>.
£ -* \
iSBj
PRO*^'
Environmental Protection Agency-
Technology Transfer Program
Upgrading Seafood Processing
Facilities To Reduce Pollution
In Plant Control
Industry Seminars For
Pollution Control
New Orleans,La. Seattle,Wash.
March 5 & 6,1974 April 2 & 3,1974
Prepared For:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Consulting Scientists and Engineers
Corvallls, Oregon
By:
SEA RESOURCES ENGINEERING,INC
Seattle, Washington
-------
-------
I fil
\SZ2f
PRC
Environmental Protection Agency-
Technology Transfer Program
Upgrading Seafood Processing
Facilities To Reduce Pollution
In Plant Control
Industry Seminars For
Pollution Control
New Orleans, L a. Seattle, Wash.
March 5 & 6,1974 April 2 &3,1974
Prepared For:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, INC,
Consulting Scientists and Engineers
Corvallls, Oregon
By:
SEA RESOURCES ENGINEERING, INC
Seattle, Washington
-------
IN-PLANT CHANGES TO CONTROL WASTE
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
INCENTIVES FOR IN-PLANT CHANGES 3
Reduction of Operating Costs 3
Reduction of Solid and Effluent Waste 3
Improvement of Efficiency of Raw Material
Utilization 4
Development of Profitable New Products 5
Protein Foods 5
Supplementary Additives 8
Non-Edible Products 9
Industry Responsibility to the Public 10
IN-PLANT CHANGES AS RELATED TO SPECIFIC CATEGORIES 12
INITIAL PLANT SURVEY FOR PLANNING IN-PLANT CHANGES 14
Assignment of Responsibility 14
Items and Areas to Cover 15
WASTE AS SECONDARY RAW MATERIAL 20
Liquid Effluents 20
Reducing the Use of Water in General 21
Recycling or Reuse 22
Recovery of Dissolved and Suspended Solids 23
Examples 25
Solids Currently Being Discarded or Under-utilized 33
Raw Materials for Protein Foods 34
Raw Materials for Supplementary Additives 41
Raw Materials for Non-Edible Products 58
IMPLEMENTATION OF IN-PLANT CONTROL PROGRAMS 64
Examples 64
Hand Filleting Line 64
Crab Plant 65
Deboning 65
SUMMARY 67
BIBLIOGRAPHY 68
APPENDIX I 69
APPENDIX II 72
APPENDIX III 75
APPENDIX IV 77
-------
IN-PLANT CHANGES TO CONTROL WASTE
INTRODUCTION
Protein food sources harvested from the sea are parti-
ally utilized since between 1/3 and 2/3 of any given raw
material is either reduced to a low grade animal feed or
discarded as fish waste material unfit for consumption.
Ironically this waste is highly nutritious and has essenti-
ally the same high quality protein found in the marketed
portion. Another major portion of the world fishery resources,
accounting for over 1/3 of the catch, is reduced to fish meal
for animal feed. The use of fish protein to feed animals
being raised for human food is most inefficient since it
takes about 1000 pounds of fish to produce one pound of
human protein. On the other hand it requires only 20 pounds
of directly consumed fish to produce one pound of human
protein. This gross misuse of a natural resource is not
only contributing to the reduction of environmental quality
through pollution of harbors and inshore water systems, but
is occuring while 2/3 of the world population is suffering
from lack of animal protein.
In the past we have not been too concerned about the
efficiency of utilizing protein and have accepted large por-
tions of waste as end results of a given fish processing
operation. This waste has then been sold as a low grade
animal feed or discarded. Since many plants are located on
marine or fresh water, the effluent streams from these
plants are often discharged directly into the water. Much
-1-
-------
of the soluble and suspended solid waste from plants remains
in these streams representing dollar loss to the processor
and potential pollution to the receiving waters„
The concept of utilizing in-plant changes to reduce or
prevent waste and pollution requires a major change in think-
ing on the part of government, industry and consumer„
Instead of forcing a company to process waste or pollutants
after disposal or even after the creation of a pollution
problem, the seafood industry through "a total utilization
concept" must be encouraged to utilize current waste materi-
als as "secondary raw materials". This reorientation in
emphasis not only accomplishes the aims of improving and
preserving environmental quality but does so in a manner
that encourages the processor to invest time and effort in a
profitable venture.
Maintaining the theme of "total utilization", this dis-
cussion is designed to show the practical aspects of "clos-
ing the process cycle" in various categories of seafood
processing operations. Fortunately, many of the other food
processing industries have similar problems as the seafood
industry. Through well planned technology transfer, experi-
ences of others in total utilization of raw materials can
be of benefit to the overall program of in-plant changes to
accomplish the goal of environmental protection with a
profit to all.
-2-
-------
INCENTIVES FOR IN-PLANT CHANGES
Reduction of Operating Costs
Effective in-plant changes to better utilize raw
materials most certainly affect all phases of operations,
A typical change that allows the increase of marketable
products from present waste or low quality product can
significantly decrease plant labor, utilities usage and,
perhaps most importantly, the unit cost of raw materials as
compared to the end products»
Processing plants that are located on municipal sewer
systems can often realize substantial savings in sewer
costs if the in-plant changes, through either reduced usage
or recycling, decrease the amount of processing water
required in the plant. In fact, as we proceed through an
analysis of the possible means of implementing in-plant
changes to decrease process waste, it will become increas-
ingly more apparent that water is one-in-the-same, both the
major processing aid and the culprit in pollution problems
related to plant discharge,,
Reduction of Solid and Effluent Waste
There is a wide variation in the problems caused by
waste from a seafood operation<, Some companies make a profit
from their waste and have no trouble in selling it at a
price that precludes process changes. On the other hand,
much of the waste currently being discarded as a solid or
-3-
-------
lost in the plant effluent does have a good market when it is
processed or liquid reclaimed in an acceptable manner. For
example, carcass waste from a filleting plant can seldom be
sold for more than a few dollars per ton whereas the same
waste can be deboned and processed in such a manner to yield
a highly marketable human food.
It is interesting to note that many seafood companies
are now taking advantage of in-plant changes to increase
their usable raw materials0 Other companies, producing
the same primary products are losing a major source of profit
while wondering what to do about complying with the forth-
coming restrictions in the quality of effluent discharge
from their plants. We sincerely hope that the information
and examples presented in this report will show the prac-
ticality of investing in in-plant changes that will decrease
the solid and effluent waste on a basis that is profitable
to a processing company.
Improvement of Efficiency of Raw Material Utilization
Pollution from the disposal of waste products will
always be a problem as long as modern man inhabits the earth.
The waste materials that are not used can never be "thrown
away". They can be buried, diluted, disguised or otherwise
masked, but they can never be eliminated from the earth's
environment. Even the most extensive, and expensive,
methods of complete biological treatment do not remove all
traces of pollution from the discharge of a plant.
-4-
-------
The nutritive value of proteins from different seafoods
i's approximately that of meat and milk. Fish proteins are
not only well balanced in the essential amino acids, but
they are rich in lysine, which is known to be deficient in
most cereals, millets, root crops, etc., which form the bulk
of the diets of more than two-thirds of the population of the
world (Kuppuswamy, et al„, 1958). It has been well estab-
lished that supplementation of diets based on cereals and
proteins such as fish, even at low levels, greatly improves
the growth-promoting value of the former (Moorjani and Lahiry,
1962). As has been previously mentioned, the entire seafood
that comes into a plant as a raw material has essentially a
uniform nutritional value. That is* the so called "waste"
that accounts for perhaps two-thirds of the world fish catch
is of the same quality as the one-third now being consumed
by man.
Development of Profitable New Products
Secondary raw materials, formerly known as waste, from
a seafood processing plant can be utilized in a variety of
ways depending on form and the composition. In general,
three categories of products can be prepared according to
their use.
Protein Foods
Meat, fish and fowl are commonly placed in the category
of "animal proteins" because they all have the essential
-5-
-------
amino acid balance as previously discussed. Meats from these
creatures, regardless of origin, have similar nutritional
properties, containing 15 to 20 percent protein. Some typi-
cal compositions of fish and shellfish are shown in Table 1.
Although some of the values (i.e., fat content of migrating
fish or changing biological status) vary during the year or
season, it can be seen that there is a fairly uniform compo-
sition of protein.
Table 1. Typical composition of fish and shellfish
(portion normally utilized).
ITEM
PROTEIN
(%)
FAT
(%)
CHO*
(%)
MOISTURE
(%)
ASH
(%)
MANHADEN
18.7
10.2
0
67.9
3.8
ANCHOVY
15-20
5-15
0
HERRING
17.4
2-11
0
70
2.1
OYSTERS
8-11
2
3-6
79-85
1.8
SOLE
16.7
0.8
0
81.3
1.2
ROCKFISH
18.9
1.8
0
78.9
1.2
COD
17.6
0.3
0
81.2
1.2
SALMON
19-22
13-15
0
64
1.4
CATFISH
17.6
3.1
0
78
1.3
TUNA
25.2
4.1
0
70.5
1.3
CLAMS (Meat only)
14.0
1.9
1.3
80.8
2.0
CRAB
17.3
1.9
0.5
78.5
1.8
HALIBUT
20.9
1.2
0
76.5
1.4
SHRIMP
18.1
0.8
1.5
78.2
1.4
~Carbohydrate
-6-
-------
Fish flesh is not only highly desirable as a completely
balanced protein food, but it has highly polyunsaturated fats0
These lipids have been shown to be most beneficial in limit-
ing certain health problems that are associated with the
saturated fats found in all other animals.
Unfortunately, the desirable unsaturated lipids tend to
oxidize quite rapidly, resulting in unacceptable flavors.
