DEFRA Project FO 0203

SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

1.1. INTRODUCTION

Defra commissioned MLC Consulting in 2007 to undertake a project whose objectives were to:

-Review the scale of ‘waste’ in the Meat, Milk and Egg industries,

-Review the reasons for this ‘waste’,

-Review the possibilities for reducing this ‘waste’.

-Estimate the effect of any proposed changes to reduce ‘waste’.

-Assess the additional research and investment required to exploit any such proposed changes.

1.1.1. DEFINITION OF WASTE

‘Waste’ in the context of the project, was defined as:

  • Any product produced as a result of the activities of the Meat, Milk and Egg Industries - that had either:

a)No economic value, or in many cases a negative value, in that it had to be disposed of and this involves a cost of disposal; it may even result, in economics terms, in an additional externality cost, in that its disposal has an impact on the economy and society greater than the cost of disposal to the industry (e.g. the impact of its disposal may have an effect on the environment and in extreme cases be a cause of pollution).

b)Very low economic value (e.g. particularly were the economic return for the raw or processed product compared to the cost of processing/disposal was such that its status as a good with economic value or as a pure waste product was marginal).

The study was not concerned with ‘farm waste’ and the ‘waste’ from such as unsold (past sell by date) of food at supermarkets, except where the waste disposal processes that deal with such product are linked to that of the processing sector.

1.2. METHODOLOGY

  1. The study has reviewed the information available (from published literature and other available information) on the waste creation and disposal activities of the Meat, Milk and Egg industries. It has taken account of the economic and environmental issues and impacts, the effect of legislation (at a sectoral and industry level) and assessed the current state of knowledge as regard to ways to reduce the economic and environmental impact of waste, and tried to identify the barriers that may exist in preventing the take up of new ideas and processes (including the attitudes of consumers in certain areas).

2.In order to verify the information obtained from the review of available information, improve understanding (e.g. regarding the impact of legislation), gauge reactions to new techniques and processes, assess what is feasible and the barriers that prevent the take up and exploitation of ideas, contact was then made with:

a)A representative group of companies within the key supply chain sectors in the meat, milk and egg industries

b)Key waste disposal operatives and processing companies

c)Experts within the key representative organisations (e.g. such as in the meat sector UKRA)

d)Key experts in academia and research institutes to aid understanding of the issues.

3. The information obtained was then used to:

a)Review the scale of the waste

Review the amount of waste produced by the Meat, Milk and Egg Industries, and how it is currently disposed of (e.g. as a product with no/negative economic value, and as product with a low economic value) and the cost of such disposal. Where relevant this was considered from the perspective of both major supply chain sectors and at end point disposal.

In order to have a common basis for the assessment of waste we have used the statistics from Defra Agriculture in the UK 2006 to provide the basic information on production and import/exports.

Common to the three industries is the issue of packaging waste (e.g. plastic used in vac-packing and over-wrap as well as normal and treated cardboard/paper).

b) Review the reasons for this waste

Review the reason for the waste identified (e.g. is it a result of the process; is it product that is produced out of specification; is there no current use for the product), and investigate how and why reasons have changed over recent years, including the impact of legislation and where applicable the attitudes of consumers (e.g. to the consumption of edible offal).

c)Review the possibilities for reducing this waste

Review the possibilities for reducing the economic and environmental impact of waste through either:

-Decreasing the amount produced through improving techniques and efficiency (e.g. to changes in processes and specifications to reduce the amounts of waste produced – based on current knowledge and technology).

-Increasing the exploitation of what is currently considered as waste at both the sectoral level and on the industry level, in both the domestic and export markets; consider the barriers to exploitation.

-Better economic and environmental means of end point disposal for the remaining waste.

d)Estimate the effect of any proposed changes to reduce waste

Estimate the effect that any changes proposed would have the on the economic and environmental footprint of each industry, taking into account the secondary economic and environmental impact of any such proposed change (e.g. ones that are only possible with greater energy use), including realistic targets for industry take-up.

e)Assess the additional research and investment required

Consider the areas for further research that will help to reduce the economic and environmental impact of waste (e.g. in technical improvements to produce less, to overcome barriers to exploitation and to improve the end point disposal). Provide views as to the capability of identified UK institutions to undertake any proposed research, estimates of resource requirements and targets for research outcomes.

