Resource use efficiency in
food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste
opportunities
Report to
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
(Defra)
Restricted Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Issue Number 1
January 2007
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Title
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Customer
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
(Sustainable Farming and Food Sciences Division, and Food and Drink
Industry Division)
Customer reference
WU0103, Contract reference number CSA 7107
Confidentiality,
copyright and
reproduction
This report is the Copyright of Department for Environment Food and Rural
Affairs (Defra) and has been prepared by AEA Technology plc under
contract to Defra dated 11 May 2006. The contents of this report may not
be reproduced in whole or in part, nor passed to any organisation or person
without the specific prior written permission of Defra. AEA Technology plc
accepts no liability whatsoever to any third party for any loss or damage
arising from any interpretation or use of the information contained in this
report, or reliance on any views expressed therein.
File reference
M:\Projects\Defra\Defra Policy Support\Defra Food Chains Project\Defra
Food Chains
Reference number
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226) Final Report (Issue 1)
AEA Energy & Environment
The Gemini Building
Fermi Avenue
Harwell International Business Centre
Didcot
OX11 0QR
t: 0870 190 6533
f: 0870 190 6318
AEA Energy & Environment is a brand of
AEA Technology plc
AEA Energy & Environment is certificated to ISO9001
and ISO14001
Authors
Name
Approved by
Name
Prab Mistry*, James Cadman, Simon Miller,
Steve Ogilvie, Mike Pugh
* Project Manager
Geoff Dollard
Signature
Date
AEA Energy & Environment
15 January 2007
iii
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
iv
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Executive summary
Defra commissioned AEA Energy & Environment to undertake scoping studies to identify opportunities
for improving resource use efficiency, and for reducing waste generation in key parts of the food
production chain, comprising agricultural production, manufacturing, wholesale distribution and retail.
The studies are intended to inform Defra’s Sustainable Farming and Food Sciences and Food and
Drink Industry programmes; providing a prioritised list of potential research projects that would provide
cost-effective ways to encourage reduction of water and energy consumption and waste generation
within the Food production chain. The scoping studies are limited to consideration of resource stream
opportunities in the following parts of the food production chain:
•
•
•
•
Water-specific opportunities in the food processing industry.
Energy-specific opportunities in food processing, distribution and retailing.
Waste-specific opportunities in food production, processing, distribution and retailing.
Integrated and synergistic opportunities covering two or more of the resource streams within the
food production chain, as defined (see Section 2.1).
Little is known, collectively, about current energy and water usage and waste production in the food
production chain. It became apparent early in the study that there was a dearth of real data with which
to map resource flows with any confidence. The challenge has therefore been to identify areas within
the food production chain where resource use efficiency might be cost-effectively improved, without
the benefit of a firm evidence base.
Opportunities for resource efficiency in the food production chain may be characterised as:
• Low cost, often short-term opportunities: including basic process controls, management focus and
education and awareness programmes.
• Medium-cost opportunities: usually comprising retrofitting of solutions.
• Long-term opportunities: primarily examining the dynamics and solutions involved in moving the
sector as a whole towards application of more appropriate, better or best available technology and
associated techniques.
There are numerous constraints and barriers to realising these opportunities, including, principally:
• An inherent reluctance to change, driven by the higher priority to produce products to rigorous
quality and hygiene specifications in a market of narrow margins.
• The relative insignificance of the current cost to businesses of resource consumption/waste
management.
• Current lack of public/government pressure to reduce resource use.
The study has identified more than 40 potential projects across the three resource streams, which may
broadly be categorised as covering:
•
•
•
•
Provision of management tools and support.
Enhancing the take up of existing technologies and techniques.
Development of emerging technologies.
Encouragement of response to consumer demand for change.
In the absence of hard numbers, a qualitative basis for prioritising the potential projects has been
developed, in terms of their anticipated risk of failing to deliver expected (but un-quantified) resource
savings.
The report also recommends, as a matter of priority, that baseline studies be initiated to obtain
essential data on current resource consumption/waste production within sub-sectors of the food and
drink industry, on which to base the justification of the R&D programme, and against which to measure
success of initiatives to improve resource use efficiencies.
AEA Energy & Environment
v
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
vi
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Table of contents
Executive summary.................................................................................................. v
1
Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1
1.2
2
Study approach ................................................................................................ 3
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
3
3.2
3.3
Water use data ............................................................................................................... 11
3.1.1 Overview.............................................................................................................. 11
3.1.2 Total and regional water use ............................................................................... 12
3.1.3 Data on potential reductions in water use ........................................................... 14
Techniques and technologies for water saving ......................................................... 15
3.2.1 Processes that use water in the F&D industry .................................................... 15
3.2.2 Techniques and technologies.............................................................................. 15
Prioritisation of water projects..................................................................................... 16
Energy opportunities ......................................................................................20
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
5
Overall scope and methodology .................................................................................... 3
Approach to mapping of resource flows....................................................................... 4
Identification of opportunities ........................................................................................ 5
2.3.1 Types of opportunity.............................................................................................. 5
2.3.2 Barriers to implementation .................................................................................... 5
2.3.3 Key stakeholders ................................................................................................... 6
Identification of potential projects ................................................................................. 7
2.4.1 Turning opportunities into specific projects ........................................................... 7
2.4.2 Strategic instruments............................................................................................. 7
Approach to prioritisation of projects ........................................................................... 8
Water opportunities ........................................................................................11
3.1
4
Background ...................................................................................................................... 1
Format of the report ........................................................................................................ 2
Energy use data ............................................................................................................. 20
Techniques and technologies for energy saving ....................................................... 22
Current support ............................................................................................................. 23
4.3.1 Support from the Carbon Trust............................................................................ 23
4.3.2 Carbon Trust’s Applied Research Programme ................................................... 23
4.3.3 Short to medium-term opportunities .................................................................... 24
Prioritisation of energy projects .................................................................................. 25
4.4.1 Short to medium term.......................................................................................... 25
4.4.2 Longer term projects ........................................................................................... 26
4.4.3 Summary ............................................................................................................. 28
Waste opportunities........................................................................................31
5.1
5.2
5.3
Waste data ...................................................................................................................... 31
5.1.1 Agricultural waste ................................................................................................ 31
5.1.2 Waste from the food processing industry............................................................ 33
5.1.3 Distribution and retail waste ................................................................................ 36
Techniques and technologies for waste management.............................................. 37
5.2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................... 37
5.2.2 Waste minimisation/prevention ........................................................................... 38
5.2.3 Re-use ................................................................................................................. 40
5.2.4 Recycling ............................................................................................................. 41
5.2.5 Energy recovery .................................................................................................. 42
5.2.6 Disposal............................................................................................................... 44
Prioritisation of waste projects .................................................................................... 45
AEA Energy & Environment
vii
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
6
Integrated opportunities .................................................................................47
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
7
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 47
Baseline studies ............................................................................................................ 47
6.2.1 Central Government data on resource efficiency in the F&D industry ................ 47
Multi-stream opportunities ........................................................................................... 48
6.3.1 Techniques and technologies.............................................................................. 48
6.3.2 Consumer pressure............................................................................................. 48
Projects for multi-stream resource reduction ............................................................ 49
Prioritisation of integrated projects and key recommendations .............................. 51
Summary and conclusions.............................................................................53
7.1
7.2
7.3
Summary......................................................................................................................... 53
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 59
Glossary of abbreviations............................................................................................. 60
Appendix 1: Background information....................................................................62
Appendix 2: Example sector profile.......................................................................66
Appendix 3: Water saving techniques and technologies.....................................81
Appendix 4: Water data...........................................................................................86
Appendix 5: Energy saving techniques and technologies ..................................88
Appendix 6: Energy data.........................................................................................90
Appendix 7: Waste data ..........................................................................................93
viii
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
1
Introduction
1.1
Background
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
In 2002, the Government’s Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food: Facing the Future, set out how
industry, Government and consumers could work together to secure a sustainable future for farming
and food industries. In April 2006, Defra published a document The Food Industry Sustainability
Strategy (FISS), which built on the earlier work and set out the key priority areas for action beyond the
farm gate. It added value by ensuring that all parts of the food chain are encouraged to improve their
sustainability and adopt best practice under an industry-wide framework. This is particularly important
given the significant environmental and social impacts for which the sectors concerned – food
manufacturing, retailing, wholesale and food service – are responsible.
The FISS quantifies these impacts, indicating that the UK’s food industry accounts for:
• About 10% of all industrial use of the public water supply.
• About 14% of energy consumption by UK businesses.
• About 10% of the industrial and commercial waste stream.
Further background information is provided in Appendix 1.
In support of the FISS, Defra set up a range of programmes to inform programmes in the Sustainable
Farming and Food Sciences (SFFS) Division. The aim of the programme was to:
• Enable those through the food chain to make better use of resources and to reduce waste.
• Achieve this through greater use of existing technology and through the development of new
technologies.
• Engage fully with stakeholders to ensure the research programme is complementary to all related
work, is relevant to the needs of the industry and can be translated into measurable improvements.
To meet the aims of the programme, Defra commissioned AEA Energy & Environment to undertake
scoping studies to identify opportunities for improving resource use efficiency, and for reducing waste
generation throughout the food production chain. A number of other ongoing studies are focused on
parts of the food chain, and thus the scope of this study was limited to:
• Water use in food production (excluding agriculture).
• Energy use in food production (excluding agriculture).
• Waste generation through the food production chain (including agriculture).
The areas of the food chain covered by each resource stream are more fully defined in Section 2.
The general objectives of the project and the technical and scientific aims of the research are:
• To outline a broad assessment of the UK food and drink (F&D) industry resource consumption with
respect to its food production chain, sectors and geographical regions and confirm the full work
programme as part of the project inception.
• To review and assess food sector sizes, growth trends and to resource-map food chains by sector
and geographical areas.
• To identify opportunities for reducing water consumption in food processing (excluding agriculture).
• To identify opportunities for reducing energy consumption in food processing and retail (excluding
agriculture).
• To identify opportunities for reducing waste throughout the food production chains.
• To collate all opportunities (from C, D and E above) and further identify ‘integrated opportunities’
that maximise reduction of resource use.
AEA Energy & Environment
1
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
This report forms the final deliverable of the project entitled: Scoping studies to identify opportunities
for improving resource use efficiency and for reducing waste through food production chain (WU0103).
The study has been undertaken in two parts. The first was based on mapping of water, energy and
waste flows in food chains. The second part was based on the identification of opportunities for
reducing water use, energy use and waste generation throughout the food production chains, and the
1
formulation of research projects that might support their implementation.
Little is known, collectively, about current energy and water usage and waste production in the food
industry. Therefore, one of the first tasks of the study was to assess the extent of information
2
available within those areas of the food chain covered by these studies. A report was prepared at the
commencement of the studies, which generally confirmed the paucity and low quality of information in
many areas.
Defra and the food industry have created action plans based on the headline targets in the FISS.
Industry-led Champions Groups have been established to identify where progress towards meeting
these targets can be made. These groups are examining best practice, looking at ways of working and
identifying barriers that may discourage the industry from behaving in a more sustainable way. The
scoping studies covered in this report provide support to these groups, and presentations were made
to three of the FISS Champions Groups. Feedback from these and other sources has enabled the
study team to focus its attention to address areas of highest priority.
1.2
Format of the report
The report first provides a discussion on the approach and methodology used in undertaking the
studies, highlighting the issues related to the characterisation of the food industry sectors, the
identification of opportunities for bringing about resource use efficiencies, and developing a basis for
prioritising research projects (Section 2).
The report then considers opportunities for achieving resource efficiencies (and barriers to their
implementation) in each of the three resource streams – water, energy and waste (Sections 3, 4 and 5
respectively) – and potential benefits in two or more of these areas derived from single interventions
(Section 6).
Each of these sections then identifies potential projects (such as studies, R&D, demonstration) that
might move these opportunities towards implementation and assigns a risk rating to each for their
successful outcome. The four sections each conclude with a listing of the identified research projects
prioritised by these risk ratings
The report then ends with a summary and principal conclusions about the way forward.
Throughout this report, reference to ‘food’ should be interpreted to cover, where appropriate, food and
drink and ‘food chain’ to cover agricultural food production, processing, distribution and retail.
Appendices to this report provide background information and data compiled as part of this study.
1
2
‘Research Projects’ include any work that needs to be undertaken, prior to implementation.
Data Availability Report, 31 May 2006
2
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
2
Study approach
2.1
Overall scope and methodology
Food production and the UK supply chain is a complex web of resource flows from farm to consumer.
For the purpose of this study we have divided the supply chain into discrete units for consideration.
Figure 2.1 shows these units (with linking arrows representing transportation) and the scope of study
that has been undertaken.
Figure 2.1
Schematic showing the scope of resource stream considerations
WASTE
ENERGY
WATER
AGRIC.
PRODUCTION
FOOD
PROCESSING
DISTRIBUTION
& RETAIL
3
Food transportation is a significant issue in its own right and is not part of this project. In addition,
resource management and behaviour of consumers (including restaurants and other catering
establishments) are beyond the scope of food production and were therefore excluded from this study.
The study was desk-based, with research based on gathering and analysing data available from open
literature as well as from sector associations (listed in Appendix A1; Table A1). In addition, knowledge
of industrial processes, sectors, market as well as technical issues in water efficiency, energy
efficiency and waste minimisation has been used to derive a recommended and structured
programme of projects that Defra could take forward.
The integrated nature of resource use in food production lent itself to a standardised approach to
analysing resource flows. These data need to be comparable between sectors so as to develop an
overview of the opportunities. The overall approach to the project was to undertake data gathering and
assessment in a combined exercise for all three resource streams (water, energy and waste), before
separately identifying resource conservation opportunities, as illustrated in Figure 2.2. Where an
identified opportunity would impact favourably on more than one stream its benefit would be
enhanced. Therefore, such ‘integrated’ opportunities were likely to be more attractive to industry.
It became apparent early in the study that there was a dearth of real data with which to map resource
flows with any confidence. Therefore, the challenge was, from the opportunities identified, to identify a
prioritised programme of research projects, for support or actioning by Defra.
Sections 2.2 to 2.5 set out the approach taken in mapping resource flows, identification of
opportunities and projects and their prioritisation.
3
The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development a study by AEA Technology Environment commissioned by Defra, July
2005; http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/foodmiles/default.asp
AEA Energy & Environment
3
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Figure 2.2
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Overall approach to examination of resource use opportunities
(A) Project inception and
sector scoping
(B) Mapping resource flows
(by sector, regions)
(C) Water
opportunities
(D) Energy
opportunities
(E)Waste
opportunities
(F) Integrated opportunities
It is worth noting that many of the issues covered by this project are linked to the key areas of the
Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control, regulated by the Environment Agency, through the PPC
Regulations 2000 (eg waste minimisation and effective management, water use and energy use).
Although these Regulations apply to around only 400 company sites, ‘recent’ impact of the
Regulations on these companies provides an indication as to whether lessons could be transferred to
the whole of the food industry.
2.2
Approach to mapping of resource flows
The food chain comprises agricultural production, manufacturing, wholesale distribution and retail. An
4
estimate of the separate businesses involved in the UK food chain is 300,000, which are represented
by around 50 sector associations, of which the Food & Drink Federation (FDF) represents a significant
proportion of the manufacturing businesses. Since there are limited centrally published data on
resource use in the F&D industry, the most effective approach to supplementary data gathering was
thought to be by direct approach to the FDF and other sector associations.
To present findings on resource flows, the F&D sector needed to be subdivided in some way. The SIC
code breakdown provides a nationally recognised basis: the F&D processing industry being covered
by SIC code 15. The principal sub-sector divisions are:
15.1 - Production, processing and preserving of meat and meat products.
15.2 - Processing and preserving of fish and fish products.
15.3 - Processing and preserving of fruit and vegetables.
15.4 - Manufacture of vegetable and animal oils and fats.
15.5 - Manufacture of dairy products.
15.6 - Manufacture of grain mill products, starches and starch products.
15.7 - Manufacture of prepared animal feeds.
15.8 - Manufacture of other food products.
15.9 - Manufacture of beverages.
However, while this breakdown was appropriate for certain data, the SIC code classification is not
congruent with the representation of the industry’s sector associations. As such, the approach taken
was to seek information from the sector associations and to integrate the data to the first digit SIC
codes above.
4
Derived from FISS 2006
4
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
To supplement published data on resource flows and information on issues related to resource use
efficiency, standard ‘sector profiles’ were developed in draft for discussion with key sector
5
associations . These profiles summarised available published information and pointed to gaps in
information. Recipients of the profiles were invited to comment on each of a number of statements
therein, as to whether they were:
• Consistent with their own understanding.
• Different to their own understanding (and, if so, in what way).
• The respondent had no information on which to base a comment (the ‘don’t know’ option).
An example sector profile is given in Appendix 2.
Recipients of the profiles were interviewed either by telephone or face to face to gather information
about their sector’s resource use and other related matters. In many areas, the sector profiles
presented opinions for comment, particularly with regard to water and waste, where hard data were
most notably absent. This encouraged dialogue with the sector associations and industry champions,
but considered responses were generally limited and the view was taken, in view of the project
programme, not to pursue this line of enquiry further.
2.3
Identification of opportunities
2.3.1
Types of opportunity
Opportunities for resource efficiency in the food production chain may be characterised as:
•
•
•
Low-cost, often short-term opportunities: including basic process controls, management focus and
education and awareness programmes.
Medium-cost opportunities: usually comprising retrofitting of solutions.
Long-term opportunities: primarily examining the dynamics and solutions involved in moving the
sector as a whole towards application of more appropriate, better or best available technology
6
(BAT) . and associated techniques.
These opportunities would be encouraged by a range of drivers, including:
•
•
•
•
•
Consumer demand for resource efficiency (eg packaging).
Rising energy and water costs.
Rising costs of waste disposal.
Availability of new technologies.
Legislative pressures.
A wide range of such opportunities were identified for each sub-sector, for each resource stream and
included in the draft sector profiles for comment. Unfortunately, the response from industry
representatives was generally limited.
Where an opportunity had the potential to benefit more than one resource stream, this was noted and
flagged as an integrated opportunity. Other opportunities were identified that would result in resource
use efficiencies generally through the application of consumer pressure down the food chain.
2.3.2
Barriers to implementation
In food manufacturing, product quality, safety and hygiene standards are top priority concerns for
managers of any production facility. Resource use efficiency issues are of secondary concern,
primarily because the cost of energy and water still represent a rather small proportion of the overall
5
17 sector associations, identified in Appendix 1, were approached, and issued with one or more of the draft sector profiles prepared, as relevant
to their member companies. Some of the major retailers were also sent retail sector draft profile.
6
This is a relative term used, to provide an impetus on continuous improvement, in the PPC Regulations and is elaborated on in food sector
guidance documents from the Environment Agency and the European Bureau of Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (EIPPCB).
AEA Energy & Environment
5
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
manufacturing cost (cost of energy is around 2% but rising and the cost of water is around 1%). The
relatively low impact of resource costs in production has meant that the industry, in general, has been
reluctant to take steps that might impact on its product quality. However, in some of the food sectors
the profit margins are equally small.
Barriers to the adoption of new technology, which could reduce water use, energy use and waste
production during processing therefore include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inherent reluctance to change when attempting to produce products to rigorous quality and
hygiene specifications in a market of narrow margins.
Lack of investment capital for new equipment.
Sunk costs in existing technology.
7
Product price vs environmental protection conflict. Price tends to win every time .
Lack of public/government pressure to reduce resource use.
Data quality - difficult to obtain robust data on resource consumption (especially from SMEs –
which make up a large part of the industry)
SMEs and resource constraints - with the general trend for an increased proportion of larger
companies, some smaller sites are being forced to close because they are unable to benefit from
the economies of scale enjoyed by larger sites. SMEs are generally resource constrained and
they don’t have the manpower to investigate or even have time to implement water-, energy- or
waste-related saving opportunities.
Other factors to consider are the seasonality, nature and scale of operations that may prevent some of
the opportunities to be implemented readily. A wide range of such barriers and constraints were
identified for each sub-sector, applicable to each resource stream, and were included in the draft
sector profiles for comment. Unfortunately, no feedback was received from sector associations on the
barriers and constraints identified.
Nevertheless, these risks to successful implementation of resource saving opportunities that these
barriers and constraints might pose were fully recognised in assessing research priorities for specific
projects.
2.3.3
Key stakeholders
Implementing resource efficiency measures will involve many organisations as well as the companies
and personnel involved therein. The following list is not exhaustive:
General: Defra, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), sector associations (SA), Knowledge
Transfer Networks (KTNs), special interest groups (SIG), Market Transformation
Programme (MTP), consultancy organisations, equipment manufacturers, equipment
suppliers and consultants.
Water:
Envirowise, Water companies, Waterwise.
Energy: The Carbon Trust.
Waste:
Waste Resource Action Plan (WRAP), National Farmers Union (NFU), National Industrial
Symbiosis Programme (NISP).
Any project to improve resource utilisation, at its inception, needs to ensure that relevant parties are
involved and that its ultimate beneficiary(ies) would implement the associated opportunities at the
appropriate time.
7
Food & drink sector spent £500 million on environmental protection (2002) against a total consumer spend on F&D of around £140 billion
(Defra/FDF study on Environmental Impacts of the F&D Industry.
6
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
2.4
Identification of potential projects
2.4.1
Turning opportunities into specific projects
Having identified a range of opportunities, it was then necessary to consider what steps would be
needed to cause them to be realised. Specifically, consideration was given to the type of intervention
that might be initiated through Defra’s SFFS and other Divisions Programmes.
Potential research projects to target resource use efficiency within the F&D industry fall essentially into
the three main categories identified in Section 2.3.1, namely:
•
•
•
Management tools, support and process optimisation.
Technology implementation related to process improvement.
Technology development that often leads to process change(s).
Management tools and support include education and awareness of the opportunities that are
available to reduce resource consumption at little or no cost, and thereby to improve profitability.
Another area would be better management information systems that provide data on current resource
consumption/waste generation. This would imply the need to establish baselines on which to set
improvement targets and appropriate monitoring programmes.
Numerous technologies and techniques are available within the industry to reduce water and energy
usage and to minimise the production of process wastes or to re-use or recycle certain waste streams.
There are other tried-and-tested technologies, applied in other industrial sectors, which are not at
present applied within the F&D industry, but which could lead to useful savings in resource use. Take
up of these technologies could increase within the industry through a programme of information
dissemination within the industry. Possible vehicles for this would include sector associations and
government-funded industry support programmes such as Envirowise and Waterwise.
There are a number of process-related technologies in various stages of development, some of which
would have application within the F&D industry, that promise to provide solutions at significantly lower
unit cost or higher reliability than conventional processes. In many instances, the associated water
and energy consumptions and process wastes produced would be lower. For those food-related
technologies that are at an advanced state of development, it may be appropriate to consider cofunding application research projects: pilot studies, case studies and the like.
2.4.2
Strategic instruments
Policy or economic instruments are outside the scope of this project. However, we allude to areas
where ‘creating the right environment’ could help to increase implementation of the measures that lead
to greater resource use efficiency. Examples of those already in place and having a significant impact
are:
•
•
•
Landfill Tax – introduced in 1996 to provide incentive for waste reduction, recovery and recycling.
The rate of the tax was £15 per tonne in 2004/5 and will increase annually at £3 per tonne until it
reaches £35 per tonne.
The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations – introduced in 1997,
they implement the recovery and recycling targets given in the EU Directive on Packaging and
Packing Waste. The targets set were to recover 60% and recycle 55% of the packaging wastes
by 2008.
Climate Change Levy (CCL) and Climate Change Agreements (CCAs) were formally started in
2001. The CCL is a levy on energy purchases with the aim of stimulating energy efficiency across
sectors. CCAs enable companies to claim 80% discount on the levy provided they are
progressing in line with their agreed energy efficiency targets.
Along similar lines to above, the following could be considered:
•
Economic Instruments for Water Use - a scheme similar to Climate Change Agreement can be
applied to water use in industry. The industry, including the food industry, will benefit.
AEA Energy & Environment
7
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
•
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Tradable Permits for Organic Waste - in England, a system of tradable permits exists to reduce
the amount of biodegradable waste sent to landfill. Local authorities (LA) in England have been
allocated permits that allow them to landfill organic waste up to the number of permits they hold.
To landfill more, the LAs need to purchase additional permits or face the possibility of a fine at the
end of the fiscal year to the tune of £150/t landfilled, in excess of permits held. Better performance
(ie permits in excess of the amount of organic waste landfilled can be sold to other LAs). It is
possible that this scheme can be extended to the disposal of organic waste by all manufacturing
companies.
2.5
Approach to prioritisation of projects
The budget for this area of work is finite. Thus, it is necessary to prioritise the identified potential
research projects that compete for this fund. Research projects may be prioritised on a number of
factors including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cost to Defra.
Indicative cost of implementation.
Likely take-up by industry and timescale to realisation.
Potential benefit (in terms of the economic or environmental benefit to the nation) in its take-up by
industry.
Cost/benefit ratio.
Potential application for other sectors.
Level of innovation.
Potential for industry-sponsored R&D.
In the absence of data on current industry-wide consumption of all three resource streams, or the
extent to which resource consumption may be reduced, it is not possible to assess quantitatively either
the costs of, or the potential benefits that may be derived from, implementations associated with each
of the potential research projects.
At the current level of scoping of the potential research projects, their associated R&D costs are
unquantified, and their potential for industry sponsorship (which would be indicative of the perceived
benefits) is also unknown. Without further extensive research into other industry sectors, the potential
for wider application in industry is similarly unquantified.
Nevertheless, some basis for prioritising the research projects must be found on which to develop a
shortlist of candidate R&D projects.
Defra would not wish to invest in projects that may be expected to have a low expectation of take up
within the F&D industry. ‘Likelihood of take up’ (which would reflect a judgement of potential benefit
relative to cost) would therefore be a useful qualitative measure by which to assess the investment
risk. A further measure, that would provide a proxy indication of acceptability, lead time to
implementation and cost of development, would be the level of innovation involved to realise the
resource saving.
These two factors, subjectively evaluated, could be used to provide a basis for assessment of risk of
failure of a research project to have a successful outcome. The objective of applying such an
evaluation approach would be to favour projects that had a high likelihood of take up, but a low
requirement for innovation, as indicated in the matrix below.
8
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
High
Aim of
research
priorities
Low
Likelihood of
take up ⇒
Figure 2.3 Risk matrix
Low
High
Degree of innovation ⇒
Contributory characteristics that might be used to assess high, medium or low levels of likelihood of
take up and innovation are indicated in Table 2.1 and Table 2.2.
