Resource review: UK Drinks sector
Reducing fill losses
Ideally, every unit of production in the drinks sector would
be filled exactly to the nominal volume. This review outlines
ways of improving drinks sector filling efficiency.
Reducing fill losses
WRAP’s vision is a world without waste,
where resources are used sustainably.
We work with businesses, individuals and
communities to help them reap the
benefits of reducing waste, developing
sustainable products and using resources
in an efficient way.
Find out more at www.wrap.org.uk
Front cover photography: Image courtesy of Beergenie.com
While we have tried to make sure this [plan] is accurate, we cannot accept responsibility or be held legally responsible for any loss or damage arising out of or in
connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. This material is copyrighted. You can copy it free of charge as long as the material is
accurate and not used in a misleading context. You must identify the source of the material and acknowledge our copyright. You must not use material to endorse or
suggest we have endorsed a commercial product or service. For more details please see our terms and conditions on our website at www.wrap.org.uk
Document reference: [e.g. WRAP, 2006, Report Name (WRAP Project TYR009-19. Report prepared by…..Banbury, WRAP]
2
Reducing fill losses
3
Contents
Contents .................................................................................... 3
The case for improvement ......................................................... 4
Improving filling efficiency ................................................................. 5
Process efficiency ............................................................................. 6
Drivers to improved filling efficiency ................................................... 8
Next steps .................................................................................. 9
4
Reducing fill losses
The case for improvement
In a perfect world every unit of production in the drinks sector would be
filled exactly to the nominal volume. However, in reality there will
always be a level of overfilling.
“...loss of product by overfilling occurs even with the most accurate
filling equipment. Operating to an average filling weight legislation, the
packaged product will unavoidably contain marginally more than the
nominal package contents.”
Best Available Techniques in the Food, Drink and Milk Industries (BREF)
The BREF shows food and drink manufacturing plants including those
with new filling machines, achieve as low as 0.125% overfilling and
those with old machines can achieve between 0.15% and 0.25%.
In practice, the overfill rates in the dinks sector are much higher and
showed a range of less than 0.5% to greater than 4%1. Consequently,
moving closer to best practice or Best Available Techniques (BAT)
represents a significant opportunity to reduce overfill for many
companies operating in the UK drinks sector.
“filling losses are often perceived as acceptable, but by challenging the
norm, we have saved money. Our current project is investigating
efficiencies for the bottle lines – we have minimised resources in bottle
production by light-weighting, now we want to minimise the key
resource loss, our beer itself”
Andy Wing
Packaging Manager at Hall and Woodhouse
This review outlines ways of improving filling efficiency within the drinks
sector.
1
Confidential industry inputs
5
Reducing fill losses
Improving filling efficiency
This review found that the spirits sector operated the most efficient lines
and this was considered attributable to the associated stringent
regulations and HMRC stipulations and, to a lesser degree, the value of
the product itself. The technology is available to ensure minimal loss on
all lines, though the costs associated with such efficiency are often
perceived to be too high to warrant the improvements to equipment. A
preferred approach is ‘continuous improvement’ getting the best from
existing operations.
Overfill has many potential causes. Consumers expect liquid in clear
glass or PET bottles to meet visual fill levels. For one soft drinks
company visited, visual fill losses accounted for 10ml in a 750ml
product, i.e. a 1.3% yield loss. A company operating in the beer sector
tackled this issue by redesigning their bottle. This was timed to coincide
with a mould change at the glass manufacturers. Only minor design
changes are usually necessary and in this case it was a slight change to
the angle of the neck.
Unlike some food ingredients, such as spices, soups and ready meals,
bulk densities are relatively consistent across batches within the drinks
industry and hence such alterations can be regarded as low risk and are
a viable solution to improve filling efficiency and reduce yield loss.
However, the majority of over and under fills will be due to inherent
process variability. There is evidence for both. Overfill rates are high and
under filling is also prevalent. Individual packaging format lines give rise
to particular issues since, unlike kegs and casks, the nature of the
closures means they cannot simply be opened and topped up. In fast
moving lines under filled products are typically rejected, since rework is
regarded as not cost effective. Under filling can result in yield losses of
up to 3%.
