major importance in deciding on the economic feasibility of
individual processes. These interrelationships are of special
importance if the firm is required to pay municipal surcharges on
waste or water volume discharges or to provide a wastewater treatment
facility to achieve specified reduction in waste loads.
154
-------
Ln
Ui
WATER USED
WASTE DISCHARGED
1969
JFMAMJ JASON
MONTHLY RECORDS
1970 » 1971
Figure 45. Quantity of water and waste per broiler
-------
Allocating Cost Reductions
Waste abatement costs were reduced when water flows were modified.
First, there was a decrease in sewer surcharges. This was achieved by
removing a greater proportion of the BOD,- in the final plant effluent.
Second, the hydraulic loading, a major factor in determining the size
requirements of the air flotation cell, was lowered. The investment
and operating costs of the cell were reduced in direct proportion to
changes in fresh water use.
The reductions in waste abatement costs should be allocated to water
process and equipment changes to the extent they are identified. Since
the relationship between water and waste reductions were established in
the study, analysis of individual processes and the total plant can be
used to examine technical and economic relationships.
Technical and Economic Relationship
During the 18 month period from July, 1969 to December, 1970 water use
per bird was reduced 30 percent by water flow modifications while
waste discharged per bird declined by 33 percent. This was a daily
reduction of 1320 pounds of BOD5 and 262,000 gpd of water use. Without
the complementarity between water and waste reductions, reducing water
use by 262,000 gpd would have required a surcharge of $105.60 per day,
1320 pounds of BOD^ at 8 cents per pound. This is equivalet to 40.3
cents for each 1000 gallons of reduced water use.
Investment and operating costs of the air flotation cell were lower due
to water flow modifications. A cell designed for 1320 gpm, the average
use during processing at the beginning of the project in July, 1969,
had an estimated initial cost of $72,000. A 30 percent decrease in
fresh water use to a level of 924 gpm, lowered the cost of the cell to
$50,000. This was a proportional reduction of 30 percent in the
initial cost of the air flotation cell. There was a cost of $54 per
gallon per minute of design capacity. The reduction in costs of the
AFC was greater than the costs of the water flow modifications (Table
48).
Wastewater water treatment was not studied. However, investment and
operating costs of waste water treatment facilities would be reduced
by water flow modifications. In-plant process and equipment changes
for both water and waste reduction should be considered for improving
existing pretreatment or treatment processes or when new systems
are installed. The reduction in investment for additional treatment
processes may be greater than the cost of making the in-plant changes
to reduce the hydraulic load of treatment processes. Table 48
tabulates that dollar investment for water flow can be more than
156
-------
Table 48. REDUCTION IN COST OF AFC CONTRASTED WITH INITIAL COST OF
WATER RELATED CHANGES
Process
Initial cost
of water flow
modifications
One time
Reduction in
the cost of
the air
flotation cell3
Rehang belt
Hand washers
Final bird wash
Whole bird wash
Improved feather flow-away
Cycling of side pan wash
Chiller water in scalder and
feather flow-away
Whole bird wash water in scalder
Plant clean-up
49
820
609
512
2,123
1,742
1,500
804
7,200
(Dollars)
313
11,405
2,160
648
5,092
3,240
1,536
1,696
b
a Allocated on the basis of $54 per gallon per minute reduction in
initial investment cost of the air flotation cell.
k Plant clean-up does not effect sizing requirements for air flotation
cell.
.157
-------
recovered in the initial cost of the AFC.
A summary of the cost and income effects of the complementarity
between water and waste reduction is given in Table 49. The reductions
in sewer surcharges, cost of the air flotation cell, and water,
chemical, and labor costs are of the same magnitude. The benefits from
water flow modifications were approximately tripled due to complemen-
tarity of water and waste reductions.
Identifying and establishing the complementary relationship between
water and waste reduction and the favorable impact on reducing cost
was perhaps the most important result from the project. The
implementation of sewer surcharges by municipalities and effluent
standards for waste treatment systems will increase waste abatement
requirements. A better understanding of the complementary relation-
ship between water and waste reductions will be useful in deciding on
process and equipment changes required for improved waste abatement.
Microbiological Evaluation
The Benchmark microbiological report submitted earlier covered the
analysis of samples obtained during the period of March to May 31
for a total of eight evaluations. After that, additional evaluations
were made at various intervals for over a year until July, 1971. During
these evaluations only the water samples from the designated points and
the finished carcass samples were obtained for determination of total
counts and the coliform counts. Final carcass samples were also
checked for the presence of Salmonella. All water flow modifications
were completed by July, 1971, and further microbial tests were
not performed.
The results first obtained were analyzed separately for the period
(June 1 to September 30, 1970) so that a comparison may be made with
the Benchmark results (March to May 31, 1970) during which period no
changes in the machinery or water circulation were made. Also the
range of microbial counts, mean and median counts were calculated for
the entire period of sampling (March to September 30, 1970). The
summarized data is reported in Figure 46, 47 and 48. Few changes were
made in the use of water during processing during this March to
September time period. The initial results were extended with the
assumption that both of these periods of processing operation were
compatible and suitable for benchmark data.
158
-------
Table 49. BUDGETS FOR FLOW MODIFICATIONS INCLUDING SEWER SURCHARGE REDUCTIONS
Ul
vo
Process
Rehang belt
Hand washers
Final bird wash
Whole bird wash
Improved feather flow-away
Cycling of side pan wash
Chiller water in scalder and
feather flow-away
Whole bird wash water in scalder
Plant clean-up
Annual
Process
cost
37
389
304
183
578
704
1,177
578
3,197
Cost and Returns for flow
Water, Chemical and
labor reductions
(Dollars)
331
12,043
2,281
684
7,591
3,421
1,622
2,281
35,050
modifications
Sewer Surcharge
reductions3
303
11,031
2,089
627
4,925
3,134
1,486
2,176
6,384
Net
Savings
597
22,685
4,066
1,128
11,938
5,851
1,931
3,879
38,236
-------
IxlO
8
IxlO
IxlO
u_
o
DC UIO5
UJ
Q.
CO
S
CO
ixio
IxlO*
IxlO'
O—O MARCH TO MAY 1970
A—A JUNE TO SEPTEMBER 1970
D—D MARCH TO SEPTEMBER 1970
RANGE
, A.B MEDIAN
I I I
I
I I III III III III
POINT A POINTS POINTC POINT D POINT E POINT F
SCALD BEFORE AFTER FIRST SECOND GIBLET
WATER EVISCERATION CHILLED WATER
Figure 4d. Total counts at various processing points
16Q
-------
IxlO
IxlO'
or
UJ
I
IxlO
o:
UJ
Q.
CO
2
CO
o
o:
o
IxlO'
IxlO
I
IxlO
O—O MARCH TO MAY 1970
A—A JUNE TO SEPTEMBER 1970
D—D MARCH TO SEPTEMBER 1970
O—•—O RANGE
• , A,B MEDIAN
I I
I I.I
POINT A POINTS POINT C POINT D POINT E POINT F
SCALD BEFORE AFTER FIRST SECOND GIBLET
WATER EVISCERATION CHILLED WATER
Figure 47. Caliform counts at selected points
161
-------
co
CO
<
o
(T
<
O
*v
CO
2
CO
o
a:
o
o:
UJ
CD
IxiO
8
IxlO
IxlO
IxlO
IxlO
COLIFORM TOTAL COUNT
O-0-O •-<>-• RANGE
A, •,£) O,A,D MEDIAN
O MARCH TO MAY
A JUNE TO SEPTEMBER
D MARCH TO SEPTEMBER
O D
A
COLIFORM
I
POINT I
FINISHED
CARCASS
TOTAL
COUNT
I
1
POINT I
FINISHED
CARCASS
Figure 48* Total and coliform counts of whole carcass
162
-------
On overall examination of these results one first observes the
similarity of the trend in microbial counts at the different sampling
points obtained during the two initial sampling periods (Figure 46 and
47. March to May; June to September).
The seasonal effect on the total microbial flora is reflected in the
counts of scald water at sampling point A. As expected the total
counts are much higher during the hot and humid climatic period of
June to September compared to the samples analysed during the mild
weather of March to May 1970. The higher initial counts of the scald
water during the period under report also explains partly the increase
in total counts observed at the other sampling points except at the
finished carcass level (Figure 48), Surprisingly, the seasonal effect
of increase in counts is not observable in the carcass samples. The
microbial level of the finished carcass has shown a slight decrease in
total counts as well as in coliform counts during the second period of
studies.
During the second 8 week period, Salmonella was detected in 4 carcass
samples out of 24 tested as compared to 9 out of 23 in the first
period.
Keeping in mind the limitations in the number of samples tested, it may
be concluded that the overall trend in the microbial counts during both
the sampling period were similar and that the microbiological quality
of the finished carcass has not changed significantly. For the
remainder of the sampling period which totaled one year before the
Special Study (Appendix B), similar results were observed with no
trends apparent.
With current technology, there is no better way of determining the
actual (consumer) safety of a product such as poultry than by the use
of microbiological evaluation. This, of course, assumes that chemical
toxicants or carcinogens have not been introduced into the poultry
through feed or water during their growth. Also, this study sought to
evaluate quality changes that take place during processing and our
microbial testing program of water and carcass did this. For this
reason, microbiological testing for total count, coliform count and
presence of salmonella was conducted on the whole carcass after
processing during the time period in which water flow and waste
reduction modifications to equipment and process were being made.
Water samples were also analyzed but the final quality of the
finished product was felt best judged by the whole carcass evaluation.
A summary of the results is presented in Table 50.
163
-------
Results from the period from March, 1970 to March, 1971 were used in
comparison with the Special Study (Appendix B) during which maximum
reuse and continued use .of water occured. The mean ^alue for total
count and coliform count and the presence of salmonella all were less
during the Special Study than previously. The results were not
significantly different but the presence of salmonella showed a
36 percent reduction from 21.5 percent to 13.8 percent incidence rate.
The media values of both total and coliform bacteria were also lower
during the Special Study (Appendix B) during which maximum water reuse
and continued use occured. This Special Study took place in the
middle of 1971 at which time all water use modifications had been
completed. However, the reductions in total count and coliform count
were not significantly different (Appendix B, Tables 7, 8 and 9). The
mean total count of the whole carcass was 2.8 x 10° during the
continued use period (Table 50). The mean carcass coliform count was
1.1 x 105 during the continued use period (Table 50). Salmonella was
detected in 18 out of the 130 carcass evaluations.
It can be concluded that no reduction in the consumer safety of the
finished product occured during the water and waste reductions. In
fact, slight improvements were observed which may be due to factors
other than equipment modifications such as seasonality factors,
weather, improved plant sanitation or other such factors. Poultry
processing plants may reduce their water use and waste loads using
the changes outlined in this study without fear of degrading the
microbiological quality of their product.
Table 50. BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF FINISHED CARCASS
Salmonellae
Total Count* Coliforms* No. carcasses No.+
(mean) (mean) Tested
March 1970 to
March 1971 3,400,000 120,000 102 22
April - June 1971 2,800,000 110,000 130 18
* Counts per whole carcass.
164
-------
TOTAL PLANT EVALUATION
A benchmark of water use and waste loads was established for the total
plant prior to the modification of in-plant processes and equipment.