Table 2.1
High
Medium
Low
Table 2.2
Low
Medium
High
Definition of ‘Likelihood’ of take up
Short-term payback
Little or no investment
Costs are mostly staff time
Medium term payback technology or technique (2-5 years)
Medium cost (that require approval of capital from senior managers)
Demonstrates ‘environmental credentials’ of operator
Medium term payback (2-5years)
Requires large investment (that would require a feasibility study prior to
any consideration by senior managers)
Demonstrates clear ‘environmental commitment’ of the operator
Definition of ‘Degree of innovation’ needed towards successful implementation
Technique or technology applied with successful outcome in other sectors
Ready for exploitation in food sectors
Likely application although some work is required before operators will
consider the application (of technique or technology)
Considerable research, development or testing required before it can find
route to implementation in the food industry
The matrix in Figure 2.3 can be interpreted to group projects into a tool for assessment of investment
risk (high, medium or low), with a rudimentary hierarchy of actions, as indicated below.
AEA Energy & Environment
9
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Hierarchy of actions that lead to implementation of resource efficiency measures
Likelihood of take up ⇒
Figure 2.4
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Low risk 1: Target
operators with focus on
training and
implementation
Low risk 2: development
and demonstration (with
stakeholders)
Med risk 1: High
priority research
areas
Low risk 3: Training and
awareness (with possible
market instruments)
Med risk 2: Development
and demonstration (with
possible market
instruments)
High risk 1:
Watching brief
Med risk 3: General
awareness and
information
dissemination
High risk 2: Watching
brief
High risk 3:
Watching brief
Degree of innovation ⇒
This methodology is used as a tool for classifying technologies and appropriate actions for Defra in the
following sections on opportunities in water, energy and waste, and integrated (multi-stream)
opportunities.
10
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
3
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Water opportunities
In this section, water and wastewater opportunities are considered in the food chain with respect to
industrial processing only (see Section 2.1).
3.1
Water use data
3.1.1
Overview
Historically, water data for the F&D industry have been of limited availability and low granularity (ie
data cannot be attributed to specific sites and processes).
3
8
Envirowise has calculated that the UK F&D sector water usage is currently 307 million m /year . This
equates to 24% of the total water consumed by industry and commerce in the UK and nearly 5% of
total water consumed in the UK. To set this consumption rate in context, Table 3.1 indicates how the
water used by the F&D industry compares to other large water–using sectors. As can be seen, F&D is
a major user of water.
Table 3.1
Sector
Annual water usage for a selection of large water-using industries
8
Textiles and leather
Plastic and rubber
Paper and board
Hotels and restaurants
Food and drink
Electronics
Chemicals
Agriculture
Annual water usage
(millions m3)
63
83
155
138
307
241
273
742
9
The Ashact report for Envirowise sub-divides the F&D sector into six key categories - breweries,
distilleries, dairies, soft drinks, meat production and ‘other’, the 307 million m³ of water is divided
between the categories as shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Water use by F&D sub-sectors
Sub-sector
Other
Breweries
Distilleries
Dairies
Soft drinks
Meat
Estimated volume
(millions m³/year8)
172.7
35.2
25.9
39.0
27.5
7.2
The predominance of consumption by ‘other’ sub-sectors (66%), prevents the allocation of this
demand to other sub-sectors, severely limiting the value of this analysis. However, more recent data
are expected, as Envirowise has commissioned a report to gather data on water use in the sector,
10
which is expected to form a useful overview of the sector (expected to be completed by December
2007). This will be an update of the 2001 report, which was used in the initial development of the
FISS.
8
9
Envirowise – EN368 – A Review of Water Use in Industry and Commerce
The report does not state why, it can only be assumed that these are the major water consuming sectors of the food and drink industry
Personal communication – Stuart Ballinger, Envirowise
10
AEA Energy & Environment
11
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
In terms of using SIC codes, the following data are available:
Use, million m3 per year
SIC Sector
15.1 Production, processing and preserving of meat and meat products 7
8
15.2 Processing and preserving of fish and fish products
6
11
15.3 Processing and preserving of fruit and vegetables
Unknown
15.4 Manufacture of vegetable and animal oils and fats
Unknown
15.5 Manufacture of dairy products
39 11
15.6 Manufacture of grain mill products, starches and starch products
Unknown
15.7 Manufacture of prepared animal feeds
Unknown
15.8 Manufacture of other food products
Unknown
15.9 Manufacture of beverages
88.5
Total
25112 - 369 11
11
Extensive efforts have been made to gather more comprehensive and detailed data. For the SIC subsectors above, more extensive sets are available for SIC15.5 from Dairy UK and SIC15.9 from the
British Beer and Pub Association (BBPA). The Dairy UK data were gathered from roughly half of its
members through a collaborative data collection exercise with Envirowise; they are undertaking further
data collection in 2006/7. The BBPA undertook a Utilities and Environment Survey in 2005, which
builds on data collection over the previous 30 years. Moreover, the dairy and beverage data are
gathered per unit production (litres in both cases), which enables benchmarking and measurement of
improvement.
3.1.2
Total and regional water use
Envirowise has also estimated the water usage for the F&D industry by region, as shown in Figure 3.1.
3
Figure 3.1
Summary of annual UK water use by water supply area (million m /year)
50
30
20
Folkestone
West of
Scotland
North of
Scotland
East of
Scotland
Wales
Northern
Ireland
Portsmouth
Bournemouth
Water Supplier
Sutton
South Staffs
Essex &
Suffolk
Mid Kent
South East
Bristol
Southern
South West
Three
Valleys
Yorkshire
Anglian
United
Utilities
Severn Trent
0
Wessex
10
Thames
Northumbrian
Million m3 / year
40
It is clear that the main areas of water use in the UK F&D industry are the NW of England (United
Utilities), the Midlands (Severn Trent), East Anglia (Anglian) and Yorkshire (Yorkshire Water). The
first two of these generally being under less water stress than the next two.
11
12
UK Food and Drink Processing – Mass Balance, C-Tech Innovation Ltd with contribution from Sustainable Technology Solution Ltd, 2004
Calculated from FISS document
12
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
13
The following graphs depict trends in water source, usage and treatment in the F&D industry.
However, it must be remembered that the sample size is relatively small.
Figure 3.2
Sources of incoming water
Figure 3.3 Treatment applied to incoming water
70
50
Mainswater
Mainswater & Borehole
Mainswater & River
River
Mainswater & Groundwater
filtration
chlorination
boiler
softening
borehole-potable
HS370
none
45
40
50
Percentage of usage
percentage of source used
60
40
30
20
35
30
25
20
15
10
10
5
0
0
2000
2005
2000
Year
2005
Method or standard
Figure 3.2 shows a trend between 2000 and 2005 of decreasing mains water use with a concomitant
increase in private abstractions (borehole and river water). This will be due to rising water costs and
the desire for a greater control of one’s own water supply and its quality.
The treatment of incoming waters has changed dramatically between 2000 and 2005. It appears that
whereas in 2000, 34% of use was not treated at all, in 2005 all water is treated in some way. For
example, far more filtration is now performed, up from 5% to 45%. As noted above with regard to
Figure 3.1, the extra levels to which incoming water is treated are a sign of more demanding needs to
attain higher purity standards for process waters and, hence, the quality of the final product, before
they are used in F&D production.
The daily average water use for the F&D industrial sites has increased over the period 2000 to 2005
by roughly 10%, from 621 to 678 m3/day. However, the underlying statistics show that the range of
3
3
water use has decreased and narrowed: from 30 – 6,500 m /day in 2000, to 110–1,900 m /day in
2005. Although the average has risen, what is more interesting is that the range is significantly lower
in 2005, indicating more efficient use of resources over the intervening five-year period though
changes to processes, practices and equipment.
Figure 3.4 clearly depicts the trend towards more on-site treatment of the wastewater effluent created
by the F&D industry to save costs. This will be due to rising wastewater discharge costs levied by
water utilities and the enforcement of more and tougher discharge consents to surfaces water by the
Environment Agency.
Figure 3.4
Proportion of wastewater treated in 2000 compared to 2005
60
50
2000
2005
% treated
40
30
20
10
0
none
50% or less
50%-99%
100%
Amount treated
13
British Water Survey, December 2005, http://www.britishwater.co.uk/html/2005_06_survey_results.html
AEA Energy & Environment
13
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
3.1.3
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Data on potential reductions in water use
A large proportion of the water consumed in the F&D industry is used for cleaning and washing
operations and is usually used on a once-through basis. This is primarily due to a lack of awareness
and use of wide ‘safety margins’ to ensure hygiene standards are met.
Total effluent production for the industry is cited at 20 million m3/year14. Typically, effluent from the
sector has high biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) levels due
to the high organic matter content. Issues relating to effluent can be sub-sector specific. For
example, dairy effluent has a high fat content, in addition to high COD and BOD. Effluent from meat
production can be pathogenically contaminated and also has a high fat content.
The Envirowise Business Impacts on the Environment study (GG331) identified four sub-sectors that
have the greatest impact on the water environment (in terms of consumption and effluent):
Brewing.
Dairy.
Meat.
Soft drinks.
•
•
•
•
Attitudes and Opportunities Survey 2000, undertaken by Envirowise, identified that there is potential to
make average savings of 5% within the sector through low and no-cost approaches to resource
efficiency. Benchmarking studies undertaken by Envirowise have generated a number of water
benchmarks for the F&D industry. These benchmarks can be used as a starting point to drive best
practice in water reduction.
Table 3.3
Water benchmarking data for the F&D sector
Sector
Bakery
Brewing
Confectionary
Dairy
Fish
Fruit and vegetables
Meat
Pet food
Poultry
Soft drinks
m3/tonne
product
2
m3/m3 product
m3/employee
Other
56
7.3
3.3
164
14
7.8
5
2
197
857
260
20 m3/bird
3.5
To date, Envirowise has achieved reductions in water consumption of 1.5 million m3 and £910,000 in
3
cost savings, and reductions in effluent production of 850,000 m and £684,000 in cost savings. The
reduction in water use achieved to date equates to 0.5% of the total water consumed by the sector.
Due to the large variations in water use across the food and drink sector setting a target for water
reduction for the sector as a whole is problematic. Targets for individual sub-sectors would be more
suitable.
Data taken from PPC returns show emissions grouped according to European Waste Catalogue.
16
Although these data are a small sample of the industry (around 90% of which consists SMEs ), it
shows that around 10% produce sludge wastes generated by onsite treatment. These sites can be
identified and figures of production compared against other sites not treating on site to investigate
patterns, and to determine whether potential exists to promote onsite treatment to specific sites.
14
15
16
Scoping Study on Water and Waste in Food and Drink SMEs. Food Technology Centre, 1997.
EN305 Attitudes 2000 - Attitudes and Barriers towards Improved Environmental Performance (Envirowise, 2000)
Personal communication with NISP 16 th November 2006
14
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Additional work on water use in the F&D industry is expected by Envirowise and by the Environment
Agency (EA). The EA has pledged to complete its research ’to examine the impact of produce
protocols on water use and land management, and to continue to work with farmers, food processors
17
and supermarkets to find ways to reduce the impacts of food production on the environment.’
3.2
Techniques and technologies for water saving
3.2.1
Processes that use water in the F&D industry
Table 3.4, although not an exhaustive list, outlines the main operations that consume water in the F&D
industry: from when the food ‘raw’ materials enter the factory to when they have been processed into
final products. This gives some perspective as to the very important role water has to play across all
aspects of F&D production and starts to indicate where potential efficiencies and savings are possible.
Table 3.4
Examples of key water using processes in the F&D industry
Product
preparation
Processing
Preservation
Packing
Equipment
cleaning
Site
facilities
Washing
Mixing
Freezing
Canning
Cleaning in
place (CIP)
Site
maintenance
Cleaning
Steaming
Heating
Bottling
Rinsing
Vehicle
washing
Peeling
Pumping/
transferring
Boiling
Washing
Staff
facilities
Cutting
Water-inproduct
Sterilisation
As can be seen, water is used for many functions at all stages throughout the processing of foodstuffs,
which include cleaning the food, cooking it, preparation of containers and subsequent cleaning of
equipment.
3.2.2
Techniques and technologies
There are several techniques and technologies available for water efficiency, which come under the
four generic headings of:
•
•
•
•
Efficiencies - no/very low-cost ‘quick wins’.
Efficiencies - technical solutions.
Re-use and recycling - technical solutions.
Effluent reduction and treatment.
Table 3.5 gathers the main examples of techniques and technologies that come under these four
headings. Outlines of each of the techniques and technologies identified in Table 3.5 are provided in
Appendix 3.
17
Environment Agency Water resources for the future - annual review 2005
AEA Energy & Environment
15
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Table 3.5
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Key water-saving techniques and technologies appropriate to the F&D industry
Short term
(no/low cost)
Medium to longer term
(medium to high cost)
Efficiency –
Management
Efficiency - technical
solutions
Re-use and recycling –
technical solutions
Effluent
reduction/treatment –
technical solutions
Training
‘Water pinch’ (process
integration)
Rainwater harvesting
Pigging
Good practice
CIP optimisation
systems
Countercurrent rinsing
Slurry dewatering/drying
Metering and online
analysers
Mechanical seal water
management
Mechanical seal water
management
Electro-coagulation
Raise awareness of
Envirowise and water
technology list (WTL)
Pigging
Membrane filtration
Anaerobic digestion
Floor washers
Ozone/UV
Online analysers
Closed transfer
equipment
Vehicle washers
Dosing equipment
Closed transfer
equipment
UV/ozone
Sand filters,
dissolved air flotation
3.3
Prioritisation of water projects
Through research and consultation, it has been possible to devise potential projects for water
efficiency in the F&D industry. Though there are significant gaps in basic data on water consumption
within the F&D sector, these research areas have been assessed for their risk of failure, using the
methodology outlined in Section 2.
Wtr 1: Water Efficiency Quick Wins: Data Collection Project
To capture data on water use and water quality at various stages in the processing of food and drinks
to benchmark the industry, improve knowledge of best practice by using meters and online analysers.
The large water consumers and those with higher loads are key stakeholders, such as dairy and
drinks manufacturers. This is not a new technology and thus is fairly low in terms of innovation.
Uptake is perceived to be moderate as financial payback justification would need to be sought to
initiate a monitoring and targeting project. Therefore, this is classified as a Low 3 Project: Training and
awareness of metering, monitoring and targeting procedures.
Wtr 2: Water Efficiency Quick Wins: Training and Awareness Raising / Best Practice
This project would promote staff training and awareness of environmental issues, in particular water
efficiency measures that can be easily implemented, such as: brushing waste away rather than
washing, emptying drain traps before washing; and turning off hoses, significantly reduce water use
and effluent loading. Ideally, it would be worked in alongside existing health and safety training and
be given the same level of importance and credence for maximum effect. In terms of innovation, this
rates low as it is a long-standing practice and easy to implement. The level of uptake is not only
dependent on willingness to train staff even further but also on maintaining the knowledge through
refresher courses and as such uptake is probably moderate, giving an overall rating of Low 3: Training
and Awareness.
16
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Wtr 3: Water Efficiency Technical Solutions: Process Integration Opportunities Project
Process integration (‘water pinch’) is about assessing where efficiencies can be made across the
whole food/drink processing line in a holistic way. By using data gathered on the various subprocesses, one can deduce where efficiencies could be made and thus save water. There are many
case studies of this in the literature already. The technology is not innovative and the level of uptake
is adjudged to be moderate so this project has been assessed as Medium 2: Development and
demonstration, to show the advantages of process integration to those firms and sectors not already
using it.
Wtr 4: Water Efficiency Technical Solutions: – Process Cleaning
There is scope within the F&D industry for increasing the use of technical water efficiency measures,
especially in the field of cleaning process machinery. One such technology is cleaning-in-place
whereby vessels and pipework can be automatically cleaned with water and detergents without the
need for opening vessels or human contact. If the systems are optimised and greywater recycled for
treatment for uses elsewhere in the plant then significant savings can be made. Even though this
technique has been in use in the F&D industry for some two decades there is still potential for
increasing its penetration further into the sector. A suitable project could be envisaged whereby the
technology and its potential for savings could be promoted. The degree of innovation is thus low
whilst the potential for uptake is believed to be relatively medium, giving a project appraisal of Low 3:
Training and awareness.
Wtr 5: Water Efficiency Technical Solutions: Pipe Cleaning – ‘Pigging’
Other cleaning methods exist in the F&D industry that also could enjoy greater uptake, such as
pigging. This is a method in which pipes are cleaned out more efficiently using one of two main
techniques, namely a solid pig (generally made of plastic, rubber or ice) or pressurised air. Using
these methods enables more efficient cleaning of pipes between batch processes. The benefits are
that reduced volumes of water are needed for rinsing, less detergent is needed and wastewater loads
are decreased, whilst extra product is collected that would otherwise have been put to sewer in the
wash water. The technique in general has been available for some time now, although there are
continual improvements and refinements. Uptake depends on the processes involved and whether
they are suitable for pigging. A demonstration project would work with industry to show the benefits of
ice pigging, air vortex cleaning and describe the water and product savings that could be won:
Medium 2: development and demonstration project.
Wtr 6: Water Efficiency Technical Solutions – Product Cleaning
There is scope for a project that engages both the F&D industry and the retail sector in improving the
use of water saving measures in food cleaning operations. One such application that can be used for
making better use of rinse water in the cleaning of fruit and vegetables for example is counter-current
rinsing. In this process food products are progressively washed in cleaner water, whilst the greywater
is re-used for washing dirtier food further up the cleaning process, rather than being disposed.
Savings can be in the order of 40 – 50% of water used. The technology is not all that new while the
uptake could well be high; Low 2: development and demonstration with sector associations.
Wtr 7: Water Efficiency Technical Solutions: Recycling and Re-use
There are many technologies available in the marketplace for re-using water, such as rainwater
harvesting, greywater recycling and collecting wash waters for recycling. A project could be
established to raise awareness of these technologies within the F&D industry, demonstrate their worth
in saving water and money and encourage their use. The technology exists and would require some
changes to manufacturing processes and as such is deemed to be of moderate innovation. Similarly,
take-up is reckoned to be moderate as it will only be suitable for firms who can make use of rainwater
and/or greywater in their processes, giving a rating of Medium 2: Development and demonstration.
Wtr 8: Water Re-use and Recycling: Membrane Technology Promotion
AEA Energy & Environment
17
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Membrane separation technology has many applications: for example it can be used for end-of-pipe
cleaning of wastewaters so that they can be re-used elsewhere in the process or it can be used to
purify raw materials to achieve the right level of solutes. Once installed, membranes can make
financial savings for the process operator; by recycling wastewater to be used for other applications
thus use reducing the need for as much clean water in whilst simultaneously reducing wastewater
going to sewer that could potentially have high costs associated with high effluent loads. Industries
with high water use and wastewater production, especially if these have high effluent loads (COD, SS)
are most suitable to using membrane technology for reducing water use and costs (eg the dairy
sector). As the technology is well established in the marketplace a development and demonstration
project would be appropriate, focused on those industries applicable to membrane technology:
Medium 2: Development and demonstration.
Wtr 9: Water Effluent Reduction Solutions: Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digestion (AD), and ancillary process such as sludge dewatering and drying, are wellestablished techniques in the wastewater industry for treating solid sewage waste products. By doing
so any waste products from food processing with potentially high pathogen levels are also rendered
safer. Using such processes can save money in terms of disposal costs of waste solid material, either
by disposing a more benign product or even the possibility of selling it on as a soil improver to
agriculture. Furthermore energy costs can be reduced if the methane produced by the AD mechanism
is captured and burnt as fuel. A project is envisaged whereby general awareness is raised in those
sectors with suitable wastewater effluent loads and large enough volumes to make AD viable, such as
dairy and meat sectors: Medium 3: General awareness and information dissemination.
The projects described above have been mapped onto the risk assessment matrix in Figure 3.5 to
show their relative degree of innovation and likelihood of uptake.
Figure 3.5
Low 1
Mapping water projects onto the risk-prioritisation matrix
Low 2
Med 1
Wtr 6
Low 3
Med 2
Wtr 1
Wtr 2
Wtr 4
Wtr 3
Wtr 5
Wtr 7
Wtr 8
Med 3
High 2
High 1
High 3
Wtr 9
Historically, water has been seen as a low-cost resource in comparison with other raw materials. It
has always been widely available with low purchase and treatment costs. However, more recently,
there has been a greater focus on resource efficiency, primarily with energy and waste due to the CCL
and landfill tax, to name but two measures. Water resources are however becoming ever more
pressurised both for industrial, commercial and domestic uses. Furthermore, as demand constantly
rises, supply must increase to meet this, and water supply systems are getting closer to capacity in
some areas of the UK.
18
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
The effects of increasing energy prices is having a knock-on effect on costs of water supply and
treatment as these processes are energy intensive in themselves with associated costs being passed
on to water customers.
As the projects above describe, the main areas for reducing water demand lie in efficiency of use,
recycling of wastewaters and the application of good housekeeping measures. By treating and then
re-using wastewaters elsewhere within F&D manufacturing processes large financial savings can be
made as well as the concomitant reduction in water consumption. Most of the technologies to enable
this already exist and have done so for some years. What appears to be the barrier is the informed
knowledge about these technologies: where they are appropriate, what they can achieve, what the
cost implications are and how they can simultaneously benefit business and the environment,
(ie some form of cost-benefit analysis). The projects outlined above are intended to go some way to
achieving this.
Projects for water efficiency can be summarised and ordered by the risk category shown in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6
List of water projects
Risk category
Low 2
Low 3
Med 2
Med 3
Projects
• Wtr 6: Water Efficiency Technical Solutions – Product Cleaning
• Wtr 1: Water Efficiency Quick Wins: Data Collection Project
• Wtr 2: Water Efficiency Quick Wins: Training and Awareness Raising /
Best Practice
• Wtr 4: Water Efficiency Technical Solutions: – Process Cleaning
• Wtr 3: Water Efficiency Technical Solutions: Process Integration
Opportunities Project
• Wtr 5: Water Efficiency Technical Solutions: Pipe cleaning – ‘Pigging’
• Wtr 7: Water Efficiency Technical Solutions: Recycling and Re-use
• Wtr 8: Water Re-use and Recycling: Membrane Technology Promotion
• Wtr 9: Water Effluent Reduction Solutions: Anaerobic Digestion
AEA Energy & Environment
19
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
4
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Energy opportunities
In this section, energy opportunities are considered with respect to the following parts of the food
chain: industrial processing, wholesale distribution and retail; see Section 2.1.
4.1
Energy use data
18
The current energy use within F&D manufacturing industry is estimated to be 126,000 GWh/year .
However, that used in the whole of the food chain is considerably higher. This can be inferred
tentatively from Figure 4.1, which depicts greenhouse gas emissions associated with food
19
manufacturing alongside those from agriculture, food transport , food-related emissions at home, in
retail and catering. It should be noted that agricultural emissions include methane emissions from
livestock: enteric methane emission and waste management.
Figure 4.1
20
Greenhouse gas emissions associated within the UK food chain (Source: FCRN )
Catering
10%
Retail
6%
Home food related
14%
Agriculture
50%
Transport (UK)
9%
Food
manufacturing
11%
21
In the rest of this section, energy data have been presented mainly as ‘primary’ energy to allow a
true comparison of the energy use – accounting for any losses through conversion processes and
transmission.
There is a general lack of published data on energy consumption. However, there is generally good
data held by relevant food sector associations (which are not generally published) on energy use in
22
food manufacturing. These are collected as part of the CCAs that allow companies to benefit from
80% discounts on the CCL. There are eleven separate sectoral agreements covering the F&D
processing industry, with the largest being that with the Food and Drink Federation (FDF), which
covers approximately 50% of the industry’s energy use. In 2004, FDF undertook a study to review all
23
CCA data from the F&D industry , which was submitted as evidence as part of the consultations
18
Food Industry Sustainability Strategy (FISS), published by Defra, April 2006.
Excludes food related emissions from distribution centres and mobile refrigeration.
, Food Climate Research Network, October 2006.
21
Conversion factors are used for converting from delivered energy (as metered) to primary energy. For fossil fuels delivered to food production
sites the conversion factor remains 1; however, for electricity the factor is 2.6 (ie primary energy = 2.6 x delivered energy).
22
Which are generally managed by the relevant sector association or their representative organisations.
23
Defra/FDF study on environmental impacts of the food and drink industry – Final report, October 2004.
19
20
20
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
leading to the publication of FISS, in April 2006. It is based on headline sectoral energy figures from
the CCA data from the food sectors. This has formed the basis of the energy breakdown presented in
this report. Importantly, this information has been used, together with an understanding of the
industry, to arrive at the current energy use and energy efficiency potential in the different sub sectors.
Figure 4.2 shows the energy use by different parts of the F&D processing industry categorised by SIC
codes. It can be seen that beverages, dairy products and meat processing represent some of the
largest identified energy using sections of the industry. Each of the SIC code classified sectors has
more than one sector association (see Table A1 Mapping of F&D industry by SIC codes, industrial
processing and trade associations); this is important to understand when considering any approach
towards implementation of energy efficiency opportunities.
Figure 4.2
Distribution of total energy use in F&D industry, by SIC code classification
15.9 Beverages
16%
15.1 M eat proc & prod.
11%
15.2 Fish products
2%
15.3 Fruit & vegetables
5%
15.4 Oils & fats
3%
15.5 Dairy products
12%
15.8 Other food
products
34%
15.6 G rain m illing &
prod
7%
15.7 Anim al feeds
10%
An estimated split of energy use by energy-using process technology is shown in Figure 4.3 below. It
can be seen that fossil fuel for use in boilers that supply steam for the process, dominates at 49%.
Also high is the use of energy for other heating processes, drying, cooking and baking; both fossil fuel
and electricity is used for this. Electricity is predominantly used for providing the processes with
compressed air, refrigeration and for other processes that use motors for mixing and stirring.
The distribution and retail sector scope has been limited to the large retailers and their distribution
depots in so far as they relate to food products. The large retailers include ASDA, Co-op, Marks &
Spencer, Morrisons (including Safeway), Sainsbury’s, Somerfield, Tesco and Waitrose. There seems
to be an increasing focus on large centralised / regional depots both operated on contract and used by
a number of companies or run by the large retailers, which appear to be state-of-the-art in terms of
storage, logistical and computer software technology. Some of the warehouses and distribution
centres are focused on particular product types and, where appropriate, temperature controlled (for
chilled and frozen products). The relevant trade associations approached to acquire information on
warehousing and distribution were: UK Warehousing Association; the Chilled Foods Association; and
the Cold Storage and Distribution Federation. However, the required information has not been made
available.