1.3. VISITS/CONTACTS

1.3.1.RED MEAT AND POULTRY

In order to verify the knowledge obtained from the review of available information, contact was made with a representative group of companies within the key ‘sectoral supply chains’ of the red meat and poultry industries, plus key waste processors and experts within their representative organisations (e.g. such as UKRA).

The main sectoral supply chains were defined as:

  1. Large abattoirs/processors supplying the large supermarkets and food service companies.
  2. Larger abattoirs supplying mainly the export or ethnic market (particularly in the sheep sector)
  3. Larger and medium sized abattoirs/processors supplying the residual domestic market (e.g. retail butchers, independent shops, caterers – frequently via secondary wholesalers and processors).
  4. Small abattoirs/cutting plants, many with own retail outlets

Structured interviews were carried out with the contacts in these sectors, either on a ‘face to face’ basis during site visits, or by telephone as necessary.

1.3.1.1. Initial contacts

The initial round of contacts was with the following companies/organisations:

Red Meat and Poultry –sectors

Abattoir/wholesalers – 3 companies

  1. T Lang (Ashburton, Devon).
  2. R Agar (Ilkley, W Yorkshire.
  3. Paul Flatman (poultry)

Cutting plants/portion control – 2 companies

  1. B. Etherington (Scorrier, Cornwall).
  2. Randall Parker (HQ Towcester, Northamptonshire – Wholesale business plus large mid Wales abattoir; Andover, Hampshire – cutting plant/processor))

Large integrated abattoir/cutting/packing plants – 2 cattle and sheep specialist companies, 1 specialist pig company, 6 poultry companies.

  1. ABP (HQ Birmingham).
  2. Farmers Fresh (Kenilworth, Warwickshire)
  3. Bowes (Watton, Norfolk)
  4. Grampian (poultry)
  5. Bernard Matthews (poultry)
  6. Moy Park (poultry)
  7. Two Sisters (poultry)
  8. Faccenda (poultry)
  9. Cherry Valley (poultry)

Large meat manufacturing – 3 companies

  1. Midshire Foods (Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire)
  2. Geo Adams
  3. Wessex Foods

Waste disposal and secondary processing:

`Rendering - 2 companies

  1. Prosper De Mulder (PDM)
  2. John Pointon and Sons

Incinerator – 1 company

  1. J Lord (Grantham)

Bio plant – 2 companies

  1. Biogen (Bedford)
  2. Sustainable Bio-Systems (Kent)

Bio fuels

  1. Argent (Scotland)

Pet Food

  1. Pet Food Manufacturers Association

Others companies:

  1. Nestle Purina Pet food
  2. Pacific Proteins
1.3.1.2. Additional contacts

It was clear following the round of ‘initial contacts’ with three of the larger companies interviewed (e.g. those supplying the major supermarkets and large food service sector companies), that although these large companies had certain common characteristics (e.g. a reliance on the renderers for much of their waste disposal), some new approaches were also being developed that were not identified in the literature review (e.g. such as new blood disposal techniques, use of tallow for bio-diesel).

The ability of these larger companies to invest in new processes, is a reflection of their ability to utilise the greater surplus of funds from the profits they can generate than is available to the smaller plants in the other chains. In addition new concerns about the environmental challenges they now face and the attitude of their customers are driving this activity, in addition to the need to reduce costs (e.g. the large supermarkets in looking to improve their competitive advantage are keen to work with suppliers that demonstrate green credentials).

As a result it was agreed with Defra that the range of the contacts be extended to cover more of the large companies in the red meat sector, including:

Cranswick Country Foods

Woodhead (Neerock)

Tulip (Dalehead)

Grampian (St Merryn, McIntosh Donald, Malton BF,)

Scotbeef

RWM (Southern Counties)

Dunbia

Dawn (Highland Meats)

Dovecote Park

Chitty Wholesale Ltd

Kepak

Linden Foods (NI) (Whitley Bay Meats)

(Note: those in brackets in the above group denote subsidiary abattoir/processors operating under different names)

1.1.1.3. Other contacts

Abattoir/processors:

Melton Meats (Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire)

Romford Halal Meats (Upminister, Essex)

WM Perry

Ken Ballard (Kent)

Isle of Man Meat Company

Ensors (Cinderford)

All of these companies were contacted by telephone with the objective of conducting an interview to establish if (like the three primary contacts), if they have developed or are developing new techniques and strategies in any area (e.g. to minimise waste sent to rendering, and if so what these are).