6
Reducing fill losses
Process efficiency
There are a number of factors that can influence process variability,
including:
 The product being filled – carbonated products are often more






problematic than still products.
The packaging format – tall, narrow necked packaging can be
difficult to fully dose, especially on fast moving lines.
Product weight – large packs can be more problematic. The
accuracy of keg and cask filling can be improved using metering.
Hall and Woodhouse is an independent cask ale producer which has
been working to improve fill efficiencies across their whole product
range. Their first approach was to target 81 litre casks, being filled at
a loss of a litre per cask. By reviewing filling equipment and installing
more sensitive, metered equipment, the fill efficiency was improved
significantly.
Efficiency of the filling head – this is dependent on the type of
technology, age of the equipment and maintenance regimes in place.
Set-up accuracy – the number of different products run on each
production line and the resulting large number of changeovers can
result in less attention than necessary being given to setting up the
machines accurately. This is particularly true when the production
runs are very short and requires an understanding that the loss of
product balances the loss of filling time.
Data capture – most drinks companies use in-line check-weighers.
Correct maintenance and testing of check-weighers is important to
ensure the accuracy of the data being generated. Speeding up lines
or running new products on the lines can affect the fitness for
purpose of the check-weighers.
Data interpretation – often check-weigher displays are not set to
assist operators in monitoring the performance of the production
run, e.g. the check-weigher shows the real time weight of each
individual product passing over it or the number of rejects in the
batch but it does not show the average weight to date. This can
result in operators taking no action to address overfills.
7
Reducing fill losses
 Filler adjustment - the waste reviews undertaken found few
companies operating in-line check-weighers linked to the filling head
with automated feedback. Although such systems minimise the level
of overfill, they can be expensive and this can be difficult to justify
where the product is consistent and hence limited adjustment is
necessary. Instead, it is trained operators that are best placed to
maintain the optimal settings on the filling machine. This is
considered one of the most significant areas of inconsistency since,
often, little encouragement is given to operators to optimise the
settings and the skill of the operators varies significantly. Often the
machine is set up and, once a reasonably steady state is reached
with an average fill that is somewhere above nominal without
spillage, then it is left to run.
 Line speed - lines will be rated for a set throughput of units. Above
this speed, the percentage of incorrect fills may be greater; below it,
incorrect fills will be fewer in number. However, the number of units
suitable for sale may be greatest at the faster speeds and therefore
economically the excessive waste may be negated. The actual cost
of product loss is often not determined, with embodied cost
undervalued.
Fill efficiencies should be maximised where possible, but as with any
production site, any individual inefficiencies need to be viewed in the
context of the site. Reducing inefficiencies should not be at the cost of
increasing inefficiency elsewhere in the production line.
8
Reducing fill losses
Figure 1: Kegs on a processing line. Image courtesy of BeerGenie.com
Drivers to improved filling efficiency
Cost savings can be a strong driver and high performing companies
often have product giveaway or the cost of overfill as a Key Performance
Indicator (KPI). This can be displayed in chart form with targets in a
prominent place on the shop floor. The results should be regularly
discussed with staff at the daily or weekly production meetings and
reviewed by management at monthly meetings, so as to drive
continuous improvement.
9
Reducing fill losses
Next steps
The proposed approach to tackling poor filling efficiency is:
1 Check-weigher accuracy. Before undertaking any trials it is
advised that the check-weighers be serviced so that data
outputs can be trusted.
2 Determine the overall process capability. A proposed approach
is to set the machine up and then to run the machine without
adjustments for a set number of units. Determine the
standard deviation of the obtained data and multiply this by 6
to provide a statistical estimate of the process variability.
3 Interpretation of process variability.
a. If the level of process variability is acceptable then
focus should be placed on improving the
repeatability of machine set up; training staff to
ensure continuity and best practice is shared across
all operators; and, developing reporting and
communication protocols to monitor performance.
Production management should provide guidance on
the acceptable levels of giveaway and this should be
included as targets within the communications
protocols.
b. If the level is not acceptable then a technical review
is required with particular focus on the filling head
and on all the causative factors for process variability
listed previously. Working with the Original
Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) is advised to
establish the capabilities of the equipment and to
provide guidance on the efficiencies that can be
achieved.
Regularly repeat steps 1 to 3.
www.wrap.org.uk/retail