Defra has carried out analysis of the energy use in the food retail and catering sectors, using the DTI
24
energy data , by examining energy consumption in the hotel and catering, retail and a number of
other sectors. However, the findings show that at present it is not possible to separate out energy
consumption values in the retail sector. As such, the data have been presented based on the
24
Presentation by Rocky Harris of Defra, at the FISS Champions Group meeting on Energy, 12 October 2006, Nobel House, Defra.
AEA Energy & Environment
21
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
manufacturing sector, though some of the energy opportunities identified later would also apply to the
storage, distribution and retail part of the food chain.
Figure 4.3
Fuel use by technology - the UK F&D industry
Refrigeration
6%
Compressed air
2%
Direct heating (ele)
8%
Other motors
16%
Boilers
49%
Direct heating
(fuel)
19%
4.2
Techniques and technologies for energy saving
There are many techniques and technologies available for energy efficiency, most of which are
targeted by the Carbon Trust under its energy surveys and products’ and other client offerings (see
also Section 4.3.5). Table 4.1 lists the main technique and technology areas related to energy
consumption in food manufacturing, distribution and retail.
Table 4.1
Key energy utilising areas in manufacturing, distribution and retail of food
Food manufacturing
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(Energy management and M&T)
Combustion, boilers & steam
supply (including cooking, baking
etc)
Refrigeration (processing and
stores)
Buildings and services
(Process control)
Fans
Stirring and mixing
Compressed air
Drying
Pumps and motors
Heating, ventilation & air
conditioning (HVAC)
Distilling
Environmental protection
Distribution
•
•
•
•
•
Transport (outside
scope)
Chilled storage
HVAC
Lighting
Conveying, forklifts,
etc
Retail
•
•
•
•
Chilled storage
HVAC
Lighting
Cooking
(bakeries, etc)
There is a great deal of information available from the Carbon Trust that is designed to inform and
encourage industry to implement energy efficiency in food manufacturing. The collection of
22
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
publications and the consultant’s knowledge of the F&D industry have been used to outline the scope
of sub-sectoral energy efficiency opportunities. In this approach, energy management, and monitoring
and targeting (M&T) have been regarded as underpinning techniques.
4.3
Current support
The desire among the industry to reduce energy has undoubtedly increased since the introduction of
the CCL and the establishment of CCAs in most of the F&D sectors. However, there are also other
drivers at present that lead the industry towards energy efficiency: energy costs, EU Emissions
Trading, Energy Performance Commitment (potentially for smaller operators in future) and corporate
social responsibility (CSR)
4.3.1
Support from the Carbon Trust
As mentioned above, the Carbon Trust already provides a focus on energy efficiency in the food
industry, based on the following broad strands:
• Activities focused on large companies under its Carbon Management service offering.
• The Survey Products (including the Initial Opportunities, Assessment, Specific Opportunities
Assessment, Detailed Surveys, Design and other advice and CHP advice).
• Activities that engage with sector associations and other trade bodies nationally and in the regions
under its Networks programme.
• Supply of general information via the Web site, and through a Helpline and a range of publications.
The CT also engages with industry and suppliers of equipment or services companies, primarily
through:
• Interest-free energy efficiency loans for SMEs (£5,000 and £100,000 to replace or upgrade existing
facilities).
• The Enhanced Capital Allowance scheme for energy efficiency products included in the Energy
Technology List.
4.3.2
Carbon Trust’s Applied Research Programme
Grant support for new technologies is provided by the Carbon Trust’s Applied Research Programme.
It supports the UK businesses and research institutions in the development and commercialisation of
‘low carbon’ technologies that have the potential to reduce UK carbon dioxide emissions. The grants
are required to be supplemented, with a minimum of 40% funding from industry or equipment
developers. See: http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/technology/appliedresearch/default.htm
As can be seen from above, the Carbon Trust is providing a range of support to the industry, including
the businesses engaged in food manufacturing, distribution and retail. However, scope for specific
assistance or targeted areas should be explored based on the areas later suggested in Sections 4.3.3
and 4.4.2.
AEA Energy & Environment
23
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
4.3.3
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Short to medium-term opportunities
The Carbon Trust currently provides a range of products to help manufacturing industry, including the
food manufacturing, to identify and assist with the implementation of energy (and carbon) saving
opportunities. Figure 4.4 is intended to indicate the likely technology areas for energy savings from
the F&D sector companies. This has been derived by estimating the percentage of energy use in
each sector and technology and then associating likely saving opportunities to a short list of the
projects given in Table 4.2. In this approach energy management and M&T have been regarded as
underpinning techniques and therefore they do not feature in the technology list.
Figure 4.4
Short-medium term energy savings opportunities use by technology
Distilling
2%
Cooling systems
4%
Boilers & steam
15%
Pumps
7%
Drying
7%
Refrigeration
14%
Compressed air
8%
Stirring and mixing
9%
Buildings
12%
Fans
10%
Process control
12%
The chart above is particularly useful in identifying the current technology areas for the Carbon Trust.
Other areas where energy resource efficiency and recovery would be enhanced are:
• Improved efficiency of humidity control (impacting on sectors such as baking and malting)
• Application of alternative processes for energy-intensive operations (eg using localised air delivery
along conveyor belts to replace blast chilling after packaging or operating the whole area at a low
temperature).
Figure 4.5 shows the short to medium term opportunities that might be achieved by focusing on the
technology areas within the F&D manufacturing industry only (those for distribution and retail could not
be included due to lack of relevant data).
24
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Figure 4.5
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Energy use and (Short-Medium term) saving potential by F&D industry sectors
7,000
Total Primary Energy (GWh)
Saving potential (GWh)
Primary energy (GWh/y)
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
929
781
521
520
497
452
424
400
379
325
317
278
270
217
195
194
177
153
142
126
113
Su
ga
rm
B
an ake
uf ry
ac
tu
re
Am
D
bi
a
en ir
tF y
o
C Br od
on ew
fe
ct ing
io
ne
ry
I c Me
e
a
c t
Pe rea
m
t
Fr A Fo
ui nim od
t& a s
ve l fe
ge ed
t
C abl
ol es
d
st
o
Po r e
M
u
illi
lt r
ng
S y
& pi
pr rits
od
uc
M ts
O alti
ils ng
Bu
lk R & fa
H en ts
an d
dl ere
'g
r
& s
Fi So Sto
sh ft
r
pr drin
oc k
s
es
si
ng
-
The chart suggests that the highest energy efficiency gains in the short to medium term might be
made in the following (descending order) sectors: Industrial bakeries, Sugar manufacture, industrial
dairies etc (see also Appendix 6, Table A5 Energy use and saving potential of F&D industry sectors).
Overall, the suggested saving potential amounts to 12%.
4.4
Prioritisation of energy projects
4.4.1
Short to medium term
Through research and consultation it has been possible to devise potential projects for energy
efficiency in the manufacturing, distribution and retail parts of the food chain. These projects have
been risk assessed, using the methodology outlined in Section 2.5, to understand their potential for
impacting on energy use reduction.
Ene 1: Boiler and Heat Distribution System – Education, Awareness and Practical Assistance
Almost all of the sub-sectors in the F&D processing industry need some form of process heating. This
is often supplied by on-site boilers. The boilers may be installed to supply hot water or steam (at
various temperatures and pressures) depending on the process requirements. Canning, malting,
baking and distilling sectors are some of the biggest users of steam. They use steam in cookers,
roasters, baking ovens, dryers and evaporators. There is a range of support available from the
Carbon Trust that the food companies can access. A review of the support provided to date would
indicate if any change in direction of focus are required. The project risk is assessed as Low 1 as it is
largely about assisting the industry with current knowledge and advice.
Ene 2: Dissemination of energy performance enhancement techniques
There have been several energy benchmarking studies for specific industrial sectors (industrial baking
and dairy) that are based on the original Good Practice Guide (GPG352) An introductory guide to
energy performance assessment – analysing your own performance. This approach also leads to
effective monitoring and targeting system on site. To accelerate the uptake of the techniques involved
AEA Energy & Environment
25
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
in energy performance assessment that operators can benefit from suggestion around ‘sectoral’ video
is made that can introduce and illustrate the technique being applied on a site in the given sector.
This should be started with the sectors where good case study exists. The project risk is assessed as
Low 1: as it requires focus on practical but passive training alone.
Ene 3: Refrigeration - Education, Awareness and Practical Assistance
The F&D industry is one of the largest users of refrigeration technology. Many businesses within the
sector will find that refrigeration costs make up a significant proportion of their energy bill. A recent
survey, undertaken on behalf of the Carbon Trust, has shown that there are some 2,000 F&D
manufacturing sites where refrigeration forms a vital part of the production process. The majority of the
refrigeration plants provide freezing and chilling duties, and use about 50% of all electricity used at the
sites. Without refrigeration these companies will not be able to meet the customers’ specifications on
food products. Several recent projects have been taken to undertake development of the refrigeration
technology and energy efficiency issues in the F&D sectors. However, continued assistance from the
CT is much required, particularly towards practical assistance to the food manufacturing sites. The
project risk is assessed as Low 1 as it is largely about assisting the industry with current knowledge
and advice.
Ene 4: Energy integration link to on-site (contracted) nitrogen supply services
Many food-manufacturing sites use liquid nitrogen either for chilling/freezing purposes or for the
production of inert atmospheres within packaging. The liquid nitrogen is either delivered by tanker (at
large sites) or might be generated on site. On-site generation will usually be done as a contracted out
service provided by a company such as BOC or Air Products, and will typically discharge waste heat
to atmosphere. Research should be carried out to determine the scale of the issue in the UK,
investigate scope towards productive use of waste heat produced by the on-site compression plant as
well as determine the environmental benefits/disbenefits, using life cycle methodology, of the options
of providing liquid nitrogen. The project risk is assessed as Low 2 as it would primarily be a desk
study followed by a possible development and demonstration project.
Ene 5: Options for fuel supply security in food manufacture
Biofuels are generally defined as fuels made from biomass resources. The F&D industry also
produces large quantities of biomass waste, which has the potential to supply a significant source of
fuel or energy to the industry. The aim here is to examine options to secure energy supply in the
production and supply of basic foods in the UK during the likely scenarios of energy shortage. The
project risk is assessed as High 1 as it will require a wide-ranging and major research project.
Ene 6: Application and demonstration of Sonic Wave Processing
A novel technology known as ‘PDX Sonic’ (by the developer Pursuit Dynamics), has been applied at a
brewery site, in association with the UK Brewing Research International. There is great interest from
the brewing industry, as it seems to provide more efficient means of supplying heat to liquors. The
developer claims to save operators time and money by heating, entraining, mixing and pumping
mixture in a very efficient and effective manner – by accelerating steam to three times the speed of
sound and sending a supersonic shockwave through the processing chamber. Savings of up to 30%
energy are claimed for brewing applications. It is thought that the technique will be particularly suited
to small breweries. The aim is to verify and demonstrate the application of PDX Sonic technology in
brewery applications. The project risk is assessed as Med 2: as it has been demonstrated at
experimental stage and the technology seems ready for application demonstration.
4.4.2
Longer term projects
In the longer term, there is also likely to be scope for more radical opportunities. One example is
changes to the mixing and dividing process within plant bread making. This could result in substantial
energy savings, but which would be expensive to research and would require an overhaul of
assumptions built up over many years as to the need for a certain level of energy expenditure during
the mixing stage to ensure product quality.
26
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
In the same way as before potential projects are outlined.
Ene 7: Challenging the principles of process design
This project will require examination of the process requirements from first principles and will also
require working alongside equipment designers and suppliers. Depending on the success of the
outcome it may also require demonstration of the technology, before applications are adopted by the
industry. The project risk is assessed as High 1: high priority research area.
Ene 8: Direct firing of gas to supply process heat
Direct firing of gas to supply process heat in industrial bakeries (instead of that via centrally generated
steam). Some bakeries have adopted but scope could be wider. (Additional use of radio frequency for
baking evenly is another possibility). Another example would be to investigate the feasibility of
changing to direct-fired coppers in the brewing industry or ovens in industrial bakeries, with direct
heating by gas. An initial survey of the scope of implementation will be required but once the
applications are identified development and demonstration will be required. The project risk is
assessed as Low 2: Development and demonstration with stakeholders.
Ene 9: Scoping study to assess the introduction of anaerobic treatment at food manufacturing
sites with aerobic treatment
As water use minimisation strategies are applied at food processing sites, there will be instances
where the effluent concentration increases (ie it will be less diluted). Many sites currently operate
aerobic treatment plants, which require supply of air or oxygen, produce sludge and use a great deal
of energy. However, as the concentration of pollution increases there will be circumstances where
anaerobic treatment (digestion) becomes more attractive or becomes the first choice if they were
considering a new effluent treatment plant. Besides reducing energy use and sludge production,
anaerobic systems will produce methane rich biogas, a source of energy that can be utilised for
process heat/electricity generation. The aim will be to undertake a review of wastewater treatment at
food processing sites, with a particular focus on whether anaerobic treatment plants could replace
existing aerobic treatments. This will be a desk study and any implementation will require a form of
awareness among the companies that could benefit from this - hence risk scored as Low 3.
Ene 10: Options for utilising methane from small-scale anaerobic digestion plants
In the F&D industry many plants treat organic waste in an aerobic digestion plant. With measures in
place for tightening of water usage and therefore more concentrated wastewaters, the scope for using
of anaerobic digestion becomes more attractive (see Project Ene 9). However, in many cases the
methane produced is likely to be in quite small quantities and therefore unlikely to be used in boilers or
CHP schemes dedicated to biogas utilisation. However, there are practical and emerging techniques
that may find applications in such circumstances: offsetting a proportion of natural gas fuel usage,
micro generation or source of hydrogen for fuel cell system. The aim will be to review current and
developing methods that allow effective use of small quantities (~ 10-50kW) of biogas. The project
risk is assessed as High 2 as it probably only requires a watching brief before the above project.
Ene 11: Appropriate and advanced cooling techniques
Rapid Cooling Techniques: Plate and Air Blast Chilling and Freezing and Immersion Chilling and
Freezing. The food is chilled / frozen by immersing in cold fluid. Trials held in the meat industry show
great promise and benefits look significant, especially in comparison with large air-blast chillers. They
allow greater temperature control of product, reduce energy required and allow greater throughput.
There are other cooling techniques too. The aim is to undertake feasibility studies for wider application
of these cooling techniques, with demonstration projects to establish savings. The project risk is
assessed as Med 2 as this is a research and demonstration based project.
Ene 12: Examination of scope for CHP during boiler overhaul
CHP is a highly effective way of achieving energy efficiency gains and the food industry has a high
potential in its application. Although economics are not favourable at present, there are instances
AEA Energy & Environment
27
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
when its consideration could prove beneficial; for instance, where boilers are due for major retrofit or
replacement. The CHP systems are conventional power generation systems with the means to make
use of the energy remaining in exhaust gases, cooling systems, or other streams. This energy can
then be converted to useful heat for up-stream processes, down-stream processes, space heating,
community heating etc. If the heat can be utilised on site, CHP has the benefits of achieving
approximately 35% reduction in energy use as well as ensuring a secure supply of electricity (and that
from an independent source of power). The aim is to encourage food companies to consider the
installation of a CHP system when boilers are due for a major overhaul or a replacement. It will also
help to avoid stand-by generators and increases energy security. The project risk is assessed as Med
3 as the uptake is likely to remain low under current energy prices.
Ene 13: Comparative assessment of Air Cycle Refrigeration
Air cycle refrigeration systems use air as their refrigerant, compressing it and expanding it to create
heating and cooling capacity. Air cycle refrigeration is one possible route to savings in energy and
therefore carbon dioxide and cost. This represents a technology that has been developed for many
years but is not widely used in industry, with very few applications in the F&D industry. In general, the
attractions of using air as a working fluid are that air is free, safe and harmless to environment. Air
cycle refrigeration is particularly suited for applications where cooling and heating are required
simultaneously. The aim is to undertake a comparative analysis of air cycle v existing technologies in
food refrigeration in terms of overall carbon emission impact. The project risk is assessed as Med 2
as it would require a degree of development and demonstration.
Ene 14: Review of scenarios for Tri-generation (Combined Heat Power and Refrigeration)
The process of combining refrigeration, heating and electricity generation into a single process is
known as tri-generation and could convert up to 90 per cent of the energy contained in the primary fuel
into usable form of energy with a huge reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Generally, trigeneration
process uses absorption refrigeration and the economics are particularly favourable when this type of
refrigeration is coupled with CHP system. By combining on site generation of electricity with the
provision of refrigeration, hot water and heating, the CHPR (Combined Heat and Power and
Refrigeration) system can provide total energy solution with significant reduction in running costs. The
aim is to undertake feasibility study examining economics of the trigeneration in comparison with
scenarios currently found in food industry. The project risk is assessed as Med 2 as it would require a
degree of awareness and training if the approach looks attractive in specific locations.
Further opportunities for energy saving would become apparent by closer discussion of the issues with
the sector associations and some of the leading food companies (eg scope for spinning disk reactors
in food manufacture, non heat sterilisation techniques).
4.4.3
Summary
Energy saving requires a rigorous management process to be able to minimise any wastage in the
food chain. The majority of the food manufacturers, food distribution and retailers have signed up to
CCAs and have a degree of focus on their energy efficiency targets. Due to energy price rises many
of the voluntary means are undertaken to save energy. It is possible that 12-15% saving potential is
25
possible in the short to medium term (ie up to five years), provided ‘all’ companies adopt. Research
projects that are appropriately targeted can help reduce barriers (or even eliminate them) thereby
facilitating increased adoption of better energy efficiency measures. In the longer term, further energy
price rises are possible that will ensure continued emphasis on the energy efficiency. If this fails to
materialise then perhaps a form of government intervention may be required (eg increasing the CCL
rate) to meet the targets of 20% as given in FISS.
There are many ways in which known opportunities could be taken towards implementation projects.
For the more generic opportunities such as those related to education and awareness, training and
management, it is appropriate to work with the relevant sector associations as they have the
25
The majority of the medium and large manufacturing companies belong to one of the sector CCAs and hence are included in the data sets
presented in the report. However, there are many small size companies, whose overall energy contribution is relatively small and are not
included.
28
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
knowledge of their members needs and concerns at heart. This forms a key part of the Carbon Trust’s
Networks programme (see Section 4.3.1).
The potential projects identified in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 above have been prioritised according to
likely uptake and level of innovation, as outlined earlier in Section 2, and are presented in Figure 4.6
and priorities ordered in Table 4.2.
Figure 4.6
Mapping energy projects into the risk prioritisation matrix
Low 1
Low 2
Ene 1
Ene 4
Ene 8
Med 1
Figure
5: 2
Mapping of energy projects
Ene
onto the risk based prioritisation matrix
Ene 3
Low 3
Med 2
High 1
Ene 9
Ene 6
Ene 11
Ene 13
Ene 14
Ene 5
Ene 7
Med 3
High 2
High 3
Ene 12
Ene 10
AEA Energy & Environment
29
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Table 4.2
List of energy projects
Priority order
Low 1
Low 2
Low 3
Med 1
Med 2
Projects
• Ene 1: Boiler and heat distribution - education, awareness and
practical assistance
• Ene 2: Energy performance enhancement - sectoral video training
• Ene 3: Refrigeration - education, awareness and practical assistance
• Ene 4: Energy integration link to on-site (contracted) nitrogen supply
services
• Ene 8: Direct firing of gas to supply process heat
• Ene 9: Scoping study to assess the introduction of anaerobic
treatment at food manufacturing sites with aerobic treatment
•
•
•
•
Med 3
High 1
High 2
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
•
•
•
•
Ene 6: Application and demonstration of Sonic Wave (PDX)
Processing technology in Brewing
Ene 11: Appropriate and advanced cooling techniques
Ene 13: Comparative assessment of Air Cycle Refrigeration
Ene 14: Review of scenarios for Tri-generation (Combined Heat Power
and Refrigeration)
Ene 12: Examination of scope for CHP during boiler overhaul
Ene 5: Options for fuel supply security in food manufacture
Ene 7: Challenging the ‘principles’ of process design
Ene 10: Options for utilising methane from small-scale anaerobic
digestion plants
High 3
30
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
5
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Waste opportunities
In this section, waste opportunities are considered with respect to the food chain comprising
agricultural production, manufacturing, wholesale distribution and retail. See also Section 2.1.
5.1
Waste data
Waste from the food industry has been considered at three stages along the food chain, namely:
• Agriculture (non-biodegradable, except for straw and carcasses).
• F&D product processing.
• Distribution and retail.
5.1.1
Agricultural waste
This section describes the types of agricultural wastes and then provides quantitative arising values
for the UK as whole (estimates for the regions (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) are
provided in tables presented in the Appendices.
The main sources of information for agricultural waste data include:
•
•
•
•
Agricultural Waste Survey (Environment Agency, Defra, 2003).
Opportunities for saving money by reducing waste on your farm (BOC Foundation, Defra, 2001).
Agricultural Waste (SEPA).
United Kingdom Food and Drink Processing - Mass Balance (Biffaward, 2004).
Many of these provide data related to certain segments of the agricultural activities as such their use is
limited. However, the most comprehensive coverage of waste arisings was provided by a study on the
management of non-natural agricultural waste on farms carried out by the Environment Agency in
2003, which estimated the total quantity of such wastes at around 450,000 t/year for Great Britain, and
about 780,000 t stored on holdings. This survey, taken from a structured sample of 380 registered
agricultural holdings in Great Britain (Total number of holdings: 201,926), also provided National and
UK estimates of agricultural waste arisings – derived from the ‘Agricultural Waste Estimate Model’ –
for 1998.
AEA Energy & Environment is currently conducting a waste minimisation study in Scottish agriculture.
As a part of this study, data are being collected on waste streams produced associated with a range of
agricultural enterprises. The waste production data for our sample farms have been extrapolated to
form a picture of UK-based waste production. Overall, the most recent census figures have been used
to obtain details of farms and enterprises within the UK. This covers data on crop residues and
livestock carcasses (details provided in Appendix 7).
Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2 illustrate the estimated arisings for farm packaging wastes and nonpackaging wastes. These are generally processing wastes. Usually, anything directly accountable to
primary production is not measured and applied to land. Tables supporting these figures are provided
in Appendix 7.
AEA Energy & Environment
31
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Figure 5.1
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Farm packaging waste estimates (UK)
14000
12000
Tonnes p.a.
10000
Plastics
Paper & Card
Metal, Glass & Wood
8000
6000
4000
2000
Glass
Oils
Pallets
Silage Wrap
Boxes
Misc
Packaging
Oil Containers
Animal Health
packaging
Animal Feed
Bags
Seed Bags
Batteries
Figure 5.2
Fertiliser Bags
Agrochemical
Packaging
0
Farm non-packaging waste estimates (UK)
140,000
120,000
Tonnes pa
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
Asbestos/cement
roofing
Sheep Dip
Tree Guards
Other
Horticultural
Mulch film and
crop Cover
Silage Plastic
0
The forms of the agricultural wastes and their current disposal routes are summarised in Table 5.1.
32
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Table 5.1
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Aspects of the farm waste streams and their current disposal routes
Waste stream by
sector
Crop production
Substance
Chemicals
Plastics
Oils
Horticulture
Other waste (not
associated with
individual
enterprise)
Disposal
Pesticide residues,
Inorganic fertiliser
Seed and fertiliser bags,
Chemical containers
Tractor oil, grease, fuel oil
Small amounts of waste occur. Applied to
land
Sent for recycling. (Can be burnt in
Scotland only under strict guidance)
Re-used on farm or collected by licensed
waste collector
Regarded as a useful by-product. Either
bailed and sold or used on farm or
chopped and incorporated post harvest for
nutrient value
Re-use and recycle
Organic
‘waste’
Straw
Plastic crop
covers
Plastic
packaging
Carcasses
Ground covers and polytunnels
Agrochemical packaging,
flower pots, fertiliser and
seed bags
Pesticide residues,
Inorganic fertiliser
Animal carcasses
Veterinary
and medical
Needles, syringes,
medicine packaging, etc
Sheep dip
Plastics
Liquid waste from dipping
process
Silage plastics, feed bags
Organic
waste
Effluent and livestock
manures
Scrap metals
Redundant machinery
and parts
Various
Tyres, asbestos, building
materials, batteries
Chemicals
Livestock
production
Form
Sent for recycling. (Can be burnt in
Scotland under strict guidance)
Small amounts of waste occur. Applied to
land
Dead animals must be collected from farm
by a licensed agent
Classed as Hazardous waste. Should be
collected and farmer should be issued
with hazardous waste transfer note
Must be handled and disposed of by a
licensed agent.
Re-used or Sent for recycling. (Can be
burnt in Scotland under strict guidance)
Disposed of to land as they have a
nutrient value. Inorganic fertiliser rates
should be adjusted accordingly
Taken to merchant when the price is
satisfactory. Much of the scrap has been
disposed of in the last few years
Disposed of in accordance with
legislation.
The introduction of waste regulation for certain agricultural wastes has not been sufficiently publicised
and methods of disposal for farmers are costly to the extent they are inhibitive in the current financial
situation. The situation, as we see it, is that unless either a carrot or stick approach is applied farmers
will continue to dispose of waste as they always have done.
5.1.2
Waste from the food processing industry
The source of data for wastes from the food processing industry was the Environment Agency’s Waste
26
Survey 1998/9 . Total food industry wastes were estimated at about 5.5 Mt. Data tables are given in
Appendix 7. Despite covering only a 3% sample of all businesses, this survey data are considered to
be the best currently available. The issues of improving the quality of waste data in this sector and
establishing the confidence levels for waste data are being considered currently by the FISS
27
Champions Group on Waste .
Data provided in Environment Agency PPC returns can provide a more accurate insight into wastes
generated by larger food industry companies. A summary of these returns for 2005 is presented in
Appendix 7. However, this only covers about 400 large food companies out of a total number of
around 7,000 food industry companies nationwide. Therefore, it is questionable whether these data
are representative of the whole food industry. However, with around 2.6 Mt reported as released to
recovery and disposal, it would appear that those companies covered by PPC account for just under
26
It should be noted that a more recent survey data are also available but the older survey was chosen in agreement with the FISS Champions
Group on Waste (at a meeting held on 10 October 2007) – the older survey had a larger sample of food companies.