The response rates from the companies were mixed influenced unfortunately by the problems caused by the foot and mouth and blue tongue outbreaks that occurred during the consultation period (summer/autumn2007). Those with which we had good contact are highlighted in bold; the remaining were all willing to discuss the issues and promised information but little was received.

1.3.2. DAIRY

In order to verify the knowledge obtained from the review of available information (namely from Dairy UK, DEFRA, MDC and the Sustainable Consumption and Production task force), contact was made with a representative group of companies within the key supply chains of the dairy industry, plus key waste processors and experts within their representative organisations (e.g. such as Dairy UK).

Dairy UK were also contacted; they chaired the SCP task force and constructed the liquid milk roadmap,

(see: )

The main supply chains were defined as:

  1. Farm – milk broker - milk broker/primary processor/ milk broker/secondary processor – customer
  2. Farm – milk broker - independent primary processor /independent secondary processor– customer
  3. Farm –independent primary processor /independent secondary processor – customer
  1. Farm – on-farm processing - customer

Structured interviews were carried out with the contacts in these supply chains, either on a ‘face to face’ basis during site visits.

1.3.2.1. Contacts

Contact was made with the following companies/organisations:

Milk producer:

  1. Goss Brothers (Bicester, Oxon)

Smaller dairy processors:

  1. Lodge Farm Dairy(on-farm liquid milk processor – N Crawley, Bucks)
  2. Upper Norton Jersey Cream(specialist cream processor – Witney, Oxon)

Large integrated dairy processors:

  1. Robert Wiseman and Sons Ltd
  2. Arla foods Ltd

Companies accepting milk and milk products for disposal:

  1. PDM
  2. John Pointon and Sons
  3. Biogen

Meetings were also held with Dairy UK.

1.3.3.EGGS

In order to verify the knowledge obtained from the review of available information, contact was made with a representative group of companies within the key sectoral supply chains of the Egg industries, plus key waste processors and experts within their representative organisations.

Structured interviews were carried out with the contacts in these sectors, either on a ‘face to face’ basis during site visits, or by telephone as necessary. In most cases the industry was reluctant to provide details of the waste produced.

1.3.3.1. Contacts

Contacts was made with the following companies/organisations:

Large egg packing:

  1. Nobel Foods/Deans
Egg processing and manufacture:
  1. Nobel Foods/Deans
  2. Joyce & Hill
  3. James Hook

Waste Disposal:

  1. PDM
  2. Pointons

SECTION 2. WASTE ARISINGS

2.1. INTRODUCTION

The amount of waste produced overall and within selected supply chains in each of the sectors depends in the first instance on the primary source, which is:

a)The number of animals being produced (or product produced from) in the UK.

b)The amount of meat/other animal product imported into the UK for usage/processing.

The secondary source of waste will be derived from the substances used at the slaughter, processing and distribution stages to assist the process (e.g. water, packaging materials – some of which will form pure waste for disposal and some of which will be treated and recycled).

2.2. RED MEAT

2.2.1. RED MEAT PRODUCTION AND SUPPLIES - SLAUGHTERINGS

In order to estimate waste, the number of animals being utilised for red meat production in the UK for 2006 is taken from the Defra definition, as total home fed marketings. A comparative figure for marketings in 1995 - 1997 has been included to demonstrate how home-fed marketings has changed. The term ‘home fed’ is defined as including imports and exports of non-breeding animals.