The levels of water use and waste load achieved by the end of the
project were compared with the benchmark information to determine the
overall impact of changes made in the plant.
Technical Results
Reductions in fresh water use and waste loadings were achieved by
regulating and controlling water flows, improving housekeeping
practices , and making process and equipment changes . Water and waste
monitoring information provided the data for evaluating the overall
technical results obtained in the study. Costs and revenues were
related to the technical changes to provide economic evaluation. The
following reductions in total water use and waste loading in the final
effluent were achieved with several other improvements .
1. Average daily fresh water use was teduced by 32 percent,
from 850,000 GPD to 576,000 GPD.
2. The plants daily waste load was reduced by 66 percent, from
3,970 to 1,355 pounds of
3. The BODc in the final effluent was reduced by 50 percent,
from 560 mg/1 to 282 mg/1.
4. The level of grease was reduced by 57 percent, from 150
mg/1 to 64 mg/1.
5. Blood from the killing room was effectively eliminated from
the plant effluent and recovered for by-product sales.
6. Feathers in the plant effluent were controlled to acceptable
levels .
7. Feathers and dry materials from empty coops were effectively
removed prior to placing coops on trucks after unloading.
8. The microbiological quality of the final product was not
lowered .
9. Other important benefits from the project included improved
working conditions in the killing room, an increase in the
operating rate of the plant from an average of 7,299 to
7,868 birds processed per hour, reduced chemical use reduced
165
-------
labor requirements and improvements in equipment arrange-
ments such as giblet fluming.
Water and Sewer Costs
Savings in water and sewer costs are a major component of the cost
reductions from in-plant changes. The Durham water and sewer rate of
$.44 per 1000 gallons of water and $.08 per pound of BOD5 on all waste
above 250 mg/1 were used in the analysis. The total plant analysis
included the affects of all changes made during the project period.
The average monthly cost of water and sewer services, adjusted for
number of birds, declined by $5,344 from a three month average of
$10,164 during May - July, 1969 (Table 51). This was a reduction
of $3.98 per 1000 birds processed.
Overall Benefits and Costs
Annual benefits and costs are estimated from the results achieved
during the fourth quarter of fiscal 1972. All changes including the
installation of the air flotation cell were completed by July, 1972.
Performance rates per 1000 birds for a test period during July 1972
was used in developing annual benefits and costs for the plant (Table
51, 52).
Research and development costs were not included in the evaluation.
It was recognized that obtaining information for decisions on in-plant
changes may be an important management cost. The purpose of the
development and demonstration project was to provide development
capital and process information and make it readily available through
published results and on-site demonstrations. Finally, there were
costs to the firm for training plant personnel and supervising
operations during the implementation of plant modifications which
were covered to some extent by including the cost of one full time
person for water and waste management.
The total investment in in-plant changes was $93,065 (Table 52).
Annual cost, including water and waste monitoring and a full-time
in-plant manager, was $31,023. Net annual income and cost savings
of $72,193 were achieved in the Gold Kist Plant. Annual savings per
dollar of annual cost were $2.33. Net annual savings per 1000 birds
was $4.08.
166.
-------
Table 51. WATER AND SEWER COSTS COMPARISON INCLUDING SURCHARGE3
3 month average (May-June-July)
Change
Item 1969 1972C 1969-1972
Water Cost $ 3,238 $ 2,199 $ 1,039
Sewer Cost 3,546 2,408 1,138
Surchargeb 3.390 223 3,167
Total $10,164 $ 4,830 $ 5,344
Gallons per bird 11.5 7.81 3.69
BOD5 in effluent 560 mg/1 282 mg/1 298 mg/1
a The average water and sewer rate was $0.51 per 1000 gallons of water
and a sewer surcharge of $0.08 per pound of B.O.D. was charged on all
waste above 250 mg/1.
b Computed based on sampling and testing results in July 1972 after
completion of AFC and actual water use data.
c Adjusted to 1969 number of birds processed.
167
-------
Table 52. SUMMARY OF INITIAL AND ANNUAL COSTS AND INCOME FOR PROCESS
AND EQUIPMENT CHANGES AND WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, 1972
Annual
Item
Initial
Inves tment
Income and
Cost cos^ savings
Additional cost
Processing and equipment changes 72,311
Water and waste monitoring and
management3 20,754
Total 93,065
Additional revenue or reduced cost
(Dollars)
14,900
16.123
31,023
Water sewer and surcharge reductions'3
Labor and chemical savings
Byproduct sales
Total
Net annual savings
Annual savings per
Net annual savings
dollar of annual cost
per 1,000 birds
64,128
30,398
8,690
103,216
72,193
2.33
4.08
a Average monthly savings, Table 50.
b Average monthly savings, Table 50.
168
-------
Community Effect
The reductions in water use and waste have important implications for
the city of Durham. The 32 percent reduction in water use comprised
approximately 2.4 percent of the water used in Durham. Reducing the
use of water in the Gold Kist plant resulted in increasing the amount
available for other users. This result has major implications for
those cities faced with the need to expand water supplies. Likewise,
the reduction in waste and hydraulic loads had major significance to
the municipal waste treatment facilities.
Summary
Table 53 details the important facts about operation of the Durham,
Gold Kist poultry processing plant after the conclusion of the research
and development activities. Water use was 7.81 GPB or 2081 GAL/1000 Ib.
LW. Production was 73,800 BPD. BOD5 was 282 mg/1 or the load was
18.36 Ibs BODe/1000 BPD. Annual costs for water, sewer and surcharge
totaled $3.61/1000 BPD. Annual savings of $4.08/1000 BPD can be
realized with an initial investment of $93*065 and annual costs of
$31,023.
169
-------
Table 53. FINAL RESULTS SUMMARY
Water Use 5.58 GPB Processing 576,000 GAL/DAY
2.23 GPB Clean-Up 2,081 GAL/1000 Ib LW
7.81 GPB Total Use 2,818 GAL/1000 Ib KW
576,000 GPD
Production 73,800 BPD (received) LVN 3.75 Ibs
9.38 hrs (processing) KW= 2.77 Ibs
Wastewater Discharge to City (after settling basin and AFC)
Characteristics
BOD COD TS
(mg/1)
SS
282 617 521 214
(Ibs/day)
1,355 2,964 2,503 1,028
(lbs/1000 broilers received)
18.36 40.16 33.92 13.93
Costs and Cost Savings - Water and
Initial Investment
Annual Costs
Waste Reductions
$93
$31
Grease
64
307
4.16
,065.
,023.
Annual Costs - Water, Sewer and Surcharge $3.61/1000 Broilers
Annual Savings - Water, Sewer and Surcharge $3.92/1000 Broilers
Annual Savings $4.08/1000 Broilers
170
-------
SECTION VI
REFERENCES
1. The Cost of Clean Water, Volume III, Industrial Waste Profile
No. 8, Meat Products. U. S. Dept. of Interior, FWPCA, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. (1967).
2. Forges, Ralph and E. J. Struzeski, Waste from the Poultry
Processing Industry. U. S. Dept. of Health, Education and
Welfare, PHS, Cincinnati, Ohio (1962).
3. Ward, R. C., Network Theory Applied To Water Management in
Poultry Processing. A thesis submitted to the Dept. of
Biological and Agricultural Engineering, N. C. State University,
Raleigh, N. C. (1970).
4. Regulations Governing the Inspection of Poultry and Poultry
Products (7 CFR Part 81). U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Consumer
and Marketing Service, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D. C.
5. Turner, J. E. Water Supply in Official Poultry Plants,
In-Process Pollution Abatement. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Technology Transfer, Washington, D. C. (1973).
6. Poultry Inspection Regulations. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
APHIS, Washington, D. C. (1972).
7. Poultry Inspections Handbook. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture,
APHIS, Washington, D. C. (1972).
8. Vertrees, J. G. The Poultry Processing Industry: A Study of
the Impact of Water Pollution Control Costs. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture, ERS Marketing Research Report No. 965 (1972).
9. Forges, R. Wastes from Poultry Dressing Establishments, Sewage
and Industrial Wastes, 22, No. 4, p. 531 (1950).
10. Bolton, J. M. Wastes from Poultry Processing Plants, Proceedings
of 13th Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University,
Lafayette, Indiana (1958).
171
-------
11. Camp, W. J. Waste Treatment at Live Oak Poultry Processing
Plant, Proceeding of the Eighteenth Southern Water Resources
and Pollution Control Conference, North Carolina State University,
School of Engineering, Raleigh, N. C. (1969).
12. Camp, W. J. and Willoughby, E., Extended Aeration Purities Effluent,
Food Engineering, 40, No. 8, p. 72-74 (1968).
13. Teletzke, G. H. Chickens for Barbecue - Wastes for Aerobic
Digestion, Wastes Engineering, 32, pp. 134-138 (1961).
14. Twigg, B. A. Water Use and Conservation in Food Processing
Plants, Journal of Milk and Food Technology, 30, pp. 222-223 (1967).
15. Bower, Blair T. The Economics of Industrial Water Utilization,
in Water Research, John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Md. (1966).
16. Kaplovsky, A. Problems in Handling Poultry Waste, Food
Technology, 12, p. 180 (1958).
17. Barnard, G. R. Waste Disposal Problems in Poultry Processing
Industry, Seminar by Dept. of Environmental Sciences and
Engineering, Publication No. 85, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, N. C. (1964).
18. Miller, P. E. Poultry Dressing Wastes, Proceedings of the 6th
Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana,
pp. 176-180 (1951).
19. Heukelekian, H., H. Orford, and L. Cherry, The Characteristics of
Wastes from Chicken Packing Plants, Sewage and Industrial Wastes,
22, No. 2, p. 521 (1950).
20. Wolf, A. and W. T. Woodsing. Wastes from Small Poultry Dressing
Establishments, Sewage and Industrial Wastes, 25, pp. 1429-31
(1953).
21. Hamm, D. Characteristics of Effluents of Ten Southeastern
Poultry Processing Plants, Poultry Sci., 52, pp. 825-829 (1972).
22. Standard Methods for the Examination of Wastes and Wastewater,
American Public Health Assoc., New York, N. Y. (1965).
23. Poultry Inspectors Handbook. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, CMS,
Washington, D. C. (1968).
24. Matthews, Leslie. Private Communication. City of Durham, N. C.
(1972).
172
-------
SECTION VII
PUBLICATIONS AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
A necessary consideration for a research and development project of a
viable industry is the presentation of progress made for discussion ..
and evaluation. Numerous contacts were made to explain the progress
of this study to industry leaders and these efforts are detailed.
A goal was to develope guidelines for the management of water and
wastes in poultry processing. A program was developed from experiences
gained during this study and follows. This program will allow plants
to achieve significant reductions in water and waste in poultry
processing. Continual management attention will be necessary to
maintain the reductions. The water and waste supervisor will be the
key to any successful water and waste reduction program.
PRESENTATIONS, PAPERS AND REPORTS
October 1, 1969. "Municipal Water and Sewer Charges". Workshop on
Municipal Water and Sewer Charges as Related to Water Use and Waste
Control. Presentation by Mr. Don Etheridge, Rougemont, ~N. C.
December, 1969. Water and Waste Management in Poultry Processing.