27
FISS Champions Group: Data Sub-Group.
AEA Energy & Environment
33
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
half of food processing industry wastes and about a third of the total estimated waste arisings from the
F&D chain.
Other studies have attempted estimates of the wastes from the food industry. Most notable are the
UK Mass Balance studies funded by Biffaward which contain a wealth of waste information compiled
specifically sector by sector, covering Agricultural waste, the F&D industry, and more general mass
balances for the Regions. The study reports provide very readable information together with clear
diagrams and charts at the 3-digit SIC code level. (Some tables appear to have been derived from
the older Environment Agency survey). Data for Scotland and Northern Ireland has been obtained
from the statistical publications of the Scottish Executive Statistical Services and Department of
Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) in Northern Ireland. Numerous trade and industry
associations and individual companies have been helpful in providing further estimates of inputs,
outputs and wastes for particular sub-sectors of food processing. These include data derived from
independent output and wastes surveys, company specific experience, and industry summaries of
official statistics. For the purposes of producing a UK mass balance, statistics relating to England and
Wales or Great Britain have been scaled up in proportion to the numbers employed in food processing
the UK as a whole. This particularly applies to the EA Waste Survey, which covered only England and
Wales.
The following pie charts illustrate the wastes generated by the food industry (SIC Code 15), the types
of wastes produced and the ways in which these wastes were treated. These pie charts are based on
data from the Environment Agency’s 1998/9 Waste Survey. Data tables are provided in the
appendices.
Out of total estimated arisings of around 5.5 Mt, the proportions generated by each sub-sector of the
food industry (SIC code 15) are illustrated in Figure 5.3.
Note: The survey data for wastes from the processing of fish and fish products (SIC code 15.2)
estimated an arising of around 10,000 t/year. However, the Seafood Industry Association has
estimated that this figure is more likely to be around 300,000 t/year. The large difference in the two
estimates is probably caused by the effect of small sample size for the Environment Agency survey.
Although 18,600 returns (~3% of all industries) were received by the Agency, it is understood that the
28
number of returns under SIC code 15.2 had been very small . Consequently, scaling-up is very
unreliable from such a small base. Therefore, the latter figure from the Seafood Industry Association
is probably a more realistic estimate.
28
Private communication, Alan Bell, Environment Agency.
34
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Figure 5.3
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Waste by Sub-Sector (Environment Agency Waste Survey 1998/9)
15.1 Production &
processing of meat and
poultry
17%
15.9 Manufacturing of
beverages
20%
15.2 Processing and
preserving of fish and
fish products
0%
15.3 Processing and
preserving of fruit and
vegetables
15.4 Manufacturing of
13%
vegetable and animal
oils and fats
1%
15.5 Manufacturing of
dairy products
6%
15.8 Manufacturing of
other food products
35%
15.7 Manufacturing of
prepared animal feeds
4%
15.6 Manufacturing of
grain mill products
starches and starch
products
4%
More than half of the wastes generated are of an organic nature. This is illustrated in Figure 5.4.
Figure 5.4 - Waste types generated (Environment Agency Waste Survey 1998/9)
Animal & mixed
Biodegradable
19%
Other waste
39%
Soil
1%
Non-animal
biodegradable
31%
Glass
0%
Metals
2%
W ood, composites etc.
3%
Paper, card
4%
Plastics, rubber, large
EPS boxes, plastic film
1%
Around three quarters of the wastes generated is treated, re-used, or used for some form of recovery.
The remainder goes to landfill for final disposal (see Figure 5.5).
AEA Energy & Environment
35
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Figure 5.5
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
How the wastes were treated (Environment Agency Waste Survey 1998/9)
Treatment
6%
Transfer
1%
Land Disposal
25%
Thermal
1%
Recycled
24%
Land Recovery
11%
Re-used
32%
Where wastes are of an organic, biodegradable nature, the levels of treatment, re-use and recovery
achieved are much higher, with only about 8% of these types of waste being consigned to landfill
disposal. (see Figure 5.6).
Figure 5.6
How the biodegradable fractions were treated (Environment Agency Waste Survey 1998/9)
Transfer
2%
Treatment
6%
Land Disposal
8%
Thermal
0%
Land Recovery
11%
Recycled
21%
Re-used
52%
5.1.3
Distribution and retail waste
Data for this stage of the food chain are also available from the Environment Agency’s waste survey.
The relevant SIC codes are:
•
•
36
52.1 - Retail sale of food, beverages and tobacco in non-specialist stores.
52.2 - Retail sale of food, beverages and tobacco in specialised stores.
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
However, data are only available at the 3-digit level. This means that SIC52.1 and SIC52.2 data will
contain not only food-derived wastes, but also non-food derived wastes, thereby making interpretation
difficult.
Figure 5.7
Estimated breakdown of retail wastes (SIC 52.1 & 52.2) (Environment Agency Waste Survey
1998/9)
Packaging waste
45%
Paper and card
26%
Food waste
15%
Other waste
7%
Mixed waste
7%
Overall quantities of wastes from retail were estimated at around 4.5 million t/year. To summarise,
overall estimates for food waste from retailing are 455,000 t/year.
Packaging wastes (1,400,000 t/year) and paper and card (800,000 t/year) are partly food-related and
partly non-food related. Information on this split was not available.
Due to the lack of precision, these above estimates should be considered as a guide only.
5.2
Techniques and technologies for waste
management
5.2.1
Introduction
Judging by the data currently available on the wastes generated through the food chain, it is apparent
that the general levels of re-use, recycling and recovery achieved are good, but there appears to be
scope for further progress. Certain actions are already in place for this to happen. For example, the
increasing recycling and recovery targets demanded by the Packaging and Packaging Waste
Regulations will ensure further reduction in the amounts of packaging waste disposed of.
A comprehensive assessment of the likely impacts of potential waste projects is not possible due to
the general lack of information on the scale of the perceived problem.
Impact of changing definitions of what is/not waste
In addition, other issues can introduce further complications. For example, for any project set up to
improve waste data knowledge, the changes over time on what should/should not be regarded as
waste can add further lack of clarity to the situation. The Environment Agency has recently held
discussions with Defra over whether certain by-products from the production of F&D are 'waste', in
accordance with the definition of waste in Article 1(a) of the Waste Framework Directive, as
interpreted by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in recent cases.
In the light of these discussions and consideration of ECJ case law, the Agency has concluded that
materials resulting from the manufacture of food or drink which are passed on directly to another
undertaking for processing into food or drink (for human or animal consumption) are NOT waste. The
AEA Energy & Environment
37
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
rationale behind this view is that raw materials are being processed in a series of stages (albeit by
different undertakings) to extract nutritional value for a number of different purposes, all of which are
aimed at manufacturing food or drink from the materials. In these circumstances, the Agency
considers that it is appropriate to regard these F&D by-products as not being discarded as waste but
simply as another food or drink product obtained from the original raw materials. In the Agency’s view,
this conclusion is compatible with the aims of the Waste Framework Directive and the need to ensure
its effectiveness is not undermined.
This reasoning applies, for example, to brewers’ grains and spent yeast, where they are used to make
animal feed or yeast-based products, and to molasses and other derivatives from sugar manufacturing
where they are used to make animal feed. However, where residues from the manufacture of food or
drink are disposed of, or are used for a different purpose, which amounts to a waste recovery
operation (eg use of olive residues as fuel), they will be considered as waste.
This reasoning also does not affect the question of whether off-specification or out of date food or
drink products are waste. In principle, it is likely that they would be considered as waste within the
meaning of Article 1(a) of the Waste Framework Directive – they are identified as a category of waste
in Annex 1 to the Directive and any producer will seek to limit their production.
This change of definition of waste will have serious implications for establishing a consistent baseline
for waste from the food industry against which progress towards FISS targets can be measured.
Improvements in waste management
Various opportunities exist to exploit improved resource reduction and resource conservation – guided
by the waste hierarchy, which seeks to minimise final disposal whilst promoting higher and more
sustainable management options towards maximising resource efficiency.
Figure 5.8
Waste hierarchy (Defra - Review of Waste Strategy 2000)
The following sub-sections each take one of the waste hierarchy stages in turn, discussing areas of
opportunity for waste management initiatives and providing thumbnail descriptions of 14 potential
projects.
5.2.2
Waste minimisation/prevention
Optimising packaging systems and pack sizes
A significant proportion of packaging is used for food distribution and retail. Action is already in place
to address the issue of minimising / preventing packaging waste through the Courtauld Commitment.
38
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Courtauld Commitment
The Courtauld Commitment is between 13 major retailers and Waste & Resources Action Programme
(WRAP), and was developed in partnership with Defra, the Scottish Executive, the Welsh Assembly
Government, the British and Scottish Retails Consortia and the IGD.
At a Ministerial meeting at the Courtauld Gallery in 2005 with Environment Minister Elliot Morley and
WRAP Chief Executive Jennie Price, senior representatives from Asda, Boots, Budgens, the Cooperative Group, Londis, Iceland, Kwik Save, Marks & Spencer, Morrison's, Sainsbury's, Somerfield,
Tesco and Waitrose pledged their commitment at executive level to supporting WRAP in achieving its
objectives:
• To design out packaging waste growth by 2008.
• To deliver absolute reductions in packaging waste by March 2010.
• To identify ways to tackle the problem of food waste.
As a consequence, Asda and Sainsbury’s have set packaging reduction targets of 10% by 2008 and
5% by 2010 respectively, and Waitrose has put in place targets to keep future packaging levels below
those of 2002, and has cut packaging waste growth by 15% in the last year. The type of innovations
already on the shelf include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
30% lighter ready meal packaging from Marks & Spencer.
Lighter salad bags at Asda, delivering a 14% material saving.
Reduced packaging around Iceland’s own brand pizzas.
The cartons removed from Co-op’s tomato puree.
18% less packaging for Boots Botanics shower gel.
Spirits bottled for Tesco in lighter weight bottles.
The retailers have suggested follow up action on three issues:
• Food waste.
• Biopolymers and compostable packaging.
• Cconsistent on-pack recycling information for consumers.
Heinz, Northern Foods and Unilever, were the first brand-owners that WRAP has persuaded to sign
up to the Courtauld Commitment.
Extended ‘sell-by’ dates
Extension of shelf life of products could potentially lead to reductions in the amounts of food wastes
generated. However, it is clear that careful targeting of suitable products is required to ensure that
real gains are made. In some cases, this has not been successful. For example, Somerfield tried a
project with WRAP in which more packaging was used for products like fruit to cut down on food
waste. However, the project did not work because it was reported: ‘the fruit was too wet – and often is
if it is British fruit – and didn't end up extending the shelf life.’
Potential projects
Wst 1 Use of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for Improving Resource Efficiency
LCA can provide an objective overview of the key environmental burdens and resource consumption
issues faced by the food industry, and can help target resource use minimisation more generally.
There is a dearth of useful data currently and a move towards acquiring these data and information is
required of key food products. Given the complexity of the food chains, studies should be conducted
at Sector-level using an LCA-type approach to indicate where the resource efficiency 'hot-spots' are
occurring, and indicating the options for improvements. (Low 1)
Wst 2 Packaging Specification for Resource Efficiency
AEA Energy & Environment
39
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
The basis on how particular packaging systems are specified is not clear. The perception is that
resource efficient packaging is some way off (for example, consumers often say they hate packaging!)
Assessment is needed of whether or not specified packaging systems are achieving the maximum
possible with respect to resource efficiency, by way of a) review and research into how packaging
starts its cycle, b) ascertain on what basis is it specified and what is specified, c) whether it is
marketing led or consumer opinion led, and d) ascertain what research and surveys have been done
(Low 2)
Wst 3 Impacts of Changing Consumption Patterns
What would be the impacts on resource efficiency of the increasing promotion of a healthier and / or
vegetarian diet and a move away from 'junk food'? Study needed to assess the projected
consumption patterns and the impacts of changes in consumer behaviour and the implications for the
food industry, and to recommend ways forward for improved resource efficiency. Such a study may
involve an element of computer predictive modelling of scenarios. (Med 1)
Wst 4 Improved Waste Data
There is a general consensus that the levels of confidence in waste data currently reported are wider
than the KPI reductions set down in the FISS strategy. This undermines the purpose of setting such
waste reduction targets. A reliable baseline figure urgently needs to be established for 2006 food
waste data. A study is needed on data from a range of sources to establish a baseline figure with
associated confidence limits. This issue is currently being addressed by the Data Sub-group of the
FISS Waste Champions Group, but will require resources committed to the data gathering and data
analysis exercise. (Low 3)
Wst 5 Raise Farmer awareness of Agricultural Waste Regulations
There are varying degrees of awareness among the farming community about the Agricultural Waste
Regulations. While most farmers are aware of the regulations, they do not have a clear understanding
of how it impacts on them. As a result, most farmers are continuing to dispose of controlled waste in
the same way as they did prior to the Regulations. In consequence, the implementation of new waste
regulations has had a limited effect on practise due to a lack of awareness and also due to lack of
access to clear and concise information and advice. While relevant advice may be purchased by large
agricultural (landlord) businesses, it is not available to those farmers, perhaps a majority, who do not
use commercial advisory services. Furthermore, farmers tend to be reluctant to approach the EA or
SEPA due to perceptions and concerns of the enforcement body. Relationship management needs
improving alongside provision of free advice. (Med 3)
Wst 6 A Scoping Study of the practicality of the Agricultural Waste Regulations
Due to the individual and often remote nature of the agricultural industry there are often logistical
issues in waste legislation compliance. For example, plastics recycling costs farmers significant
amounts of money as there are few registered recycling contractors and in order to make the
collection from farms viable they need to charge for the service, the cost increasing with distance. In
addition, potential measures to enable individual farm collections are restricted due to waste
movement regulations. Assessment is needed of the practical limitations to the successful uptake of
the Agricultural Waste Regulations and the extent to which they may be compromising the aim of
agricultural wastes being handled and disposed of in an environmentally sound manner. (Med 3)
5.2.3
Re-use
The legislation on the composition and marketing of animal feed (which covers feed for farmed
livestock as well as horses, pet food and farmed fish) is derived mainly from EU measures - enforced
in England by the Feeding Stuffs Regulations 2005 (with separate but parallel legislation applying in
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.). The Animal By-Products Regulation (EC) No. 1774/2002
prohibits catering waste from being fed to farmed animals. This applies in all EU member states and
applied from 1 May 2003. The aim is to ensure that foot and mouth disease and other diseases that
can be spread by infected meat products cannot be introduced into the livestock population by the
feeding of swill. Animal by-product wastes can no longer be sent to landfill and must be managed by
40
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
prescribed treatment and disposal routes. Disposal must be by incineration or one of five processing
methods prescribed in the Regulation. Catering waste can continue to be landfilled and may also be
treated in a composting or biogas plant in accordance with specified process conditions. Defra have
produced a number of official publications and guidance notes which are intended to clarify Defra’s
29
policies on animal by-products .
The legislation on animal by-products has had a major effect on the animal feeds and pet food
30
industries in the last few years. Raw meat and fish, former foodstuffs and catering waste all become
animal by-products (ABPs) when they are no longer intended for human consumption. An indication
of such intent could be when produce is removed from sale because it has passed its sell by date or
use by date, or because it is damaged, soiled or contaminated to an extent that it is no longer
appropriate to display it for sale. The decision as to whether a product is no longer intended for
human consumption will rest with the premises manager or anyone nominated on the premises to take
such decisions.
Opportunities in segregation – low cost with immediate returns. Separation obviously aids recycling.
Most majors are already doing this (but 90% of companies in the industry are SMEs). If the waste left
after segregation is vegetarian, there may be scope to direct it towards animal feed. However,
suitability is highly dependent on the nutritional value of the material and could also fall foul of the
Feed Materials Assurance Scheme (FEMAS) requirements. The FEMAS aims to assure the safety of
feed materials.
Potential projects
Wst 7 Non-disposal Options for Food Beyond ‘Sell-by’ Date
Whatever or however the sell-by date is established, there will always be some unavoidable food
wastage. Rather than sending this straight to disposal, it makes more environmental sense to seek to
recover maximum value from these wastes where possible. Some retailers are already making the
commitment to achieve zero waste (ie zero waste to landfill) by certain dates in the future. This issue
is very much on the agenda for the big supermarket chains. Perhaps, significantly less so for the
smaller retailers who have less influence on what happens to their wastes. A study is needed to
review current status and likely trends to establish whether or not more needs to be done in this area.
(Med 2)
5.2.4
Recycling
Recycling food waste to animal feeds/petfoods. (May have limited opportunities - See re-use above.)
Composting
The production of composts derived from food wastes provides an alternative route away from landfill
disposal. Low-risk (so-called category 3) animal by-products can be treated in an approved
composting or biogas plant. Animal by-products need to be treated to the EU standard set out in the
Regulation, which is treatment at 70°C for 1 hour, with a maximum particle size of 12mm. Alternative
treatment standards must demonstrate capability to meet a specified level of pathogen reduction.
Restrictions also apply to the application of composts derived from animal by-products. Livestock
must not be allowed access to land to which compost or digestion residues have been applied for
prescribed minimum time periods, and similarly, animals must also not be fed with anything cropped
from land to which compost or digestion residues have been applied, for the same time periods.
Packaging Wastes
For packaging wastes, the main driver is the Packaging and Packaging Waste legislation. Targets
have been set for recovery and recycling of packaging wastes through imposition of producer
responsibility obligations on businesses that handle packaging (Raw material producers, packaging
manufacturers/converters, packer/fillers and retailers). As the targets are increased, ‘producers’ are
driven to examine possibilities for making improvements to their packaging systems (waste
29
30
http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/by-prods/guidance/index.htm
'former foodstuffs of animal origin, or former foodstuffs containing products of animal origin
AEA Energy & Environment
41
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
minimisation, re-use etc.) and provide the finance to ensure that greater quantities are recovered and
recycled (for example, through subscription costs for joining a compliance scheme).
Potential projects
Wst 8 Feasibility of Producer Responsibility for waste in the Food Industry
As with end-of-life vehicles, packaging wastes and waste from electrical and electronic equipment
(WEEE), 'producers' (i.e. manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers) are required to take fuller
responsibility for their products when they become waste. So, why not a similar requirement for the
food industry? Such producer responsibility could impose obligations on food ‘producers’ to report on
their wastes and achieve prescribed levels of waste minimisation, recovery and recycling. A
scoping/feasibility study is needed to assess the potential for applying extended producer
responsibility in the food industry and its likely impacts and effectiveness in achieving improved
resource efficiency. (Med 2)
Wst 9 Consistent Messages on Biodegradable Packaging
The wisdom of using biodegradable packaging for certain applications has been questioned (eg the
use of biodegradable plastics for mineral water bottles has been criticised because of the perceived
adverse effects that it could have in plastic bottle recycling processes). Good, practical advice is
needed to ensure that biodegradable polymers are used in packaging systems where they can
achieve improved sustainability. An authoritative study is required on the beneficial use of
biodegradable packaging - where it is best used: where it should be avoided. (Low 2)
Wst 10 Economies of scale in agricultural waste management by farms working together
A very wide range of waste materials have been identified on farms. These range from agrochemical
and feed packaging, both plastic and paper, oil drums, batteries, silage wrap and carcasses. On most
farms these wastes are not available in sufficient amounts to justify any treatment. For example,
wooden pallets can be used as a fuel, but the amounts available to an individual farm are extremely
unlikely to justify the installation of a boiler utilising scrap wood. However, if a number of farms are
prepared to operate together it is possible that sufficient amounts of the waste materials may be
available to be put to a constructive use or effectively recycled. An assessment is needed of the
economies of scale that could be achieved in agricultural waste management by farms working
together. (Low 2)
Wst 11 Conversion of straw into animal feed
Conversion of straw into animal feed (eg by treating with urea to increase digestibility) and blending
with other materials, could solve straw disposal problems on those farms that grow cereals but where
livestock manures are handled as liquids. It would also reduce resources going into animal feed which
could lead to useful reductions in the amount of land needed to produce concentrates. The land could
then be used for environmentally friendly alternatives such as biofuels or woodland. At present
available straw may be preferred as a bedding material. It would also be useful to assess whether the
savings in feed costs from substitute feeding would justify investing in liquid manure handling facilities
and anaerobic digestion. A review is needed of the approaches to using straw as a livestock feed to
assess the overall environmental impacts and potential benefits to livestock enterprises. (Med 2)
5.2.5
Energy recovery
The recent sharp rises in energy prices are helping to drive increased interest in energy recovery from
wastes. NISP is active in this area helping to establish links between waste producers and the
technology suppliers. The NISP programme is interested in building long-term collaborative
relationships with and between its members. These can be around specific material issues, or a
series of individual projects based around a single company or site or even a geographically oriented
opportunity.
Energy Recovery from combustion (EfW – Energy from waste)
42
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Incineration is a highly attractive option, with it being able to accommodate a wide range of waste (ie
wood pallets, plastics, meat contaminated material etc). Also it can be used to generate steam and
power. However, costs are an issue and public antipathy with concerns over emissions, etc impact on
availability of planning consents. If used to dispose of meat-contaminated wastes there is also a
requirement to actively monitor temperatures and stack emissions to ensure regulatory compliance.
All this adds to the costs, due to capital and management costs incurred.
Anaerobic Digestion (AD)
Results in generation of methane gas and residual solids and liquids. Methane can be used to
generate heat and power, enabling the residual wastes to be sterilised using this and making it
suitable for digesting meat contaminated wastes (thermophilic digesters). In mesophilic digesters,
temperatures do not get sufficiently high and these cannot accept Associated By-Products (ABP). AD
facilities are relatively large due to the amount of time to digest the material and requires active
management of material feedstock to ensure the microbial ecosystem is not adversely disturbed. The
end solids can be sold as fertiliser. The electricity produced qualifies for the Renewable Obligations
Certificate (ROC) and so attracts a government rebate, enhancing the potential profitability of such an
approach. Very few commercial AD facilities exist currently. The Carbon Trust ‘Waste4Energy’
offshoot has been set up to improve the uptake of this technology. Some Regional Development
Agencies (RDAs) are understood to be looking to incentivise the uptake of AD technology further
through capital grant funding.
Gasification
o
This technology centres on the heating (to 800 C) of waste to generate gases (hydrogen and CO),
which are then burnt and used to power the system as well as produce power and steam. This can
quickly process all types of waste, including plastic and wood. However, the technology is capital
intensive.
Pyrolysis
o
Lower temperature process than gasification (ca.430 C) and does not use steam to help break down
waste. Produces gas that is used to drive the process (and produce power which is ROC certifiable)
and carbonised solid that can be used for solid fuel. As with gasification can deal with a range of
wastes but due to lower operating temperatures is not so capital intensive.
Such disposal technologies may not be practical for SMEs (90% of the market) due to cost and space
requirements. On a cooperative basis, however, it may be possible to set gate fees below that of
landfill and ‘enable’ this revenue to provide the capital for the plant to be set up. The added
advantage of the energy recovery technologies is that they simultaneously offer a cheaper waste
treatment solution with the additional possibility of generating cheaper, cleaner renewable energy.
Making it happen
For example, Insource Energy (IE) is a new business within Carbon Trust Enterprises Limited. IE are
an energy and waste management business that provides tailored, on-site solutions for F&D
manufacturers in the UK, through the provision of various technologies, such as biomass boilers and
anaerobic digestion coupled with combined heat and power (CHP) units. Insource Energy reduces
waste and energy costs and saves carbon. Insource Energy can finance, develop, build, own and
operate energy and waste systems. They are not linked to any technology provider; instead they
provide an independent service that utilises the best available technology and the best suppliers to
meet our customers’ specific requirements.
Potential projects
Wst 12 Resource Efficient Supermarkets (through uptake of energy recovery options)
The major supermarkets are in a position to inform, educate and encourage a significant proportion of
suppliers (and customers) on improving resource efficiency, particularly when leading by example.
For instance, this promotional power could be applied to the issue of energy recovery for use in their
supermarkets. In this case, encouragement is needed for the large supermarket chains to implement
(and / or encourage local operators to implement) the use of anaerobic digestion (AD) or energy from
AEA Energy & Environment
43
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
waste (EfW) plants as a means of recovering energy from their wastes for use in their supermarkets.
31
This could be promoted and demonstrated through suitable pilots / demonstration projects . (Low 2)
Wst 13 Small scale Sustainable Treatment Technologies
According to the Seafood Industry Association, fish related wastes amount to around 300,000 t/year.
Around 80% of this is fin-fish waste, the bulk of which arises at the main fish landing ports. Much of
this waste is treated in 3 specialist fishmeal plants at Grimsby, Aberdeen and Shetland (ie close to
source of the waste). The situation is not so convenient for shell-fish waste (20% of the total), which
comes ashore at more diverse points. A feasibility study is needed focused on local-scale sustainable
waste management of fish waste. Options for small-scale seafood waste management could include:
rendering, MBT, autoclaving, alkaline hydrolysis, pharmaceuticals / cosmetics, collagen / gelatine, fish
protein, enzymes & leather. These options require investigation as to whether or not marketable
products can be produced and markets are readily available. Opportunities for co-treatment with other
small-scale food wastes should also be considered. (Med 1)
5.2.6
Disposal
Final disposal to landfill is considered the least attractive option in the waste hierarchy. The largely
organic content of food industry wastes can contribute significantly towards the detrimental aspects of
landfill (for example, as a source of methane emissions from anaerobic decomposition within the
landfill).
Landfill Directive
The EC Landfill Directive sets targets to reduce the amounts of biodegradable wastes (biodegradable
municipal wastes) consigned to landfill – the first target has to be achieved by 2010 (for the UK).
Waste disposal authorities have been set landfill allowances for the landfilling of biodegradable
municipal waste (BMW) and a system of landfill allowance trading has been set up to provide a flexible
way for waste disposal authorities to achieve their prescribed targets.
Landfill tax escalator
The landfill tax aims to encourage waste producers to produce less waste, recover more value from
waste, for example through recycling or composting and to use more environmentally friendly methods
of waste disposal. The tax is charged by weight and there are two rates. Inert or inactive waste is
subject to the lower rate. The standard rate of landfill tax is currently £21 per tonne. The lower rate of
tax, which applies to inactive wastes disposed at landfill, as listed in the Landfill Tax (Qualifying
Material) Order 1996, remains unchanged at £2 per tonne. In Budget 2004 the Government
announced that the standard rate of Landfill Tax would increase by £3 per tonne to £18 per tonne in
2005-06, and by at least £3 per tonne in the years thereafter, on the way to a medium to long term
rate of £35 per tonne. This provides a very strong driver to encourage businesses to take action to
reduce their waste sent for landfill disposal.