This problem is minimized in the portions normally sold for
human consumption but must be considered in changing processes
to utilize the remaining portion for new foods. For example,
Stansby and Olcott (1963) have analyzed various portions of
dover sole in studying the differences between the currently
utilized and wasted portion (Table 2). Although it can be
seen that the edible flesh (the fillet) has a relatively
small lipid content and will probably be much more stable to
oxidation than the non-edible portion, it must also be noted
that the non-edible portion accounts for as much as 70 per-
cent of the original whole fish and contains almost the same
percentage of protein as the original whole fish.
Table 2. Proximate composition of whole fish, edible flesh,
and trimmings of dover sole (Microstomus pacificus)
(Standby and Olcott, 1963).
Constituent
Whole
fish
Edible
portion
Non-edible portion
(all parts except flesh)
Moisture
89.9%
83.6%
81.2%
Lipid
3.5%
0.8%
4.4%
Protein
12 o 7%
15.2%
11.7%
Ash
2.7%
1.1%
3.5%
-7-
-------
Hence, new products being prepared from currently dis-
carded portions (secondary raw materials) must be handled
rapidly so that excess degradation does not occur prior to
processing. This means that the normal procedure of allow-
ing these portions to accumulate while the more desirable
portions are being processed must be changed to insure high
quality products. If properly prepared, there are several
highly acceptable products now being marketed in several
areas of the country. Furthermore, the wholesale price
approaches that of the primary product being prepared from
the fish.
Supplementary Additives
One of the most promising methods for utilizing whole
industrial fish or fish trimmings is to remove the lipid and
water fractions to obtain a high protein dried "flour" that
can be used for supplementing diets deficient in protein.
The principle difference between this type of product and
conventional fish meal is that the oil is removed to the
point whereby the product is not objectionable to the con-
sumer .
The production of concentrated fish protein has many
advantages where an animal protein supplementation is
desired: 1) the product can be sold at a most competitive
price to other concentrated animal proteins on a protein
unit basis; 2) removal of water and lipid stabilizes the
product so that it can be stored indefinitely under many
-8-
-------
different climatic conditions; 3) many populations of
fishes now being passed over can be diverted into human
food.
Although most discussions regarding the utilization of
concentrated fish proteins as food additives center around
their use in developing countries, we should realize the
tremendous need for such products in the United States. It
is predicted that by 1980, of approximately one billion kilo-
grams (2.25 billion pounds) of protein additives used in the
United States, 0.86 billion kilograms (1.9 billion pounds)
will come from proteins other than milk (Hammonds and Call,
1970). This means that soy, egg, cottonseed, certain nut,
chicken and fish proteins will become increasingly impor-
tant. Since eggs and chickens are strongly dependent on fish
meal to keep their prices down and the vegetable proteins
are deficient in certain amino acids, fish will undoubtedly
play a most important role in filling these future require-
ments .
Low protein-high mineral meals have a good market in
animal feed and will be available from plants that are
removing essentially all of the edible meat from the bones
and carcass for either food products or food additives.
Non-Edible Products
The shell in several types of shellfish, particularly
crab and shrimp, has a chemical composition containing
materials that have potential as non-edible products for
many phases of commerce.
-9-
-------
Shells from crustacea, depending on species and time of
year, contain 25 to 40 percent protein, 40 to 50 percent
calcium carbonate, and 15 to 20 percent chitin. Chitin is
an insoluble polysaccharide that serves as the "binder" in the
shell. Chitin, or the deacytelated form, chitosan, has
many outstanding properties for use in flocculating, emulsify-
ing, thickening, coagulating, improving wet strength of
paper, and many other uses. The protein that can be
reclaimed from the shell is high quality and does not exhibit
the amine odor found in fish flesh.
Another use for crustacea shell is as a meal for animal
feed. It is especially desirable for fish diets since the
pigment imparts a pink color to the flesh of captive grown
fish, increasing their market appeal. If effective means of
collecting shell from all crustacea processed in the United
States become available, in excess of 4500 kkg (500 tons) of
chitosan could be produced yearly. Even this amount would
satisfy only a small portion of the overall world demand
(Peniston, 1973).
Industry Responsibility to the Public
It is seldom that opportunities exist for a company to comply
with federal, state and local laws without significantly
increasing the cost of operating. No one can argue that the
fishing industry should not take a major responsibility in
making necessary improvements to insure that processing
techniques are compatible with the environment. Hence, even
-10-
-------
though processors may not agree with specific requirements
imposed upon them, they must accept their responsibility to
the public.
Fortunately, many of the companies now in the seafood
processing business can alter their processes to not only
meet the control agency requirements, but can create a profit-
able addition to their present plant operations» If the
only approach to comply with laws and regulations is to
treat the present wastes without trying to recover salable
products, the results will be unhappy processors and a con-
tinually deteriorating relationship between industry and
government. On the other hand, if advantage is taken of the
technology now available, the obligation and duty of industry
to the public can be discharged at a benefit to all con-
cerned o
-11-
-------
IN-PLANT CHANGES AS RELATED TO SPECIFIC CATEGORIES
For the purpose of studying the solid and liquid waste
that is currently being discharged from seafood plants it is
necessary to categorize the various processing techniques to
minimize the number of samples that must be taken and anal-
yzed. It must be remembered that slight variations in pro-
cessing procedures can greatly affect the volume and type of
waste, particularly the liquid effluent, that is discharged
from a plant. Such factors as BOD, COD, pH, etc., are
extremely important in classifying the effluent for planning
outplant treatment. However, the categories that have been
defined for plant surveys are not as important for consider-
ing in-plant changes as is the amount and composition of the
actual raw material that is being wasted in the process.
In general, there are relatively few unit operations
and unit processes used in seafood processing. Furthermore,
there are even fewer components in the residual solids and
liquids. The approach to in-plant changes is to gain a back-
ground of any given process by analyzing the various steps in
the processing cycle, determining the form and amount of
material available in each step, and then redesigning the
product flow to minimize the loss that must be considered
waste. In the final analysis one will find that most plants
can initially improve efficiency by simply reducing water
consumption through using less, reusing or recycling. Treat-
ing effluent streams as separate sources of raw material
instead of combining them immediately into one main waste
-12-
-------
effluent often allows the removal of solids that are too
dilute in the total plant effluent stream.
Based on this analysis, the basis for in-plant changes
is reduced to controlling liquid effluents before they
become waste disposal problems and processing solid waste
for usable end products„ Good old common sense can go a
long way in determining courses of action for process
changes and improvements. Many changes can be accomplished
with off-the-shelf items that have been developed for other
industries. Thus, common sense and technology transfer
are the keys to immediate in-plant changes leading toward
elimination of polluting discharges from fish processing
plants., If we wait for government, university and private
research organizations to hand out the practical solutions,
the industry is not going to make the deadlines as spelled
out by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and subsequent
Amendments.
-13-
-------
INITIAL PLANT SURVEY FOR PLANNING IN-PLANT CHANGES
Assignment of Responsibility
In-plant changes often involve major capital invest-
ments or other costs. For this reason alone, top manage-
ment must take the primary responsibility of organizing the
program for total utilization of incoming raw materials
with a minimum of solid and effluent waste discharge. In
many cases the economic survival of a seafood processing
plant depends on implementing in-plant changes rather than
installing outplant waste disposal facilities in order to
comply with local, state and federal pollution laws. The
first question to be answered by a company is whether or not
profitable in-plant changes can be made instead of costly
outplant changes from which no economic benefit is derived.
Although someone in top management must take the initial
responsibility of in-plant changes, the complexity of the pro-
gram demands that several people with particular specialties
become involved. Hence, even though the thought of a com-
mittee reminds one of inactivity, a team approach to the
entire area of environment control by in-plant changes and
outplant waste treatment requires knowledge of several
specialties, whether they are available within the company
or must be obtained from the outside.
Someone familiar with the economic picture of the
company must participate in the team effort since trans-
ferring of the survey data into a form that considers the
-14-
-------
economics is most important to making decisions. In a
large company this participant would be the accountant or
someone from that department while in a small company the
program director and the economic analyst would most likely
be the same person.
An engineer or someone with many years of practical
experience with operations and the equipment involved is
important since most of the facilities that are required for
in-plant changes are available on the market. Technology
transfer is the key to economic in-plant changes. Since
the fishing industry is behind the meat and milk industries
in pollution control through changing processes, the use of
techniques from these sources is only dependent on a good
common sense application to the given situation in any given
fish processing plant. A good food technologist can be of
major importance in this area.
So in summary, management, accounting, engineering and
operations are the areas that must be involved in an in-
plant change program. In a small company this might be one
man with some outside professional help while in a large
company it would best be a team effort.
Items and Areas to Cover
Several basic questions can be asked that gets a plant
survey off to an organized start:
1. Who is actually creating the waste? Is it an
individual, a department, certain shifts, specific machine,
-15-
-------
specific parts of the process or overall operation, etc?
Also, along these same lines of responsibility, who is
actually designating something as waste and does he have
enough general knowledge of the company operations to know
that this waste has no other uses?
2. What waste is actually being designated as such?
It is important to have a complete knowledge of the percent-
ages of raw materials being wasted, the specific amounts
being so classified, the composition of the various solid
and liquid waste that are involved, and what actual costs
are being incurred by the company in disposing of the waste.
3. Where and when is the waste being created? The
pattern of waste creation is important„ It might be inter-
mittent, follow a certain sequence or pattern, or be related
to a specific time of day or stage of operation,,
Answers to these initial questions will be quite
complicated and certainly must be organized in a form that
can be analyzed. The initial start in the actual survey
is to:
1. Make a list of everything coming into the plant,
the form, amount, method of entry, packaging, etc. This
information should be categorized as to raw material,
supplies, utilities and any other items that might be parti-
cular to a given plant or company.