Panel Discussion by Crosswhite, Macon, Carawan, Ward, Hamza, and
Carter at Seminar - Dept. of Poultry Science, N. C. State University,
Raleigh, N. C.
February, 1970. Poultry Processing - Water and Waste. Presented by
W. M. Crosswhite to Water Resources Discussion Group, N. C. State
University, Raleigh, N. C.
173
-------
June, 1970. Network Theory Applied to Water Management in Poultry
Processing. Robert Carl Ward. A thesis submitted to the Department
of Biological and Agricultural Engineering.
September 8, 1970. Water and Waste Management in Poultry Processing.
Presentation by Roy Caravan, William Crosswhite, Byron Hawkins and
John Macon to N. C. Poultry Processors Assoc., Greensboro, N. C.
February 4, 1971. Implementation of Effective Pollution Control by
Food Processors. William M. Crosswhite. Paper presented at Southern
Agricultural Economics Association, Jacksonville, Florida.
March 12, 1971. An Economic Study of Municipal Surcharges on
Industrial Wastes Presentation by Dr. J. A. Seagrave to Advisory
Committee of the Water Resources Research Institute of the University
of North Carolina, Raleigh, N. C.
March 23-26, 1971. Water and Waste Management in Poultry Processing.
Dr. W. M. Crosswhite, R. E. Carawan, and John A. Macon. Proceedings,
National Symposium on Food Processing Wastes, Denver, Colorado.
April, 1971. Use, Continued Use, and Reuse of Both Process and Waste
Waters in Poultry Processing Operations. J. A. Macon, W. M. Crosswhite,
and R. E. Carawan. A paper presented for the 20th Southern Water
Pollution Control Conference, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
April, 1971. Surcharges for Industrial Wastes, J. A. Seagraves. A
paper presented for the 20th Southern Water Pollution Control
Conference, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
September, 1971. Poultry Plant Water Utilization and Waste Control
Workshop. Presented by Roy E. Carawan, William M. Crosswhite, Byron
K. Hawkins, John A. Macon and Marvin L. Speck, Greensboro, North
Carolina.
September, 1971. Proceedings Workshop on Poultry Processing Plant
Water Utilization and Waste Control. Roy E. Carawan. Water Resources
Research Institute of the University of North Carolina, Raleigh, N. C.
UNC-WRRI-72-59.
November 9, 1971. Sewer Surcharges and Their Effect on Water Use,
J. A. Seagraves. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North
Carolina Water Pollution Control Association, Durham, N. C.
174
-------
December, 1971. Implementation of Effective Pollution Control by
Food Processors. William M. Crosswhite. Southern Journal of
Agricultural Economics.
January, 1972. Economics of In-Plant Waste Management in Food
Processing. William M. Crosswhite. Paper presented at Cornell
Agricultural Waste Management Conference, Syracuse, N. Y.
April, 1972. Water and Waste Management in Poultry Processing.
Presentation by Roy E. Caravan at N. C. Chapter of the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, Wilson, N. C.
June, 1972. An Application of Network Theory to Water Management in
Poultry Processing. Robert C. Ward, David A. Link, and William M.
Crosswhite. Water Resources Bulletin, American Water Resources
Association, Vol. 8, No. 3.
September, 1972. The Technology of Water and Waste Management in
Poultry Processing - The Gold Kist Study. Presented by John Macon at
EPA Technology Transfer Seminar, Atlanta, Ga.
January, 1973. The Technology of Water and Waste Management in Poultry
Processing - The Gold Kist Study. Presented by John Macon at EPA
Technology Transfer Seminar, Little Rock, Ark.
January, 1973. Effect of Spray Parameters on Food Cleaning: Poultry
As An Example. Ahmed Abdel - Rihim Ahmed Hamza. A thesis submitted
to Dept. of Civil Engineering, N. C. State University, Raleigh.
April, 1973. Management of Water and Wastes in Food Processing -
Talk Prepared for Tri-State Dairy and Food Engineering Conference by
Roy E. Caravan.
April, 1973. Water and Waste Management in Poultry Processing.
Presentation by Roy E. Caravan to Seminar sponsored by Department of
Agricultural Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Spring, 1973. The Gold Kist Story. Presentation by John Macon to
Maryland Broiler Council, Salisbury, Md.
June, 1973. Symposium on Water and Waste Management in Poultry
Processing. Co-Chairman, Roy E. Caravan. Annual meeting. Institute
of Food Technologists meeting, Miami, Fla.
175
-------
June, 1973. Future Water and Waste Reductions in Poultry Processing.
Hershell R. Ball and Roy E. Carawan. Presented at annual meeting of
Institute of Food Technologists, Miami, Fla.
June, 1973. Economic Evaluation of Water and Waste Reductions in
Poultry Processing. W. M. Crosswhite and Roy E. Carawan. Presented
at annual meeting of Institute of Food Technologists, Miami, Fla.
June, 1973. Economic Feasibility of Modifying the Giblet Operation in
Poultry Processing. Dmymovic, Burbee, Crosswhite and Carawan. Presented
at annual meeting of Institute of Food Technologists, Miami, Fla.
July, 1973. Upgrading Existing Poultry-Processing Facilities to
Reduce Pollution. In-Process Pollution Abatement. The Gold Kist
Case Study. John A. Macon. Environmental Protection Agency,
Technology Transfer.
PROJECT SPINOFFS
Application for Research, Development and Demonstration Grant from
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration entitled "Demonstration
of Water Pollution Control Technology Transfer Through University
Extension Programs" for July '71 - June '70. Project not funded.
GUIDELINES FOR WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
A plan for presentation to the poultry industry has been developed.
The basic principle of the plan is that water should be managed as a
raw product with a real cost. Also, that wastes going into the plant
effluent streams are product or by-product losses which cost dollars
and that surcharges or waste treatment charges are going to be added
to further tax these lost dollars. An outline of the proposed program
follows.
Poultry Processing Water - Waste Educational Program
Objectives
The objectives of the water and waste management program follow:
1. Acquaint poultry plant personnel with water and waste terminology.
2. Relate poultry product or by-product losses to wastewater
characteristics and our environment.
176
-------
3. Relate poultry and by-product waste to financial losses at poultry
plants.
4. Relate past surveys of individual plants and compare them with the
plant in question.
5. Develop and initiate action program to reduce water and waste
within the plant.
The Program
The water and waste management eduction program for poultry
processing plant personnel follows:
A. Management Phase - 2 hours - Describe federal, state and local
regulatory involvement, discuss waste terminology, research and
survey findings, relate cost and product losses, discuss water,
sewer and surcharges, introduce cost of waste treatment and
describe the need and duties of water waste supervisor and
water and waste program.
B. Water - Waste Supervisor Phase - 40 hours - Instruct water-waste
supervisor (appointed by management) in respect to recent research
findings, plan activities that need to be carried out in the
employee phase of the program and other details of a water and
waste management program.
i
C. Employees Phase (may involve supervisor or all employees) - 4 hours
"Washing Profits (Your Salary!) Down the Drain" - This program
should illustrate good and bad waste practices, explain good water
and waste management, relate product losses to cost and familiarize
the employees with waste terminology and current techniques in
controlling water and waste in a poultry processing plant. The
activation and involvement of the employees is critical for they
will often suggest needed solutions within their areas of
responsibility in the overall attack on the plant water-waste
program. Special efforts should be made during these sessions to
relate the effects of a poultry processing plant on "Our
Environment".
D. Follow up phase - 8 hours - A tour and evaluation session conducted
with management, the water-waste supervisor, and the supervisors
will help determine progress made within the plant after an initial
time period of effort.
177
-------
Outline and Need and Duties of Water-Waste Supervisor
Since the water-waste supervisor will be management's representative
responsible for the total water-waste program, his responsibilities
are detailed:
1. Every poultry processing plant should have one person who is
completely responsible for the water and waste program. He should
have latitude to develop the program and the authority to
implement his plans reporting directly to the plant manager. He
should not be overloaded with duties which would keep him from
devoting at least the majority of his time to water and waste
problems.
2. A survey of the plant must be made. Sketches, drawings and maps
should be detailed to indicate the size, capacity and location of
water lines, meters, sewer lines, junctions, man holes and other
parts of the water-waste system. Operating data should be
compiled relating to water use, waste generated including BOD and
other importing waste parameters and flow from the main and minor
sewers. This data should also include the production rate,
chemical usage, and other pertinent data needed for management
study.
3. The water-waste supervisor in the management team should then
examine the plant critically. An examination of why water is
being used at each location should be determined and an
indication should be made of where wastes are originating.
Then a plan should be developed to reduce water use and waste.
4. Using the results of this management team, the major water using
and waste contributing areas in the plant should be attacked.
Nozzles should be installed on all hoses. Level controllers might
be used to control overflow of vat with needed water. Leaking
water or product valves should be replaced. The machine
maintenance program should be checked to see if it is sufficient
to prevent product and/or water losses.
5. Simultaneously, a water and waste savings eductional program
should be instituted. Employees should be informed and involved
in the program or it will not work. The water-waste supervisor
must be responsible for the program, but it is the operating
personnel who will determine if your program will be a success.
178
-------
6. If pretreatment or treatment is required, competent engineering
firms should be engaged to study your situations and recommend
any needed improvements. A program should be developed that will
prevent problems with the treatment or pretreatment systems.
7. Management must remember the program must be continued or it will
die. Mention of the program must be frequent. The water-waste
supervisor must follow the operations assuring that proper water
and waste procedures are followed each operating day.
Specific Recommendations
The water waste supervisor should study the process and equipment
changes evaluated in this project as all were proven technically and
economically feasible. Successful implementation of these and other
needed changes are a part of a broad program of water and waste
management. An adequate program for control of water and waste
must include the following:
1. Continual records that will assure knowledge of changes in the
operating procedures of the plant. This should include water
use, wastewater characteristics, and production. (See
Tables 54 and 55.
2. The person designated specifically responsible for water and
waste management should have reasonable powers to make and
enforce changes. His specific responsibilities should include
determination of water use and rate of use. This will necessitate
the Installation of meters, pressure guages and valves in at least
the major flow areas. Pressure regulators must be installed on
the larger line as this will help maintain a constant water flow
at all individual units. Careful records and analyses should be
made to provide the chiller and scalder with the minimum approved
quantities of water.
3. Each unit process should be studied to determine possible water
use reduction. The dry sweeping of waste throughout the plant
into recepticles can help reduce waste if this is done before
the washing of the floors. The receiving area is a major area
that should receive attention.
4. Open type garden hoses should be replaced with hoses with
nozzles to give high velocity spray, reduce water flow and the
ability to stop discharge at the point of application.
179
-------
5. The clean up operation should be examined for excess water use
and wastes sent to the sewers. The use of high pressure cleaning
systems and/or foam cleaning systems may reduce water usage.
6. Broilers should be stunned just prior or after cutting to
maximize bleeding and prevent body movement and the splattering
of blood. The blood should be confined to an enclosed area
where it should be collected and sent to the by-products plant.
7. Screened chiller water is permitted as scalder feed water and
should be so used.
8. If additional water is needed for the fluming of feathers, reuse
the screened feather flume or offal flume water and possibly the
scalder or whole bird wash overflow.
9. Shower nozzles should be replaced with spray nozzles on the
bird washers and other water application points.