Most noticeably, the landfill tax escalator appears to have brought about an ~10% reduction in the
tonnages of standard rate waste landfilled in the two years between 2003/4 and 2005/6. This shows
that a key policy, closely linked to reduction of waste disposal, is working.
Potential projects
Wst 14 Feasibility of Setting Disposal Quotas
The concept of waste recycling and disposal quotas (similar to Producer Responsibility and Landfill
Allowance Trading) in the Food Chain that places limits on the amounts of waste disposed merits
further exploration. In a situation where companies are limited in the amounts of food waste that they
can dispose of, a scheme of tradable permits could operate whereby efficient low waste companies
could sell excess permits to less efficient higher waste producing companies. This would provide the
economic 'spur' to encourage companies to improve their efficiency. This could take the form of
31
Note: Defra already provides support for the installation of biomass-fuelled heat and combined heat and power projects through the Bio-energy
Capital Grants Scheme. The 3rd round for applications for support closes on 9th March 2007.
44
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Voluntary Targets agreed between Government and the food industry. Dialogue could take place to
identify specific areas for Government/industry discussions on target setting. (High 1)
5.3
Prioritisation of waste projects
Waste can arise at any stage in the food chain. Food manufacturers do not want avoidable waste (as
it adversely affects the ‘bottom line’). Thus, there is the need to prevent, minimise waste and, where it
is inevitable, make best use of it. Economic and other barriers can often prevent companies from
adopting improvements that reduce waste. Research projects that are appropriately targeted can help
reduce barriers (or even eliminate them) thereby facilitating increased adoption of better waste
reduction measures. In other areas, more government intervention may be required, especially where
legislative requirements (eg EU legislation) need to be met.
The pay-off from better waste management is improved competitiveness through greater efficiency.
The pay-off from more sustainable waste management is the capacity for continuance in the longterm. The key to improved sustainable waste management is the waste hierarchy. Companies should
strive for higher levels of the hierarchy BUT retain flexibility and keep options open for further
improvements. The potential projects identified in Section 5.2 above have been prioritised according
to likely uptake and level of innovation as described earlier in Section 2.5 and are presented in Figure
5.9 and Table 5.2.
Detailed information on wastes can help identify where the major waste problems lie and consequently
be managed more appropriately. Therefore, it is not surprising that the potential projects identified
above that seek to improve on existing data and information feature highly in the prioritisation.
Figure 5.9
Mapping waste projects onto the risk prioritisation matrix
Low 1
Low 2
Med 1
Wst 1
Wst 2
Wst 9
Wst 10
Wst 12
Wst 3
Wst 13
Low 3
Med 2
High 1
Wst 4
Wst 7
Wst 8
Wst 11
Wst 14
Med 3
High 2
High 3
Wst 5
Wst 6
AEA Energy & Environment
45
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Table 5.2
List of waste projects
Priority order
Low 1
Low 2
Low 3
Med 1
Med 2
Med 3
High 1
46
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Projects
• Wst 1 Use of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) for Improving Resource
Efficiency
• Wst 2 Packaging Specification for Resource Efficiency
• Wst 9 Consistent Messages on Biodegradable Packaging
• Wst 10 Economies of scale in agricultural waste management by
farms working together
• Wst 12 Resource Efficient Supermarkets (through uptake of energy
recovery options)
• Wst 4 Improved Waste Data
• Wst 3 Impacts of Changing Consumption Patterns
• Wst 13 Small-scale Sustainable Treatment Technologies
• Wst 7 Non-disposal Options for Food Beyond ‘Sell-by’ Date
• Wst 8 Feasibility of Producer Responsibility for waste in the food
industry
• Wst 11 Conversion of straw into animal feed
• Wst 5 Raise Farmer awareness of Agricultural Waste Regulations
• Wst 6 A Scoping Study of the practicality of the Agricultural Waste
Regulations
• Wst 14 Feasibility of Setting Disposal Quotas
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
6
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Integrated opportunities
In this section opportunities related to more than one resource stream are considered. Consequently,
the opportunities may be related to any part of the food chain - agricultural production, manufacturing,
wholesale distribution and retail.
6.1
Introduction
The preceding sections have identified a number of opportunities for improving resource use efficiency in
one stream, the implementation of which would achieve reduction in other resource use, thereby achieving
greater environmental benefit. Such Win-Win interventions would encourage take-up within the industry
and would attract a higher benefit cost ratio for an R&D project to support the opportunity, and thus would
be rated higher in priority in the Defra’s R&D Programme. Candidate research projects that are aimed to
facilitate opportunities that offer such multiple benefits are identified within Sections 3, 4 and 5.
A further area of opportunity, currently limited in its take up within the F&D industry, is the recovery of
energy from agricultural and process wastes, which would both offset the demand for primary energy
and reduce the quantity of waste requiring disposal.
In addition to these there are a number of areas where the F&D industry may be encouraged to implement
resource efficiency measures through customer-driven pressures. However, to provide an evidence base on
which to focus such initiatives, and indeed to justify and prioritise the research projects already identified for each
resource stream, there is a need to take stock of all existing and planned R&D programmes and to develop a
sound understanding of what is currently happening in industry. Each of these areas is discussed below.
6.2
Baseline studies
6.2.1
Central Government data on resource efficiency in the F&D industry
Review of food research and support
There are many government initiatives and programmes that support research, development,
32
demonstration and commercialisation work in the food industry . While much good work is being
done, there may be worthwhile areas falling between programmes and not being supported. Quite
possibly, areas for research identified under this study may already be adequately covered by an
existing research programme: either within government or in the private sector. There is therefore a
need to review the scope of such support programmes, both government-backed and industry-led,
both in the UK and world-wide.
A possible spin off from this review would be to provide, perhaps through appropriate web links, a
definitive guide for sign-posting researchers, developers, equipment manufacturers, suppliers and
users to access right level support and advice to advance innovation in food chains.
Baseline data collection
This study has identified the almost total lack, in some areas, of baseline data on resource
consumption within the F&D industry. Clearly, to assess the efficacy of any initiative to effect resource
use efficiencies within the food chains, it is essential to have a firm understanding of the current
situation. Of the three resource streams, the least is known about water consumption and waste
production. While there is better information on energy consumption, this is concentrated in the larger
companies that have opted for CCAs and the information (regarded as sensitive) is held by the sector
associations. There are fewer data available from SMEs.
Baseline studies, on a sub-sector basis, should be accorded the highest priority.
32 For example, projects supported by the UK Government under schemes such the Carbon Trust’s Applied Research Programme to identify
technologies at concept and development stages.
AEA Energy & Environment
47
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
6.3
Multi-stream opportunities
6.3.1
Techniques and technologies
Centralised waste treatment facilities
Biodegradable wastes are generally produced in food processing plants in quantities too small to
justify on economic grounds the recovery of energy, either through anaerobic digestion or by
incineration or other thermal process. There may, however, be situations where a number of such
establishments, located within a reasonable distance of each other, might between them generate
sufficient waste to make their centralised treatment for energy recovery economically viable. Where
such clusters are located in reasonable proximity to farms that generate significant quantities of
33
biodegradable wastes then these too might contribute to, and even provide the premises for a
centralised energy from waste facility.
Process measurement and control.
Process measurement and control refers to a range of techniques that can be used to improve the
performance of processes. The secret of a good and economic operation depends on reducing
process variability and operating close to specification limits. Process measurement and control helps
to achieve this by maintaining effective operation and efficient production and thereby reduce energy
and water consumption but also reduce their wastage by increasing their overall operational efficiency.
Larger food processing facilities already have extensive instrumentation control and automation (ICA)
systems in operation. The technique could effect significant savings in SMEs
6.3.2
Consumer pressure
Sustainable food procurement
34
The UK Government spends £3.2 billion a year on food . Due to this high spend and potentially high
risk to media focus (on social factors, eg Jamie Oliver campaign) the Government has highlighted food
35
as a priority area in the sustainable procurement agenda . Up until now, it has focused on social,
health and economic factors surrounding the food that they procure. However, it should now look
36
actively at the environmental considerations too . There has been at least one sustainable food
37
procurement project (NHS Food for Cornwall Project ) from which to build on.
‘Take-up’ by the F&D industry would not be voluntary: if suppliers sought to win government
procurement contracts, they would have to comply. However, having adapted to a sustainable product
line, there would be commercial incentives to promote this to their wider customer base.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR)
The general public is increasingly aware of the effects of climate change and the impact that it has on
the environment. It is important for all food businesses to demonstrate their commitment to
sustainability by reducing carbon emissions, water use and waste production to ensure that they retain
consumer confidence and maintain their position in the marketplace. It may also be important for
businesses to demonstrate this commitment to their suppliers as well as to their customers and
shareholders.
Retailer incentivisation could be through a well publicised and supported awards scheme, delivering
awards for commensurate categories such as: the most resource efficient store; the most improved
store; the store that introduces the most innovative method of increasing resource efficiency; the chain
33
Consideration of biodegradable waste in agriculture was excluded from the brief for this study; however a Defra study that examined the scope
for treating livestock wastes with a proportion of industrial wastes should be considered here; see
http://www2.defra.gov.uk/research/project_data/More.asp?I=AC0402&SCOPE=0&M=CFO&V=AEA
34
‘Procuring the Future’ - Sustainable Procurement National Action Plan: Recommendations from the Sustainable Procurement Task Force; Defra
publication June 2006.
35
http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/publications/procurement-action-plan/documents/full-document.pdf
36
http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/procurement/index.htm
37
http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/what/documents/nhs-food-cornwall1.pdf
48
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
that helps its suppliers save the most energy/water; the supplier that introduces the most effective
consumption reduction practice; the supplier that utilises its waste in the most innovative manner.
Enhanced product labelling, to include resource use metrics
With the current and ongoing media coverage of the climate change debate, water shortages in parts
of the country and local issues on waste management, consumers are becoming increasingly
interested in all areas allied with sustainability, and in considering the environmental impacts of the
goods that they purchase. This interest combines with recent trends, of an increase in the amount of
information provided with food products, for example in the area of health, or of the origin of the
product, satisfying consumer desire to make informed choices. The display of such information, and its
adoption as a methodology for product differentiation/discrimination, could also put pressure on
manufacturers to reduce energy intensity where possible. The usefulness of such an initiative, if
adopted, is supported by evidence of market demand for 'low carbon products' following a Carbon
Trust-commissioned survey that found 67% of all consumers said 'carbon footprints' would influence
their choice of product
There is an opportunity to widen the current remit of product labelling to include metrics pertaining to
the resources used in the production of a particular food product (kWh of energy per kg of product,
litres of water per kg). A systematic approach to benchmarking of products would require far and wide
management changes (through EMS, resource management and environmental information
management system). Major retailers are well placed to exert pressure through their supply chains to
speed the introduction of this sort of labelling.
6.4
Projects for multi-stream resource reduction
Int 1: Review of food research and support
This would take the form of a desk study to identify all past, current and planned R&D into each of the
areas that might be covered by the prioritised research projects identified in this study. Such
investigations would normally be undertaken at the commencement of any R&D project, but by
initiating it at an even earlier stage, it could avoid wasted time and expense in commissioning poorly
scoped, or worse, unnecessary work.
The study should identify work commissioned by central government and the private sector, both in
the UK and worldwide. The format of the deliverable(s) from this work should recognise its potential for
wider dissemination over the Internet.
The project does not lend itself to prioritisation by reference to the take-up/innovation matrix (although
put into the risk category Low 1). Its value, to Defra alone, in aiding the development of its range of
programmes, would nevertheless appear to be considerable.
Int 2: Baseline data collection
The project should collect and collate data on current water and energy use and waste production
within the F&D industry at a level of resolution necessary to assess potential resource use savings,
and the impact of uptake of projects at national, sector and sub-sector levels. From the limited
response that was forthcoming in the data gathering exercise undertaken in this study there appears
to be an urgent and important need to engage with each of the relevant sector associations
representing the food industry in pursuit of the baseline data.
A statistically representative sample of establishments would need to be surveyed, with full
confidentiality assurance, ideally by emailed or on-line questionnaire, though inevitably follow-up by
telephone may be necessary. The draft Sector Profiles prepared during this study (see example in
Appendix 6) contain useful reference data and would act as a good starting point. Sector associations
should be able to provide a wide range of statistical data about their members.
AEA Energy & Environment
49
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Again, the project does not lend itself to prioritisation by reference to the take-up/innovation matrix.
However, its value to Defra is immeasurable, since without a sound baseline, there is nothing against
which any of the projects identified in this study can be judged.
Int 3: Centralised waste treatment facilities
Some practical and social research is required to see how farmers and industrial processors could be
encouraged to co-operate (possibly using a ‘carrot and stick’ approach) to recycle waste or direct
towards energy schemes. There would be a number of practical, social, legal and contractual issues
to be resolved and feasibility studies would be needed to consider mechanisms that could make such
an approach work. Uptake would be limited to areas where establishments are clustered, and would
probably need one or two demonstration projects to provide tangible evidence of the cooperation
working in practice. For this reason, the project risk is rated Medium 2.
Int 4: Process Measurement and Control
As part of general F&D industry education and awareness, a research project would identify areas of
food manufacturing where improved process control can be implemented. The project could include a
scoping study to identify the type of sensors and process applications aimed at resource use
efficiency. Those related to water and wastewater quality, energy (temperature) sensors are already
available; but those for food manufacturing processes are at R&D stage.
The project might build from or contribute to the Food Sensors Network, a joint undertaking between
Food Processing KTN and Sensors KTN, which brings together users and suppliers of sensing
technology and includes large industry, SMEs, academics and researchers to provide an explicit focus
on sensing within the food industry.
The project could attract interest from the more numerous SMEs and would be relatively inexpensive
to implement. For this reason it is rated Low 2 risk.
Int 5: Sustainable Food Procurement
In the first instance, a scoping review could be undertaken into how the UK Government, with its high
buying power, might specify procurement in favour of sustainability that specifically reduces the
consumption of water and energy and reduces waste generation from the food chains. As a first step,
the review should develop a database of all current food procurements, by type, and value for each
department/agency, noting any environmental performance requirements (such as those incorporated
in the NHS Food for Cornwall Project).
This project would sit well with the work being undertaken by Defra’s Market Transformation
Programme (MTP). Take-up by the F&D industry would be directly related to the level of
implementation by government agencies, though it would be limited to the proportion of the market
taken up by such contracts. This project is therefore rated as Low 1 risk, for potential inclusion in
Defra’s R&D Programme.
Int 6: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) criteria
The objective of this project would be to develop guidelines for distribution to industry for the inclusion
of measured resource impacts to be included in company annual reports. The project would start with
a review of environmental statements in Annual Reports from leading companies within the F&D
industry to appreciate the current level of voluntary disclosure of quantified resource consumption.
Consultation with a number of such companies would be needed to appreciate barriers to further
declarations (for example, commercial confidentiality, availability of data, cost of collection and
analysis). The aim of the project would be to identify a range of appropriate metrics and roll out a
programme to encourage all major food chain companies to adopt a form of CSR reporting.
Uptake will be further improved through good advice, demonstration projects and case studies,
delivered to suppliers and retailers to show the advantages, cost-savings and importantly, tangible
CSR benefits, that can be won from enhanced resource efficiency. Appropriate support/endorsement
50
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
from Science and Technology parts of government will encourage the uptake of suitable resource
saving technologies. This project is therefore rated as Low 2 risk, for potential inclusion in Defra’s
R&D programme
Int 7: Feasibility of enhancing product labelling, to include resource use
metrics
The viability of such an initiative would need to be demonstrated through a structured assessment of
the feasibility of its introduction. The initial steps would require the development of an evidence base,
to capture current market variation in performance for products to be covered by such a scheme, to
determine the variation in unit consumption, from which to identify a possible banding
(green/amber/red). This assessment would need to be life cycle-based up to the point of sale (at
least). It may well be appropriate for MTP to execute the initial feasibility study.
Consultation with industry would be crucial, as any voluntary scheme would rely wholly on its
cooperation. Discussions would be needed on the most appropriate methodology to assess resource
footprints, and the need for auditing procedures (eg EMAS) to be in place
The project would be the first in a series of steps towards the goal of introduction of resource use data
on product labels. If eventually adopted by the industry, as an indication of the level of its CSR, takeup could be extensive, however a purely voluntary scheme may only attract interest from companies
who expect to have highly rated products. As a concept, requiring environmental information to be
displayed on products is not innovative. The project risk is therefore rated as Low 3.
6.5
Prioritisation of integrated projects and key
recommendations
The projects described above have been mapped onto the risk assessment matrix below to show their
relative degree of innovation and likelihood of uptake. For completeness, the two baseline study
projects are included in the matrix, assigned a risk assessment of Low 1*, though in reality, as noted
above, they are so basic to the R&D programme, that with the exception of the additional scope of
Project Int.1 to develop an R&D Web site, they are almost obligatory.
AEA Energy & Environment
51
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Figure 6.1
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Integrated – research, development and implementation priorities
Low 1
Low 2
Int 1*
Int 2*
Int 5
Int 4
Int 6
Low 3
Med 2
Int 7
Int 3
Med 3
High 2
Med 1
High 1
High 3
The resulting priority order for consideration of integrated projects within the range of Defra’s R&D
programmes is indicated below:
Table 6.1
List of integrated projects
Priority order
Low 1*
Low 1
Low 2
Low 3
Med 2
52
Projects
• Int 2: Baseline data collection
• Int 1: Review of food research and support
• Int 4: Process Measurement and Control
• Int 5: Sustainable Food Procurement
• Int 6: Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) criteria
• Int 7: Feasibility of enhancing product labelling, to include resource
use metrics
• Int 3: Centralised waste treatment facilities
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
7
Summary and conclusions
7.1
Summary
General
Food production and the UK supply chain is a complex web of resource flows from farm to consumer.
A number of simplifying assumptions have been made to tackle the scope of this project.
In food manufacturing, product quality, safety and hygiene standards are top priority concerns for
managers of any production facility. Resource use efficiency issues are of secondary concern, also
because the cost of energy and water still represent a rather small proportion of the overall
manufacturing cost (the cost of energy in processing and retail is reported as being around 2% but
rising, and the cost of water in food processing is around 1%). There are no estimates of the cost of
waste management at any point in the food production cycle. The relatively low ‘perceived’ impact on
costs in production has meant that the industry has been slow to take steps to reduce resource
consumption or waste production. However, this situation is changing due to increasing prices for
energy, water and waste disposal, and emphasis on environmental sustainability.
The primary barrier to the adoption of new technology or techniques, which could reduce water and
energy use, and waste production during processing, is the food industry’s inherent reluctance to
change due to its ‘conservative nature’ and the ‘perceived negative impact’ on hygiene requirements,
product quality and potential loss of market.
Paucity of data
Little is known, collectively, about current energy and water usage and waste production in the food
industry. It became apparent early in the study that there was a dearth of real data with which to map
resource flows with any confidence. The challenge was therefore significant to provide a priority based
research areas with estimates of the impact on resource use. The study has collected data available
from open literature as well as from sector associations, where readily available. In addition,
knowledge of industrial processes, sectors, market as well as technical issues in water efficiency,
energy efficiency and waste minimisation has been used to derive potential elements of a structured
programme of projects that Defra could take forward. Some of these may be through routes other
than Defra’s research programmes, but where it can help to provide an initial lead.
In the absence of data on current industry-wide consumption of all three resource streams, it is not
possible to assess quantitatively the potential impact on resource use. Nevertheless, a method for
prioritising the research projects has been developed and adopted, to develop a short list of candidate
R&D projects.
Water opportunities and candidate projects
Historically, water data for the F&D industry have been of limited availability. Envirowise has
3
38
calculated that the UK F&D sector uses at 307-million m water per year . This equates to 24% of the
total water consumed by industry and commerce in the UK and nearly 5% of total water consumed in
the UK. A large proportion of the water consumed in the F&D industry is used for cleaning and
washing operations and is usually used on a once-through basis, despite the potential for re-use. This
is primarily due to a lack of awareness and use of wide ‘safety margins’ to ensure hygiene standards
are met.
Very few sectors are known to collect information on water use, with some exceptions, notably Dairy
UK and BBPA. The Envirowise Business Impacts on the Environment study (GG331) identified four
sub-sectors that have the greatest impact on the water environment (in terms of consumption and
effluent): Brewing, Industrial Dairy, Meat processing and Soft drinks manufacture.
38
Envirowise – EN368 – A Review of Water Use in Industry and Commerce
AEA Energy & Environment
53
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Water is used for many functions at all stages of the food processing, including cleaning the food,
cooking it, preparation of containers and subsequent cleaning of equipment. There are several
techniques and technologies available for greater water efficiency. A semi-quantitative analysis of the
techniques shows that pigging and membrane filtration show a significant promise in water saving,
followed by: general good practice, cleaning in place, water pinch and various forms of wastewater
treatment devices that would allow re-use of reduction of water.
To date actions undertaken under Envirowise programme have achieved reductions in water
3
3
consumption of 1.5 million m and reductions in effluent production of 850,000 m . The reduction in
water use equates to 0.5% of the total water consumed by the industry, although the scope could be
around 30% based on simple to moderate cost options that the industry could take up.
A total of 11 potential projects have been formulated that respond to the wide range of opportunities
identified, covering: data acquisition, management awareness and staff training, technology R&D and
demonstration. These are identified in Section 3 above and listed in Table 7.1 in order of decreasing
expectation of successful outcome (take up and resulting increase in water use efficiency within the
industry).
Energy opportunities and candidate projects
There is generally good data held by relevant food sector associations (which are not generally
published) on energy use in food manufacturing. These are collected as part of the self-monitoring of
energy saving targets as part of Climate Change Agreements (of which there are eleven in the food
industry).
Some of the warehouses and distribution centres are focused on particular product types and, where
appropriate, temperature controlled (for chilled and frozen products). The Cold Storage and
Distribution Federation represent many of these, whose main energy use here is in lighting and
refrigeration.
Process heating and cooling costs are generally a large part of any food manufacturing utility bill, and
simple energy saving measures will help to cut these significantly. In addition, process control
technologies such as fans, stirring and mixing, compressed air, drying, pumps, cooling systems and
distilling could be targeted. In many of the food manufacturing sectors (typically sugar manufacture,
industrial dairies, brewing, meat processing, spirits soft drinks) on-site wastewater treatment plants,
based on activated sludge treatment, also contribute to energy use.
Energy saving requires a rigorous management process to be able to minimise any wastage in the
food chain. A large proportion of the medium to large food manufacturers, food distribution and
retailers belong to the CCAs and have a degree of focus on their energy efficiency targets. Due to
energy price rises many of the voluntary means are undertaken to save energy. It is possible that 1215% saving potential is possible in the short to medium term (ie up to five years), provided all
companies are able to access help and adopt the simple and short-medium term measures.
Research projects that are appropriately targeted can help reduce barriers (or even eliminate them)
thereby facilitating increased adoption of better energy efficiency measures. In the longer term, further
energy price rises are possible, which will ensure continued emphasis on the energy efficiency. If this
fails to materialise then perhaps a form of government intervention may be required (eg increasing the
CCL rate) to help meet higher targets.
There are many ways in which known opportunities could be taken towards implementation projects.
The Carbon Trust provides a range of support to the industry, including the businesses engaged in
food manufacturing, distribution and retail. For the more generic opportunities such as those related
to education and awareness, training and management, it is appropriate to work with the relevant
sector associations as they have the knowledge of their members needs and concerns at heart.
The 14 potential projects, covering the full spectrum of types of intervention (management awareness
and training, technology development and demonstration), identified in Section 4.2 above, have been
listed in Table 7.1 in order of decreasing expectation of successful outcome (take up and resulting
increase in water use efficiency within the industry).
54
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Waste opportunities and candidate projects
Waste from the food industry has been considered at three principal stages of the food production
chain: agriculture (non-biodegradable only); food & food product processing; and retail. The source of
data for wastes from the food processing industry was the Environment Agency’s Waste Survey
1998/9. Despite covering only a 3% sample of all businesses, this survey data are considered to be
the best currently available.
Judging by the data currently available on the wastes generated through the food chain, it is apparent
that the general levels of re-use, recycling and recovery achieved are good, but there appears to be
scope for further progress. Certain actions are already in place; for example, the increasing recycling
and recovery targets demanded by the Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulations will ensure
further reduction in the amounts of packaging waste disposed of.
A comprehensive assessment of the likely impacts of potential waste projects is not possible due to
the general lack of information on the scale of the perceived problem Recent changes to the definition
of waste, has also added further to the lack of clarity of the situation.
Wastes can arise at any stage in the food chain. Food manufacturers do not want avoidable waste
(as it reflects inefficient use of raw materials which, together with the cost of disposal, adversely
affects the ‘bottom line’). Thus there is the need to prevent, minimise waste and, where it is inevitable,
make best use of it. Economic and other barriers can often prevent companies from adopting
improvements that reduce waste. Research projects that are appropriately targeted can help reduce
barriers (or even eliminate them) thereby facilitating increased adoption of better waste reduction
measures. In other areas, more government intervention may be required, especially where
legislative requirements (eg EU legislation) need to be met.
A further area of opportunity, currently limited in its take up within the F&D industry, is the recovery of
energy from agricultural and process wastes, which would both offset the demand for primary energy
and reduce the quantity of waste requiring disposal.
The pay-off from better waste management is improved competitiveness through greater efficiency.
The pay-off from more sustainable waste management is the capacity for continuance in the longterm. The key to improved sustainable waste management is the waste hierarchy. Research projects
have therefore been identified that would assist companies to strive for higher levels of the hierarchy,
while retaining flexibility and keeping options open for further improvements. The 14 potential projects
identified in Section 5 above are listed in Table 7.1.
Integrated opportunities and candidate projects
It is also possible to identify candidate research projects that provide benefits across multiple resource
streams. A number of these have been identified and considered in the section of this report covering
the stream that gains the most impact. A powerful driver to improve resource use efficiency
throughout the food production chain, across all resource streams, is consumer pressure. Three
potential avenues have been identified, where this mechanism might be mobilised through intervention
projects:
• Sustainable food procurement.
• Corporate social responsibility.
• Inclusion of resource use metrics in product labelling.
This study has identified a critical gap in the knowledge base on resource use within the F&D sector,
namely the almost total absence of reliable data on current consumption in many sub-sectors. If any
project aimed at improving resource use efficiency is to be measured against current levels, these
levels need to be firmly established. A pre-cursor set of baseline studies therefore needs to be
commissioned as a matter of priority.