2. Make a list of everything leaving the plant includ
ing volumes, finished goods, trash, waste, etc.
Now, with the above input and output draw a schematic
-16-
-------
diagram of the entire plant process and label all of the
inputs and outputs both as to amount and to value. Simple
arithmetic, such as shown in Figure 1, will result in a good
material and energy balance around the plant.
The next step is to break down the specific areas that
are causing or producing waste and make the same material
and energy balance around this isolated item. It might be a
machine, an entire line, or even a group of people.
The above simple engineering approach to a problem will
automatically answer many of the questions regarding waste
and potential utilization of same. It is surprising how
easy it is to analyze a plant operation and yet how few,
even large companies, have the data organized in such a
manner. Often, much of the information is buried in the
records of the accounting department where few people have
the background to use it.
A combination of common sense, practical plant experi-
ence and good knowledge of technology involved in food opera-
tions are necessary for analyzing the above results and
concluding what direction to take in planning in-plant
changes. The lack of such a diversified knowledge within a
company or the unwillingness to obtain outside help are the
reasons why many seafood plants are not keeping up with the
times when it comes to utilizing raw materials for maximum
recovery and profit.
-17-
-------
RMX° RAW MATERIAL (wt/time)
W= PROCESSING WATER (wt/time)
A»» FOOD ADDITIVE (le > SALT, OIL, SPICES, ETC.) (wt/time)
1
„PX- PRODUCT (wt/tlme)
TOTA
PLANT
PROCESS
OPERATION
1
Ex » LIQUID WASTE (wt/time)
L -LOSSES (wt/time)
(RM,+ RMZ + )+ w + (a,+ a2+ ) ¦ (P,+ P2+—)+(S,+ S+—)+(L + L2+—) + (e+e2+-
Figure 1. Total material balance in processing plant
-------
GROUND FISH (RM lb/hr)-
WATER (W lb/hr)-
FILLETING
FILLETS (P, lb/hr)
CARCASS (S| lb/hr)
^ LIQUID WASTE (E, lb/hr)= W ~ S2
VO
I
RM + W « P, + S, Ej « P, + S, +(W+ S2 )
Figure 2. Example of process steps material balance (fillet of groundfish).
-------
WASTE AS SECONDARY RAW MATERIAL
Liquid Effluents
The fish industry uses large quantities of water, 500-
33,000 gals/ton (2100-137,000 1/kkg) of raw product processed
for various fish processing operations. Wastewaters origi-
nate from ice or refrigerated seawater (bilge or bailwater)
of the fish on board the fishing vessel; from unloading and
fluming of the fish; from butchering and filleting opera-
tions where water is required to flow continuously over the
cutting knives and conveyor belts; from thawing, precooking,
can washing and cooling; retorting; washing down; and from
various other processes,, Actual plant data indicate that
anywhere from 5 to 20 percent of total fresh raw material
weight processed was discarded in the processing waste-
waters (Table 3).
Table 3» Percent raw material lost in wastewater
(Environmental Associates, 1973)„
Process
Solids in wastewater
percent of
raw product
Average raw product
input
(tons/day)
Tuna processing
1
184
Shrimp canning
15
26 (Gulf);
10 (West Coast)
Crab processing
5-20
10
Catfish processing
5-37
5
-20-
-------
Characteristics of wastewaters from the fish industry
vary widely. In general, the characteristics of the waste-
water depends on the species, unit operations and processes
involved, amount of water used, and degree of mechanization
involved.
In-plant pollution abatement is usually the preferred
approach to an efficient, low-cost water management system.
Integrated in-plant changes may consist of:
a. reducing the use of water in general,
bo recycling or reusing certain process streams,
with or without minimal treatment,
c. recovery of dissolved and suspended proteins and
oil as valuable by-products, and
d. changing or optimizing process design to minimize
or avoid certain losses.
Reducing the Use of Water in General
Increasing the workers' awareness of the cost of water is a
basic step for a good water management system. The workers
often do not know how much water they are using and, in
some cases, why they are using it. Water use could be mini-
mized by common sense techniques like turning off faucets
and hoses when not in use, or by using spring-loaded hose
nozzles, by using high-pressure low-volume water supply
systems, by using dry cleanup in plant prior to washdown,
etc. It remains to the plant personnel to determine the
optimum water uses for operations like fish washing,
-21-
-------
filleting, descaling, peeling, etc., while still maintain-
ing good final quality of the product. Generally, plants with
mechanized production tend to use more water per unit raw
product processed than plants with manual lines. Since
mechanization is here to stay, improvement in the design of
machines is indicated. Thorough survey and metering of
water flows will show that one or two operations may be using
considerably more water than the rest of the operations.
Efficient handling of these streams will give significant
reductions for the total flow. Similarly, the individual
streams with major pollution load should also be singled out.
While reduction in water use will tend to increase the con-
centration of pollution, dry clean up and recovery of solids
will reduce this effect. Concentrated effluent streams will
increase the economic feasibility of nutrient recovery.
Reduction in total outflow will reduce capital cost on the
end-of-pipe treatment system.
Recycling or Reuse
At this point, one should understand the distinction
between recycling and reuse. Recycling refers to using
treated water in the same application for which it was
previously used, while reuse can include other applications
where water quality is less critical. Again, multiple use
of water implies its use more than once, but each time for
a different purpose; for example, the countercurrent use of
water for successively dirtier applications.
-22-
-------
Recycle or reuse holds the key to effective reduction
in total wastewater flow and pollution load/ with nominal
costs involved. Minimal alterations in the present plant
design are required to segregate and collect individual
streams which can be recycled or reused for some other pur-
pose. In case of recycling, fractional removal of pollutants
is desirable. Reuse of water should be made judiciously.
The water to be used for the final rinse of the product
should be free of a) any microorganisms of public health
significance, b) any materials or compounds which could
impart discoloration, off-flavor, or off-odor to the product,
or otherwise adversely affect its quality.
Recovery of Dissolved and Suspended Solids
As stated earlier, 5 to 20 percent of the fish solids
are lost in the wastewaters as dissolved and suspended
particles. Recovery of these valuable nutrients will not
only offset the cost of recovery, but also reduce signifi-
cantly the higher costs of waste treatment facilities.
Pilot plant data have demonstrated the economic feasibility
of recovery by screening and coagulation with various
chemicals.
Recovery by Coagulation
A large number of chemicals, such as sodium lignosul-
fonate, hexametaphosphate, lime, alum, glucose trisulfate,
and several polyelectrolytes, are effective in complexing
-23-
-------
and coagulating proteins from fish processing wastewaters.
The coagulated proteins are removed by sedimentation or by
flotation. Some of the results with hexametaphosphate and
sodium lignosulfonate (SLS) are shown in Tables 4 and 5
respectively. Actual design of the system will depend on
the individual plant. Amount of protein in the recovered
dried product ranges from 35-75 percent, with the rest being
fat and some minerals. Depending on the effluent, generally
two to eight tons (1.8 -7.3 kkg) of dried material are
recovered from each million gallons of effluent. Practical
feeding trials on poultry have demonstrated that protein
concentrate materials can replace equal weights of herring
and soya meal proteins without significant change in live
weight gain, feed conversion, and mortality. A plant cap-
able of treating 45,000 liters (10,000 gal.) per hour would
cost in the order of $80,000 for the equipment. In round
terms, protein for feed is worth normally $80-$100/ton (not
considering the present temporary high prices for feed).
For consideration of economics, one should also take into
account the subsequent reduction in surcharge or the costs
for various waste treatment.
Table 4. Recovery of proteins with hexametaphosphate
(Agarwala, 1974).
Characteristics
Total solids (mg/1)
Total organic nitrogen (mg/1)
Protein nitrogen (mg/1)
Chemical oxygen demand (mg/1)
Influent Effluent % Removal
47,800 21,450 55
4,245 1,628 62
4,185 690 84
69,150 12,250 82
-24-
-------
Table 5o Coagulation of proteins with SLS (Agarwala, 1974).
Characteristics
Influent
Effluent
% Removal
Total solids
50,530
41,900
17
Suspended solids
25,900
11,370
56
Chlorides
15,000
14,800
1
Total organic nitrogen
2,585
1,525
41
Protein nitrogen
2,115
903
57
COD
34,600
12,150
65
It is apparent that efficient in-plant pollution treat-
ment requires a unified system approach. The actual modi-
fication and recovery system will depend on each individual
process or process combinations„ Each process stream must
be analyzed thoroughly before feasible in-plant modifications
can be contemplated and weighed against fresh water cost,
sewer charges and surcharges, and higher costs for waste
treatment facilities0 Due to the lack of complete data, it
will not be possible to offer exact solutions which will
clarify the principles discussed above,,
Examples
Tuna Processing
Figure 3 shows a flow diagram for the processing of
tuna with percent flow, BOD, and suspended solids from
individual operations„ Good housekeeping for tuna process-
ing is evident from the low wastage of solids in wastewaters
-25-
-------
9T1CKWATER
I
NJ
CT»
RAW
FROZEN
TUNA
BUTCHERING
a
WASHING
I BILGE a 1
(HOLOfNQ I
I WATER |
COOL
a
CLEAN
PACK
SHAPER
CAN
WASHER
RETORT
a COOL
WASH
DOWN
FIRST
SOAP
FINAL
RtNSE
RINSE
RM8E
65
<35-76)
9.2
(lb/tori
20 • 5.030
(ppn)
AVERAGE
TOTAL
FLOW
4,386
(gal/too)
BODfl
26
(tb/toe)
8.3.
20
(lb/too)
AVERAGE RAW PROOUCT INPUT
AVERAGE WATER FLOW
<64 ton/day
0.61 ttgd
Figure 3. Waste characteristics for tuna processing.