10. Hand wash goose necks should have flow reduction devices such
as nozzles. Body or foot control valves can supply water when
it is needed for the hand washers.
11. The side pan wash and the eviceration trough can be cycled to
prevent full time water flow.
12. The ice flush addition to the chiller water can be credited
against the needed water for chiller water overflow.
13. A major consideration for any poultry processing plant should
be the incorporation of a dry viscera removal system.
14. A major consideration for a poultry processing plant should be
the incorporation of the new scalding systems which eliminate
the scalder bath and may assist in the dry removal of feathers.
15. All offal and feather screens should be kept in good working
order using the smaller screen mesh that will provide satisfactory
operation. A clogged screen will overflow solids to the detriment
of your pretreatment or treatment facility. Frequent cleaning is
required with the smaller mesh screen, but the additional
screening ability is worth the manpower and cost.
16. Dry removal of waste such as the heads should be practiced
providing that regulatory approval is obtained.
18Q
-------
17. By-product recovery systems should be studied to improve the
efficiency of by-product recovery.
18. Employee awareness of the cost of poor water and waste management
should be provided. Employees should be encouraged to be careful
with water use and product or by-product wasting practices.
19. Handle with extreme care all sanitary*fittings, valves, rotary
seals and thumb parts during every phase of operation and cleaning
to prevent marring which may cause leaks.
20. Mark all valves clearly, especially multiport, so that it is
practically impossible for inexperienced help to turn the valve
the wrong way discharging product to the drain or floor.
21. Do not use a constantly running water hose in any room. Eliminate
the cause of spillage, rather than just wash it away after it has
occurred.
22. Sanitary*pipe lines should be installed so that they are properly
supported to eliminate vibration induced leaking joints (where
welded lines are not used or points in welded lines where GIF
gaskets are utilized) and to insure that the lines are properly
pitched to insure drainage of the lines.
23. Water hoses should be turned off when not in use. Hoses equipped
with automatic shut-off valves should be utilized to avoid
excessive water usage.
24. Adequate weirs or flumes and continuous sampling equipment should
be provided at the outlet of all poultry processing plants for
monitoring waste strength and volume.
25. Eliminate steam-water mixing tees for making hot water and
utilize regular hot water systems to prevent use of shut-off
valves at the end of hose lines. This can result in a major
reduction of wastewater volume.
* Food type.
181
-------
Table 54. RECORD OF WATER USE AND WASTES IN POULTRY PROCESSING PLANT
I. Receiving and unloading area
A. Solids — droppings from coops and birds, dry
1. Quantity per unit of birds processed
2. Method of removal and end use
B. Liquids — clean-up water
1. Source — fresh water from hoses
2. Quantity used per clean-up area (gpm/hose, total time
used)
3. Pollutants — droppings and some feathers
4. Point of discharge
C. Number of birds received
II. Killing station — vain slit for gravity flow
A. Solids — coagulated blood, some feathers, few loose heads
and whole birds
1. Quantity per unit of birds processed
2. Method of collection
3. Quality
4. End use or disposal
B. Liquids
1. Flow away blood portions — quantity
2. Characteristics of fluid content in above
3. Clean-up water j
(a) Source — fresh water from hoses
(b) Quantity — gpm/hose, time hose used
(c) Detergents if used — amount
(d) Point of discharge
(e) Quality — BOD, TS, SS, pH
182
-------
Table 54.(continued). RECORD OF WATER USE AND WASTES IN POULTRY
PROCESSING PLANT
III. Scalding Tank
A. Solids — some feathers, droppings, loose heads, occasional
bird
1. Quantity — settled and not carried out by overflow
2. Method of removal
3. End use or disposal
B. Liquids — continuous overflow of hot polluted water plus
clean-up fresh water; also stream heat
1. Quantities
(a) Overflow rate — source is fresh water
(b) Cleanup —total vol. — source fresh water
2. Characteristics
(a) Overflow — temp., BOD, SS, TS, ph
(b) Cleanup — BOD, SS, TS
3. Point of discharge
4. Stream outlets or heating system
C. Additives (if used)
1. Type, brand
2. BOD
IV. Defeathering — removal by rotary cylinder with attached rubber
tips
A. Solids — bulk quantity of feathers, some heads, a few birds
1. Quantity
(a) Weight — wet and dry per type of equipment
(b) By bulk volume per type of equipment
(c) Percent heads and whole birds lost/run
2. Characteristics — after screening
(a) BOD of solids
(b) Volatile solids
183
-------
Table 54.(continued). RECORD OF WATER USE AND WASTES IN POULTRY
PROCESSING PLANT
B. Liquids — sprays for machines and rec. flume vol.
1. Spray — fresh water supply
(a) Vol./unit of operation
(b) Check for substitution by air
2. Flume water — recirculated from feather screen
(a) Temperature
(b) Volume received
(c) Volume added
(d) Characteristics — BOD, COD, SS, TS, pH
(e) Design of flume — shape, elevation
(f) Design of separation basin below screen
3. Clean-up waters — quantity and quality
V. Singeing — dry operation
A. Solids — if produced
B. Liquids — clean-up water volume and characteristics
VI. Washing after defeathering and singeing
A. Solids
1. Kind or characteristic
2. Quantity
(a) Weight wet and dry
(b) Volume
B. Liquids — fresh water spray
1. Spray volume
2. Conditions of discharged effluent
(a) BOD
(b) TS, VS, SS, pH
(c) Grease
(d) Nitrogen
3. Clean-up volume and condition
184
-------
Table 54.(continued). RECORD OF WATER USE AND WASTES IN POULTRY
PROCESSING PLANT
VII. Evisceration
A. Discarded solids — feet, inedible viscera, crops, grits,
sand, gravel from gizzard cleaning, flesh trimmings, fat
1. Identify stations of operations and solids removed at
each
(a) Quantity that does not enter flume
(b) Method of removal from bird
(c) System of disposal
B. Liquids
1. Evisceration washings
(a) Source of water
(b) Volume for each use
(c) Point of discharge
2. Flume water
(a) Source if other than B-l
(b) Rate of flow
(c) Characteristics — solids (all determinations),
BOD, COD, pH, temp., grease, total nitrogen
(d) Design of flume — shape and elevation
3. Clean-up water
(a) Evisceration operations — quantity and quality
(b) Offal separation — screen cleaning, quantity and
quality
VIII. Chilling
A. Source of solids
1. Quantity — weight and volume
2. Characteristic — BOD, volatile solids
B. Liquids
1. Source of supply — amount of ice or fresh water
2. Rate of addition
3. Temperature of effluent
4. Point of discharge — Is re-use made of same?
185
-------
Table 54.(continued) . RECORD OF WATER USE AND WASTES IN POULTRY
PROCESSING PLANT
IX. Grading, weighing, packing
A. Liquids
1. Drainage from birds
2. Ice fallout
3. Volume
4. Characteristic
B. Number of birds packed
186
-------
Table 55. DAILY WATER BALANCE SHEET FOR POULTRY PLANT
Source - Input
Number of Birds Processed
Source - Output
(amt. added - vol.)
1. Drinking
2. Sanitary requirements
3. Steam generation
4. Ice making
5. Processing liquids added
a) Clean-up rec. and unload
b) Clean-up killing area
c) Fill scalding tanks plus
addition
d) Sprays for defeathering
plus cleanup
e) Cleanup of singeing equip.
f) Final wash of whole bird
g) Flume water for evisceration
h) Washing of eviscerated bird
i) Chilling water
j) None
(amt. discharged)
1. Overflow fountains
2. Sanitary discharges
3. Blow-down and direct use
4. Volume used for ice
5. Processing liquids discharged
a) Same
b) Liquid blood plus clean-
up
c) Overflow volume plus
cleanup
d) Effluent plus cleanup
e) Same
f) Same
g) Same
h) Same
i) Same
3) Drainage and ice
187
-------
SECTION VIII
GLOSSARY
AFC - Air flotation cell used to separate fats and other solids from
wastewater discharge.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) - (1) The quantity of oxygen used
in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter in a specified time,
at a specified temperature, and under specified conditions. (2)
A measure of the amount of oxygen an impure water system requires
in a specified time to decompose the polluting agents in the system.
(3) A standard test used in assessing wastewater strength. All
references in the text are to 5-day BOD (BOD5> incubated at 20 C.
BOD load - The BOD content, usually expressed in pounds per unit of
time, of wastewater passing into a sewer, waste treatment system
or into a body of water. All references in the text are to BODr.
Broiler - A bird grown eight to nine weeks with a liveweight of
approximately 3. 7 pounds.
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) - A measure of the oxygen-consuming
capacity of inorganic and organic matter in water or wastewater.
It is expressed as the amount of oxygen consumed from a chemical
oxidant in a specific test. It does not differentiate between
stable and unstable organic matter and thus does not necessarily
correlate with BOD. Also known as OC and DOC, oxygen consumed
and dichromate oxygen consumed, respectively.
Chicken - A catch-all classification of poultry with an average
weight of approximately 4.8 pounds.
Cleaning-in-Place (CIP) - Clean-up system designed to mechanically
clean equipment using chemicals and pumping system.
188
-------
Consumptive use - Water that is internalized in a plant or product
such as the water retention in the poultry chiller.
Continued Use of Water - Water being continuously used in processes
prior to the process for which it was first used, i.e., counter
flow of product and process water.
Composite wastewater sample - A combination of individual samples
of water or wastewater taken at selected intervals, generally hourly
for some specified period, to minimize the effect of the variability
of the individual sample. Individual samples may have equal volume
or may be roughly proportioned to the flow at time of sampling.
Discharge - (1) As applied to a stream or conduit, the rate of
flow, or volume of water flowing into the stream or conduit at
a given place and within a given period of time. (2) The passing
of water or other liquid through an opening or along a conduit
or channel. (3) The rate of flow of water, silt, or other mobile
substances which emerge from an opening, pump, or turbine, or pass
along a conduit or channel, usually expressed as cubic feet per
second, gallons per minute, or million gallons per day.
Dissolved oxygen (P.O.) - Uncombined oxygen in solution in a liquid.
Dissolved solids CDS) - The total amount of dissolved material,
organic and inorganic, contained in water or wastes. Excessive
DS can make water unsuitable for industrial uses, unpalatable for
drinking, and even cathartic. Potable water supplies may have
a dissolved solid content from 20 to 1000 mg/1, but sources which
have more than 500 mg/1 are not recommended by the U.S. Public
Health Service.
Domestic wastewater (sewage) - Wastewater derived principally from
dwellings, business buildings, institutions, and the like. It
may or may not contain groundwater, surface water, or storm water.
Durham, N. C. uses 250 mg/1 as the equivilent of domestic wastewater.
Effluent - Wastewater or other liquid, partially or completely
treated, or in its natural state, that flows out of a containing
space such as a reservoir, basin, treatment plant, or part thereof.
Eviscerated poultry - Poultry which has had its blood, feathers,
shank and feet, oil sac, lungs, vicera and any other inedibles
removed.
189
-------
Filter - A device or structure for removing solid or colloidal
material, usually of a type that cannot be removed by sedimentation,
from water, wastewater, or other liquid. The liquid is passed through
a filtering medium.