It is likely that a number of the identified research projects have already been (or are currently being)
researched within government, in the private sector or elsewhere in the world. While any research
project to be sponsored by Defra would most likely include a review of current findings, it might be
AEA Energy & Environment
55
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
prudent to initiate such investigations in advance of commissioning any of the projects to finalise the
R&D programme. The results of such a research status study might be made available to research
bodies worldwide through Defra’s Web site.
A complete listing of all candidate projects identified under this study is presented in Table 7.1.
56
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Table 7.1
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Candidate projects by resource stream and risk of failure
Risk order
Low 1
Water projects
Low 2
•
Wtr 6: Water Efficiency
Technical Solutions – Product
Cleaning
Energy projects
•
Ene 1: Boiler and heat distribution education, awareness and practical
assistance
•
Ene 2: Energy performance
enhancement - sectoral video training
•
Ene 3: Refrigeration - education,
awareness and practical assistance
•
•
Ene 4: Energy integration link to onsite (contracted) nitrogen supply
services
Ene 8: Direct firing of gas to supply
process heat
Waste projects
•
Wst 1 Use of Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) for Improving
Resource Efficiency
•
•
•
•
Low 3
•
•
•
Wtr 1: Water Efficiency Quick
Wins: Data Collection Project
Wtr 2: Water Efficiency Quick
Wins: Training and
Awareness Raising / Best
Practice
Wtr 4: Water Efficiency
Technical Solutions: –
Process Cleaning
•
Ene 9: Scoping study to assess the
introduction of anaerobic treatment at
food manufacturing sites with aerobic
treatment
Med 1
•
•
•
Med 2
•
•
Wtr 3: Water Efficiency
Technical Solutions: Process
Integration Opportunities
Project
Wtr 5: Water Efficiency
Technical Solutions: Pipe
cleaning – ‘Pigging’
AEA Energy & Environment
•
•
•
Ene 6: Application and demonstration
of Sonic Wave (PDX) Processing
technology in Brewing
Ene 11: Appropriate and advanced
cooling techniques
Ene 13: Comparative assessment of
•
•
•
Integrated projects
•
Int 1: Review of food research
and support
•
Int 2: Baseline data collection
•
Int 5: Sustainable Food
Procurement
Wst 2: Packaging Specification
for Resource Efficiency
Wst 9: Consistent Messages on
Biodegradable Packaging
Wst 10: Economies of scale in
agricultural waste management
by farms working together
Wst 12: Resource Efficient
Supermarkets (through uptake of
energy recovery options)
Wst 4: Improved Waste Data
•
Wst 3: Impacts of Changing
Consumption Patterns
Wst 13: Small scale Sustainable
Treatment Technologies
Wst 7: Non-disposal Options for
Food Beyond ‘Sell-by’ Date
Wst 8: Feasibility of Producer
Responsibility for waste in the
Food Industry
Wst 11
Conversion of straw
•
57
•
•
•
Int 4: Process Measurement
and Control
Int 6: Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR) criteria
Int 7: Feasibility of enhancing
product labelling, to include
resource
Int 3: Centralised waste
treatment facilities
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
•
•
Med 3
High 1
•
cleaning – ‘Pigging’
Wtr 7: Water Efficiency
Technical Solutions:
Recycling and Re-use
Wtr 8: Water Re-use and
Recycling: Membrane
Technology Promotion
Wtr 9: Water Effluent
Reduction Solutions:
Anaerobic Digestion
•
Air Cycle Refrigeration
Ene 14: Review of scenarios for Trigeneration (Combined Heat Power
and Refrigeration)
•
Ene 12: Examination of scope for
CHP during boiler overhaul
into animal feed
•
•
•
•
High 2
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
•
Ene 5: Options for fuel supply
security in food manufacture
Ene 7: Challenging the ‘principles’ of
process design
•
Wst 5: Raise Farmer awareness
of Agricultural Waste Regulations
Wst 6: A Scoping Study of the
practicality of the Agricultural
Waste Regulations
Wst 14: Feasibility of Setting
Disposal Quotas
Ene 10: Options for utilising methane
from small-scale anaerobic digestion
plants
High 3
58
•
•
•
•
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
7.2
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Conclusions
There are several areas where the F&D industry may be encouraged to implement resource efficiency
measures. However, there are issues that need to be expedited, as recommended below:
There is a strong need to provide an evidence base on which to focus resource use efficiency
initiatives, and indeed to justify and prioritise the potential research projects already identified for each
resource stream.
There is a need to take stock of all existing and planned R&D programmes and to develop a sound
understanding of what is currently happening in industry.
Defra and the food industry are in the process of creating action plans based on the headline targets
in the FISS. Industry-led champions groups are examining best practice and looking at ways to
encourage industry to behave in a more sustainable way. The evidence from these groups should be
used to outline further projects for consideration by Defra.
Of the three resource streams, the least is known about water consumption and waste production.
While there is better information on energy consumption, this is concentrated in the larger companies
that have opted for CCAs. There are fewer data available from SMEs. A co-ordinated set of actions
need to be expedited to acquire water-, energy- and waste-related data from the sector associations
(of which there might be some 16 to target).
There is also increased interest in energy recovery from wastes. NISP is active in this area helping to
establish links between waste producers and the technology suppliers. The scope of geographical
clusters, that could provide attractive waste to energy plants, should be explored.
Defra should also explore co-ordinated strategies with suppliers of packaging materials that may
provide major gains; for example use of green glass instead of white glass to allow greater proportion
of recycling. While this approach will reduce energy use, the impact will not be ‘direct’ in the food
chains.
There are many government initiatives and programmes that support research, development,
39
demonstration and commercialisation work in the food industry . While much good work is being
done, there may be worthwhile areas falling between programmes and not being supported. Quite
possibly, areas for research identified under this study may already be adequately covered by an
existing research programme: either within government or in the private sector. Therefore, there is a
need to review the scope of such support programmes - government-backed and industry-led, in the
UK and worldwide.
A possible spin off from this review would be to provide, perhaps through appropriate web links, a
definitive guide for sign posting researchers, developers, equipment manufacturers, suppliers and
users to access right level support and advice to advance innovation in food chains.
39
For example, projects supported by the UK Government under schemes such the DTI’s SMART Award and Carbon Trust’s Applied Research
Programme to identify technologies at concept and development stages .
AEA Energy & Environment
59
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
7.3
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Glossary of abbreviations
ABP
AD
AIC
BBPA
BFFF
BMPA
BMW
Bo
Associated By-Product
Anaerobic digestion
Agricultural Industries Confederation
British Beer and Pub Association
British Frozen Food Federation
British Meat Processors Association
Biodegradable Municipal Waste
3
Methane producing potential of the manure, expressed as cubic metres (m ) of methane per
kg of VS. Also referred to as the maximum methane-producing capacity for the manure. It
varies by animal species and diet.
BOD
Biochemical oxygen demand (expressed as mg/l)
BPC
British Poultry Council (formerly, British Poultry Meat Federation)
BRC
British Retail Consortium
CCA
Climate Change Agreement
CCL
Climate Change Levy
CH4
methane (gas*)
CIP
Cleaning in Place
CSDF
The Cold Storage and Distribution Federation
COD
Chemical oxygen demand (expressed as mg/l)
CO2
carbon dioxide (gas*)
CSR
Corporate Social Responsibility
CT
The Carbon Trust
d
days
DARD Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland
DF
Discount factor
DCF
Discounted cash flow
Defra
Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
DTI
Department of Trade and Industry
DUK
Dairy UK (formerly, Dairy Industry Association Ltd)
ECA
Enhanced Capital Allowance scheme
ECG
European Court of Justice
EF
Emission factor
ETL
Energy Technology List
EU
European Union
FDF
Food and Drink Federation
FEMAS Feed Materials Assurance Scheme
FYM
Farm yard manure
g
gram(s)
GJ
Giga oules
GWh
Gigawatt-hours
GV
Gross Value
GVA
Gin and Vodka Association
GVA
Gross Value Added
GWP
Global Warming Potential
HACCP Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point
HFC
Hydro Fluoro Carbons
HCFC Hydro Chloro Fluoro Carbons
ICA
The Ice Cream Alliance
kg
kilogram(s)
kJ
kilo joule(s)
KPI
Key Performance Indicator(s)
KTN
Knowledge Transfer Network
kW
kilowatt(s)
kWh
kilowatt-hour(s)
LATS
Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme
LCA
Life Cycle Analysis
60
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
M&T
Monitoring and Targeting
MAGB Maltsters’ Association of Great Britain
MCF
methane conversion factors for each manure management system
MF
Micro filtration
MWh
Megawatt-hours
3
*
m
cubic metres of gas
o
o
Mesophilic temperatures of AD between 35 C and 40 C
MJ
Megajoule(s)
MSW
municipal solid waste
MTP
Market Transfer Programme
NAMB National Association of Master Bakers
NF
Nano Filtration
NFFO
Non Fossil Fuel Obligation
NISP
National Industrial Symbiosis Programme
PFMA Pet Food Manufacturers Association
R&D
Research and Development
RDA
Regional Development Agency
RD&D Research, Development and Demonstration
RO
Renewables Obligation
RO
Reverse Osmosis
SA
sector associations
SEPA
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
SFIA
Sea Fish Industry Authority
SIG
Special interest group
SWA
Scottish Whisky Association
tpa
Tonnes per annum
o
Thermophilic temperatures of AD above ~55 C
TWh
Terrawatt-hours
UF
Ultra Filtration
UKRA UK Renderers Association
VFA
Volatile fatty acids (intermediate compounds in the breakdown of organics by AD)
VMW
Veterinary and Medical Waste
VS
Volatile solids (ie degradable organic material in livestock manure)
VSD
Variable Speed Drive(s)
W4E
Waste for Energy
WEEE Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment
WRAP Waste & Resources Action Programme
WTL
Water Technology List
y
year
All costs should be read as those as at 2003-4 unless otherwise stated.
AEA Energy & Environment
61
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Appendix 1: Background information
The F&D industry is one of the two largest manufacturing sectors in the UK, with gross output of
£66 billion, accounting for 14% of the total manufacturing sector. It employs some 500,000 people in
around 8,000 businesses representing 13% of all manufacturing workforce in the UK.
Distribution of F&D manufacturing companies
Figure A1 shows the distribution of F&D manufacturing companies by size. It shows that the majority
of the companies are small to medium size.
Figure A1
F&D manufacturing companies in the UK as a function of their size and by regions (ONS,
2003)
500
500+ employees
450
100-400 employees
400
No. of companies
20-99 employees
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Sc
ot
la
nd
N
.I
re
la
nd
al
es
W
SW
Lo
nd
on
SE
En
gl
an
d
M
id
s
E
W
M
id
s
E
Y&
H
N
E
N
W
0
Food chain covered by this project
Agricultural production was considered only as far as its waste production is concerned, and covers
the following areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cereal production (wheat, barley, oats, other cereals).
Other crops (potatoes, oil seed rape, other).
Horticulture (vegetables, fruit, nursery stock).
Livestock products (milk, eggs for food, wool)
Finished livestock (finished cattle, finished sheep/lambs, finished pigs, poultry, other livestock)
Store livestock (store cattle, store sheep/lambs,
Breeding livestock (dairy cows, beef suckler cows, ewes)
Industrial food manufacturing sectors are given in Table A1; as can be seen it shows the industry
classification by SIC codes as well as the trade associations.
As far as distribution and retail are concerned, the scope was limited to the large retailers and their
distribution depots as far as they relate to food products. The large retailers include ASDA, Co-op,
Marks & Spencer, Morrisons (including Safeway), Sainsbury’s, Somerfield, Tesco and Waitrose.
62
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Table A1
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Mapping of F&D industry by SIC codes, industrial processing and trade
associations
Classification food & drink Production/process
industry (by SIC code)
classification
Trade associations
British Meat Processors Association
15.1 Production, processing Slaughterhouses, meats &
British Poultry Council
and preserving of meat and meat products, Poultry
meat products
meats & products, Rendering Food and Drink Federation
UK Renderers’ Association
15.2 Processing and
preserving of fish and fish
products
Fresh fish, frozen fish
British Frozen Food Federation
Sea Fish Industry Authority
Food and Drink Federation
15.3 Processing and
preserving of fruit and
vegetables
Canned foods, frozen fruits
and vegetables
Food and Drink Federation
British Soft Drinks Association
15.4 Manufacture of
vegetable and animal oils
and fats
Oils and fats
Food and Drink Federation
15.5 Manufacture of dairy
products
Dairy, ice-creams
Dairy UK
The Ice Cream Alliance
Food and Drink Federation
15.6 Manufacture of grain
mill products, starches and
starch products
Cereal products
Food and Drink Federation
15.7 Manufacture of
prepared animal feeds
Animal feeds, pet foods
Agricultural Industries Confederation
Pet Food Manufacturers Association
15.8 Manufacture of other
food products
15.9 Manufacture of
beverages
Crisps, confectionery, craft
bakeries, industrial bakeries,
cereal products, biscuits,
canned foods, chilled meals, Food and Drink Federation
frozen meals, sugar,
National Association of Master-Bakers
glucose, meal enhancers,
preserves and spreads,
starch
Scotch Whisky Association
Gin and Vodka Association
Food and Drink Federation
Malting, brewing (including
cider), distilling, soft drinks
British Beer and Pub Association
Maltsters Association of Great Britain
British Soft Drinks Association
Food chain and value added
Given the rather diverse nature of the food production chain it is useful to understand the nature of the
businesses in terms of the gross value (GV) added and how it is related by site as well as by
employee. Figure A2 shows the GV added by stages of food chain; whereas Figure A3 shows that
per manufacturing site and employee. Overall, it shows that wholesale suppliers, manufacturing sites
and wholesale distributors present the ‘best value’ opportunities for targeting the resource saving as
the economic value added per site or by employee is among the highest.
AEA Energy & Environment
63
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Figure A2
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Gross value added in UK food chain by different stages of food chain (drawn from data in
FISS, April 2006)
60
51.9
Gross value added (£ billion)
50
40
31.4
30
20.9
20
10
7.5
1.2
0
Supplies (agri &
import)
Figure A3
Wholesale supplies
Manufacturing
Wholesale
distribution
Catering, retail &
export
Gross value added per enterprise site and per employee by different stages of food chain
(drawn from data in FISS, April 2006)
2,347
1,000
900
800
GVA/enterprise (£k)
GVA/Job (£k)
700
£k
600
546
500
400
318
300
200
100
142
99
55
36
50
39
20
Supplies (agri &
import)
Wholesale
supplies
Manufacturing
Wholesale
distribution
Catering, retail &
export
Project scope and requirements under PPC Regulations
Many of the issues covered by this project are in line with the principles of the Integrated Pollution
Prevention and Control, and regulated through the PPC regulations 2000, which applies to some 400
food processing sites.
The Environment Agency (the Agency) has sought to ensure that the implementation of BAT does not
compromise hygiene and food safety issues which are of fundamental importance to the sector. This
is particularly relevant in relation to pollution prevention measures relating to water use, cleaning and
re-use and recycling of water. PPC is an integrated approach to environmental legislation, regulating
emissions to air, land and water. The emphasis is on pollution prevention and consequently the
system strives for process efficiency, using the best systems and techniques appropriate to the site
and to the sector. PPC brings about two main benefits, a reduction in emissions and a marked
improvement in competitiveness by providing a clear structure and methodology with which operators
40
need to apply :
40
Taken from the F&D sector guidance on PPC Regulations.
64
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Waste minimisation: as product loss accounts for a significant proportion of the sectors
environmental impact.
Water use: it’s estimated the industry consumes approximately 900 megalitres per day, (enough
water to supply almost three-quarters of all customers' needs in London each day). Even in those
sectors where water is a major component of the product (eg beer and soft drinks), only 20 – 30% of
total water consumed leaves in the product.
Energy use: although the industry has entered into a Climate Change Agreement with the
Government, it is required to implement basic energy requirements for the purposes of IPPC.
Emissions to air: many F&D processes release Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and odour, for
example from cooking and drying processes. Emissions of dust and particulate can also be a factor
from activities such as mixing, grinding, milling and transfer of materials.
Effluent management: most F&D processes generate wastewaters, the composition of which is
highly variable, dependant on the activity, working patterns, product wastage and cleaning systems.
The key preventative measure is keeping raw materials, intermediates, product and by product out of
the wastewaters, by controlling product wastage and cleaning processes.
Accident risk: many materials used by the sector have high oxygen demand and spills; leaks into the
water environment can be serious events. In 1999/00 the F&D industry contributed 12.5% of
substantiated category 1 and 2 (ie the most serious) Industrial Water Pollution Incidents in England
and Wales.
An overall assessment of the key best available techniques (BAT) issues indicates that there are no
areas where there is a fundamental clash between good environmental practice and good business
practice.
AEA Energy & Environment
65
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Appendix 2: Example sector profile
Meat Processing and Products (Sic Code: 15.1) – Sector Profile
Please note
This draft sector profile has been compiled using some of the published information. While it forms
part of a study that will inform Defra’s future work programme on sustainability in the food industry, its
findings will hopefully provide insight into potential ways of reducing production costs within your
sector.
We will contact you in the next few days to seek your views on the issues covered herein. For
information, the personnel engaged on this project are:
Prab Mistry (Project Manager) – 0870 190 6533
Steven Fitzpatrick – 0870 190 5287
Steve Ogilvie (Waste) – 0870 190 6543
Prab Mistry/Mike Doble (Energy) – 0870 190 6533/6100
Simon Miller/James Cadman (Water) – 0870 190 2883/6425
66
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
1
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Sector summary
The SIC code 15.1 (Production, processing and preserving of meat and meat products) comprises the
following sub-categories:
15.11
15.11/1
15.11/2
15.11/3
15.12
15.13
15.13/1
15.13/9
Production and preserving of meat
Slaughtering of animals other than poultry and rabbits
Animal by-product processing
Fellmongery
Production and preserving of poultry meat
Production of meat and poultry meat products
Bacon and ham production
Other meat and poultry meat processing
Sector definitions as we understand are:
Poultry meat – includes facilities belonging to the British Poultry Meat Federation Processing sector,
if it is a facility in which the predominant activity is one of the following: a) the slaughtering of poultry
and/or the processing of poultry meat, or, b) the manufacture of animal feeds for use on poultry farms.
Red meat – includes facilities belonging to the meat-processing sector if it is a facility in which the
predominant activity is the slaughtering of animals or the processing of red meat.
Rendering – includes facilities belonging to the Rendering Sector if it is a facility which is engaged in
rendering animal material not used for human consumption, by utilising heat treatment to reduce
moisture content and separation of animal protein from tallow by centrifuging and pressing.
1.1
Legislation
The key environmental regulations are the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (PPC) (for
England and Wales), which consist of two parallel systems, ‘Part A’ and ‘Part B’.
Larger scale operations will be regulated under ‘Part A’ (1) of Schedule 1 of the PPC Regulations (for
England and Wales), whereby they are required to control emissions to all media and to manage
noise, energy consumption and site restoration. The Regulations aim to prevent, or where this is not
practicable to reduce, emissions to air, water and land.
Part A, section 6.8 of the PPC Regulations, states that industries treating and processing materials
intended for the production of food products from:
(i) Animal raw materials (other than milk) at plant with a finished product production capacity greater
than 75 t/day.
(ii) Vegetable raw materials at plant with a finished product production capacity greater than 300 t/day
(average value on a quarterly basis) will require compliance with the PPC Regulations.
Since existing installations have a year from the issue of the permit to comply with the Regulations, it
is thought that all sites will now be compliant, as the last day for applying for a permit was 31st March
2005. Smaller scale industries will be controlled by the ‘Part B’ regime of Local Air Pollution
Prevention and Control (LAPPC), which focuses on air emissions only.
The Animal-By-Products Regulations (ABPR) target entire bodies or parts of animals or products of
animal origin not intended for human consumption, including ova, embryos and semen. The ABPR
divides animal by-products into three categories and stipulates the means of collection, transport,
storage, handling, processing and use or disposal for each category.
The new Food Hygiene (England) Regulations 2006 were introduced in January and require food
business operators to implement and maintain hygiene procedures based on the Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles. The HACCP system is internationally accepted as the
system of choice for food safety management. It provides a systematic way of identifying food safety
hazards and making sure that they are being controlled day-in, day-out.
AEA Energy & Environment
67
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
On 1 January 2006 the new Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2005
came into force. The 2005 Packaging Regulations consolidate the original 1997 Regulations with all of
the subsequent amending Statutory Instruments, and they also incorporate the changes made to the
Regulations in 2005 as a result of public consultation. Any business that handles more than 50 t/year
of packaging and has a turnover of more than £2 million/year is obligated (ie affected by the
regulations). The regulations set targets for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste.
1.2
Geographical issues
The industry currently consists of a core of 7,320 farm businesses served by 21 feed mills and 226
slaughterhouses.
Pig production is generally located in the arable areas of the UK, in the East, which is consistent with
the historical role of an industry integrated within agriculture generally, for the use of products from
other agricultural sub sectors.
It is also apparent that feed mills are located close to cereal growing areas/ports/pig growing areas on
the east of the UK, and slaughterhouses close to consumer/pig production in the north east and south
west of the UK.
41
Poultry production is concentrated in East Anglia and the East Midlands (inferred from Defra data) .
1.3
Common barriers to improvement in resource
efficiency
Barriers to the adoption of new technology, which could reduce water and energy use, and waste
production during processing include:
• Inherent reluctance to change when attempting to produce products to rigorous quality and hygiene
specifications in a market of narrow margins.
• Lack of investment capital for new equipment.
• Sunk costs in existing technology.
42
• Product price vs. environmental protection conflict. Price tends to win every time .
• Data quality - Difficult to obtain robust data on resource consumption (especially from SMEs –
which make up a large part of the industry).
• SMEs and resource constraints - With the general trend for an increased proportion of larger
companies, some smaller sites are being forced to close because they are unable to benefit from
the economies of scale enjoyed by larger sites. SMEs are generally resource constrained and they
don’t have the manpower to investigate energy saving opportunities.
1.4
Common opportunities for improvement in
resource efficiency
• Market differentiation through improved environmental performance.
1.5
Sector process resource consumption and waste
arisings
41
Regional distribution of poultry meat production, page 31 of the Mass Balance Study of the Poultry Industry.
http://www.biffaward.org/downloads/projectfiles/1639-00390.pdf
42
Food & Drink sector spent £500 million on environmental protection (2002) against a total consumer spend on F&D of around £140 billion
(Defra/FDF study on Environmental Impacts of the F&D Industry.
68
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
The following table indicates those processes that have resource consumption (energy and or water)
and produce waste arisings, denoting the level of consumption as high, medium or low.
Process
Categories
1. Preliminary processes
Processes
Sorting
Cleaning
Deskinning
Rendering
Stunning
Scalding
Butchering
Evisceration
15.1 Production, processing and preserving of
meat and meat products
Water
Energy
Waste
H
M
H
M
H
H
L
M
M
H
M
M
L
L
M
M
H
M
M
M
2.Conversions
M
M
M
H
H
L
Cutting
Slicing
Dicing
Cooking
Roasting
Smoking
L
3. Preservation techniques
Chilling
Freezing
H
L
H
H
4. Separation techniques
M
H
Packaging
Storage prior to
distribution
M
5. Packaging and storage
6. Site maintenance
Cleaning
H
Vehicle washing
L
Total
Glossary
• Deskinning: the process of removing a carcass’ skin.
• Rendering: at various stages in meat processing, inedible by-products such as bone, fat, heads,
hair and condemned offal are generated. These materials are sent to a rendering plant either on
site or off site for rendering into meat and bone meal (MBM) and tallow.
• Evisceration: a process, which removes the viscera, the soft internal organs of the carcass.
AEA Energy & Environment
69
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
2
Waste
2.1
Waste - current situation
Landfill is often the easiest option in the absence of alternative treatment facilities (eg anaerobic
digestion). Conventional outlets as animal feeds have been severely disrupted by the BSE crisis.
2.2
Waste data
The Environment Agency estimated total waste arisings from this sector to be 947,000 t/year (England
43
and Wales only) .
44
UK poultry industry produced 1.2 Mt of product in 2002 .
45
UK pig market industry produced 1.9 Mt of product in 2006 .
Market uncertain due to competition from imports.
UK farmers supply over 2 million cattle, 10.5 million pigs and 14.5 million sheep annually for
46
processing into meat and meat products . According to the Meat and Livestock Commission, wastes
from primary processing of livestock vary between 35 and 42% of the incoming animal weight.
Average weight of a pig in 2005 was 75 kg
48
Average weight of a cow is 537kg
49
Average weight of a sheep is 68 kg
47
Assuming an average 39% wastage, then waste arisings would be as follows:
Type
Cattle
Sheep
Pigs
Numbers Unit wt (kg) Total wt (kg) Total wt (tpa) Wastage (tpa)
2,000,000
537
1,074,000,000
1,074,000
418,860
14,500,000
68
986,000,000
986,000
384,540
10,500,000
75
787,500,000
787,500
307,125
46
Total tallow (fat) production in the UK is around 250,000 t/year . The UK produces 150,000 t/year of
44
feathers . These are by-products of processing rather than wastes.
46
Paper, card
Wood,
composites
Metal
Glass
57
33
42
3
2
1
Total
Plastics, rubber
816
Other,
unidentified
Non-animal biodegradable
15.1 Meat
and Meat
Products
Soil
Food
processing
class
Animal & Mixed
biodegradable
The table below shows waste types generated by the meat processing industry (Kt) .
281
1,235
43
Environment Agency, Strategic Waste Management Assessment 1998/99.
Mass Balance of the UK Poultry Industry Biffaward, www.Biffaward.org
Mass Balance of the UK Pig Industry Biffaward, www.Biffaward.org
46
UK Food and Drink Processing – Mass Balance, C-Tech Innovation Ltd with contribution from Sustainable Technology Solution Ltd, 2004
47
http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/7/markets-and-economics/1606/uk-eu-pig-statistics-march-2006
48
http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/report/volume13/chapterg.htm
49
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01feb20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2006/janqtr/pdf/9cfr54.6.pdf
44
45
70
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
The above table shows the most significant waste type arising from the meat
processing sector is animal and mixed biodegradable waste.
Note: For the purposes of producing a UK picture in the above table, statistics relating to England &
Wales were scaled up (in proportion to the numbers employed in food processing the UK as a whole).
The following table identifies a range of management options for wastes from this sector. Though the
descriptions are somewhat unclear, the indication is that a significant proportion is disposed to land.