-------
(Table 3). From the flow diagram, it is obvious that the
thaw water constitutes the major fraction of the total flow,
as well as pollution load. There was large variation in the
amount of water used, due to static or continuous flow condi-
tions « It is also apparent that the water used for retort
and cooling of cans is relatively clean„ The following
suggestions are made for further reduction of water use and
pollution load;
lo Reuse retort and cool water in the thawing opera-
tion, which will recover the thermal energy as well.
20 Recycle the thaw water per batch of fish being
thawed with a heat exchanger included in the cycle.
Flow conditions provide significantly higher heat
transfer than static conditions. The total amount
of water per ton of fish and heating conditions
will have to be optimized.
3.o Mix thaw water and butchering water and separate
this stream for subsequent recovery of by-products.
4. Use dry clean-up before wash-down to reduce sus-
pended solids in wash-down water fraction.
This will reduce the final effluent to about 2500 gal/
ton (10,000 1/kkg) with BOD5 about 15 lb/ton (7.5 kg/kkg).
Farm-Raised Catfish Processing
Figure 4 shows a simplified flow sheet for the process-
ing of farm-raised catfish, along with source of wastewater.
It is apparent that the discharge from live holding tanks
-27-
-------
PACK
J
I
I
1
*»
—' —^ 4,600 gat/ton
A.
0
LIVE
0
END - OF-THE-
o m
HOLDING TANK
PIPE TREATMENT
Q _
LIVE
0
(I-*) Q
END-OF - THE-
(i-*)o w
HOLDING TANK
PIPE TREATMENT
HQ
NO TREATMENT
xQ
C. LIVE
HOLDING TANK
WATER
TREATMENT
RAW LIVE ELECTRIC _ _ SKIN _ CLEAN
MATERIAL HOLDING TANK —» STUNNING BE-HEADING EVISCERATION ^ REMOVAL a RINSE
I 111
-J , * I
1 i i
A89% WASH DOWN * ,4% -14*
20%
EWD-OF-THE-
PIPE TREATMENT
BY PRODUCTS
Figure 4. Farm raised catfish processing.
-------
constitutes about 60 percent of the total wastewater flow with
minimal pollution loading. A number of possibilities exist
for recycling of this process water:
1. Take no action and let the costly end-of-pipe treat-
ment system take care of it.
2. Recycle some fraction without any treatment, which
essentially means reducing the discharge from the
present-use-volume to some minimal acceptable level.
3. Recycle after certain treatment (e.g., screening,
coagulation or coagulation-flotation).
In a recent study (Environmental Associates, 1973) cat-
fish plants were found to use from 5300 to 7600 gal. of
water/ton of fish processed. If it can be assumed that the
plant reporting minimum total flow (3300 gal/ton) is produc-
ing the same quality fish as the rest of the plants, the
total flow can be reduced to this level by simply reducing
the flow rate or residence time through the live holding
tank or eliminating the live holding tanks. Any further
reduction will depend on the efficiency of the treatment
process. Optimum conditions for parameters such as oxygen
concentration, level of toxic metabolic products, and temper-
ature in the recycled water will have to be determined. The
decision is also an economic one, for the cost of treatment
will have to be weighed against savings in fresh water cost,
waste treatment cost, and returns from by-products.
-29-
-------
Blue Crab Processing
In Figure 5, the conventional and the mechanized blue
crab processes are compared. In the conventional process,
from available data, water usage (285 gal/ton) was minimal,
but wastewater strength (about 4400 ppm BOD) was high. Water
from the ice-making machine was the major fraction of the
total plant effluent and appeared to be suitable for reuse
in other operations like cooling, manual picking, etc. Use
of claw machines increased water usage and the BOD loading
many fold. The wastewater from mechanical picking includes
both the brine used in the flotation tanks and the washwater
used to remove the brine from the meat after it has been
separated from the shell. This is again a good example
where recycling can be practiced after minimal treatment of
screening and coagulation and using make-up brine. This
could result in 90 percent reduction in the pollution load of
final wastewaters, as well as reducing salt toxicity prob-
lems for biological waste treatment systems.
Bottom Fish Filleting Process
Waste characteristics reported for bottom fish fillet-
ing were extremely erratic (Figure 6). Water flow and
pollution load were distributed between fish washer, fillet-
ing, and mechanical descaler, if used. Good housekeeping
wastewater will have to be segregated from the detergent
mixed wash-down water and treated for recovery of solids.
-30-
-------
LIVE
CRAB
I
U>
COOK
—r~
17%^
COOK
0.2 %l
COOL
MANUAL
PICKINO
PACK
I ICE I
* ~ w%i.
WASH
23%
DOWN
„ 288
gal/ton
AIR
MECHANICAL
COOL
PICKINO
91%
r
i
PACK
HceI
~
WASH
DOWN
^ 8.86 gal/ton
8%
Figure 5. Blue crab processing
-------
FINAL
PRODUCT
I weraoe
W FLOW
^ 58* 17-83% 64* 13-66% 3-21% 2.825 (gal/ton)
BOD,
9*47% 13-76% S-8% 40-60 % 2-20% 42 (lb/ton)
Ficrure 6. Bottom fish filletincr flow diaqram.
-------
The total drainage can easily be diverted to a holding tank
before washing is started at the end of the shift.
Solids Currently Being Discarded or Underutilized
As previously discussed, solids currently being wasted
in plants can be reclaimed in the form of protein foods,
supplementary additives, and non-edible products, depending
on the particular raw material. Solids from the following
sources can be economically processed to yield one or more
of the three basic product groups:
1. Carcasses, frames and trimmings from filleting
operations„
2. Groundfish categorized as too small to economically
fillet.
3. Trimmings and portions from butchering operation
normally not included in the primary end product.
4. Whole or portions of industrial fish not suitable
for human consumption.
5. Trimmings and waste portions from frozen fish, fish
blocks, or other forms of seafood that are being
trimmed or processed in the frozen state.
6. Frozen sawdust from sawing frozen fish into steaks
or other products.
7. Fresh or frozen shrimp that are too small for
peeling.
8. Fresh or frozen waste portions from shrimp clean-
ing and peeling operations.
-33-
-------
9. Dark meat fish that cannot be sold for fillets but
that can be added to extruded products in some
predetermined percentage.
10. Waste from butchering after precooking.
11. Shrimp, crab and other shell containing meat after
the primary extraction process.
12. Combined solids removed from plant effluent streams
after screening.
13. Solids reclaimed from effluent streams by floccula-
tion, precipitation or other techniques.
14„ Crab and shrimp shell residual from processing
operations.
Raw Materials for Protein Foods
Machines are now available that remove edible meat from
most any carcass, waste portion or shell waste. In fact,
with the national demand for seafood products there is no
reason that any sanitary portion of seafood now treated as
waste, cannot be used in edible products. These include
formed patties, pressed and cleaved frozen formed fillets,
specialty hors d'oeuvre items, and specialty products, the
number of which is only limited by the ingenuity of the
processor. The wide variety of batter and breading materials
adds even further latitude to the array of products possible.
A typical processing facility includes space for fillet-
ing and a complete line for deboning, mixing, extruding,
pressing blocks, power cleaving and battering and breading.
-34-
-------
The accessory facilities include equipment for mixing and
handling batter and breading as well as components that are
to be mixed with extruded fish for special flavored or
textured products.
Deboning
The deboning facility is capable of removing more than
90 percent of the edible flesh from most frames, whole fish,
fish waste, and trimmings. Several machines are available
on the market that work on the principle of forcing the
meat through a perforated plate while not allowing the bone
or any hard cartilage, including skin, to pass through.
Actually the principle of the modern deboning machines is
the same as the old screw presses developed to remove stick-
water from cooked fish in the fish meal process. Normal
fillet waste, trimmings, etc., can be deboned directly while
larger fish and parts from trimming (i.e., halibut, dogfish)
should be preground prior to deboning.
Meat extruded by the deboning process is flaky in
appearance and feel and is an excellent material for further
extruding or forming in marketable products. Fish flesh
prepared in this manner has high binding characteristics and
does not require special binders to be added prior to extrud-
ing. Various additives can be mixed into the meat to give
custom flavors. This greatly adds to the potential markets
because a special product can be prepared for a company
desiring to advertise proprietary seafood items.
-35-
-------
Pressing and Cleaving
Deboned meat can be prepared in several manners0 Quite
often extruded patties, which are ideal for sandwiches, do
not have the desired appearance or consistency for main
course items in restaurants. By freezing the deboned meat
prior to forming, a highly desirable artificial fillet line
can be prepared as follows:
a. Pan freeze the meat in block of a given size and
description as determined by the final size of
portion controlled product.
bo Remove the frozen product from cold storage and
allow it to temper at the desired temperature0
c. Press the frozen block into a desired cross section
using a press and die. This can be the shape of a
normal fillet, a large prawn, a novelty shape, etc.)
d. Cut fillets or other shape off of the frozen block
using a cleaver with a rotating table feed.
e. Batter and bread the product as desired for the
restaurant trade.
The equipment chosen for this operation is widely used
by the red meat processors but has not been introduced in
large scale to the fish processors. Recent tests run in
Seattle have shown that this equipment produces an excellent
fish product and that the product has excellent acceptability
by the trade. The pressing and cleaving line also has the
advantage of utilizing frozen raw material. This means that
the line can be operated during periods when there is no
-36-
-------
fresh fish available, thus stabilizing a year-round operation
in a given plant.