Flume - (1) A long narrow channel for gravity flow of liquid from
one point to another. An open conduit of wood, masonry, or metal
constructed on a grade and sometimes elevated. (2) To transport
in a flume, as fruits or vegetables.
Gallons per bird (GPB) - Volume of water per broiler received to the
processing plant.
Gallons per day (GPP) - A common volume per unit time expression
of liquid flow rate.
Grease - Organic matter in water that can be recovered through
extraction by organic solvent.
Industrial wastewater - Wastewater in which the liquid wastes from
industrial processes, as distinct from domestic or sanitary wastes,
predominate. See Domestic wastewater.
Influent - Water, wastewater, or other liquid flowing into a reservoir,
basin, or treatment plant, or any unit thereof.
Land disposal - (1) Disposal of wastewater onto land by spray or
surface irrigation. (2) Disposal of solid waste materials by incorpo*-
rating the solid waste into the solid by cut-and-fill techniques or by
sanitary landfill operations.
Loading - The quantity of waste, expressed in gallons (hydraulic
load) or in pounds of BOD, COD, suspended or volatile solids (organic
load) which is discharged into a wastewater treatment facility.
Milligrams per liter (mg/1) - A unit of the concentration of water or
wastewater constituent. It is 0.001 g of the constituent in 1,000 ml
of water. It has replaced the unit formerly used commonly, parts per
million, to which it is approximately equivalent, in reporting the
results of water and wastewater analysis.
Million gallons per day (MGD) - A common volume per unit time
expression of liquid flow rate.
Nutrient - A substance which promotes cellular growth in organisms.
Offal - Includes head, feet, and viscera.
190
-------
Organic nitrogen (ON) - Nitrogen existing in organic compounds.
Parshall Flume - A channel with a restriction which is used to
measure flow in open channels.
Parts per million (ppm) - The number of weight or volume units
of a minor constituent present with each 1 million units of the
major constituent of a solution or mixture. Formerly used to express
the results of most water and wastewater analyses, but more recently
replaced by the ratio milligrams per liter.
pH - A value that expresses the degree of acidity or alkalinity
of a substance or solution. The extreme readings are 0 and 14.
Pure (neutral) water has a pH value of 7.0—it is neither acid
nor alkaline. The degree of alkalinity increases as the numbers
increase above 7.0. Conversely, for values below pH 7.0, the degree
of acidity increases as the numbers decrease. Alkaline water will
tend to form a scale, acid water is corrosive. A solution with
a pH of 11.0 is 10 times more alkaline than one with a pH value
of 10.0, and 100 times greater than pH 9.0.
Pollution - Broadly, pollution means any change in water quality
that impairs it for the subsequent user.
Pollutional load - (1) The quantity of material in a waste stream that
requires treatment or exerts an adverse effect on the receiving system.
(2) The quantity of material carried in a body of water that exerts a
detrimental effect on some subsequent use of that water.
Population equivalent - A means of expressing the strength of organic
material in wastewater. Domestic wastewater consumes an average of
0.17 Ib. of oxygen per capita per day, as measured by the standard
BOD5 test. This figure has been used to measure the strength of
organic industrial waste in terms of an equivalent number of persons.
For example, if an industry discharges 1,000 pounds of BOD per day,
its waste is equivalent to the domestic wastewater from 6,000 persons
(1,000/0.17 - 6,000).
Potable water - Water defined by the United States Public Health
Service as safe for drinking. Used to indicate water as received from
the City of Durham.
Preliminary treatment - (1) The conditioning of a waste at its source
before discharge to remove or to neutralize substances injurious to
sewers and treatment processes or to effect a partial reduction in
load on the treatment process. (2) In the treatment process, unit
191
-------
operations, such as screening and comminution, that prepare the
liquid for subsequent major operations.
Primary treatment - (1) The first major (sometimes the only) treatment
in a wastewater treatment works. Commonly considered to include bar
racks, grit chambers, comminution, sedimentation and sludge digestion
treatment operations, may include flocculation or disinfection.
(2) The removal of a substantial amount of suspended matter, but little
or no colloidal and dissolved matter.
Reconditioning - Screening, separating and/or filtering to prepare
for reuse.
Recycling - An operation in which a substance is passed through the
same series of processes, pipes, or vessels more than once.
Reuse of water - The recycling of water in any process with or without
screening and/or other reconditioning.
Screen - A device with openings of uniform size, used to retain or
remove solids in flowing water or wastewater and to prevent them from
entering an intake or passing a given point in a conduit. The
screening element may consist of parallel bars, rods, wires, grating,
wire mesh, or perforated plate, and the openings may be of any shape,
although they are usually circular or rectangular.
Secondary wastewater treatment - The treatment of wastewater by
biological methods after primary treatment by sedimentation. Common
methods of treatment include trickling filtration, activated sludge
processes, and lagoons.
Sediment - Solid material settled from suspension in a liquid.
Sewage - The spent water of a community. Term now being replaced in
technical usage by the term wastewater. See Wastewater.
Sewer charge - A charge or a schedule of charges for the collection
or the collection and treatment of wastewater to users who are
connected to the system. It may be based on water consumption,
wastewater flow, strength of wastewater, number and type of
plumbing fixtures, or some combination of these.
Sewer system - Collectively, all of the property involved in the
operation of a sewer utility. It includes land, wastewater lines and
appurtenances, pumping stations, treatment works, and general property.
Occasionally referred to as a sewerage system.
122
-------
Slug - A high concentration of a substance in a flowing liquid;
generally beginning and ending abruptly and lasting for a relatively
short period of time.
Slurry - A watery mixture or suspension of insoluble matter (such as
mud, lime, wood pulp).
Surcharge - A service charge made for providing wastewater collection
and/or treatment service. A specific charge in contrast to an
ad valorem tax often based on BODc load discharged in excess of that
of domestic wastewaters (BODc = 250 mg/1). Others bases include
suspended solids load and hydraulic load which may be used individually
or in combination with BOD^ load.
Suspended solids (SS) - (1) Solids that either float on the surface of,
or are in suspension in, water, wastewater, or other liquids, and which
are largely removable by laboratory filtering. (2) The quantity of
material removed from wastewater in a laboratory test, as prescribed in
"Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater".
Tertiary treatment - Treatment beyond normal or conventional secondary
methods for the purpose of increasing water re-use potential.
Total nitrogen (TN) - The sum of nitrogen existing in the forms of
ammonia nitrogen and organic nitrogen.
Total solids (TS) - A measure of both suspended and dissolved solids
present in water; expressed in mg/1 or ppm.
Trickling filter - A structure containing an artificial bed of coarse
material, such as broken stone, clinkers, slate, slats, or plastic
materials, over which wastewater is distributed or applied in drops,
films, or spray from trough's, drippers, moving distributors, or
fixed nozzles, and through which the wastewater trickles to the
underdrains, giving opportunity for the formation of zoogloeal slimes
which clarify and oxidize the wastewater.
Turkey - A type of poultry with the average weight of 14.1 pounds. In
this report turkeys can weigh anywhere from eight to thirty pounds,
the heavier birds being less popular than those of lighter weight.
USDA - United States Department of Agriculture.
USDA - CMS - United States Department of Agriculture, Consumer
Marketing Service which is responsible for inspecting and regulating
poultry products processing.
193
-------
Viscera - The heart, lungs, liver, and intestines of the bird.
Volatile Solids (VS) - The quantity of solids in wastewater lost on
ignition of the dry solids at 600C.
Wastewater - The spent water of a community or industrial plant.
From the standpoint of source, it may be a combination of the liquid
and water-carried wastes from residences, commercial buildings,
industrial plants, and institutions, together with any groundwater,
surface water, and storm water that may be present. In recent years,
the word wastewater has taken precedence over the word sewage.
Wastewater influent - Wastewater as it enters a wastewater treatment
plant or pumping station.
Wastewater treatment - Any process to which wastewater is subjected to
remove or alter its objectional constituents and thus render it less
offensive or dangerous.
Water consumption - The quantity, or quantity per capita, of water
supplied in a municipality or district for a variety of uses or
purposes during a given period. It is usually taken to mean all uses
included within the term municipal use of water and quantity wasted,
lost, or otherwise unaccounted for.
Water treatment - The filtration or conditioning of water to render it
acceptable for a specific use.
194
-------
SECTION IX
APPENDICES
Page
A. Gold Klst Plant with Selected Equipment Listed 196
B. Special Study on Reuse and Continued Use of Selected 199
Process Waters
C. Laboratory Testing Details 222
195
-------
APPENDIX A
GOLD KIST PLANT WITH SELECTED EQUIPMENT LISTED
PICKING ROOM EQUIPMENT
1. Gainsville Equipment Co., Gainsville, Ga., Whole Bird Wash (Two)
2. Barker Poultry Equipment Co., Ottumwa, Iowa, Barker Hock
Picker (Two)
3. Gainsville Equipment Co., Gainsville, Ga., Body Picker, CR100
(Two)
4. Gainsville Equipment Co., Gainsville, Ga., Body Picker, CR100
(One)
5. Barker Poultry Equipment Co., Ottumwa, Iowa, Barker Body Picker
(One)
6. Bird Singe, Home made by Gold Kist Poultry, (Two)
7. Gainsville Equipment Co., Gainsville, Ga., Neck Scald, (Two)
8. Barker Poultry Equipment Co., Ottumwa, Iowa, D600 Picker, (Two)
9. Gainsville Poultry Equipment Co., Gainsville, Ga., Whole Bird
Scalder
10. Marietta Poultry Equipment Co., Marietta, Ga., Poultry Killing
Machine, (Two)
EVISCERATING ROOM EQUIPMENT
11. Gainsville Equipment Co., Gainsville, Ga., Whole Bird Knocker
12. Gainsville Equipment Co., Gainsville, Ga., Hock Cutters, (Two)
-------
13. Gainsville Equipment Co., Gainsville, Ga., Feet Knocker, (Two)
(Modified by Jack Horton and Burt Gunter, Gold Kist Poultry)
14. General Research Co.*, Canton, Ga., Eviscerating Table, (Two)
15. General Research Co., Canton, Ga., Gizzard Machine, (Four)
16. General Research Co., Canton, Ga., Gizzard Peel, (Four)
17. General Research Co., Canton, Ga., Gizzard Conveyor, (Two)
18. General Research Co., Canton, Ga., Gizzard Wash, (Two)
19. Food Tech Co., Dallas, Texas, Lung Gun, (Ten)
20. General Research Co., Canton, Ga., Whole Bird Wash, (Two)
(Modified by Jack Horton and Burt Center, Gold Kist Poultry)
PACKING AREA ROOM EQUIPMENT
21. Altenpohl, Drainrite Sizing Systems, West Conshokocken, Penn.
22. Barker Poultry Equipment Co., Ottumwa, Iowa, Mark IV Chiller,
Serial #130
23. Barker Poultry Equipment Co., Ottumwa, Iowa, Mark IV Chiller,
Serial #131
24. John Mohr & Sons, 3200 E. 96th St., Chicago, 111., Neck Cutter,
Model #205-3
*Division of Barker Poultry Equipment Co., Canton, Ga,
197
-------
ROOF EQUIPMENT (COOLING)
25. Refrigeration Engineering, Inc., Los Angeles, Calif., RECOLD
DRI-FAN CONDENSOR, Serial //C-2413, Model #DFC 31.