2.3
Re-used
Recycled
Thermal
Transfer
Treatment
Total
15.1 Meat &
Meat
Products
Land
Recovery
Food
Processing
Class
Land
Disposal
Amount to waste management option (Kt)
283
285
205
146
17
65
234
1,235
Waste-specific geographical issues
The economics of any centralised waste treatment will depend to an extent upon the proximity of
animal/meat processing plants, which from above implies a location in the English East Midlands or
East Anglia primarily.
2.4
Waste-specific barriers to improvement in resource
efficiency
Barriers to reducing waste arisings during processing include:
•
•
•
•
•
Lack of waste data recorded by operators.
Poor comprehension of the waste legislation by producers.
Lack of sorting of waste at source.
Product returns as a result of supermarket standards.
Lack of treatment facilities.
AEA Energy & Environment
71
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
2.5
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Recommendations, opportunities and savings for
waste reduction
Type of opportunity
The opportunities
Short term
Improve day-to-day waste
50
management .
(Implementation within 1 year;
requiring little or no cost)
Priority
Seek advice on better waste
management practice (eg.
Envirowise for SMEs).
Obtaining better waste data – for
establishing baseline figures for
FISS KPIs of waste efficiency (eg
Obtaining waste data from the
Environment Agency for
installations covered by IPPC, and
better data from sub sectors and
retail/distribution sector).
Awareness raising on waste
legislation for SME.
Medium term
(Implementation 1-3 years;
requiring investment with payback
of under 2 years)
Seek alternative markets/outlets for
specific/sorted wastes.
Seek to establish meat sector
voluntary waste reduction targets.
Development & dissemination
through Sector Associations of best
practice case studies at sub-sector
level.
Long term
(Implementation >3 years –
requiring ‘sizeable’ capital
investment)
Consider potential for Producer
Responsibility for waste reduction
and/or tradable allowances for
waste (whilst taking account of
competitiveness against
imports/exports).
To provide a true representation of your sector please enter your waste data into the table provided in
section 5 (Appendix 2).
50
Envirowise claims potential £1000 pa per employee savings possible through better day-to-day waste management (~4.5% of annual turn over).
72
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
3
Energy
3.1
Energy - current situation
Thermal energy, in the form of steam and hot water, is used for cleaning and sterilising and for
rendering. Electricity is used for the operation of machinery and for refrigeration, ventilation, lighting
and the production of compressed air.
Like water consumption, the use of energy for refrigeration and sterilisation is important for ensuring
good keeping quality of meat products. Storage temperatures are often specified by regulation. As well
as depleting fossil fuel resources, the consumption of energy causes air pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions, which have been linked to global warming.
3.2
Energy data
The table below shows the delivered and primary energy used in the sector, and associated CO2
emissions. These figures have been extrapolated from the F&D sector as a whole. However, more
accurate data (eg from CCA based monitoring) would be desirable.
The available energy data originate from CCA data where the categorisation differs from SIC and
consequently inaccuracies will arise.
Delivered energy
(GWh/year)
Red meat
Poultry meat
Renderers
Total
2,027
1,577
901
4,505
Total primary
energy
(GWh/year)
2,788
2,169
1,239
6,196
CO2 emissions
(t/year)
516,695
401,874
229,642
1,148,212
To calculate the CO2 emissions, the following figures where used:
Coal = 2%
Petroleum products = 8%
Natural gas = 66%
Electricity (delivered) = 23%
Please provide actual fuel mix for your sector, if known – [This will be different for the three trade
associations here.]
3.3
Energy-specific geographical issues
As far as we are aware there are no particular geographic factors relating to energy. Most plants are
located in rural or semi-rural areas or on urban fringes. Are there any issues of fuel availability such
as access to mains gas?
3.4
Energy-specific barriers to improvement in
resource efficiency
The desire among the industry to reduce energy and carbon emissions has undoubtedly increased
since the introduction of the CCL and the establishment of CCAs in this sector. However, barriers
remain to the take-up of energy efficiency, which need to be addressed to achieve the full savings
potential.
AEA Energy & Environment
73
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
The main barriers are:
• Competitiveness – Low profit margins. The concern that some companies have about their profits
and stability mean they are reluctant to invest in energy efficiency improvements.
• Lack of time to spend on energy issues. Companies don’t have time or enough data to
(mathematically) describe how energy is consumed on site. This has relevance, especially when
CCA companies need to justify their good energy management practices against ‘transient’
impacts, which adversely affect their business (eg lower production level).
• Supermarkets - they are major customers and increasingly powerful. They demand changes to
product lines at short notice. Any energy saving measures may be hampered by frequent changes
to product lines.
• EU Specifications - Complying with legislation concerning product quality and hygiene can increase
the energy required to produce a product.
Understanding these barriers can, in many instances, present further opportunities for saving energy.
3.5
Recommendations, opportunities and savings for
energy efficiency
In our approach to identifying opportunities, we have tried to allocate the savings by technologies such
as boilers and steam system, refrigeration, process control, building management etc. These savings
have been derived by estimating the percentage of energy use associated with each technology area,
and then associating likely saving opportunities to it, based on experience. In this approach, energy
management and monitoring and targeting (M&T) have been regarded as underpinning techniques
and therefore they do not feature in the technology list. Overall, some 13.7% of primary energy saving
potential is likely in the short to medium term (~3 years).
This is largely based on our broad experience across the whole of the F&D sector and would
appreciate your comments on how it compares with your sector in practice.
Technology areas
Boilers & steam
Compressed air
Drying
Fans
Buildings
Cooling systems
Pumps
Refrigeration
Stirring and mixing
Process control
Total saving potential
GWh
101
59
56
95
91
33
53
170
82
107
847
Please comment on the key opportunities listed in the table below, adding others where possible.
74
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Type of opportunity
Short term
(Implementation within 1 year;
requiring little or no cost)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
The opportunities
Improved energy management practices, including M&T.
Improved housekeeping and management of boilers for
steam and hot water, and refrigeration plants will provide
some short-term savings from improved controls, leak
reduction and lagging.
Improvements, heating, lighting and ventilation.
In rendering especially, motor management policy and
‘stop motor when not in use policy’.
Medium term
(Implementation 1-3 years;
requiring investment with a payback
of under 2 years)
Some small plant improvement, compressed air systems.
Process change away from blast chilling.
Some motor saving opportunities.
Compressed air zoning systems.
Improved process control (eg through more accurate,
robust and intelligent sensors).
Long term
(Implementation >3 years –
requiring ‘sizeable’ capital
investment)
Scope for combined heat and power (CHP), including
biomass fuelled.
Process efficiency improvements – throughout the
process lines.
Refrigeration technology improvements and operation
optimisation.
Some heat recovery opportunities.
Some variable speed drive (VSD) opportunities.
On-site renewables (wind, solar thermal, biomass,
anaerobic digestion of waste arisings).
Application of devices such as blowguns and nozzles that
amplify compressed air generated at lower pressure to a
higher pressure for low volume use (the idea is to operate
at low pressure generally and amplify pressure where
necessary).
Integration of absorption chilling to use low-grade heat on
site (especially in conjunction with CHP plant).
The table above shows that in the sort to medium term, energy management, M&T, industrial buildings
and process control are particularly relevant. In the long term, however, more specific technological
improvements or new technologies are likely to provide significant savings.
Energy Management and M&T
Improved energy management can be expected to provide companies with energy savings of between
5 and 10% depending on the general state of the manufacturing plants, and will include:
• Appointment of energy manager - shows commitment to reducing energy use on site.
• Housekeeping - can be seen as part of good energy management.
AEA Energy & Environment
75
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
• M&T - often there is a great deal of energy data collected that are used for accounting. However,
there is very little analysis carried out, apart from ensuring utility invoices are correct. M&T can help
to provide good and continuous savings opportunities.
• Employee awareness campaign – to allow all staff involvement.
• Energy awareness training – very important, especially with new initiatives.
Industrial buildings
The buildings generally use a significant proportion of energy as electricity and there are many areas
where energy costs can be cut by using energy efficient systems and technologies. By encouraging
an integrated approach to the building fabric and services, including a better use of improved controls
and consideration of how energy waste can be minimised, considerable energy and carbon savings
could be seen.
CHP
In the medium to longer term, greater use of CHP may offer significant opportunities within the sector.
Although over recent years the economics of CHP have not been favourable, there are signs that the
price differential between electricity and gas is now increasing (possibly due to the implementation of
EU-ETS scheme) which will make CHP more attractive.
Process Control
The energy saving measures from improvements in process control for the F&D sector fall into several
categories:
• Controllers - a controller is often set to manual for good reasons but most controllers should be on
automatic control during normal operations.
• Measurements - all control systems depend on good measurement and should have a minimal lag
before the control action is being taken.
• Production – often there are visible signs that need to be acted on (for instance due to changes in
feed quality or rate or upsets elsewhere in the process).
• Inconsistent operation – often shows up by excessive resource consumption and production of offspecification product sometimes, especially if one process might be compensating for inconsistent
operation elsewhere.
To provide a true representation of your sector please enter your energy data into the table provided in
section 5 (Appendix 2).
76
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
4
4.1
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Water
Water - current situation
3
The estimated water use by the meat processing industry is 7 million m /year, of which 1.2 million is in
51
the Anglian Water supply area.
One of the most obvious environmental issues common to all abattoirs is the discharge of large
quantities of effluent. Abattoir effluent contains blood, fat, manure, undigested stomach contents and
cleaning agents. It is typically characterised as having a high level of organic matter, fat, nitrogen,
phosphorus and salt (sodium).
Blood has the highest COD (400,000 – 900,000 mg/litre) of all effluents produced from abattoirs. Gut
52
washing also produces effluent with high COD at about 80,000mg/litre .
For plants located near urban areas, effluent may be discharged to municipal sewage treatment
systems. This is the case in much of Europe. However, in rural areas effluent is often treated on site
and irrigated to land.
If irrigation is not managed correctly, dissolved salts contained in the effluent can adversely affect soil
structure and cause salinity problems. Nitrogen and phosphorus can also leach into underlying
groundwater and affect its quality.
In some locations effluent may be discharged directly into water bodies. However this is generally
discouraged as the high levels of organic matter can deplete oxygen levels and thus degrade water
quality.
Hygiene standards necessitate the use of large quantities of fresh water. Water is used for watering
and washing livestock, cleaning process equipment and work areas and washing carcasses. Cleaning,
in particular, is a major area of water use.
Containment of infectious diseases is also of paramount importance to the industry, and transport
vehicles are washed upon site entry and exit.
4.2
Water-specific geographical issues
There are 295 sites in vulnerable areas (South East, London and East) where there will be pressure to
minimise water use. There is a high distribution of facilities in the North West and Yorkshire and
Humberside which are expected to be under less pressure to minimise water use due to the relatively
high water availability in these regions.
4.3
Water-specific barriers to improvement in resource
efficiency
These are similar to energy-specific barriers, which are detailed in section 3.4 of Appendix 2.
51
52
Envirowise – EN368 – A Review of Water Use in Industry and Commerce.
Envirowise – EN368 – A Review of Water Use in Industry and Commerce.
AEA Energy & Environment
77
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
4.4
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Recommendations, opportunities and savings for
water efficiency
Type of
opportunity
Short term
(Implementation
within 1 year;
requiring little or
no cost)
The opportunities
Priority
Metering - key first step to reducing water use is
monitoring water use on site. Sub-meters can record
water use in different parts of the sites, and can be
connected to data loggers to match production and
cleaning shifts to water use. Metering is especially
useful to determine baseline data, and to ensure that
there are no leaks on site during down time such as
site closure. Meters are available on the WTL.
Online analysers – Similar to metering, online
analysers can provide site information. Analysers
can be used to record effluent content (such as
COD) leaving the site. This data may exist for IPPC
registration purposes, but should be used by the site
manager to monitor effluent loading against site
production to optimise processes.
Staff training – washing processes need to be
optimised to achieve cleanliness and hygiene but
should not be excessive. Softer issues such as
training to brush waste away rather than washing,
emptying drain traps before washing, and turning off
hoses significantly reduce water use and effluent
loading. In the meat industry employees are
becoming progressively more diverse and good
practice on site can be jeopardised by language
barriers. Poor literacy and numeracy skills are
estimated to cost businesses ~£500 per employee
53
per year
Drain covers – ensure fine mesh covers drains to
prevent scraps and other solid waste entering
effluent stream.
53
Skills for Life – improving literacy and numeracy at work. Department for education and skills
78
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Medium term
(Implementation 13 years; requiring
investment with
payback in under 2
years)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Effluent reduction – rerouting drains to stop blood
entering the sewer; collection trays to catch scraps
falling from machinery.
Cleaning procedures – processes and systems
should be optimised to increase efficiency.
Opportunities exist to map water use on site and reuse water for dirty rinses (eg first wash down of
manure from floor), and counter current rinsing may
be suitable for larger vessels.
Cleaning in place – technical improvements are
available for CIP systems. Optimised control and
programmes minimise water use, and nozzle
selection reduces flow rate without compromising
function. CIP units are available on the WTL.
Vehicle washing – vehicle washing can use up to 5%
54
of water needed at red meat abattoirs . Sites should
ensure that washing processes are optimised and,
where appropriate, washwater can be treated and
recycled.
Rainwater harvesting – significant water supply can
be gathered from rainwater harvested from roofs on
site. Underground or aboveground tanks can be
used for storage. Products needed for building
rainwater-harvesting systems are available on the
WTL.
Long term
(Implementation
>3 years –
requiring ‘sizeable’
capital investment)
Membranes – effluent streams can be treated
through membrane systems by microfiltration,
ultrafiltration, nanofiltration or reverse osmosis.
Contaminants can be treated and removed to
produce water of drinking water quality which is
suitable for re-use on site. The ECA scheme
supports membrane systems which treat water and
re-use ≥40% on site.
To provide a true representation of your sector please enter your water data into the table provided in
section 5 (Appendix 2).
54
GG234 Reducing water and effluent costs in red meat abattoirs. Envirowise
AEA Energy & Environment
79
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
5
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Sectoral information
To provide a true representation of your sector we would appreciate it if you could provide the
following information, or parts thereof, as available.
National
Regional
England
North East
Number of
companies
Production
(t/year)
Primary
energy
use*
Water
use
(m3/year)
Total
waste**
(t/year)
North West
Yorkshire
and the
Humber
East
Midlands
West
Midlands
East of
England
London
South East
South West
England
total
Wales
Scotland
Northern
Ireland
Total
* Specify units, as appropriate
** If you have data, please provide further breakdown of waste into the following categories:
Biodegradable, plastics and rubber, paper and cardboard, wood, metal, glass, etc.
Number of local units in VAT-based enterprises in all industries in 2005 in the UK55
North East
North West
Yorkshire
and The
Humber
East
Midlands
West
Midlands
East
London
South East
South West
Wales
Scotland
Northern
Ireland
TOTAL
Government Office Region
1511
Prod/preserving
meat
20
35
50
30
30
30
10
20
45
25
55
25
380
1512
Prod/preserving
poultry meat
0
10
40
15
30
25
5
5
10
10
15
15
175
1513 Prod meat
& poultry meat
products
30
110
70
60
80
70
75
55
70
40
65
45
770
Class
55
Office of National Statistics, UK Business 2005.
80
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Appendix 3: Water saving techniques and
technologies
Efficiency – managementTraining
This involves training staff on techniques for reducing water usage and encouraging them to waste as
little water as possible. This could include anything from holding meetings to inform staff about best
practice procedures, to training seminars to teach staff how to operate and clean equipment properly.
The aim of this is to ensure that staff are aware of the issue of resource efficiency and are using best
practice procedures to reduce water wastage. This approach is most effective when it is part of a
continued plan of resource efficiency rather than a one-off training session.
Good practice
Good practice means establishing a systems and methods of undertaking operations that ensure that
the existing measures to minimize water use are being used. Good practice measures can include
using equipment in an efficient way, turning the hoses off when not in use, and ensuring that
56
equipment is bunded correctly. The good practice system should be implemented at all levels of the
business and linked in with the training programme to ensure that staff members are using the
equipment as efficiently as possible.
Metering
The use of meters is the first step to reducing water use on site. Sub-meters can record water use in
different parts of the sites, and can be connected to data loggers to match production and cleaning
shifts to water use. Metering is especially useful to determine baseline data, and to ensure that there
are no leaks on site during down time such as site closure. Meters are available on the Water
Technology List (WTL), which promotes water efficient appliances under the Enhanced Capital
Allowance (ECA) scheme.
Efficiency - technical solutions
Water Pinch
Water Pinch is a systematic technique for analysing water networks and reducing water costs for
processes. It uses advanced algorithms to identify and optimise the best water re-use, regeneration,
and effluent treatment opportunities. It has also helped to reduce losses of both feedstock and
valuable products in effluent streams. Typical reductions in effluent flows that can be achieved are in
the range of 20 to 60%. This technique can help reduce charges on water volume and should be used
in conjunction with online analysers and dosing equipment (below) in reducing effluent loads as well
(BOD and COD) as charges are also based on pollution load.
CIP optimisation systems
Cleaning-in-place (CIP) systems offer a highly efficient way of cleaning large vessels or tanks that
require regular cleaning. CIP systems incorporate spray balls/nozzles/rotating heads and generally
use high-pressure cleaning. As there is no human contact, stronger detergents ensure more efficient
cleaning and water use is optimised. If fitted with partial solvent recirculation, these systems can
increase washing efficiency by 90%.
Mechanical seal water management
A mechanical seal is a device which helps join systems or mechanisms together by preventing
leakage (eg in a plumbing system), containing pressure, or excluding contamination. A mechanical
seal can be used around pumps and other rotating equipment and promotes savings from effective
control of flush and quench water (waters used to wash out batch systems for example). Mechanical
seals use 12 litres of water per minute on average but this can be cut by 75%.
Floor washers
56
Bunding is a method for isolating specific plant or operations to capture any spills or fugitive emissions or discharges and can be as simple as a
brick wall surrounding a piece of machinery to prevent any spills contaminating surface or ground waters
AEA Energy & Environment
81
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Industrial floor cleaning equipment is used in many applications in buildings. Water efficient
scrubber/driers have integrated wash water recovery equipment, which accepts the dirty water in the
recovery tank and processes it so that it can be reintroduced to the scrubber/drier solution tank for reuse. Similar equipment may be used in conjunction with a pressure-washing unit to the same end,
though the collection of the dirty water is more difficult. Here, the dirty water must collect in a belowfloor reservoir and be pumped back into the system.
Re-use and recycling – technical solutions
Rainwater harvesting
Rainwater Harvesting is the collection of water that would otherwise have gone down the drainage
system, into the ground or been lost to the atmosphere through evaporation. Installing rainwater
harvesting equipment in a factory can provide rainwater for use as non-drinking water applications
such as toilet flushing and washing machines, process or cooling water, or cleaning water.
Countercurrent rinsing
This is a well-established technique in other industries, but much less applied on food manufacturing
plants. Rinse water can often be more effectively used by moving a product through a series of tanks
or stages. Instead of each of these stages being supplied with fresh ‘make-up’ water, countercurrent
rinsing can be employed, so long as hygiene standards are ensured. In counter-current rinsing, the
product is rinsed first in grey water and then in progressively cleaner water. At the same time, the
rinse water moves progressively from the last rinse (clean water) towards the first rinse (grey water).
Typical savings in water use are between 40 and 50%.
Membrane separation
A membrane is a thin physical barrier through which materials can either pass (the permeate) or be
rejected and retained (the retentate). The structure and character of the membrane determine the
nature of the separation. Membranes have many uses in the F&D industry: apart from recovering
water, they can be used to concentrate or purify product and recover raw materials and product from
waste streams.
Membrane filtration systems are characterised into four main categories according to the pore sizes of
the membranes. (Enhanced Capital Allowance is offered on membrane filtration systems used for
water re-use.)
Microfiltration (MF) is a pressure-driven process that is used to separate micron-size or sub-micron
particles from the effluent stream by a membrane. Pore sizes of MF membranes are in the range of
0.05 to 3 µm. MF is the most open membrane and separates macro-materials and suspended solids.
Typical materials removed by MF are starch, bacteria, moulds, yeast and emulsified oils.
Ultrafiltration (UF) concentrates suspended solids and solutes of molecular weight greater than 1,000.
Colloids, emulsions and molecules, with a particle range size of between 0.005 and 0.1 µm, are
retained by the membrane. The permeate has low molecular weight organic solutes and salts. The
membrane will concentrate high molecular weight species while allowing dissolved salts and lower
molecular weight materials to pass through the membrane. UF membranes are used in a variety of
industries for concentration and clarification of large process streams and in municipal applications for
potable water treatment.
Nanofiltration (NF) is capable of allowing monovalent salts such as sodium chloride and alcohol to
pass whilst retaining divalent salts such as sodium sulphate. It is possible to generate a purified
solvent (water) from an effluent stream containing solutes. The unique separation capability of NF
provides the opportunity to selectively concentrate either valuable or undesirable substance from a
process stream with greater effectiveness, consistency, reliability and economy. Nanofiltration can
perform separation applications such as demineralisation, colour removal, and desalination.
Reverse osmosis (RO) membranes are non-porous and separation is achieved through solute
solubility differences in the membrane. The RO membrane, while allowing water and solvents to pass,
concentrates low molecular weight organic materials and salts. This often means that high pressures
82
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
of about 35-100 bar are required to overcome the high osmotic pressures of high concentrations in the
feed streams. However, there are some membranes designated low pressure RO, which can operate
at pressures below 10 bar providing the osmotic pressure of the feed is correspondingly low. RO
membranes are characterised by their retention properties, for example, 99% salt retention. The
quality of water or permeate produced by RO and NF are generally (depending on the stream) much
higher than that from UF or MF which are more open membranes.
Vehicle washers
Products in this area are designed to help reduce the amount of water used in the vehicle washing
process; this is most effectively done through recycling the water used but can involve making
alterations to minimise the amount of water used per cycle. For example, vehicle washing can use up
57
to 5% of water needed at red meat abattoirs . For reclaim and recycle purposes, it most commonly
features a trap that lies underneath the vehicle to catch most, if not all, the water running off postwashing. After the water has been collected it is then filtered and purified. The water is usually
pumped across a settlement process to rid it of larger dirt particles and undergoes a more thorough
refinery process if the water needs to be fully reclaimed.
Effluent reduction and treatment
Pigging
Pigging is a technique used for removing blockages in water pipes and sewers and cleaning pipes in
the chemicals industry and is ideal as the pipe does not need to be opened. It is often used in
connection with clean-in-place (CIP) systems. The technique uses a solid object, such as a rubber or
plastic plug or lump of ice, or it can use pressurised air to force out any remaining product from the
pipe from the last process batch and thus clean it ahead of the next batch. There are several benefits
from pigging. By using this technique large quantities of water can be saved when cleaning transfer
pipes between batch productions. Product efficiencies are also important and can be made by
capturing the final amounts of the process batch, which can be incorporated into the final product. If
cleaning materials are used, their quantities can likewise be reduced. Finally, wastewater loads can
be reduced because the product that was once being washed out to sewer, with high COD and
suspended solids, is now being included with the rest of the product. In terms of pig materials, ice is
more flexible in going round pipework and for when pipe diameters reduce and ice can of course be
incorporated into final food products in most cases.
Slurry dewatering/drying
This is a broad technique commonly used for reducing the volumes of water held by slurries and
sludges from various industries. Technologies include centrifuging, belt presses and high temperature
driers to drive off excess water. The resulting solid is often described as ‘cake’ with an appropriate
percentage of dry solids, indicating the amount of water in the material. The main aim is reduce the
weight and volume of slurry or sludge so that transport costs and volumes are lower.
Electro-coagulation
Electro-coagulation is used to clean wastewater by using electricity to precipitate out dissolved
material and suspended solids. After going through this process the resulting cleaner water can then
be used in many applications, such as for on-site facilities and cleaning operations. By doing so costs
for both clean water in and wastewater out are reduced due to lower volumes. Furthermore, the costs
for electro-coagulation are lower in comparison to conventional chemical coagulation as there is not
the operational need for chemical addition and subsequent smaller sludge volumes to dispose.
Anaerobic digestion
In the absence of air, sludges and slurries are broken down by bacteria to form composted material.
The process is usually accelerated by heating the sludges. The resulting solid product can be used as
a soil improver on agricultural land, or if further dried to around 95% dry solids content, used as a fuel
for incineration and energy recovery. Methane is given off as a by-product as part of the digestion
process, which can be captured and used for power generation and is often used to heat the initial
sludges to the optimal temperature for digestion, thus requiring less fuel (eg natural gas) to be bought
in specifically for this process.
57
GG234 Reducing water and effluent costs in red meat abattoirs. Envirowise
AEA Energy & Environment
83
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Online analysers
Online analysers can be used in wastewater treatment to ensure that the correct level for effluent load
is attained in the process, often using Total Organic Carbon, TOC, as the key indicator. This is
relevant for two reasons. It is important that wastewaters meet discharge consent values and thus do
not incur punitive measures and so the manufacturer would use analysers to ensure that effluent loads
are not exceeding their consents. A manufacturer however also wants to be sure that their
wastewater is not being unnecessarily overly-treated beyond what is required, under the terms of their
discharge consents for example, and therefore wasting money through energy costs for example.
Analysers can also be used to measure the amounts of water being used and thus pinpoint where
efficiencies in volume can be made. One key advantage is that online analysers are instant rather
than needing a sampling and testing regime which adds delays into the process.
Dosing equipment
By optimising the dose of F&D ingredients to the correct amount there is less wastage of raw materials
and subsequently less washing needed (ie less water required).
Closed transfer equipment
This is a technique whereby products are moved from one vessel to another without the need for
direct contact. It therefore ensures minimisation of spillages between batch processes, prevents
waste product from having to be washed out to sewer and reduces the chance for contamination.
UV/Ozone
Ozone gas and UV light are widely used in the treatment of water and wastewater to kill pathogens.
They can also oxidise trace chemicals making them less harmful and easier to separate out. For
wastewaters specifically this can be applied to reduce the effluent load and thus make the water more
appropriate for re-use in other processes.
Sand Filters
Sand filters are a long-standing separation technology. Layers of fine and coarse sands and other
materials are employed to filter wastewaters and physically remove suspended matter. Some
dissolved material is also separated out through adsorption onto the surface of the filtration substance.
The filter has to be backwashed periodically with clean water to ensure optimal performance, the
resulting sludge then requiring further treatment or disposal.