Extruding
The extruding of fish flesh into various forms for
sandwiches, fish and chips and fillets gives a company
tremendous versatility in products line. Not only can they
use their own and other plant waste and trimmings, but species
of fish that do not have ready acceptance in the form of
fillets or steaks due to poor color; texture or general
appearance. Furthermore, the extruded products are selling
on the market at a most favorable price approaching that of
the primary fillet or other edible portion.
Many different extruder machines and forming attach-
ments are available in a wide price range. Production
machines range from single to multiple heads with extruded
items ranging from round and square patties to fish balls
and other items. Hamburger-type patties have an especially
good market in the drive-in trade.
Battering and Breading
The major volume of breaded fish products being pre-
pared at the present time is from fish sticks and shrimp or
prawns0 The large producers of these items are primarily
finished processors and do not have their own source of
supply. Hence, the raw materials are being pre-prepared in
blocks or as IQF items. A primary processor can certainly
produce these same items in his plant, particularly if he
-37-
-------
is using scrap, at a much more than competitive price.
They will also have a wider source of raw materials and a
better control of part of the fresh fish supply*
Primary Processing
The processing room should have the necessary openings
for conveying raw materials into the room and for conveying
finished products to the freezer. If the operation is in a
plant that has a filleting or butchering operation it should
be in a convenient location for easy transport and prepara-
tion of the remains for deboning and extruding.
Appendix I gives the capital investment required for a
deboning, extruding, pressing and cleaving, batter and
breading, and IQF freezer for a plant capable of processing
1200 to 1500 pounds of product per hour. It must be empha-
sized that the figures in this table were for purchases in
the fall of 1973. At the present time, cost of processing
equipment is changing so rapidly that one must not take
these figures as current. It is known that some of the costs
have increased as much as 50 to 75 percent during the past
few months, and they are continuing to rise most rapidly as
steel and other scarce commodities become more difficult to
obtain.
The total capital investment of $261,090 shown in
Appendix I is based on a company having no portions of the
equipment necessary and must, with the exception of the
basic building and utilities, design and construct the entire
-38-
-------
facility. In most plants many of the items are available.
For example, a company processing fillets or similar items
would probably have a freezer that could be run extra shifts
if necessary to handle an increased load due to the new line.
Also, many plants will have a batter and breading line.
Therefore, the figures presented are to give a person an
idea of the costs of handling edible meats in his plant.
They should certainly be used only as a guideline in preparing
the company plans for in-plant changes.
Economics of Operation
The first step in analyzing the advisability of putting
in a deboning operation is to estimate the costs of operation
and the cost of the new facilities. The previous section
presented sufficient information to give a processor an idea
of the capital investment required for a line capable of
producing 1000 to 1500 pounds of batter and breaded items
per hour. Appendix II shows the cost of operating this line
for different priced raw materials and for different daily
production rates per day.
As in the case of the capital investments, this presenta-
tion is given for a guideline and is most subject to local
conditions involving cost of labor, utilities, transportation,
and other items involving operating costs. The final figures
noted as "Daily Operating Income" is the cost of operating
the processing facility and does not include fixed overhead
and expenses involved with leasing or purchasing capital
-39-
-------
equipment and facilities. Again, each processor must alter
the figures to his particular situation. However, it is
obvious that a plant using its own raw materials, at no cost
other than labor for preparation, has tremendous advantages
over one that is purchasing the input items. It is also
apparent that a central plant paying for scrap must process
large volumes before it becomes a profitable operation.
The non-operating costs vary so widely that it is
impossible to present a logical analysis of the net profits
that can be realized from the above in-plant utilization of
current waste materials. However, it has been shown that,
taking into consideration all fixed costs including capital
investment, one plant can reach the break-even point in two
months when producing 8000 pounds of product per day while it
takes six months at a production level of 400 pounds per
day. This situation is for a plant utilizing its own fillet
waste at no initial cost. That is, the cost of the scrap
is written off in the cost of the fish for the primary fillet.
Conclusions
Experience has shown that the installation of deboning
operations in an existing plant that has edible waste can be
a most profitable operation. It is up to each individual
processor to analyze his situation to see if this is not a
good way to up-grade his current scraps to highly acceptable
products for human food.
-40-
-------
Raw Materials for Supplementary Additives
Protein can be recovered from whole fish or portions of
fish or shellfish remaining after processing in the form of a
meal or flour, ranging from tasteless-odorless fish flour to
fish meal for animal feedo Indeed, the most efficient utiliza-
tion of fish protein would be as human food, Unfortunately,
the processes for making fish flour acceptable to the human
palates in the United States have not been extensively
proven for commercial operations. The United States con-
sumer is a highly sophisticated eater and many of the nutri-
tional fish flour items that can be produced do not have
acceptability in this market„ However, some of the develop-
ing country markets and Japan do accept these items so that
the processes will be covered in this report for those
interestedo
Conventional Reduction Processes
The conventional reduction processes for converting
whole fish or.fish waste to fish meal for animal feed has
been used for many years and all of the equipment is readily
available. Plant capacities range from the ma.ssive plants
of 1600 ton/day input for processing anchovy in Peru and
Chile to the small package units for processing fish viscera
and trimmings from fish canning or freezing plants„ As
shown in Figure 7, a basic large production plant with 20
ton/hr input capacity costs about $600,000 for basic equip-
ment, while the essential facilities for batch-processing
-41-
-------
Figure 7. Conventional meal plant costs as per unit of production
-------
one ton of waste in four or five hours is $15,000 to $20,000.
Of course, there is a large variation in any plant investment
depending on the building and associated facilities required
for a given location. Frequently, the capital investment
for a small meal plant to reduce scrap from the primary
process can be considerably reduced if there are existing
space and facilities including raw boxes, steam boiler with
extra capacity, materials handling equipment, etc.
In general, the cost of producing meal depends on the
number of days per year in which a plant can be continuously
operated, Start-up and shut-down costs are extremely high
compared to continuous operation. On the other hand small
batch operations such as those used in a cannery operate on
a daily or periodic basis quite effectively.
Of the categories of fish under consideration, only
large tuna plants such as those in Terminal Island, California
and Puerto Rico (and of course the menhaden, herring, pil-
chard and anchovy meal plant) have sufficient raw material
to justify continuous operations with the required odor
control and stickwater processing facilities. Even these
plants have found that the reduced amount of fish available
has considerably raised the former operating cost of $60.00
to $80.00 per ton far above the figure that allows for
reasonable profit. This is true especially considering that a
large reduction plan such as that depicted in Figure 8 repre-
sents a total investment of well over a million dollars.
Meal from these plants sells for a much better price and is
-43-
-------
DRYER FEED
Figure 8. Continuous fish reduction plant with soluble recovery and odor control.
-------
in greater demand than that from the small batch plants that
do not press the cooked fish to remove oil. High oil con-
tent remaining in this type of meal limits its use in many
animal rations since the animals can not tolerate the high
oil in their diet and beyond certain levels it imparts a
flavor of rancid oil to the flesh of the animal or an egg
from a chicken„ The difference in complexity of the continu
ous versus the batch process is seen by comparing the flow
sheets presented in Figures 8 and 9.
Unfortunately, there are very few locations where suf-
ficient volumes of shellfish are available to support a
profitable meal operation,, However, with the continuing
high prices of fish meal, prudent selection of a small meal
plant for catfish and other finned fish operations may be a
good means of processing waste to a profitable by-product.
The waste from approximately 15 to 18 tons of dressed-head
off fish, 6 to 8 tons of fillet scrap, and 6 to 8 tons of
shellfish waste will each yield about one ton of meal.
Considering the small batch plant costing $25,000 one could
produce:
1. One ton of meal from butchered fish in 10 hours;
2. One ton of meal from fillet waste in 10 hours; or
3. One ton of shellfish meal in five hours.
and in a continuous reduction plant costing $165,000, he
could produce:
1. One ton of meal from butchered fish in one hour;
2. One ton of meal from fillet waste in one hour; or
-45-
-------
I
T BATCH REDUCTION
OF SEAFOOD WASTE
Figure 9. Low cost batch reduction facility.
-------
3. One ton of shellfish meal in one-half hour.
One must consider all of the factors that affect a given
plant and its output before investing in meal producing
facilities. Appendix III gives a rough idea on the cost of
various size meal facilities that might have applications
in a seafood plant for handling waste. Since this discus-
sion involves only the in-plant changes to handle waste,
there has been no consideration of the cost of major fish
meal plants that are constructed solely for processing meal
from industrial fish.
As in the case of deboning and extruding facilities,
prices for meal plants are changing rapidly and exact esti-
mates must be obtained when the facility is being contem-
plated. Also, when a quote is obtained, the many extra
costs of crating, shipping and installation must be consid-
ered. Taking this into consideration, along with the chang-
ing price of the finished product, it is rather difficult to
even estimate the profitability of a small meal plant that
has meaning to any specific situation. However, in order to
have a rough idea on producing meal from scrap, a small
batch plant producing one ton/day of meal and a continuous
plant producing one ton/hr of meal have been compared as to
operating incomes (Appendix IV).
Batch Plants
Approximately 35,000 pounds of fish being butchered for
canning or fresh market, 16,000 pounds of fillet fish, and
-47-
-------
16/000 pounds of shellfish would be necessary to produce one
ton of meal per day. At current high prices of meal ($6.00
per protein unit for scrap meal and $5.00 per protein unit
for shellfish meal) a small batch dryer representing a
$30,000 capital investment could have a daily operating
income of $206 for fish scrap meal and $97.00 for shellfish
meal. On a year-round basis, both of these operations would
be profitable after retiring the capital investment debt,
paying freight to the f.o.b. point and other costs related
to packaging, storing, etc. On a 200 day per year working basis,
an annual profit might be $40/day or $8,000/yro This would
mean a plant that is processing 3,200,000 pounds throughout
the year of whole shrimp or crab. If a plant is receiving
heads-off shrimp then the poundage would increase consider-
ably.