26. Vilter Manufacturing Co., Milwaukee, Wis., Serial #55-3374,
Size 85-U, Condenser
27. Imeco, 3031 W. Belmont Ave., Chicago, 111., Evaporative
Condenser, AJ*4347-R, 10 H.P., 132 G.P.M. water
28. Marlet Double-Flow Cooling Tower
29. Ice Storage Tower
UPSTAIRS EQUIPMENT
30. Morris & Associates, Inc., Raleigh, N. C., Water Chiller,
Model #WC-100H-1600, Serial #6458-1265
31. Morris & Associates, Inc., Raleigh, N. C., Water Chiller,
Model 0WC-100H-1600, Serial #645A-1265
32. Bell & Cossett, Inc., Morton Grove, 111., Hydro^Flow Centrifugal
Pump, 1531 Type B, 1 3/4 H.P.
33. Worthington Corp., Holyoke, Mass., Air Compressor,
Serial #AH-1388, Size: 3 5/8 / 2 1/16 X 1 5/8 Model #3C-2
34. The Peerless Electric Co., Warren, Ohio, 3 H.P., Serial #GD 88415
35. The Vilter Mfg. Co., Milwaukee, Wis., "Briquette Machine"
36. The Vilter Mfg. Co., Milwaukee, Wis., "Briquette Machine"
37. The Vilter Mfg. Co., Milwaukee, Wis., Serial #6-6-2r-18,
Size #1, Volt 220
38. Acme Steel Co., Chicago, 111., Box Stitcher, Model #H20AYA,
Serial #8-24461
198
-------
APPENDIX B. SPECIAL STUDY ON REUSE AND
CONTINUED USE OF SELECTED PROCESS WATERS
SUMMARY
Two applications of the use of selected process waters were evaluated
in a commercial poultry processing plant. Study I was a comparison of
two sources of make-up water for the scald vats; whole bird wash water
on overflow water from the chill vat. ' Study II was an evaluation of
the replacement of potable water in selected parts of the gizzard
splitting and peeling machine with a combination of chiller overflow
water and final bird wash waters.
The whole bird wash water contained a lower amount of BOD, COD,
total solids, grease and bacteria than water taken from the chill
vat. When whole bird wash water was substituted for chiller water
in the scald vat, the levels of wastewater indices and bacteria
in the scalder effluent were lower. Whole bird wash water compared
favorably with chiller water as a source of input water for the
scald vat.
The total bacteria and coliform counts for gizzards collected at
the exit of the reel washers were not statistically different when
using either fresh water or a combination of chiller and final bird
wash water in the gizzard splitting and peeling machine. The results
indicate that bacteria levels on gizzards were not significantly
affected by the application of the continued use of process water
in the gizzard splitter. These results were anticipated because
there are so many other sources of bacteria and coliform in the
early stages of gizzard cleaning and the gizzards pass through several
washes with potable water after the splitting and peeling operations.
Final carcasses, including giblets, were examined to determine the
overall effect on biological quality of process and equipment changes
including the use of process water that had been made in the Gold
Kist Plant. A comparison of carcass samples taken before the
199
-------
experimental period for continued-use water and during the experi-
mental period was made. The median number of both total bacteria
count and coliform bacteria incidence was lower on carcass samples
examined during the special testing period. It was concluded that
the continued-use of process water in the scald vat and gizzard
splitting and peeling machine did not adversely affect the bacterio-
logical quality of the birds processed in the Gold Kist plant.
Satisfactory operations did exist during the experiment. Proper
use of a system for applying these waters will produce considerable
savings in fresh water use. These reductions in water use were
achieved under inspection by the USDA staff.
It is recommended that the re-use of process waters in the two areas
examined in this study should be permitted under controlled conditions<
Processing plants should gather data for comparisons of product
quality with and without or before and after the process changes.
Equipment should be designed to provide for solids removal in the
collection basin and for cleaning the systems.
Regulatory agencies should encourage the development of improved
methods for continued-use of process water in poultry processing.
The cooperation between industry, university and federal agencies
demonstrated in this study should be continued.
BACKGROUND
A major research and development project on water and waste management
in the Gold Kist poultry processing plant at Durham, North Carolina,
began on July 1, 1969. The study was conducted in cooperation with
the Office of R. and D., Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D. C., and North Carolina State University at Raleigh, North Carolina.
The purpose of the project was to change plant equipment and operations
and to demonstrate effective in-plant control of both water use
and discharge of waste from poultry processing operations. An
extensive program of measuring and testing of all process waters
established (1) the quantities of water used by processes, (2) the
physical, chemical and microbiological characteristics of the waste
waters from each process, and (3) the microbiological characteristics
of carcasses, giblets and process water from selected processes.
2QQ
-------
Water conservation and waste abatement measures were applied in
selected areas of the plant. All work was conducted under the approval
and inspection of the USDA plant inspection team. Water use per
bird was reduced by approximately one-third and waste discharge
by approximately three-fourths.
The use of process waters in poultry processing is governed by the
regulations and interpretations of the USDA-CMS. The following quotes
are taken from Regulations Governing the Inspection of Poultry and
Poultry Products, by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Consumer
and Marketing Service, Consumer Protection Programs, Washington, D.C.,
July 14, 1968.
1. "Non-potable water is not permitted for washing floors, areas,
or equipment, nor is it permitted in boilers, scalder, chill vats
or ice-making machines." (Section 81.36, part of paragraph 6, page
6.)
2. "Non-potable water is permitted only in those parts of official
plant where no product is handled or prepared...." (7 CFR - Part
81, Section 81.36.)
Water use in poultry processing is characterized by the application
of potable water. An assessment of water reduction opportunities
in early 1970 focused on continued-use applications of process water
and the identification of uses where it seemed reasonable that
sanitation and food safety requirements could be met. The "use
of process water" is defined for these studies as water collected
from one process application for another process. The process water
may come in contact with the whole bird, parts of birds and equipment.
In either event, use of process water does not involve recirculating
water within a process. The process water was collected and
distributed through piping and equipment in such a manner that the
process water does not reach any water course considered to be part
of the plant's waste drainage system.
SPECIAL STUDIES
Two potential applications of process waters were identified.
Applications included the substitution of:
1. Whole bird wash water for chiller water in the operation of
the scald vat.
201
-------
2. Combined chiller and final bird wash water for potable water
in selected uses in the operation of the gizzard splitting and peeling
machine.
Changes in the pattern of water flows required for these changes
can be seen by comparing the flow charts in Appendix B, Figures
1 and 2.
Potential potable water reductions by the use of the above process
water in the Gold Kist plant was 104,000 gpd in processing 70,000
broilers or approximately 1.5 gallons per bird. This reduction
represents a 20 percent decrease in the use of potable water.
Permission was obtained from United States Department of Agriculture -
Consumer Marketing Service on April 14, 1971 to conduct limited
studies for the use of process water. Continued-use process water
was used in the scalding and gizzard splitting operations during
the period April 15 to June 30, 1971.
STUDY NUMBER ONE — SUBSTITUTION OF WHOLE BIRD
WASH WATER FOR CHILLER WATER IN THE SCALD VAT
The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of using
whole bird wash water in the scalding vat. Re-use of chiller water
in the scalders is permitted by some consumer protection officers
and was being used for this purpose in the Gold Kist plant. Whole
bird wash water contains less grease and other materials than chiller
water and is warmer in temperature and should be preferable for
these reasons. Changes in physical, chemical and microbiological
characteristics of water in the scald vat were evaluated when whole
bird wash water was substituted for chiller water.
The scald vat provides a heat sump in preparation for defeathering
of poultry and serves as a first washer. Body oils, blood, feathers,
droppings and dirt are dislodged in the vat. The scald water at
discharge is characterized by a high solids content (both dissolved
and suspended), high biochemical oxygen demand and high total bacterial
count.
PROCEDURE
Rinse water from the whole bird washers was substituted for chiller
water in the operation of the scald vat during the period April
15 to June 30, 1971.
2Q2
-------
BIRDS
Ji
•JWHOLE BIRD WASH
FEATHER
H EVISCERATION
I
L
V///////////////////////////////7^> TO OFFAL RECOVERY
FINAL BIRD WASH
TO
CHILLING
PACKING
GliZARDS
£>
GIZZARD SPLITTER
AND PEELER
GfBLETS
L:
WASHER
GIBLET PREPARATION
f=1
£
GIBLET CHILLER
COOLED GIBLETS
WATER
WASTE WATER
WATER REUSE
PRODUCT
Appendix B, Figure 1. Water use for giblets
-------
BIRDS
11
' ' ' - ~ ^^^^**^^1
to. WHOI F Rl RD WA^H Bfi!^iX>tttofiflXWtf{> 10 ^CAI I>HK
4^
^
r>- EVISCERATION V//>vy>vyyyyyyy>vyyyyyyy///////yyTs 10 GHI-AL
|| | (il^AKUS fi!77ARn .qp| ITTFR
II u AND PEELER
to- FINAl RIRH WA*iH S25 GIBLETS < ' 11
g $ •— H WASHER
i ^H S 1 — , , 1
1 BAS 1 N kWMflWXS^ uwx*x>6MJMMAK
"""""""""^ ^"^"^1 <
fc. CHILLING p^ GIBLFT PREPARATION " J> GIRI F
*• PAOKINb SI — '
II VUATI
JX WA 1 1
ysss/sss/s. WASl
yxxwyxxj. WATF
RECOVERY
}
T CHILLER!
ER
FE WATER
:R REUSE
Appendix B, Figure 2. Water use for giblets with reuse of final bird washer and
chiller waters
-------
Appendix B, Table 1. MEDIAN AND RANGE FOR SELECTED WASTEWATER
CHARACTERISTICS, CHILLER AND WHOLE BIRD
WASHER WATER
Chiller Whole bird washer
Characteristics
Units Median Range Median Range
BOD mg/1 500 110-550 70 29-91
COD mg/1 689 200-1020 80 60-120
Total
solids mg/1 652 532-772 195 130-318
Grease mg/1 140 90-577 36 21-50
205
-------
Appendix B, Table 2. MICROBIAL COUNTS FOR WATER SAMPLES
Total Counts
Coliform Counts
Sampling
Points
Range Median Mean
(Number/milliliter)
Range Median Mean
(Dumber/milliliter )
to
o
Scald vat input water;
Chiller overflow
Whole bird washer
Scalder effluent:
Scalder effluent
when using chiller water
Scalder effluent
when using whole
bird wash water
4.3xl03-5.3xl04 l.lxlO4 1.3xl04
5.6xl02-3.2xl04 7.9xl03 1.6xl04
3.5xl02-2.3xl03 9.6xl02 l.OxlO3
1.4x10 -2.4xl03 7.8xl02 8.3xl02
I.lxl04-2.0xl07 3.3xl06 6.0xl06 2-5.4xl03
2.3xl03-5.8xl06 3.2xl05 9.5xl05* 4.4xl02
3.0xl02 7.7xl02
5.1x10 7.7x10
* Total and Coliform counts for scalder effluent statistically significant at .01 level.