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)
In combination with coagulation techniques, DAF can be used to separate out flocs and precipitates
from the water by passing gas (usually air) upwards through the water. This pushes the suspended
matter to the surface from where it can be scraped off for disposal.
Likely impact of water saving methods
The diagram below shows the potential for effluent treatment equipment in the F&D sector – the
market has yet to reach maturity for clean water, wastewater and the brewing industry in particular,
while it is mature for clean water and municipal wastewater (sewage) treatment.
84
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Figure A4
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
58
Market maturity trends in water treatment, by sectors
Each method, technique or technology has been assessed in terms of the potential water savings that
can be gained against the perceived difficulty of any given solution; perceived difficulty can be read as
risk and includes the following aspects:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cost.
Concerns over hygiene.
Lack of knowledge.
Market acceptance.
Likelihood of uptake.
Certainty of success.
The output from this semi-quantitative analysis is the table below that plots resources savings
potential vs. perceived difficulty. So, for example, a technique like online analysers has a low
perceived difficulty and is well known, although in themselves they won’t achieve large resource
savings they will assist the identification of where savings can be made. This shows that a strategic
approach must be advised at company level.
Figure A5
Likely impact on water use efficiency and ‘perceived difficulty’ of water saving techniques
Pigging
Membrane filtration
Resource
use
savings
Sealing devices
Water Pinch
CIP
Electro coagulation
Good practice (training and
management)
Mechanical dewatering
Vehicle washers
Anaerobic digestion
Counter current
rinsing
Floor washers
Closed transfer equipment
Rainwater harvesting
UV/ozone treatment
Dosing equipment
Online analysers
Perceived difficulty 58
Frost & Sullivan, ‘Water and Wastewater Treatment in the Food Industry’, www.frost.com
AEA Energy & Environment
85
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Appendix 4: Water data
In the absence of detailed (and structured) sectoral data on water use, we provide the following
information sectors within the F&D industry.
Meat 15.1
3
It is estimated that the meat processing industry uses 7 million m of water per year, of which the
3
59
Environment Agency’s Anglian Water Supply Area accounts for some 1.2 million m , or 17% .
The main environmental issue in terms of water for all abattoirs is the discharge of large quantities of
high strength wastewaters. Abattoir effluent contains blood (COD between 400,000 and
900,000 mg/litres), fat, manure, undigested stomach contents and cleaning agents, contents
comprising high levels of organic matter and minerals such as nitrogen, phosphorus and sodium.
The meat sector has 295 sites in areas of water stress: South East England, London and East of
England. There is a high distribution of facilities in the North West and Yorkshire and Humberside
which are expected to be under less pressure to minimise water use due to the relatively high water
availability in these regions.
Fish 15.2
Similar to the meat industry, fish processing effluent streams also contain high loads of organic matter
due to the presence of oils, proteins and suspended solids as well as high levels of phosphates and
nitrates.
Large volumes of water and subsequent effluents comes from a variety fish processing operations
such as washing of fish products, gutting, scaling, fluming of fish and product around the plant in
water, defrosting, portioning, filleting and canning. For operations where skinning is carried out, the
effluent can have a high pH due to the presence of caustic.
For fish meal and fish oil production, sea water is typically used for cooling and condensing air from
the evaporators and scrubbers, and comparatively minor quantities of fresh water are used for the
centrifuges, for producing steam and for cleaning. Concentration of processing sites in Yorkshire and
Humber reduce the driver for increasing water efficiency at the national level.
Fruit and vegetables 15.3
Sites involved with fruit and vegetable processing require very high volumes of water for washing and
cleaning purposes. These requirements mean these sites have high demand curves. They typically
also have high volumes of effluent with variable loading (including COD, suspended solids and
residual pesticides). Sites performing blanching and canning/bottling operations can produce highly
60
acidic fruit and vegetable wastewaters which can cause corrosion problems. The volume of water
3
61
used per tonne product ranges from 2.5 to 9 m , and there is significant scope for minimisation .
Dairy 15.5
There are two key points for consideration in the dairy sector. Firstly, milk has a high COD value of
around 200,000 mg/litre, which means any product leaks significantly raise effluent loading and as
such would threaten biodiversity in local waterways. Secondly, cleaning water accounts for 50-90% of
62
a site’s water consumption due to hygiene requirements and the nature of the liquid product.
59
Envirowise – EN368 – A Review of Water Use in Industry and Commerce.
Envirowise – GG432 Water Account Pocketbook
UK Food & Drink Processing – Mass Balance, C-Tech Innovation Ltd with contribution from Sustainable Technology Solutions Ltd., 2004
62
Envirowise – GG432 Water Account pocketbook
60
61
86
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Beverages 15.9
The profile for water use in this sector must include the use of water in the product, which cannot be
minimised. The approximate proportion of water used on site that is included in the product varies for
63
different product types :
•
•
•
•
Brewing – 15%.
Bottled water – 25%.
Fruit juice – 25%.
Dilutables/carbonates – 75%.
It is estimated that the main drinks sub-sectors use the following amounts of water each year in the
64
UK :
3
• Breweries - 35 million m /year.
3
• Spirits industry - 26 million m /year.
3
• Soft drinks industry - 27.5 million m /year.
In terms of effluent flows, fruit and vegetable juices are highly acidic and cause corrosion problems.
Brewery effluent containing wort, beer and yeast can have a high COD load of 100,000 mg/litre or
more due to the presence of soluble sugars, starches, alcohol and protein.
63
64
Envirowise – GG432 – Water Account Pocketbook
Envirowise – EN368 – A Review of Water Use in UK Industry and Commerce
AEA Energy & Environment
87
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Appendix 5: Energy saving techniques and
technologies
Energy management
While investments in technological improvements are made, there will be a need to focus on energy
65
management. Improved energy management can be expected to provide companies with energy
savings of between 5 – 25 % and would be very dependant on the level of work undertaken prior to
improvement. These would be common to all sectors and would include:
• Appointment of an energy manager. This shows commitment to reducing energy use on site. An
energy manager can manage an energy management system and as a result, savings that could
be expected in the first 12 months would pay for his/her time for two years (ie from all energy
management and low cost measures). Work of the manager might include the introduction of a site
energy policy, a motor management policy and running the site energy awareness scheme.
• Monitoring and targeting (M&T). (Some M&T measures are required for IPPC). Often, there is a
great deal of energy data collected which is used for accounting, however there is very little
analysis carried out, apart from ensuring utility invoices are correct. Using this data and perhaps a
number of additional metering points, an M&T system should be initiated. M&T can help to provide
good indicators to savings opportunities simply by providing information on energy use.
• Housekeeping. This can be seen as part of good energy management. This low-cost measure can
provide high levels of savings without much effort. It does require commitment from the workforce
and good promotional work is required. Examples of housekeeping measures include: closing
doors to cold/hot rooms, switching lights off, stopping equipment when not in use, etc
• Employee awareness campaign. As well as having staff involvement at the highest management
level, there should be greater involvement at shop-floor level and this can best be achieved by a
staff energy awareness campaign. This could be commissioned by the new energy manager and
could provide further significant savings improvement of an improved energy management system.
• Energy awareness training. To be effective, any new energy management initiative needs to
provide key individuals with some training. Ideally all staff in the company should have at least a
short introduction to energy savings. The energy manager can undertake some of this.
The potential for making energy savings while minimising waste and recovering product, goes hand in
hand with the implementation of IPPC regimes at food manufacturing sites. The strong links between IPPC
and CCA has been of some help to the companies. The CCA introduced in 2001 suggests the companies
to produce good quality action plans to identify energy efficiency measures and indeed the fact that a
company had a CCA reduced the amount of work required in the application for an IPPC licence.
Energy technologies
Boilers and heat supply
Heating and steam cost is generally a large part of any food manufacturing utility bill, and simple
energy saving measures will help to cut these significantly. Boilers and steam systems have average
efficiency at point of use of about 60-65% and the saving opportunities generally fall into the following
categories:
• Boiler design and operation.
• Boiler and steam system maintenance.
• Improvements through low cost retrofit technology.
65
According to the Carbon Trust publications, including Sector Overview (CTV004): Food and Drink Processing – Introducing energy saving
opportunities for business
88
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Refrigeration
The F&D industry is one of the largest users of refrigeration technology. Many businesses within the
sector will find that refrigeration costs make up a significant proportion of their energy bill. A significant
proportion of this energy use can be saved. It is reasonable to assume that an energy savings
potential of about 20% for existing plants and 30% for new developments. (Reducing refrigerant leaks,
typically by 25%, would achieve a further saving of GHG emissions.)
Industrial buildings
The buildings within the F&D industry use a significant proportion of energy as electricity and there are
many areas where energy costs can be cut by using energy efficient systems and technologies. From
the total primary energy related to the F&D industry in Northern Ireland, between 2 and 20% can be
attributed to buildings. By encouraging an integrated approach to the building fabric and services,
including a better use of improved controls and consideration of how energy waste can be minimised,
would result in considerable energy and carbon savings from industrial buildings.
Other technologies
Other technologies that can be targeted for energy efficiency are fans, stirring and mixing,
compressed air, drying, pumps, cooling systems and distilling.
Combined heat & power (CHP)
In the medium to longer term, CHP may offer significant opportunities within the F&D industry. It will
increase the energy saving potential further. In the short term, however, relatively small price
differential between gas prices and electricity prices mean that investment in CHP is uneconomic.
Environmental protection
In many of the food manufacturing sectors (typically sugar manufacture, industrial dairies, brewing,
meat processing, spirits soft drinks), on-site wastewater treatment plants, based on activated sludge
treatment, are often used to treat biodegradable effluents. These plants use a great deal of energy to
supply oxygen for the microbial degradation of the polluting substances. They also produce a large
amount of sludge that need disposing off-site. However, it is possible that some of these plants could
66
be converted to anaerobic systems whereby saving energy use, reducing the generation of sludge
and creating a supply of energy source, by way of biogas production.
Process control
The energy saving measures from improvements in process control for the F&D sector fall into several
categories:
• Controllers: a good way of quickly assessing the state of control on a plant is to see how many
‘automatic’ controllers have been set to manual. Although any controller can be set to manual for
good reasons, most controllers should be on automatic control during normal operations.
• Measurements: all control systems depend on good measurement and it must be appropriately
linked (ie with least lag) with any control action.
• Production: if the production is often interrupted, the common causes are changes in feed quality
or rate, energy supply interruptions or upsets elsewhere in the process. Appropriate means to
check these must be put in place.
• Inconsistent operation: if energy consumption is excessive then there are often problems or delays
during product changed. In addition to producing off-specification product, the plant might be
compensating for inconsistent operation in other parts of the plant. A monitoring and targeting
system will help to identify such problems.
The benefits are generally wider than just energy.
66
Not least due to the efforts made to reduce water use that tend to increase the concentration of pollution in wastewaters , making anaerobic
treatment more favourable.
AEA Energy & Environment
89
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Appendix 6: Energy data
The data presented in this section form the basis of estimating any energy saving potential associated
with some of the opportunities. The data acquired during the course of this project are not
comprehensive. The data presented here are from a Defra/FDF study, undertaken in 2004, to review
all CCA data from the F&D industry, which was submitted as evidence as part of the consultations
leading to the publication of FISS, in April 2006. This, together with an understanding of the industry,
has been used to arrive at the current energy use and energy efficiency potential in the different sub
sectors.
The majority of energy data is presented as ‘primary energy’, which needs explaining in relation to
‘delivered energy’. Conversion factors are used for converting from delivered energy (as metered) to
primary energy. The Primary energy is defined as the amount of energy produced from an energy
source before losses through conversion processes and transmission. As such, the factors for
purchased or delivered electricity change with time as they depend on the generating mix in any given
year. For fossil fuels delivered to food production sites, the conversion factor remains 1. However, for
electricity, the factor is 2.6 (ie primary energy = 2.6 x delivered energy).
Table A3 gives energy consumption in the F&D industry. It excludes energy use in tobacco
processing but includes on-site CHP generation. Table A4 gives the total energy consumption and
saving potential by F&D industry, by SIC codes. Table A5 provides a comprehensive breakdown of
energy use and associated CO2 emissions as well as saving potential in F&D sectors. Finally, Table
A6 gives estimated energy saving potential by process technology areas.
Table A3
Energy consumption in the UK F&D industry
Fuel source
Coal
Petroleum products
Natural gas
Total fossil fuels
Electricity consumed
Electricity generated
Net electricity
Total energy use
90
Delivered energy
GWh (2003)
1,078
3,824
29,584
34,486
11,687
1,986
10,566
45,052
Fuel mix
2.4%
8.5%
65.7%
76.5%
25.9%
4.4%
23.5%
100.0%
Primary energy
GWh (2003)
34,486
27,472
61,959
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Table A4
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Total energy consumption and saving potential by F&D industry SIC codes
F&D industry sectors
Total PE
(GWh)
Saving
potential
(GWh)
Estimated*
Saving
potential
13.7%
15.1 Meat processing
6,196
847
and production
15.2 Fish products
1,342
113
8.4%
15.3 Fruit & vegetables
3,201
317
9.9%
15.4 Oils & fats
1,859
177
9.5%
15.5 Dairy products
7,022
921
13.1%
15.6 Grain milling & prod
4,337
195
4.5%
15.7 Animal feeds
5,576
704
12.6%
15.8 Other food products
19,827
2683
13.5%
15.9 Beverages
9,294
1034
11.1%
Storage/distribution**
3,304
420
12.7%
Total F&D sector
61,958
7,411
12.0%
* Estimate short to medium term opportunities by directing support to
companies; excludes energy from waste schemes
** Although retail is part of this study, data were not available (except for the
small part of the retail – that used in cooking in stores for baking products
etc
Table A5
Energy use and saving potential of F&D industry sectors
Industry by SIC codes
15.1 Meat processing and
production
15.2 Fish products
15.3 Fruit & vegetables
15.4 Oils & fats
15.5 Dairy products
15.6 Grain milling & prod
15.7 Animal feeds
15.8 Other food products
15.9 Beverages
Storage & distribution
Total F&D sector
AEA Energy & Environment
Manufacturing
sector
Meat
Poultry
Renderers
Fish processing
Fruit & vege.
Oils & fats
Dairy
Ice cream
Milling & products
Animal feed
Pet Foods
Bakery
Ambient Food
Sugar
manufacture
Confectionery
Spirits
Brewing
Malting
Soft drinks
Cold store
Bulk storage and
distribution
Total
primary
(GWh)
Total
saving
potential
(GWh)
Sectoral
saving
Saving of
potential F&D
(S-M)%
industry
2,788
2,169
1,239
1,342
3,201
1,859
4,337
2,685
4,337
3,098
2,478
6,196
4,337
423.8
270.2
153.2
112.8
316.9
176.6
521.3
400.0
195.2
325.0
379.2
929.4
520.5
15.2%
12.5%
12.4%
8.4%
9.9%
9.5%
12.0%
14.9%
4.5%
10.5%
15.3%
15.0%
12.0%
0.7%
0.4%
0.2%
0.2%
0.5%
0.3%
0.8%
0.6%
0.3%
0.5%
0.6%
1.5%
0.8%
6,196
3,098
2,788
3,718
1,859
929
1,983
780.7
452.3
217.5
496.7
193.7
126.4
277.6
12.6%
14.6%
7.8%
13.4%
10.4%
13.6%
14.0%
1.3%
0.7%
0.4%
0.8%
0.3%
0.2%
0.4%
1,322
61,958
142.2
7,410.9
10.8%
12.0 %
0.2%
12.0 %
91
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Table A6
Estimated energy saving potential by technology areas
Technology area
Boilers & steam
Refrigeration
Buildings
Process control
Fans
Stirring and mixing
Compressed air
Drying
Pumps
Cooling systems
Distilling
Total energy use
92
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Saving potential in F&D
industry
GWh/year
%
1,057
1.7%
1,026
1.7%
896
1.4%
862
1.4%
773
1.2%
680
1.1%
588
0.9%
525
0.8%
501
0.8%
331
0.5%
171
0.3%
61,958
12.0%
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Appendix 7: Waste data
This appendix contains detailed extracts of data found from published reports. The source of data for
the wastes arising during the agricultural stage of food production was the Environment Agency’s
Agricultural Waste Survey 2003. This has been augmented with our estimates of arisings of livestock
carcasses based on average animal weights, mortality rates and stock numbers. The data on food
industry wastes was provided by the Environment Agency from their 1998/99 Waste Survey. This has
been supplemented by data from PPC Returns for 2005 from the Food and Drink Industry, which we
have aggregated and presented in summary form to illustrate the tonnages of wastes released by the
larger Food and Drink companies. The data for food industry wastes occurring during the retail &
distribution stage have been estimated from the Environment Agency’s Waste Survey 1998/99. Note:
these should only be taken as a guide to the amounts of waste arising at this stage. Finally, the
detailed data from HM Revenue and Customs is presented to demonstrate year by year total amounts
of waste reporting to landfill disposal and annual the net tax receipts.
AEA Energy & Environment
93
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Table A7
Farm packaging waste estimates
Plastic packaging
Agrochemical packaging
Fertiliser bags
Seed bags
Animal feed bags
Animal health packaging
Oil containers
Miscellaneous packaging
Total
Paper and cardboard packaging
Agrochemical packaging
Animal health packaging
Animal feed bags
Seed bags
Silage wrap boxes
Total
Metal, wood and glass packaging
Animal health metal and wood
Glass
Oil drums
Pallets
Total
Total packaging
94
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Source
Predominately cereal and other crop production
Cereal and other crop production, horticulture, livestock
production
Predominately cereal and other crop production
Livestock production
Livestock production
Predominately cereal and other crop production
Cereal and other crop production, horticulture, livestock
production and other
England
Wales
Scotland
N Ireland
UK total
1,720
30
276
374
2,400
8,748
840
6,419
444
501
984
15
1,283
105
47
1,654
134
2,019
124
84
815
12
1,680
76
38
12,200
1,000
11,400
750
669
2,063
20,734
331
2,794
1,166
5,457
240
3,235
3,800
32,219
Predominately cereal and other crop production
Livestock production
Livestock production
Predominately cereal and other crop production
Livestock production
1,146
148
3,378
1,511
156
6,340
20
35
675
26
75
832
184
41
1,063
240
73
1,601
249
25
884
22
31
1,212
1,600
250
6,000
1,800
335
9,985
Livestock production
All
Predominately cereal and other crop production
All
5.9
444
873
16
1,339
28,413
1.4
105
81
2.1
190
3,717
1.7
124
147
4.2
277
7,335
1
76
66
2.7
145
4,592
10
750
1,166
25
1,951
44,156
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Table A8
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Farm non-packaging waste estimates
Non-packaging
England
Silage plastic
Livestock production
Greenhouse and tunnel film
Wales
Scotland
N Ireland
UK Total
12,425
5,016
5,029
2,530
25,000
Horticulture
468
10
12
11
500
Mulch film and crop cover
Horticulture
3,738
30
657
76
4,500
Silage wrap cores
Livestock production
703
339
327
138
1,506
Other horticultural plastics
Horticulture
5,617
114
143
127
6,000
Baler twine and net wrap
Predominately cereal and other crop production
7,934
821
1,683
662
11,100
Tree guards
Horticulture
6,694
532
4,492
182
11,900
37,579
6,860
12,341
3,726
60,506
542
122
146
118
929
Total non-packaging plastics
Cardboard cores for silage wrap
Table A9
Livestock production
Animal health products and other wastes
Animal health products
England
Wales
Scotland
N Ireland
UK Total
Sheep dip
Livestock production
56,537
23,598
27,959
8,360
116,454
Used syringes
Livestock production
31
5
5
5
46
Other wastes
Batteries
All
2,228
222
362 N/A
2,812
Tyres
All
20,680
1,981
3,312 N/A
2,812
Oils
All
20,272
18,993
Scrap metal
All
18,573
1,637
3,102 N/A
Asbestos/cement roofing
All
18,243
1,637
3,102
3,406
1,524
27,095
23,312
2,122
33,602
Organic waste
Straw *
Cereal production
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
Carcasses*
Livestock
N/a
N/a
N/a
N/a
10.9 million
165,089 t
* 40% of wheat straw is currently ploughed in and 30% of straw is thought to be baled by farmers for their own use. The remaining 30% is straw currently produced for commercial purposes
AEA Energy & Environment
95
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Animal and mixed biodegradable
Non-animal biodegradable
Plastics, rubber, large EPS boxes,
plastic film
Paper, card
Wood, composites, etc
Metals
Glass
Soil
Other waste
Totals
67
15.90.00
Manufacturing of
beverages
15.80.00
Manufacturing of
other food products
TOTALS
590,066
2,285
18,047
7,916
106,258
102,933
13,409
186,033
3,314 1,030,261
43,559
2,025
364,921
3,736
42
49,978
29
489,694
784,156 1,738,140
733
-
8,424
231
9,760
119
2,550
13,388
16,500
51,705
9,497
253
26,206
1,858
23,478
6,712
3,215
106,377
23,367
274
2
65
78,169
778
1,898
56,867
4,521
1,363
57
49,078
461
1,710
841
5,028
23,951
9,196
437
4,622
93
395
-
8,328
1,537
58,798
13,772
13,772
300,774
5,873
240,341
39,225
78,820
41,221
210,086
1,015,455
254,956
946,702
10,495
707,110
53,887
306,565
202,582
236,215
1,952,100
1,123,554
200,963
142,574
91,685
24,562
77,192
2,186,751
5,539,210
Source: Environment Agency Waste Survey 1998/9
96
15.70.00
Manufacturing of
prepared animal feeds
15.60.00
Manufacturing of
grain mill products
starches and starch
products
15.50.00
Manufacturing of
dairy products
15.40.00
Manufacturing of
vegetable and animal
oils and fats
15.20.00 Processing
and preserving of fish
and fish products
Waste type
15.30.00 Processing
and preserving of fruit
and vegetables
Waste types in the food industry (by sub-sector) t/year67
15.10.00 Production &
processing of meat
and poultry
Table A10
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
AEA Energy & Environment
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
Table A11
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Wastes from the food industry – treatment routes by sub-sector (t/year)
15 Totals
Total 15.10.00
Total 15.20.00
Total 15.30.00
Total 15.40.00
Total 15.50.00
Total 15.60.00
Total 15.70.00
Total 15.80.00
Total 15.90.00
Grand total 15
AEA Energy & Environment
Land
Land
Re-used
Recycled Thermal Transfer Treatment
Total
Disposal Recovery
217,247 218,226
156,923
111,631
13,015
49,969 179,691
946,702
3,650
1,995
4,565
284
1
10,495
141,272
53,325
116,857
378,388
28
570
16,503
707,110
33,968
369
14,272
3,164
1,619
53,887
76,880
60,113
29,387
137,192
7
2,445
540
306,565
35,049
81,390
58,994
26,361
8
29
86
202,582
110,652
97,165
519
22,203
5
91
3,131
236,215
572,439
52,203
684,883
480,735
31,936
21,095 105,290
1,952,100
201,380
65,599
695,605
149,580
178
2,592
8,620 1,123,554
1,392,537
628,021 1,745,532 1,324,927
45,177
80,239 315,481 5,539,210
97
Resource use efficiency in food chains
Priorities for water, energy and waste opportunities
Table A12
Restricted – Commercial
AEAT/ENV/R/2457 (ED05226)
68
Summary of PPC Returns from F&D industry
EA Region
Anglian region
Midlands region
NE region
NW region
Southern
SW region
Thames region
Wales region
Grand total
- sum of quantities released (tonnes)
Air
Controlled waters
149,317
54
144,368
0
86,585
1,200
118,728
0
3
237
58,428
25
224
0
54,964
69
612,618
1,584
Disposal
246,184
165,394
122,960
82,039
11,637
84,869
12,861
63,849
789,792
Recovery
678,735
451,229
98,598
179,785
3,508
242,672
10,656
148,636
1,813,819
Sewer
1,568
79,676
4,026
2,697
0
683
108
1,414
90,172
Grand total
1,075,858
840,667
313,369
383,249
15,384
386,678
23,849
268,931
3,307,984
Notes:
Data extracted and prepared on 18 July 2006
Details of releases and transfers from sites classified as 'Animal, Vegetable and Food' in 2005 as reported to the PI
Only releases above the reporting thresholds have been included
Waste figures reported are the quantities transferred of site for disposal or recovery. Liquid waste that is tankered straight to a waste treatment facility will be
included in the controlled waters category
68
Data supplied by the Environment Agency to NISP
98
AEA Energy & Environment
Retail Wastes
Table A13
Retail wastes associated with SIC52.1
Summary
Mixed and general waste
Tonnes
1,582,325
Food waste
50,960
Packaging waste
1,022,850
Where the mixed waste can be broken down further into:
Composition of general waste
Tonnes
Mixed waste
136,072
Food waste
326,728
Packaging waste
347,491
Paper and card
635,668
Other
136,366
This latter table was derived from asking survey respondents to provide an estimate in percentage
terms of the composition of their mixed waste.
The above tables suggest that, for SIC52.1, Food Waste is about 375,000 tpa and Packaging Waste is
about 1,370,000 tpa but it is not possible to establish what proportion of this packaging waste is
related to food retailing (and may contain distribution packaging). It is also not clear whether or not
‘paper and card’ contains any packaging.
Table A14
Retail wastes associated with SIC52.2
Summary
Tonnes
Mixed and general waste
Food waste
Packaging waste
369,175
8,691
737
Where mixed waste has been broken down further to:
Composition of general waste
Tonnes
Mixed waste
3,845
Food waste
70,518
Packaging waste
30,529
Paper and card
Other
171,272
93,011
The above tables suggest that, for SIC52.2, food waste is about 80,000 t/year and packaging waste is
about 31,000 t/year. However, again it is unclear whether or not ‘paper and card’ contains any
packaging waste and what proportions of packaging waste are food related and tobacco related.
AEA Energy & Environment
99
Table A15
Year
1997/98
1998/99
1999/00
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
2003/04
2004/05
2005/06
Landfill tax receipts and tonnages landfilled
kt
(at standard
rate)
50,363
49,006
49,901
50,643
50,865
49,416
47,265
46,121
43,134
kt
(at lower
rate)
35,442
29,605
23,024
17,551
15,841
16,052
13,950
13,028
12,232
kt
(exempt)
9,961
8,302
9,215
15,690
15,210
14,659
15,533
17,409
16,426
kt
(total)
95,766
86,913
82,140
83,883
81,916
80,127
76,748
76,558
71,792
Net tax
receipts
(£millions)
361
333
430
462
502
541
607
672
733