Since there are few plants that handle the above volume
of shellfish on a uniform all-year basis, a most careful
analysis of a given situation must be made before investing
in a meal plant for shrimp waste. An additional factor to
consider is that the price of installing a batch dryer does
not include the steam boiler (or furnace) or odor controls
that will be necessary, especially if the plant is in a
populated area.
There are numerous areas where the sufficient volume of
fish waste is available to warrant seriously considering
installing of a batch dryer. Some of the seasonal fish-
eries could operate continuously for 100 or more batch dryer
-48-
-------
loads during the season. For example, many salmon canneries
have 30 or more days during the season when two or more
dryer batches of waste are available.
Without specific data on a given installation, it is
impossible to determine accurately the advisability of
installing batch meal operations in various locations. In
fact, the most desirable locations where large amounts of
salmon are available present the problem of high oil content
in the raw material giving an excessively high oil content
in the meal.
Continuous Meal Plants
As previously stated, there are few situations in the
United States seafood industry where continuous meal plants
can be justified on the basis of processing waste alone.
The lowest priced continuous plant capable of handling one
ton/hr cost at least $165,000 exclusive of boiler, holding
facilities and many other supporting items. Although it is
possible for such a plant to show an operating income of
$192 per hour of operation, the volume of product necessary
to support continuous operation is in excess of 72 ton/24
hrs (butchered fish) and 36 tons/24 hrs {fillet frames).
The only chance that a fillet operation could justify a
continuous meal plant is to utilize some industrial and
undersize fish as raw material for meal. This is quite
logical since draggers catch a good portion of non-edible
fish and undersized edible fish during hauls. If the
-49-
-------
situation is such that these fish can be either brought in
by the boats or collected on the grounds, a continuous plant
can be justified.
In summary, meal plants can be the answer to utilization
of waste in some areas, but a careful study should be made
before committing on installation of such facilities.
Aqueous Extraction
The only way that protein waste can be processed into a
high grade flour for human consumption is to remove the oil
from the product, thus preventing the development of a ran-
cid flavor and odor0 Over the past ten years, considerable
research effort has been expended by government and industry
to develop extraction techniques for removing oil and other
components from fish proteins prior to drying them into
flours„ An excellent product can be generated by some of the
methods but they are all based on organic solvent extrac-
tion, which is much too sophisticated and expensive for
installation in a seafood plant, especially a seasonal one.
A recent development has involved changing from an
organic solvent to salt water or brine (Chu, 1973). The
first phase of this process can be carried out in small as
well as large processing plants with no highly skilled plant
operators required. To be practical for commercialization,
this process should be capable of handling any portion of
fish scrap as well as whole industrial fish. This would
make the process applicable to low grade fertilizer products,
-50-
-------
high grade animal feed and fish protein concentrate for
human consumption. The process should also require only the
low cost facilities available to small companies. It should,
furthermore, not require highly trained operating personnel
and should not produce a waste that will contribute to the
pollution problem.
Figure 10 shows the general brine-acid process used for
treating the fish waste or raw fish which is presently being
studied on a pilot plant scale. The material is ground and
homogenized in various concentrations of water or brine and
hydrochloric acid. The sodium chloride tends to decrease
the solubility of various constituents and the acid mini-
mizes the protein solubility. After varying incubation
times the material is then centrifuged so that the lipid and
water fractions separate from the solid residue. For animal
feed this solid residue can then be dried and ground to the
necessary particle size. Further washing and extracting is
necessary if it is to be used for human consumption. In
fact, a high quality product can be obtained if it is further
extracted with an organic solvent to remove final traces of
taste and odor-causing components. The pre-extracted pro-
duct is much easier to extract with an organic solvent than
is fresh fish because there is no problem with water dilu-
tions and subsequent emulsions and loss of solubles in the
solvent fraction.
One distinct possibility for utilizing this process in
remote areas having limited drying capacity is to extract
-51-
-------
9
I
Or
NJ
I
PRODUCT FLOW
WASTEWATER FLOW
FPC
MILL
DRYER
RINSE WATER
FILTER •
DESLUDGER
©
I
1
I .
i
JL
®—-
Figure 10. Brine-acid extraction process.
-------
and separate the solids for subsequent shipment to other
areas where drying facilities and refining equipment are
available. It has been found that the brine-acid press cake
can be stored for some time without serious degradation.
Thus, it would be possible to transfer damp press cake from
many plants to one central finishing area.
A major advantage of this process is that it can be
adapted for the output from any size plant that has an
extremely variable load. Since the major limitation to
processing capacity is drying, the extracted press cake can
be bulk stored and shipped to the central drying and finish-
ing plant by normal surface transportation. The primary
extraction equipment consists of stirred tanks, centrifuges
and filters. Figure 11 indicates approximate equipment
costs for the extraction phase of the process.
A relatively small volume of concentrated effluent,
approximately 0.43 liter per kg of. waste extracted (0.25 gal
per pound), must be treated to remove the high BOD load that
ranges from 40,000 mg/1 in stream 1 (Figure 10) to 5000 mg/1
in streams 2 and 3. Much of the BOD from stream 1 is
solubilized protein which can be removed almost stoichio-
metrically by precipitation with sodium hexametaphosphate.
A study of the complete chemical and biological treatment
of the effluent streams will be completed by the end of
this year (Pigott, 1973).
Preliminary cost estimates from pilot plant studies
indicate that the operating cost for producing meal from
-53-
-------
Figure 11. Brine acid extraction primary facility costs (excluding dryer).
-------
brine-acid process will be between 11 and 18 cents per kg
(5 and 8 cents per lb). This will be a high-grade meal
that will not have many of the present limitations of con-
ventional fish meal. The lower oil content will allow
incorporation into animal and fowl diets at higher levels
than are currently possible without adversely affecting
the flesh flavor.
Enzymatic. Hydrolysis Process
The use of enzymes to hydrolyze fish protein has been
reported by several laboratories. Tryptic digestive enzymes,
pepsin hydrolysis, papain, and many other enzymatic pro-
cesses have been tried in an effort to produce a highly
functional protein concentrate. In general, pepsin diges-
tion with continuous pH control at 2,0 has proven to be one
of the best procedures for producing a high quality bacteria-
free product (Tarky and Pigott, 1973}.
The basic procedure consists of adding pepsin to a
homogenized fish waste substrate to which equal volumes of
water have been added. The pH is lowered to 2.0 with hydro-
chloric acid and the mixture is then continuously stirred at
37°C (99°F). In general, this procedure yields about 12
percent product based on the raw material. The product has
essentially no fat content and, when spray dried, is a highly
functional powder which is low in only tryptophan. However,
when added to vegetable proteins having sufficient trypto-
phan, the total protein is extremely high in quality.
-55-
-------
The enzymatic hydrolysis process should be well
developed within the next three to four years and will yield
a valuable product from fish waste,, If the FDA ever permits
the use of waste portions for human food, then a large por-
tion of the future protein supplements in prepared food
dishes may come from this source„ The material is cheaper
to produce than milk [current estimate, 40 to 55 cents/kg
(18 to 25 cents/lb)] and equal or better in protein value
when added as a supplement,, The process flow sheet is shown
in Figure 120
This process will probably never be as effective as the
brine-acid extraction technique for handling the large
volumes of seasonal protein waste in the seafood industry
since it requires longer times for the hydrolysis reaction
and is a more sophisticated technique„ However, the future
will see large volumes of both fish waste and whole indus-
trial fish processed in this manner for high quality func-
tional protein derivitives.
Protein Precipitation from Effluent Streams
Some streams of plant processing water and the effluent
from- the brine-acid process have high concentrations of dis-
solved protein. As previously discussed, laboratory work
has shown protein to be recoverable almost stoichimetrically
by precipitation with sodium hexametaphosphate0 The protein-
phosphate complex is highly nutritional and can be used as a
high grade animal feed supplement»
-56-
-------
Figure 12. Enzymatic hydrolysis of solid wastes.
-------
This process may have application in some streams of
sufficient concentration to warrant the treatment. This is
especially true for concentrated cooking and blanching solu-
tions that have high levels of proteins which have been
solubilized during contact with the product.
Raw Materials for Non-Edible Products
Most of the products from fish and shellfish can be
directed to the market for human consumption. The exceptions
are such items as skin and shell which, while containing
protein and can be added to waste being processed into meal,
are relatively low grade and have potential in non-edible
products.
Chitin and By-Products From Crab and Shrimp Shell
As previously mentioned, shellfish waste consists of
the shell portion (which is a three component material) and
the soft portion which includes the meat and soft waste
material that adheres to the shell. The previously discussed
methods of recovering dried protein material are all appli-
cable to the soft portions which can be washed or mechanic-
ally removed from the shell. However, the meal from the
shell portion has relatively little value and, in the for-
seeable future, it is not going to be economically feasible
to process shell into meal. This is particularly the case
in remote areas.