-------
Baffles were installed in the two washers to provide control in
collecting rinse water. The rinsewater from the front portion of
the washer, containing most of the free solids, was continuously
discarded. The remaining rinse water was collected in a metal chamber
at a rate of 48 gpm where floating solids were removed by allowing
excess water to overflow directly into the feather flow-away flume.
Approximately 40 gpm of the water from the collection chamber was
pumped to distribution points along the scald vat which was filled
with potable water prior to start-up each day. Pump speed and control
valves were used to control flow rates.
Prior to the study period of April 15, 1971, weekly composite samples
of both the chiller water before it entered the scald vat and the
overflow water from the scald vat were collected. During the study
period, water samples were collected twice a week at three time
periods during each sampling day — early morning, near noon and
just prior to the end of daily operations. Water samples were
analyzed for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand
(COD), total solids and grease in accordance with Standard
Methods for the Analysis of Industrial Water and Waste Waters,
13th Edition, A.W.W.A. and P.H.S..
CHARACTERISTICS OF INPUT WATER
Whole bird washer water had lower median values than chiller water
for select characteristics of BOD, COD, total solids, grease, total
microbiological count and coliform count (Appendix B, Tables 1 and 2).
Whole bird washer water should be preferred to chiller water as
a source of make-up water for the scald vat. In the following
section, it will be shown that chiller water can be re-used effectively
in the gizzard splitting and peeling machines. Here, cool water
has a distinct advantage.
RESULTS
Samples of the effluent water were not taken until after steady
state levels of water quality.were attained. This occurred about
30 minutes after operations began each day. If an upper level
to the build-up of chemicals and organisms in the scald vat should
exist, then the quality of input water may not be a critical factor.
A number of water sources may exist within the plant which could
provide water for continued-use in the scald vat.
The median levels for characteristics of the scalder effluent were
slightly lower when whole bird washer water was the water source
instead of using chiller water (Appendix B, Tables 2 and 3).
2Q7
-------
Appendix B, Table 3. MEDIAN AND RANGE FOR SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF
SCALDER EFFLUENT USING CHILLER AND WHOLE BIRD
WASHER WATER AS WATER SOURCES
Scalder effluent using Scalder effluent using
Characteristics chiller water whole bird wash water
Units Median Range Median Range
BOD mg/1 400 110-920 378 230-600
COD mg/1 950 520-1500 834 600-1200
Total
solids mg/1 1053 842-1264 698 427-935
Grease mg/1 260 200-320 203 180-226
2Q8
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Whole bird washer water provides an acceptable substitute for chiller
water for use in the scald vat. The continued-use whole bird washer
water should not have a detrimental effect on product quality as
measured by microbiological count.
The equipment designed and operated in the study was experimental.
Additional studies should be made to verify the results of this
study and to provide proper operating equipment with easy access
for cleaning and maintenance.
STUDY NUMBER TWO — SUBSTITUTION OF FINAL BIRD
WASHER AND CHILLER WATER FOR FRESH
WATER IN THE GIZZARD SPLITTER
The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of using
the combined process waters from the final bird washer and chiller
for selected uses in the gizzard splitters. Specific objectives
were to determine the physical, chemical and biological characteristics
of the combined process waters and to evaluate the changes in product
quality when these waters were substituted for fresh water in the
gizzard splitters.
OPERATION OF THE GIZZARD SPLITTER
The gizzard splitters operate as follows. One gizzard at a time
is forced into the machine and passes over a rotating slicer. Feed,
grit, loose fat, and other materials are forcefully flushed from
the gizzard by the use of two large flat sprays of water. Immediately
thereafter, the skin lining is stripped or peeled from the gizzard
by two concentric gear^-like rollers and the lining is also flushed
from the machine by a third large flat spray of water.
Sixty gallons of water per minute flow through the three flat spray
nozzles in each gizzard splitting machine. In addition, fresh
water was applied in all other parts of the splitting machine.
This includes the lead-on or feeder troughs and rinse sprays at
the exit of the gizzard peeler section.
209
-------
PROCEDURE
Effluents from a final bird washer and the carcass chiller were
collected and settled in a baffled tank. The water was screened
before pumping in order to prevent floating grease, meat particles,
and other parts from entering the pumping chamber. Excess water
in the 300 gallon collection tank overflowed into the offal drain.
A stainless steel pump was used to supply the continued-use process
water to the flat sprays at a water pressure of 20 psi.
Water and gizzard samples were taken at the following sampling
points:
1. fresh water sample taken once during the day,
2. settling basin effluent consisting of combined water from the
final bird washer and first chiller,
3. ten gizzards per sample, as they emerged from splitter-peeler,
4. water effluent from the reel washers (Note: fresh water was
used on all spray nozzles in the reel washer. The reel wash follows
the splitting and peeling operation), and
5. ten gizzards per sample from the reel washer exit.
Samples were collected twice a week at three periods during each
sampling day — early morning, near noon, and just prior to the end
of daily operations. The experimental period was April 28 to July
20, 1971 and included 15 sampling days. Procedures for microbiological
examinations are outlined later.
CONTINUED-USE WATER CHARACTERISTICS
The water quality characteristics of the combined effluent from
the final bird washer and first chiller are given in Appendix B,
Table 4. This water for continued-use contained approximately
the same levels of BOD and COD as chiller water alone. Total solids
and grease levels of the continued-use water were lower than those
of chiller water. This can be accounted for by the approximately
200 pounds of floating materials removed each day from the tank
that was used to combine the chiller and final bird wash water.
210
-------
Appendix B, Table 4. WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF COMBINED CHILLER
AND FINAL BIRD WASHER WATER AFTER SETTLING AND
SCREENING
Characteristics
Biochemical oxygen demand
Chemical oxygen demand
Total solids
Suspended solids
Grease
Total count
Coliform count
Unit
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
No . /ml
No . /ml
Range
366-538
440-1040
340-814
52-224
63-147
9.3x10° -
1.2xlOb
2.1xl02 -
— ^ ^ ^ n
Median
493
665
532
124
94
3.4xl04
Q
Mean
489
663
575
130
90
9 . OxlO4
o
7.9xKT
1.3x10-
3.4x10-
211
-------
RESULTS
The chemical characteristics of the reel washer rinse water using
fresh and continued-use water in the gizzard splitter were compared
to determine the effects of substituting continued-use water. Bio-
chemical oxygen demand and suspended solids content of reel washer
rinse water were about the same when using either fresh or continued-
use water in the gizzard splitter (Appendix B, Table 5). Chemical
oxygen demand, when using fresh water, was about double the level
for continued-use water. Total solids and grease content were
higher when continued-use water was used in the splitter.
A high proportion of waste materials in the continued-use water
was in the dissolved or liquid state. The low level of suspended
solids was achieved by effective grease flotation and screening
of other solids prior to pumping. Removing the free solids reduced
the problem of clogging of the flat spray nozzles.
Data are not available for determining the level of solids that
might be on the gizzards coming from the splitters. The higher
levels for total solids and grease in the reel washer rinse water
when continued-use water is applied in the splitter indicate that
a larger amount of waste materials is removed by the rinsing
operations. It may be that there is more loose material on the
gizzards from the splitter when continued-use water is used. However,
it is possible that the grease or other materials in the continued-
use water may mix with the gizzard contents or provide a cover
for the gizzard in such a way that the rinsing removes a greater
portion of the waste.
The latter outcome is supported by the results of the bacterial
count. The bacterial total and coliform counts are higher for
gizzards collected from the splitters prior to rinsing (Appendix B,
Table 6). The counts are also higher for the reel washer rinse
water when continued-use water is used. However, there are mixed
results for gizzards collected at the exit of the reel washers.
The bacterial total count was higher for the gizzard samples in
which fresh water was used in the splitter, while the coliform
count was higher for the gizzard samples in which continued-use
water was used in the splitters.
The bacterial total and coliform counts for gizzards collected
at the exit of the reel washers were not statistically different.
The results indicate that the quality of gizzards is expected to
be the same using fresh or continued-use water in the gizzard splitter
under conditions similar to those of the Gold Kist plant.
212
-------
Appendix B, Table 5. WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF REEL WASHER
RINSE WATER USING DIFFERENT SOURCES OF WATER
IN THE GIZZARD SPLITTER
Source of water
Characteristics
Potable
Continued-use
Range
Median
Range
Median
(mg/1)
Biochemical oxygen
demand 13-19 28
Chemical oxygen
demand 20-300 80
Total solids 31-302 149
Suspended solids 12-110 25
Grease 1-297 38
21-49
20-180
127-315
4-54
6-180
32
45
213
23
53
213
-------
tv>
Appendix B, Table 6. MICROBIAL COUNTS FOR REEL WASHER RINSE WATER AND GIZZARDS USING DIFFERENT
SOURCES OF WATER IN THE GIZZARD SPLITTER
Sampling points and
water sources
Gizzards from the
splitting machine
using:
Fresh water
Continued-use water
Reel washer rinse water
from machine using:
Fresh water
Continued-use water
Total
Range
f\ i
8.1x10-3.8x10
7.3xl02-6.7xl04
0
1.0-3.3x10
2.1-7.8xl03
count
Median
2.7xl03
5. OxlO3
6.1xl(T
8.9xl02
Gizzards from reel washer
from machine using:
Fresh water
Continued-use water
/
3.7x10-5.9x10
2.5xl02-1.2xl04
3. OxlO3
2. 6x10 3
Mean
(No./Gm)
4.7xl03
9. 2x10 3
7.6xl02
1.6xl03
(No . /Gm)
9.0x10
3.4xl03
Ran^e
6.2x10-6.
5.8x10-9.
0-21
0-10
2.0 - 160
1.0 - 240
Coliform count
Median
OxlO3 4.8xl02
OxlO3 5.6xl02
1.0
0.5
22
25
Mean
l.OxlO3
l.lxlO3
2.0
1.2
28
42
-------
CONCLUSIONS
An analysis of the data from this study indicates that the use
of chiller and final bird wash water for the flushing of poultry
gizzards in the splitting machines has no detrimental effect on
either the wholesomeness of the gizzards or the whole birds. Satis-
factory operations did exist during the experiment. Proper design
of a system for applying these waters will produce considerable
savings and satisfactory sanitary conditions in both the equipment
and the product.
MICROBIOLOGICAL EXAMINATIONS
INTRODUCTION
Total and coliform counts were performed on samples of water and
products taken from carcasses collected just prior to packing and
from gizzards taken from the reel washers and were tested for the
presence of salmonella. Total counts were determined on Difco
Plate Count Agar (PCA) after 48 hours of incubation at 32°C. Coliform
counts were made on Violet Red Bile (VRB) Agar (Difco). Plates were
incubated at 35°C for 24 hours.
The finished carcasses were tested for salmonella contamination using
the following procedure. The carcasses were collected in sterile
plastic bags and 1,500 milliliters (ml) of sterile water added to the
bag containing each carcass. The bag was shaken for one minute. Care
was taken to ensure that water went inside the body cavity. One
hundred ml of this rinse water was pre-enriched in 400 ml of lactose
broth (Difco). One ml of the incubated lactose broth culture was
transferred into selenite cystine broth (BBL) and one ml was
innoculated into selenite cystine made from the individual ingredients
with ducitol substituted for lactose. Streak plates on Brilliant
Green Agar, Bismuth Sulfite Agar, and Salmonnella-Shigella Agar (all
Difco products) were prepared from selenite cystine (both types) tubes
showing growth.