Table 2.2.1: Total home-fed marketings of red meat, 2006

2006
(000 head) / Average dressed carcase weight kg / 1995-97
average
(000) / Average dressed carcase weight kg
Steers, heifers and young bulls / 2,221 / 335 / 2,295 / 305
Calves / 138 * / 28 / 203 / 49
Cows and bulls / 391 / 316 / 335 / 280
OTM
Prime cattle / 1 / 221
Cull cows / 49 / 770
OCDS / 150 / 0
Clean sheep and lambs / 14,296 ** / 19 / 17,018 / 18
Ewes and rams / 2,245 / 28 / 2,338 / 28
Clean pigs / 8,538 / 75 / 14,460 / 68
Sows and boars / 208 / 153 / 368 / 140

Source: Defra Agriculture in the UK 2006

Notes: * This figure includes calf slaughter for human consumption, which was only 51,000 in 2006 plus live exports; in addition MLC estimates suggest there were 115,000 unrecorded calf slaughter (mainly diary bull calves culled soon after birth), out of total calf disposals of 250,000.

** Of which it was estimated by MLC that in 2006, 50,000 head were exported live.

2.2.1.1. Primary Source

The scale of waste from the primary source A (home fed), in the red meat sector can be estimated by using total slaughterings in 2006, as given in the table below, adjusted to take account of various factors. This gives totals of the following contributing to the primary source of ‘waste’:

Table 2.2.1.1: 2006 total slaughterings (‘000 head)

Main usage / 000 head
Cattle * / Human food chain / 2,612
Disposal (condemned, OTM, etc) / 200
Sheep** / Human food chain / 16,491
Pigs / Human food chain / 8,746

Source: MLC

Notes: * excluding calves

** Adjusted to take account of live exports

2.2.2. RED MEAT SUPPLY CHAINS

The analysis of supply chains in the red meat sector carried out in recent years by such as the Supply Chain Centre and the Red Meat Industry Forum, has shown that there are a wide variety of routes whereby the meat derived from farm animals (and imports) can reach the consumers plate, and each one of these share the total volume of ‘waste’ produced from the primary source. When explaining supply chains the term ‘agent’ is used to describe any party within the chain that interacts with others in the chain, both up and down the chain.

This report takes a simplified approach as used in a recent report on supply chains, to make basic sectoral estimates (Cox et al., 2007).

Using this approach the red meat sector can be thought of as consisting of six major chains:

  1. Large abattoir/cutting plant/ meat processors – supplying supermarket/large food service and export
  1. Large abattoirs (some with cutting plants)– supplying mainly export and domestic ethnic specialist markets (particularly for sheep meat)
  1. Medium abattoirs (some with cutting plants) – supplying mainly domestic market
  1. Small abattoirs – supplying domestic (many with own retail shops)
  1. Other cutting plants/ meat wholesalers
  1. Meat processors

In supply chains, 1, 2, 5 and 6 the primary source of waste consists of both that derived from animals from

a)‘Home fed marketings’, and also;

b) That derived from imported supplies of meat (although the amount of waste from the latter is far smaller than that from the former).

The process of producing and slaughtering cattle, sheep and pigs, followed by de-boning, and the further cutting to provide beef, lamb and pork for use as fresh meat or processed products for human consumption, can be thought of as the main meat supply chain. This process also generates what can be thought of as a offal and by-product supply chain for ‘waste’ as defined in this report that consists of both edible and inedible ‘by products’ and other waste material.

The quantity of such ‘waste’ for cattle and sheep immediately after slaughter, equates to between 45 to 55% of the weight of the live animal and for pigs 20 to 30% (depending on the animal i.e. size/weight/conformation/fatness/breed).

However, the total amount of waste will increase as the carcases are broken down into cuts, diced and minced product by agents further up the primary supply chain (e.g. cutting plants, butchers and catering butchers). They will produce further quantities of bone, fat and meat trimmings that also have to be disposed of. In addition to that derived from home produced animals will be that from bone in carcases imported (and to be exact less that from bone in carcases exported).

All of this is in one sense a ‘waste’ product from the principal business of producing meat, but after further processing some has an economic value.

In addition a small amount of ‘waste’ from red meat cutting/processing activities will also be derived from the customers they supply i.e. the supermarkets, catering outlets, independent shops, and independent butchers (who in a small number of cases will be linked to an abattoir).