During the past two years a process for producing
-58-
-------
chitin and other by-products from shellfish waste has
reached the semi-commercial pilot plant scale. As shown
in Figure 13, the chitosan process consists primarily of
caustic extraction to remove the proteins from the shell,
followed by a hydrochloric acid extraction to produce a cal-
cium chloride brine from the calcium salts normally found
in the shell. The remaining material, commonly called chitin,
is the structural material that holds the shell together,
The pilot plant is capable of processing several hun-
dred pounds of shell per day, producing a chitosan product
of the following properties: less than two percent ash,
eight percent or greater nitrogen (dry basis); soluble in
acetic acid, viscosity of 12 centipoises (0,00025 lb/sec/sq
ft) in one percent solution of 0,5 N acetic acid at 25°C
(77°F)o
The process begins when the incoming shell is conveyed
from a hopper into a grinder. This results in a coarsely
ground material of the proper size for further extraction
and processing. The ground shell is extracted in sodium
hydroxide in a trough screw conveyor. This solubilizes the
protein so that the resulting solid contains only calcium
salts and chitin. The solid is then placed in a wooden tank
where the added hydrochloric acid extracts the calcium
chloride as a soluble brine, leaving only chitin as a resi-
due, Following washing and basket centrifugation, the
chitin particles are dried in a rotating drum dryer. This
rimary product is then ground to the desired particle size
-59-
-------
HYDROCHLORIC
ACID STORAGE
CRAB SHELL
WATER
-•¦SODIUM ACETATE
WASTE TREATMENT
Figure 13. Chitin-chitosan process for shellfish waste utilization.
-------
and packaged for market or further processed to produce
chitosan by deacetylation in hot caustic.
Through a cooperative effort with industry, the Univer-
sity of Washington Sea Grant Program has made available
sample quantities of chitin and chitosan to research labora-
tories and industry for their experimental use, A wide
interest had developed for the product which is stimulating
the commercial demand for the material in many areas. In
addition, a good market exists for calcium chloride and the
protein derived from the shell.
On the near horizon are package units that can be put
into a large or small seafood plant for the purpose of pre-
treating shell and then sending the partially extracted
product to a centrally located plant for final extraction
and finishingo Selling all three of the products produced
from shell may prove a profitable venture for both the
packer and the owner of the central plants.
Within three years, the chitin process should be avail-
able for the entire industry and should (where used) practic-
ally eliminate the necessity for any solid waste disposal
process in crab and shrimp plants. Although the data are
preliminary, Figure 14 indicates the estimated costs of pro-
ducing chitin in various size plants.
Specialty Items
There is no large market to divert major other portions
of waste products that have commercial value. Some of
-61-
-------
* Below 2,500 T/YR it is not economical for a complete processino plant.
Waste must be hauled to a central facility
** Based on full production for 3 to 4 months per year.
Fiqure 14. Approximate plant investment for extractina basic chemicals
from shellfish waste (Peniston, 1973).
-------
the areas where limited markets do exist are as follows:
a. Certain fish skins for "fish skin leather".
b. Shells for decorative value.
c. Shells for candle holders and other novelty items.
d. Organs of fish for pharmaceutical uses.
-63-
-------
IMPLEMENTATION OF IN-PLANT CONTROL PROGRAMS
The actual carrying out of the program for upgrading
the utilization of raw materials is greatly simplified if an
extensive survey, culminating in a good plan, has been madeD
The importance of top management instigating and managing
such a program can not be overstressed. By top management,
we mean the owner in a small plant or company officer level
in a large company.
As any changes are made# they should be followed closely
with continual updating of the material and energy balance
that was made at the start of the program. A few examples
of follow-up will illustrate the importance of the follow-up:
Examples
Hand Filleting Line
One filleting plant became sold on the idea of install-
ing a skinning machine to increase the production rate of
the line. After keeping records for some time whereby the
normal job of 14 filleters removing the skin from the fillet
was carried out by two machine operators, the management
figured that the improvement was paying for itself» However,
upon examining the records after a period of operation, it
was discovered that the yield was increasing by one percent.
This alone more than justified the cost of installing and
operating the skinning machines.
-64-
-------
Crab Plant
Several plants have tried extracting residual meat from
crab shell, after the normal picking operation, by using
centrifuges. At least one of the companies has given up on
the basis that it did not seem economical„ Several plants
are still operating recovery facilities with some success
and figure that the effort is of considerable value. One
then must ask the question as to why one company can make a
good profit on a process and another cannot. Many times it
is simply a matter of the responsibility being placed too
low in the company management or not continual keeping
records of the initial phases of operation, thus allowing
changes to compensate for problems.
Deboning
There are several deboners on the market that have been
developed for poultry and red meat recovery. In utilizing
these machines for recovering meat from fish frames, there
is a considerable difference in the operating technique.
Some machine operators will recover up to twice the amount
of usable meat as others. This can usually be explained in
the difference between the communications between the tech-
nical people keeping the records of production and quality
control in the two situations. An operator who understands
what he is doing and how important it is to the company
usually does a better job for that company. This may be
-65-
-------
repeating the "same old story" but it is surprising how
many management people still have not received the message.
In general, the in-plant change program for improving
utilization of raw materials consists of preliminary studies
to locate the possible areas of change, well engineered
changes after a decision is made, and a lot of good old
common sense in making the change work to the benefit of
the company.
-66-
-------
SUMMARY
We have attempted to point some of the aspects in carry-
ing out a program for upgrading portions of fish and shell-
fish, currently considered a waste, to high grade products
that can be most profitable. There will always be a certain
amount of waste, particularly liquid effluent from a process,
but this can be greatly mimimized in many plants today using
presently available technology.
A plea has been made for everyone in the fishing
industry to change their concepts of "waste" to considering
it as a source of "secondary raw materials". Remember a few
years ago when salmon eggs were a waste problem? Today
they are a major source of income to the industry as raw
material for caviar. How many other such solutions to waste
problems must be waiting for the progressive company that
combines technical knowledge with the ability to analyze its
position in the industry?
The future promises several new techniques for prevent-
ing environmental damage by plant discharge. However, there
are plenty of processes, ideas and facilities presently avail-
able to considerably upgrade our industry now. We have a
responsibility to ourselves, to efficient utilization of
limited resources, and to the public which has a right to
live in an environment unpolluted by needless discharge of
usable raw materials.
-67-
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Agarwada, O.P. 1974. Treatment of fish processing
wastewaters for reuse. Ph.D. Dissertation. University
of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
20 Chu, Chung-ling and G.M. Pigott. 1973. Acidified
brine extraction of fish. Transactions of the ASAE.
16 (5) : 949.
3. Environmental Associates, Inc. 1973. Draft develop-
ment document for effluent limitations guidelines and
standards of performance for the canned and preserved
fish and seafoods processing industry. Water Quality
Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 425 pp.
4. Hammonds, T.M. and D„ L. Call. 1970. Utilization of
protein ingredients in the U.S. food industry. Part I.
The current market for protein ingredients. Part II.
The future market for protein ingredients. Cornell
Univ., Ithaca, N.Y.
5. Kuppuswamy, S., M. Skinivason and V. Subrahmanyon.
1958. Proteins in foods. Indian Council of Medical
Research, Special Report No. 33.
6. Moorjani, M.N. and N.L. Lahiry. 1962. Some aspects
of the technology of fish flour. In: Reviews in Food
Science and Technology, Bhatia, D.S. et al. (eds..) ,
Vol. 4. Association of Food TechnologTsts, India.
7. Peniston, D.P. 1973. Personal communication„
8. Stansby, M.E. and H.S. Olcott. 1963. Composition of
fish. In: Industrial Fishery Tech., Reinhold Publ,
Corp., N.Y. pp. 339.
9. Tarky, W., O.P. Agarwada and G.M. Pigott. 1973.
Protein hydrolysate from fish waste. J. Fd. Sc.,
38:917.
-68-
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX I
Capital Investment for Deboner-Extrusion—^
(Including Batter-Breading and IQF Freezer)
No^
Processing Line Equipment
Cost
1
Grinder
$ 7,500
la
Deboner
21,000
2
Holding table for frozen blocks
500
3
Holding table for pressed blocks
300
4
Forming press
18,000
5
Power cleaver
8,500
6
Extruder and pattie former
10,000
7
Infeeder
2,500
8
Breading feeders (2)
8,000
9
Breading and battering machines (2)
25,000
10
Transfer conveyor and freezer loading
machine
8,000
11
Batter mixer
3,000
12
Batter chiller
9,000
13
Viscosity control unit
8,500
14
Ribbon mixer
5,000
15
Food pump
5,000
Equipment not shown on layout
Walk-in tempering freezer box
4,000
IQF freezer
55,000
Trays, totes, carts and small tools
and accessories
15,000
Total
Equipment Cost
$213,800
3/
Construction and Installation-
Process area (to conform with FDA and
local requirements)
20,000
Electrical, M & L
3,000
Plumbing, M & L
2,000
Machine installations
1,000
Total
Construction and Installation
$26,000
Supporting Facilities
Instrumentation 2,000
-69-
-------
Contingency
Equipment, 5% $10/690
Installation, 10% 2,600
Engineering, Construction Assist and Start-up 6,000
TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR FACILITIES $261,090
— Costs are accurate for fall of 1973„ However, with
the rapidly changing market prices a company contemplating
such an installation should obtain new quotes. This list
does not allow for any facilities in an existing plant that
could be used in conjunction with the waste recovery opera-
tion. It does assume, however, that the facilities can be
installed in an existing building having basic electrical
service and plumbing.
2/
—Numbers correspond to those on Figure 15.
3/
— Construction costs are those for isolating a process-
ing room in an existing plant. This includes sanitary walls,
closed ceiling, sloped floors to drains, recessed lights
and necessary electrical outlets and plumbing.
-70-
-------
45 »|
jt
•+-H kJ
j-2'6u-
FILLET AREA
RAW FISH CONVEYOR
RAW FISH
AREA
I
-J
O
10
STAIRS a
WALK
OVER
CONVEYOR
©
~
Efl
©
a
®
y
©
T
E
©_
r
E
©
@>
® ©
2
oo
•—3
©
Figure 15. Fish waste deboning and processing room.