Suspect colonies from the selective media were transferred to triple
sugar iron (TSI) agar slants. The time-temperature for incubation
was the same for the above tests, 24 hours at 35°C. Isolates showing
salmonella-like reactions on TSI slants were tested for the presence
of urease and lysine decarboxylase and their ability to ferment lactose
and dulcitol to acid and gas. Finally, suspect isolates were tested
for agglutination in poly-o-antiserum.
215
-------
Studies of the continued-use of water were conducted near the end
of the development phase of the Gold Kist project. Microbiological
evaluations of the final bird carcass were made during the period
April 28 to July 20, 1971 to determine the effect on carcass bio-
logical quality of process and equipment changes, including the
continued-use of water, that took place prior to April 28.
SAMPLING
Carcass samples (102 carcasses) collected during the 34 weeks of
sampling from March 10, 1970 to March 3, 1971 were compared with
the samples (130 carcasses) collected during the 15-week period
from April 28, 1971 to July 20, 1971. Samples were collected in
sterile plastic bags at the packing tables as the carcasses were
released from the overhead conveyors.
Three samples of one carcass each were collected weekly during
the 34-week sampling period. Three samples of one carcass each
were collected three times during each testing day — morning,
noon and just prior to the close of daily operations. Procedures
for the biological examinations was outlined previously.
RESULTS
The median value of both total bacteria and coliform bacteria were
lower during the testing period from April 28 to July 20, 1971
than in the period prior to March 3, 1971 (Appendix B, Table 7).
The sample means were not significantly different, however. It was
concluded that process and equipment changes, including the continued-
use of process water made within the plant and in operation during
the final testing period, did not adversely affect the biological
quality of the birds processed in the Gold Kist plant. There is
no indication that the continued-use of water raised the level
of contamination of the final product.
Compared to the 102 carcass samples taken over a period of one
year prior to this special study the results indicate that the
bacterial total count remained the same.
Coliform counts during the experimental period where 130 carcasses
were examined indicate lower median and mean values. However the
differences in bacterial coliform counts are not sufficiently large
to conclude that a significant improvement was made in plant operations
by the application of combined process water in gizzard splitters
and whole bird wash water in the scalder.
216
-------
Appendix B, Table 7. MICROBIAL COUNTS FOR CARCASS SAMPLES COLLECTED FROM CONVEYORS AT PACKING
TABLES FOR PERIODS BEFORE AND AFTER CHANGES IN WATER USE
Total Counts
Period
Before
After
Range
2.2xl05-2.8xl07
1.4xl05-2.7xl07
Median
6
2 . 4x10
l.BxlO6
Mean
3.4x10
2. 8x10 6
Coliform Counts
Range
5.2xl03-1.6xl06
1.3xl03-7.4xl05
Median
7.6xl04
5.7xl04
Mean
1.2xl05
l.lxlO5
Ni
-------
On the other hand we can believe that the wholesomeness of poultry
products shipped from this plant during the experimental study
were as good as or better than the products shipped prior to the
study. This belief is further fortified by the observation that
there was a reduction of incidence rate of salmonella found during
both product examination periods when comparing the control of
no water reuse with water reuse. The data indicated a change from
21.6 per 100 carcass incidence rate to 13.8 per 100 carcasses or,
based on these calculations, an improvement of 36 percent during the
time that continued-use process water was applied to the primary
product. Other factors such as seasons of the year, flock in process
and others surely make this difference not significant but the basic
fact remains that a reduction in incidence rate was observed. Further
detailed studies with adequate controls are needed for a reliable
conclusion.
Appendix B, Tables 8 and 9, show the before and after total and
coliform counts for the whole carcass evaluation. No significant
differences were observed. For these and previous observations, it is
concluded that no detectible change occurred in the microbial
characteristics. Also, it is concluded that the product was as
wholesome during water reuse and continued use as it was before these
changes.
PARTIAL AND ANNUAL BUDGETS FOR CHANGES
The initial costs for modification of the whole bird wash system to
allow overflow to the scalder are presented in Appendix B, Table 10.
The major cost item was a pump and total costs were $804.09. The
net savings on a yearly basis were $1,703. for the change (Appendix
B, Table 11).
The temporary manner in which changes were made for Study 2 involving
the gizzard machine water supply prevented a reasonable development
of budgets. Net savings were very possible using even the most
expensive of possible alternatives.
218
-------
Appendix B, Table 8. MEANS OF TOTAL COUNTS OF CARCASSES
Treatment
Time
Total
Before Study
During Study
Total
3.4x10
3.2x10
3.4x10'
3.0x10'
3.0x10
2.3x10
2.3x10
3.4x10
2.8x10
3.1x10
No SD
Appendix B, Table 9. MEANS OF CARCASS COLIFORM COUNTS
Treatment
Time
Total
Before Exp
During Exp
Total
No SD
1.2x10-
1.1x10-
1.2x10-
1.1x10'
1.1x10'
1.1x10-
1.1x10-
1.2x10"
1.1x10-
1.2x10"
219
-------
Appendix B, Table 10. INITIAL COSTS OF THE MODIFICATION OF THE WHOLE
BIRD WASH SYSTEM TO ALLOW OVERFLOW TO SCALDER
OF CONDITIONED WATER
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Material: $704.99
1 5 horsepower pump $350.00
1 stainless steel setting
chamber 173.00
Piping 134.35
4 pressure gauges 15.00
4 valves 10.64
1 5/8" x 3/4" SRG rebuilt
meter 22.00
Tax: 2% of material cost 14.10
Labor: 8 1/2 hours @ $10/hour 85.00
Total Costs: $804.09
Appendix B, Table 11. ANNUAL BUDGET FOR WHOLE BIRD WASH SYSTEM
MODIFICATION
Item Quantity and/or rate Amount
Reduced Costs: $2,281,
Water 5,184,000 gals. @$.44/1000 gals.
Increased Costs :
Maintenance 1% of
Depreciation
Valves and misc.
Piping
Pump 100%
Chamber
material cost
in 1 year
578.
$ 72.00
24.00
13.00
350.00
6.00
Interest on Investment 1/2 of initial
Recurring Labor Cost
Net saving per year
cost @ 7%
28.00
85.00
$1,703.
a The substitution of fresh water in the scalder by water from the
whole bird washer would result in a reduction of 40 gpm.
220
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
The operation of such plant equipment with continued-use water being
applied on primary products should be carefully considered to insure
the use of properly designed equipment that will permit steady and
frequent replacement of continued use water with the frequent of
continuous removal of solids that may accumulate from the collection
and control of such used waters.
All pumps, piping, and collection units should be so designed that
proper sanitation standards can be met and maintained daily. If
"clean in place" systems are to be considered, then all equipment
should be arranged to provide adequate cleaning capacity, with
chemicals, and maintained under specified schedules as prescribed
for adequate sanitary conditions throughout the continued-use water
system.
Screening of final bird wash water and chiller effluent should be
done with fine mesh materials so that the sizes of suspended solids
do not exceed the apertures of the spray nozzles.
Collection tank should be designed so that the proper water level is
maintained at all times in this unit. This condition can be met by
the installation of an automatic float control and supplemental
fresh water supply.
221
-------
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING DETAILS
Appendix C, Table 1.
Tests
The following tests were made using the procedures adopted by APHA
in Standard Methods, 12th edition, or technical developments by
FWPCA and others.
A - Alkalinity
B - pH
C - Chlorides
D - Grease
E - Nitrogen—Ammonia, Nitrite, Nitrate, TKN
F - Dissolved Oxygen
G - BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand)
H - COD (Chemical Oxygen Demand)
I - Temperature
J - Volume
K - Solids— TS, SS, DS
L - Potassium
M - Phosphates
Method
Hach*
Hach*
APHA
APHA
APHA
APHA
APHA
APHA
Hach*
* Hach Chemical Co., Ames, Iowa.
222
-------
Appendix C, Table 2.
Sampling Points and Planned Testing (See Figure 3)
Sampling
Point Testing Source
1. AB_Z.G_5.iJ^li Receiving Dock Washdown Watei
2. AB_£P_I5G-H]^:JK. Blood Recovery Wastewater
3.a.A B_£^E_G_HI^J_KM Scalder Entry
b-A.B.CI>JLG_H:iJ_KM Scalder Exit
A. AB_£^ZZGHI^J;KM Feather Flow-Away Flume
5. I) Z .£ 1 JE £ K Whole Bird Washer Effluent
6. AB_£.^.ZP_5.X^.^^ Eviscerating Trough Effluent
7. B_£D,E(;iI,IJ_K.M Final Bird Washer Effluent
8. AB_£P_ZZG_1I.I.:I:£:M Offal Flow-Away Flume
9.a.A B^C^^ZZP-I-^^M Giblet Chiller
b.A B^£DZZ£1J.KM Prechiller
c-A^.£^ZZG_ii^M. Final Chiller
10. B_£p_ZG_^^ Packing Wastewater
11. ABCDEFGHIJKLM Final Effluent
223
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
/. Report No.
2.
3. Accession No.
w
4, Title
WATER AND WASTE MANAGEMENT IN POULTRY PROCESSING
7. -Author(s) Roy g. Carawan, William M. Crosswhite,
John A. Macon, Byron K. Hawkins
9. Organization
North Carolina State University
Gold Kist, Inc. (Byron K. Hawkins)
5, Report Date
May 1974
£•
8. y rfoTioiLg Organization
Report If o.
W. Project No.
//. Contract/Grant No,
12060 EGV
iJ Type iRepcmiand
Period Covered
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
IS. Supplementary Notes
Environmental Protection Agency report number EPA-660/ 2-74-031, May 1974
16.
Abstract
A typical broiler processing plant was used to evaluate changes in equipment
and processing techniques to reduce water use and waste load. Production
at the plant was through two processing lines and totaled approximately 70,000
broilers per day. Benchmark results indicated a water use of 12.28 gallons
per bird received which was reduced by 32 percent to 7.81 gallons per bird
received. Benchmark results indicated a daily waste load of 3970 Ibs BODj
which was reduced by 66 percent to 1355 Ibs BODc. Changes made are detailed
and economic analysis showed all to be profitable for the plant with an average
annual net savings of $4.08 per 1000 broilers pro^cjss^ed. An initial investment
of $93,065 was needed. Annual operating costs were^wlth annual net savings
of $72,193. A water and waste management program is detailed. Microbiological
analyses indicated no deterioration in product quality as a result of the
changes.
17a. Descriptors
*Industrial Water, *Industrial Wastes, *Food Processing Industry,
*Poultry, Water Reuse, Waste Water Treatment
17b, Identifiers
Poultry Processing Industry, Process Changes and Evaluation, In-Plant
Water Managements In-Plant Waste Control
17c. COWRR Field & Group
IS.
Availability ' t9.
Abstractor
'-'}.
Roy E. Carawan
Sec
urityiCtess.
'Repo. ,
Se.
(Vi
nty C. -s.
:ge)
21.
. t-i
No, of
s'ages
rt± •. ft?
Send To:
WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. O. C. 2O24O
\ .institution North Carolina State University
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFRCE: 1974— M*-319:«5
------- |