-------
APPENDIX II
Estimated Operating Costs for Deboning Meat
Prom Waste, Scrap, and Non-utilized Fishes
Raw Materials
1. Waste and trimmings at no initial cost
Waste and trimmings from a filleting, butchering or
other operation will cost approximately five cents per pound
for preparation,, For example, frames from a fillet opera-
tion must have the head and viscera removed before it can be
processed for human food. The yield from trimmings and
waste varies from 30 to 50 percent so the most conservative
use of 30 percent should be used for calculations. Breading
has been costing from 12 to 18 cents per pound but with the
rising costs, a figure of 20 cents/lb should be used. Assum-
ing a cost of five cents/lb for raw materials preparation
and neglecting any cost of raw material, the following costs
are assumed for raw material going into the deboning opera-
tion:
Production of 2000# product/day with 30% breading
Fish (or scrap): (1400# meat) (0.05) $ 70.00
Breading: (600#) (0.20) 120. 00
Total cost of preparation and bread $190.00
Likewise:
4,000# product/day $380.00
6,000# product/day ' 570.00
8,000# product/day 760.00
10,000# product/day 950.00
2. Waste and trimmings at cost of seven cents/lb.
Although the price is going to vary considerably, a
cost of well kept waste delivered to a plant can run between
five and ten cents/lb. Using a figure of seven cents/lb,
and a 30 percent yield, the above cost of raw material
would increase to:
Production of 2000# product/day with 30% breading
Cost of scrap: (1400# meat/day) (100/30)
Cost of prep0: (0.07) $327.00
Breading: (1400# meat) (0.05) 70.00
(600#) (0.20) 120.00
Total cost of raw materials $517.00
-72-
-------
Likewise:
4,000# product/day—Raw material cost $1,033.00
6,000# product/day—Raw material cost 1,550.00
8,000# product/day—Raw material cost 2,067.00
10,000# product/day—Raw material cost 2,583.00
3. Industrial fish at cost of $50.00 per ton
At the present time there are several areas of the
country where industrial fish such as hake can be purchased
for around $50.00/ton. Using a cost of $50.00/ton and a
yield of 50 percent, the cost of raw material would be:
Production of 2000# product/day with 30% breading
Cost of fish: (1400#) (100/50) (0.025)—$ 70.00
Cost of prep.: (1400#) (0.05) 70.00
Cost of breading: (600#) (0.20) 120.00
Total cost of raw materials $260.00
Likewise:
4,000# product/day—Raw material cost $ 520.00
6,000# product/day—Raw material cost 780.00
8,000# product/day—Raw material cost 1040.00
10,000# product/day—Raw material cost 1300.00
Processing Costs
The following workers are required for operating an
extrusion line that is putting out about 1000 pounds of
finished product per hour:
1 grinder-deboner operator
1 batter breading operator
1 inspector at freezing inlet
2 packaging workers
1 fork lift and general operator
1 working lead man that can fill in where needed
The cost of labor is probably one of the largest vari-
ables throughout the fishing industry. However, experience
has shown that a cost of $6.60 per hour for the workers in
an extrusion line can cover labor, operating overhead, and
incidentals. In addition, a cost of two to seven cents per
pound must be added for freezing. The lower operating cost
is for mechanical refrigeration systems and the higher costs
are for short runs using liquid spray or immersion freezing
systems.
Labor and O.H./day for operating line:
(8 hr/day) (7 persons) ($6.60/hr) $370.
00
-73-
-------
Operating Cost and Income - No charge for waste and trimmings
Production Rates
Item 2000#/D 4O0O#/D 6000#/D 8000#/D 10,000#/D
Raw material cost $ 190.00 $ 380.00 § 570,00 $ 760o00 $ 950.00
Processing cost 370.00 370.00 370.00 370.00 370.00
Freezing at 0.05/# 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00
Packaging at 0.01/# 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Daily Operating Cost$ 680.00 $ 990.00 $ 130.00 $1610.00 $1920.00
Operating cost per # 34.0$ 24.8$ 21.7$ 20.1$ 19.2$
Selling price
(f.o.b. plant) 40.PC 40.0$ 40. PC 40. PC 40.0$
Total Daily Sales $ 800.00 $1600.00 $2400.00 $3200.OP $4000.00
Daily operating cost 685.00 990.00 1300.00 1610.00 1920.00
Daily Operating
Income $ 115.00 $ 610.00 $1100.OP $159P.PP $2P1P.P0
Operating Cost and Income - Cost of waste and trimmings at
7$/lb.
Raw material cost $ 517«00 $1033.00 $1550.00 $2067.00 $2583.00
Processing cost 370.00 370.00 370.00 370.00 370.00
Freezing at 0.05/# 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00
Packaging at 0.01/# 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00
Daily Operating Cost$1007.00 $1643.00 $2280.00 $2917.00 $3533.00
Operating cost per # 50.4$ 41.1$ 38.0$ 36.5$ 35.5$
Selling price
(f.o«.b« plant) 40.0$ 40.0$ 40.0$ 40.0$ 40.0$
Total Daily Sales $ 800.00 $1600.00 $2400.00 $3200.0P $4P00.00
Daily operating cost 1007.00 1643.00 2280.00 2917.00 3553.00
Daily Operating
Income ($207.00)($ 43.00)$ 120.00 $ 283.00 $ 447.00
Operating Cost and Income - Whole industrial fish at $50.00/ton
Raw material cost $ 260.PP $ 52P.P0 $ 780.00 $1040.00 $1300.00
Processing cost 370.00 370.00 370.00 370.00 370.00
Freezing at 0.05/# 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00
Packaging at 0.01/# 20.00 40.P0 60.00 80.00 100.00
Daily operating cost$ 750.00 $1130.00 $1510.00 $1890.00 $2270.00
Operating cost per # 37.5$ 28.3$ 25.2$ 23.6$ 22.7$
Selling price
(f.o.b. plant) 40.0$ 40.0$ 40.0$ 40.0$ 4P.P$
Total Daily Sales $ 800.00 $1600.00 $2400.00 $3200.00 $4000.00
Daily operating cost 750.00 1130.00 1510.00 1890.00 2270.00
Daily Operating ~~~
Income $ 50.00 $ 470.00 $ 890.00 $1310.00 $1730.00
-74-
-------
APPENDIX III
Approximate Costs of Fish Meal Facilities
1. Batch Plant, input 1/2 ton/hr, output approx. 200 lb
fish meal, 400 lb crab meal
Steam jacketed horizontal cooker-dryer (requires 30 HP
boiler)
4 ft diameter x 16 ft long
feed hopper and discharge door
breakers and agitators powered by 15 HP drive
approximately 17,000 lb
$20,000-$25,000
2. Batch Plant, input 3/4 ton/hr, output approx. 300 lb fish
meal, 600 lb crab
Same general unit as above except has 25 HP drive
5 ft diameter x 16 ft long
$25,000-$30,000
3. Semi-Continuous, input 1/2 ton/hr, output approx. 200 lb
fish meal, 400 lb crab
a. continuous cook and press, 2 tons in 4 hours,
13 inch diameter x 15 ft long cooker
5 ft long continuous screw press
b. Dryer as per (1) above
Waste elevator to cooker, 1 HP drive
$40,000-$50,000
4. Continuous Plant, input 3 ton/hr, output approx. 1200
lb fish meal
a. prebreaker with 20 HP drive
b. continuous cooker (no press) and dryer
8 ft diameter main cylinder x 30 ft long, 15 HP drive
7 ft diameter x 12 ft long burner furnace with
auto, controls
$55,000-$60,000
5. Continuous Reduction Plant 4-5 ton/hr input
al Offal shredder (necessary for fish over 10" long
and large heads and bones)
b. Elevator to cooker
c. Cooker, 24" diameter x 20 ft long, 3 HP drive
d. Predrainage screw conveyor, 2 HP drive
e. 8 ft multi-stage press, 20 HP adjustable drive
f. Presscake conveyor and fluffer
g. Rotary dryer similar to (4) above only larger
h. Combination of an incinerator and air heater
i. Pump set
j. Hot gas feed breaching
k. Motorized fan
1. Cyclone collector
-75-
-------
Condensing tower
Ductwork and controls
Meal grinder with 20 HP drive
5 HP motorized fan
Bagging collector and scales $90,Q00-$100,000
Screening and Centrifugal Separation equipment
(press liquor and fresh oil pumps, vibrating
screens, desludging superjetor or
centrifuge, 15 HP) $20,000-$ 30,000
Double effect stickwater
evaporator $30,000-$ 35,000
TOTAL COST OF PLANT $140f000-$165,000
-76-
-------
APPENDIX IV
Estimated Economics of Utilizing Small
Meal Plants for Processing Fish Waste
1. Batch Plant
Output s T~ton/12 hr and 1 ton/6 hr (Allowing for load
and clean-up)
Installed Cost: $30,000 (exclusive of boiler and
supporting facilities)
Labor plus Operating Overhead: $6.60/man hr.
Raw Op. Time
Material per ton
Op.Cost
$/ton
%Prot.
in meal
Mkt. $
1/
Sale
$/ton
Operating
Income $
1.Butchered Fish 12
(17.5 ton fish)
106
50-55
(52)
6o 00
312
206
2.Fillet Scrap 12
(8 tons fish)
106
50-55
(52)
6.00
312
206
3.Shellfish 6
(8 tons shellfish)
53
30-40
(30)
5.00
150
97
—^Quoted by James Farrell and Co. on 2/7/74
2. Continuous Fish Meal Plant
Output: 1 ton/hr
Installed Cost: $165,000 (basic equipment only)
Depending on location and available
supporting facilities, actual overall
cost can vary from $165,000 to more
than $400,000.
Labor plus Operating Overhead: $6.60/man hr (3 man hr
per ton)
Sales price/ton: $312
Operating cost/T: 20^,
Operating Income: $292—
2/
— Operating income does not consider fixed cost on operating
and retiring of capital investment.
-77-
------- |